See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241745490

Location and orientation: Introducing Indian sociology

Article · January 2009

DOI: 10.1080/21528586.2009.10425096

CITATION READS
1 339

1 author:

Peter Alexander
University of Johannesburg
58 PUBLICATIONS   692 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Miscellany View project

Labour History View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Alexander on 10 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1) i

Location and Orientation: Introducing Indian Sociology

Peter Alexander
Centre for Sociological Research, University of Johannesburg
Auckland Park, 2006, South Africa
palexander@uj.ac.za

Why would the sociological association of one country decide to dedicate a special issue of
its journal to the sociology of another country? This is certainly an unusual step, possibly
unique. There is a general response to this question, but also a specific one, an explanation
for this being a special issue on India rather than any other country.
Social theory is neither intellectually nor politically neutral. It is rooted in the contexts
that shape the thinking of its authors: the empirical work they draw upon, the institutional
and peer pressures that matter to them, and the political, economic and social environ-
ments that influence them daily. To a large extent, this is as true for those of us working in
South Africa or India as it is for sociologists in the North. But there is a difference. Ours
are not wealthy countries. They lack mass media with global reach, the well-endowed uni-
versities that attract top students from around the world, and the high-circulation journals
that dominate international debate. Participation in World Congresses of Sociology and
the leadership of the International Sociological Association (ISA) reflect a similar bias
against ideas emanating from the ‘majority world’. South African research is often rich in
its empirical detail, but most of the theory we draw upon and teach to our students comes
from the United States and western Europe. In this we are not alone, and an analysis of
papers presented to the last two conferences of the Indian Sociological Society (ISS)
reveals a similar weakness (see below). Northern, not Southern, sociology is hegemonic
within the discipline.
In arguing that location matters and in recognising the geo-ideological impact this has,
we are not essentialising the South/North, Majority/Minority World, distinction. Clearly
there is enormous variation within opposites, and these are sub-national as well as national
in character. Nor either are we advocating indigenisation of knowledge. Our world is
increasingly globalised, and the aim should be that of moving towards a genuinely universal
sociology, albeit one alive to local difference and subject to much debate. Moreover,
merely emphasising ‘positionality’ can be debilitating; structure without agency. This spe-
cial issue is underpinned by the recognition that ‘orientation’ is no less important than
location.1 A reflexive US scholar actively assisting the development of critical sociology in
the Majority World is more valuable than the parochial Southerner, unthinkingly utilising
hegemonic literature.
What we are proposing is a conscious effort to decentre our theory, seeing this as an
objective that requires practical measures as well as critical thinking. ‘Orientation’ is not
1. I am grateful to J.P.S. Uberoi for this formulation, rendered at the Seminar on ‘Location in the
21st Century: The Possible Futures of Sociology and Sociology Anthropology’, University of
Delhi, 25 February 2009.
ii South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1)

just about a goal and a stance, it also requires steps in the right direction. Citing the work
of African, Asian and Latin America scholars and organising research collaborations and
student exchanges in the South are important moves (and there have been valuable initia-
tives in recent years, such as the exchange programmes led by Ari Sitas, Eddie Webster
and others). But the task is not as simple as it may seem. Who are the key people, and
where do we find their work? This special issue is a small attempt to fill this gap. Hopefully,
through the novelty of the exercise, we can flag the importance of South-South co-opera-
tion and encourage its potential.
But why India? Globalisation not only generates the necessity and opens the opportu-
nity to broaden the scope and deepen the theory of sociology, it is also creating a new bal-
ance in the distribution of world power and economic resources. Whilst the United States
is waning, the East is rising. Without doubt Indian science, including its sociology, will make
a growing impact internationally. During the two years it took to produce this issue, Indian
newspapers have reported on government plans to considerably expand the country’s
universities and on very substantial pay increases for academics (though salaries remain a
little lower than ours in South Africa). Anecdotal evidence suggests that some Indian intel-
lectuals are now returning from positions they secured in the US academy. The country’s
importance is also a consequence of the size of its population, which on present trends
will exceed that of China within 30 years. Already India’s populace number more than 1.1
billion. By comparison, Africa’s total population is about three-quarters of this, and South
Africa’s is less than five percent. The question of scale needs to be kept in mind when
thinking about many aspects of Indian sociology, including, in particular, comparisons with
South Africa.
There are other considerations. First, outside the North, India’s sociology is probably
the strongest in the world. The ISS has more than 2,500 members (which might be com-
pared to about 160 SASA members), and India is well represented at ISA World Con-
gresses (though in 2006 there were slightly more participants from Brazil). Importantly,
whilst the quality of Indian sociology is uneven, at the top end it is most impressive. For
instance, in South Africa we have not yet produced a J.P.S. Uberoi, whose publications
include a trilogy on European culture and science,2 or a T.K. Oommen, past-president of
the ISA (and see biographical note in this issue). Secondly, India and South Africa have a
shared history. Both were colonised by the British; we have a large and influential minority
population that can trace its origins to India; Mohandas Gandhi made his mark in South
Africa before returning to India; there were significant links between the Indian National
Congress and the African National Congress; and so on. Thirdly, whilst ‘caste’ can be held
to encapsulate the particularity of Indian history and sociology, and ‘race’ can be regarded
as doing the same for South Africa, the two phenomena bear certain similarities and open
up interesting comparisons. Thirdly, partly because of a common use of the English lan-
guage and partly because of proximity, India is relatively accessible. Further, the ISS and
many individual sociologists are open to working with their counterparts in South Africa
(see Modi 2008: 3 for an Indian formulation).
2. Science and Culture (1978), The Other Mind of Europe (1984) The European Modernity: Science,
Truth and Method (2002).
South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1) iii

