Historians have stated that a knowledge of the past is helpful in

the understanding of the present if not in forecasting the future.

It is not, however, realised that a thorough understanding of the
present frequently sheds light on the past. The intimate
knowledge which results from the intensive field-survey of extant
social institutions does enable us to interpret better, data about
past social institutions. Historical data are neither as accurate nor
as rich and detailed as the data collected by field anthropologists,
and the study of certain existing processes increase our
understanding of similar processes in the past (Srinivas,
1955b:99)

To Srininvas the social world of the woman was synonymous with

the household and kinship group while the men inhabited a more
heterogeneous world. In the Telangana village Dube observed
that women were secluded from the activities of the public space.
It was considered a mark of respectability in women if they
walked with their eyes downcast. The rules of patriarchy were
clearly laid out. After caste gender was the most important factor
that governed the division of labor in the village. Masculine and
feminine pursuits were clearly distinguished.
Srinivas pointed out that the two sets of occupations were not
only separated but also seen as unequal. It was the man who
exercised control over the domestic economy. He made the
annual grain payments at harvest to the members of the artisan
and servicing castes who had worked for him during the year.
The dominant male view thought of women as being incapable of
understanding what went on outside the domestic wall.
How does one understand the caste system in the village? There
seems to be an ambiguity in Srinivas’s work regarding the
relationship between caste and village. Firstly, it is not clear what
is the system, village or caste? One presumes that he is discussing
the caste system as the structure defining Indian society.
However, the village is also seen as a system. For instance, in the
essay ‘The Social System of the Mysore Village’, both the title and
the introductory lines suggest this theme: ‘Rampura is a village of
many castes, yet it is also a well-defined
structural entity’ (2000: 40) Again, in another essay, he attests
that the traditional caste system ‘cannot be disentangled...as it
operates in the village’ (p. 237). Does this mean that the caste
system is equivalent to the village system? This ambiguity is
reflected in the way castes are understood in the village and the
way the village is assessed in context to the castes. What kind of
village system do we obtain from the ethnography of
Rampura? Srinivas discusses the structures of the castes and
shows how these interact in the village. He asserts that, while the
traditional structure of the caste system is resilient, it is also
adapting itself to new changes, that being inaugurated through
the economy and the polity. In his
ethnography, he describes these changes. The market is creating
new opportunities, new techniques are being introduced, oil mills
set up, new
bus routes started, and new businesses being initiated. Srinivas applauds
these changes and yet when he is examining these he is freezing them in
the village. Why? Why is it that there is no description of the way the
market links the villages to the towns and cities and to the nation? The
nation is organised in terms of the state. Why is the state absent when he
discusses the panchayat? More specially, why is the social reduced to the spatial? Is there
an unconscious equation of spatial and social units, that of village and caste
with the nation-state and nation? Does this linkage make in Srinivas’s
sociology the village a ‘microsam5 of the ‘macrosam’, India? What are
the implications when socialities and territory are reduced to each other?
What kind of sociology is constructed when a slice of contemporary is
frozen? Does it then lend itself to an interpretation as if it is the past
rather than the present?
The concept of village in India, as in other parts of the world, which
were colonised, has a specific history in terms of its colonial origins. The
concept was constructed and legitimised in the context of a need to use
definable spatial areas for administrative control. In the colonial mind,
space was integral to power. The Orientalist ideology constructed the
Asiatic village system as the cornerstone of the East. Henceforth village
and village-level collection of information and knowledge became a
mode of understanding the East and its institutions. However, this know-
ledge was not merely for the archives. It was meant to construct a policy
of rule and ultimately to create, a bipolar constellation of power and
authority, the state and the village.

Chapter X: Religion
Role of religion, regarding pan-Indian deities in Hinduism and local deities