Three examples, drawn from personal experience, may help to underline the varied
ways in which an Indian influence might be valuable. First, in trying to make sense of why,
in Soweto, people we classified as ‘underemployed’ tended to be poorer than those who
were fully unemployed, we could draw on a similarity (Wale & Alexander 2009). In India, it
has long been held that ‘the poor are too poor to be unemployed’(see Breman, 2003:
227).. That is, to be unemployed it is generally necessary to have some kind of support
(usually provided by family members), otherwise it is necessary to engage in paid work,
even if this only generates a pittance. Secondly, in attempting to understand why, histori-
cally, women were not employed in South Africa’s underground mines, it was useful to
develop a counterfactual comparison with India, where the contrary was true (until the
practice was phased out from the late 1920s) (Alexander 2007). This revealed, in particu-
lar, the critical importance in India of a shift to capital intensive mining which, to succeed,
had to break the ‘family labour’ practices that had previously prevailed. In South Africa,
underground mining was capital intensive from the outset, and this helps explain the gen-
dered character of its labour force. Finally, lessons have been learnt from Indian concep-
tions of labour history and from Indian experiences of developing pro-active academic
journals, and it has been possible to apply these in South Africa.
More specifically, this special issue arose out of a broader process, generously sup-
ported by the National Research Foundation in its role as implementing agency for a bilat-
eral agreement between South Africa and India. This included the development of a
Memorandum of Understanding between the South African Sociological Association
(SASA) and the ISS, signed, with a degree of fanfare, at our 2008 conference (see appen-
dix).3 In developing and implementing this agreement there were visits to the 2007 and
2008 ISS Conferences by, respectively, myself (then Vice President of SASA) and Simon
Mapadimeng (as President). We both benefitted greatly from these occasions, in part
because they provided an opportunity to compare the two associations. My notes from
the 2007 Conference include the following first impressions:
600 plus at opening. Maybe 10 foreigners. Perhaps 40% women, who tend
to be younger than men, and in larger numbers towards the back. More
than a thousand registrations already. Inauguration by lighting flame that
would remain for duration of conference. Inaugural address by M.S. Gore,
a Padmabhushan, title awarded by the President, so far to only three soci-
ologists. Presentation of awards for ‘lifetime achievement’ and ‘young soci-
ologist’ (on basis of publication). Srinivas lecture interrupted by
firecrackers outside, much chattering and numerous interruptions of
power supply (partly because technician off duty apparently). RC 10, Gen-
der, starts with convener, a matriarch, reading attendance list and people
respond ‘yes ma’am’. Then protests from those excluded. Tells presenters
they have five minutes to specify objectives and main findings. Other RCs,
eg Migration, more democratic.
The ISS is organised around 22 Research Committees (RCs), with the conference pro-
grammes including the abstracts of papers associated with each of these.4 Figures for the
3. The agreement was facilitated by P.K.B. Nayar, the 2007 President of the ISS, and signed by
Uttam Bhoite, its 2008 preseident.
iv South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1)

total number of these for each RC are given in Table 1. In both 2007 and 2008 about a
tenth of the abstracts were in Hindi, with the remainder in English. For purposes of com-
parison, the number of papers presented to each of the SASA Working Groups (WGs) at
our 2008 Conference is provided in Table 2.

Table 1 Number of ISS conference abstracts by Research Committee, 2007 and 2008
Research Committee number and name 2007 2008
RC01: Theory, Concept and Methodology 7 5
RC02: Family, Kinship and Marriage 19 31
RC03: Economy, Polity and Society 11 20
RC04: Migration and Diasporic Studies 5 2
RC05: Education and Society 16 17
RC06: Religion and Religious Communities 10 6
RC07: Peasant and Tribal Communities 42 25
RC08: Social Stratification, Professions and Social Mobility n/a 2
RC09: Dalits and Backward Classes 60 6
RC10: Gender Studies 36 4
RC11: Sociology and Environment 32 19
RC12: Population, Health and Society 17 29
RC13: Science, Technology and Society 27 33
RC14: Culture and Communication 15 17
RC15: Social Change and Development 47 53
RC16: Urban and Industrial Studies 8 3
RC17: Social Movements 16 11
RC18: Sociology of Crime and Deviance 13 34
RC19: Aging and Social Structure 26 21
RC20: Leisure and Tourism 12 26
RC21: Social Problems and Marginalised Groups 28 29
RC22: Armed Forces and Conflict Resolution - 14
Total 457 407

4. I am obliged to Simon Mapadimeng for providing the 2008 programme.

South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1) v

Table 2 Number of SASA conference papers by Working Group, 2008

Working Group 2008
Crime, Violence and Security 8
Development 16
Economic and Industrial 36
Environment and Natural Resources 19
Family and Population 6
Gender 7
Health 10
Higher Education and Science 8
Media, Culture and Society 4
Methodology and Social Theory -
Political Sociology and Law 7
Race, Ethnicity and Class 15
Religion 9
Rural 4
Urban 12
Total 161

One should be wary about reading too much into these data. The relative popularity
of particular RCs and WGs is affected by various factors including the location and theme
of a specific conference and the energy of particular conveners. Nevertheless, some
points can be made. With both the ISS and SASA there is an emphasis on ‘development’,
more so in the former, which is largely lacking in conferences of the American Sociological
Association and British Sociological Association. However, the interest in industrial sociol-
ogy and essentially urban issues which is considerable within SASA, is minimal within the
ISS. The ISS, on the other hand, is very concerned with Dalits and Adivasis (untouchables
and tribes to use older terminology), for which there is no real comparator in South
Africa, and SASA is much weaker on rural issues. This contrast is not accidental. Indian
sociology is characterised by its strong leaning towards social anthropology, and its consid-
erable use of ethnographic methods; features associated with the influence of M.N. Srini-
vas (see the article by Oommen in this issues). There is an alternative, Marxist tradition -
advanced by A.R.Desai. a contemporary of Srinivas - but this has been far less influential
(Patel forthcoming). In South Africa, reflecting the country’s racial division, sociology and
anthropology grew up separately, and Marxism has had relatively greater purchase. The
important issue of national differences in sociology – as it is practiced around the world - is
explored in detail in a forthcoming volume edited by Sujata Patel (Patel 2009).
India has two journals of sociology, the ISS’s Sociological Bulletin, published since 1952,
and Contributions to Indian Sociology, based in Delhi and first brought out in 1957. By good
fortune I was in Delhi to join a colloquium marking the 50th anniversary of Contributions.
vi South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1)