The first part of this chapter explains the onlookers perspective and westernized Indian
perspective on Indian religion “missionaries and administratios who wrote on Indian religion
have always concentrated on exotic and sensational elements such as multiplicity of deities,
their bloodthirstiness, cruelty fantastic shapes and forms, immorality: on outlandish beliefs
and customs, excessive ritualism, wasteful expenditure at weddings and funerals: and finally
on the sense of hopelessness, despair and fatalism, induced by the endless rounds of birth
and rebirth”. Westernised Indians- the critics and reformers of folk religion have dismisses
this as superstitions. The reformation attempts to present decent cultural shop window to
foreigners.
It further details the Indological research in the nineteenth century which indirectly
led to the down gradation of folk religion. “Educated Indians from higher caste had
prejudice against ritual involving body slaughter of animals, consumption of native, low
status liquor fire-walking , hooks-winging and other cruel customs thereby ignoring folk
tradition underplaying these features satisfying national ego” .Translating Indian scripts to
European languages aroused excitement in western literature circles thereby satisfaction to
educated Indians.
Religion was important through its relation it bears but does not deal with the
paramount concern of developing countries: economic development and modernization.
The rational approach which followed it did not take folk religion seriously due to its
stereotypes and prejudices. Srinavas states that “when I examined my own faith, I found
that it contained many factors present in peoples and did not regard this as something to be
ashamed of”
The part played by fatalism is something that is discussed and wrongly understood
by foreign observers.” When a farmer looses his bullock at height of agricultural season or
his wife dies suddenly dies off leaving behind his children at his misfortune is is explained
with reference to “karma or hone baraha”. The idea that what was written (by Brahma or
Fate) on forehead would come to pass and was further detailed with its link to past events
and births. Misfortunes was frequent due to pitiful resources but strict conformity was
demanded or otherwise will be “oztraticed”- become a non member of the small face to
face communities. It was pointless to blame villagers as they were struck by irrationality of
behavior.
Complexity of religious deities is further detailed the composite culture, multitude of
dieties, festivals, “pavadas” or miracles”(possessed by dieties), house deities (centre of
Sanskritic hinduism), ancestors fortnight (pitru paksha), gali (sprits), “nityakarma” etc.. each
process was regulated by custom and interwoven with ritual and this varied among castes .
The idea of purity (madi) and pollution (mailige) was practiced during inter-caste relations
and difference attributed to division of labour between man and women.
Further elaborating on deities we can see that there was specialization among
deities varied from diety to diety. For instance deities presiding over epidemics were the
most specialized of all and they were propitiated elaborately during epidemics or periodic
festivals/ jatra. The diety preceding over epidemics was “Mari” also known as Kali. The
different villages prefixed the village name to Mari. Thus Mari of “Kere” village was known
as “Kere Mari” or was reffered to as “amma” or “mother”. Likewise house deities ”mane
devaru” was concerned with well being of the house. Each temple in village had a special
association with particular caste group and did now encourage other castes or other caste
deities into their temples and the priestly class too varied with this selective process. Each
caste ha their own identification symbols; for instance Vaisnavities decorate their forehead
with “namam”. The association with a certain caste r group of caste with a diety did not
prevent them from seeking aid of another diety.
There were duties assigned to priests this involved the undertaking ”pooja”, lighting
earthen lamp in the “sanctum sanctorium” during prescribed time and looking after
festivals. Here too the dividend of rich and poor is seen as minuscule portions to poorer and
sizable to the rich tough both have to contribute to festival.
The characteristic behavior assigned to the deities is also significant, for instance
Rama is a mild vegetarian diety while “Mari” a frightening figure and had to be “tampu
ereyundu” or cooled down. The house deities also has sectarian orders such as naming kid
after deities name, following certain rules, orders, lifestyle and dress code. Sectariaan
differentiation occurred in Hinduism right from its earliest days of medieval times. This
begun with Sankara introducing “advaita”- monistic idea that the individual soul was
identical in nature with God and was sestined to be merged with the latter. Ramanuja
criticized “advaita “and proposed “vishisistadvaita” a qualified monoism which stated that
the individual soul did not completely merge itself with God and retained a sense of
identity. Ramanija followed by Madhwa advocated “dvaita or dualism” in which individual
soul and God was regarded as separate entities . Basava found Virashaivism (militant
shivaism) or Lingayathism. This is preliminary to brief description of “Dasayya ”- shaivite and
“Jodqayya”- Vaishnavaities which had their own obligations.
Astrology the woven thread into the fabric of Hindu religion. Almaic listed
“nakshtras”- asterisms, inauspicious periods (Rahu kala, Gulika kala) and insisted on does
and don’ts of each period. The basic religious ideas linked in pair was necessary to
understand the religious day-to-day life. For instance purity (madi) was linked to its
contrarary impurity (mailge),wrong conduct (tappu) with right (sari), lustice (nyaya) with
injustice (anyaya),sin (papa) with meritorious conduct (punya) etc… The linked idea of
Karma – actions have subsequent consequences in subsequent incarnations, dharma –
moral conduct can be sited from proverbs and sayings “dharmakke kala katti
karmakkemosale bittaru”- dig a pond to gain dharma and leqave a crocodile in it to gain
karma.
Man and God had an intimate relation with each other; this relationship was
charectericed by inequality as Gods were powerful to grant favors or disasters as men were
weak and needed protection from myriad, hostile forces around them. “Devotion, offerings
and sacrifices were made for deities according to the division of labor among Gods –
appropriate deities “but if the diety failed his devotee he approached another. This states
that reciprocity was fundamental principle sought. The opposition to the diety “virodha
bhakti” like adoration or worship is legitimate relationship with God. Dieties existed because
they could be prayed for obtaining certain desirable objects bringing desirable events,
provided a sense of security and hope for day-to-day living. Devoties needed to maintain
ritual purity and was needed to make offerings and worship them the failure of which would
invite punishments.