This was a very different affair to the ISS conference from which I had just come. For a
start, very few of the participants, who numbered less than a hundred, had also been at
the ISS. Putting the distinction crudely, whereas the ISS represented the mass of Indian
sociology, this was a gathering of its elite. This is not to pass judgment, and in some
respects the Delhi event was more stimulating. From Satish Deshpande (who had
attended the ISS, and who has an article in this issue), we learnt that historically Contribu-
tions has had much more of an engagement with theory than the Bulletin, adding that this
was not necessarily ‘left’ and was often ‘anti-class’. Patricia Uberoi, who had surveyed
back copies of the journal noted that about half the articles came from outside India, with
many of these failing to cite Indian publications. Despite these implicit criticisms, there was
generally pride in the role that the journal had played in stimulating sociological debates in
India.
These rather subjective notes are intended both as a means of nuancing our recogni-
tion of the strength of Indian sociology, and also as a bridge to and context for the articles
that follow. The bridge has been extended and the context tightened through the inclusion
of biographical notes that are more extensive than usual for a publication of this sort.
These reveal that all but one of the authors are full professors or have similar status. Four
are women and four are men. The eight are currently associated with seven different insti-
tutions: three in Delhi, two in Mumbai and one each in Bangalore and Hyderabad. All eight
have doctorates, with these coming either from US universities and Jawaharlal Nehru,
Delhi, Hyderabad and Pune Universities.
It is worth adding a comment on the selection procedure that was utilised. My first
thought was to make a general appeal for articles at the ISS conference, but Sujata, this
issue’s co-editor, advised against this; very wisely I came to realise. Instead we tried to
think about potential articles that might be of interest to a South African audience and
which, through their combination, would convey something of the range and flavour of
Indian sociology.5 We started with two lists, one that I’d put together based on ISS papers
that I’d admired, and one from Sujata that included people whose work she respected and
who might produce something appropriate. This provided us with about 20 potential
authors, most of whom responded positively (though we did lose a potential article on
Dalits, which was a particular shame). The articles we subsequently received went
through a process of peer review that included one Indian and one South African referee,
and, with two exceptions, all the articles that appear went through this test. The two are
the papers by Oommen and Patel, which had previously appeared in, respectively, the Bul-
letin and, in a slightly different form, an Oxford University Press book, and both had
already undergone peer review. Interestingly, in every case the Indian and South African
referees reached substantively the same conclusion about the submissions. There were
different views about the revisions that were either required or advised, but there was a
consensus about what constituted a publishable standard.
Our first article is Oommen’s, which, through a critique of India’s most influential soci-
ologist, Srinivas, provides a lens through which to view Indian sociology as a whole. Srini-
vas (1916-99) received his PhD from Bombay University, where he was supervised by
5. For a selection themes and analysis aimed at an Indian audience, see Deshpande (2003).
South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1) vii

G.S. Ghurye, one of the founding fathers of Indian sociology, and he gained a second doc-
torate from Oxford University, working under A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and later E.E. Evans-
Pritchard. In moving from one university to another, he shifted from a sociology strongly
influenced by indology and the study of texts to structural-functionalism and participant
observation. For British scholars working on India the latter amounted to a study of the
‘other’, and was known as social anthropology, but for Srinivas it was the study of his own
society, and treated as part of sociology. In adapting what came to be known as the ‘field
view’ he made what Oommen regards as a ‘creative leap’; one that enabled Indian sociol-
ogy to move beyond the limits of the ‘book view’ that dominated the discipline. In the
1950s Srinivas responded to the new challenge of survey research by, says Oommen, crit-
icising the incompetency and dishonesty of its fieldworkers; to which Oommen repost
that research is not the prerogative of any particular method.
The thrust of Oommen’s critique is that, as he puts it at one point, ‘field-fundamental-
ism is as problematic as text-extremism’. He praises Srinivas for moving the field of
enquiry away from a colonial concern with the ‘other’; in the process opening up new
possibilities that regarded ‘own’ as not just India, but one’s own bit of India, perhaps a sub-
caste within a village, and even potentially oneself. But he argues that, in clinging to a single
method, Srinivas confused field and method, thus distorting his view of society by a failure
to draw upon additional methods – including the survey and even ‘the book’ – where
these are appropriate. In practice, just as dependence on indological sources had tended
to reinforce a Brahminical view of India, and a male one at that, so too did the ‘field view’.
A high proportion of the researchers came from a Brahmin background, and even when
they moved beyond studies of Brahmin’s their ability to gain access to, for instance,
untouchables and religious minorities was limited by taboos, many gendered, as well as
selection bias. He further argues that Srinivas’s ability to develop new concepts that could
stand the test of time, was inhibited by his ability to investigate these in a range of different
conditions, leading him, for instance, to view the process of sanskritisation – the process
whereby non-Hindus in northern India adopted the dominate culture – in a lopsided man-
ner, one with political implications. More broadly, he derides Srinivas for believing that it
was possible to use small studies as a point of entry for studying Indian society as a whole.
In conclusion, whilst praising Srinivas, Oommen charges him with methodological Hindu-
ism.
The second paper, by Patel, pushes sociologists to think about and research a major
field: the city, and, with it, urbanisation. She notes that whilst less than 30% of India’s bil-
lion plus population is considered urban, this constitutes one-tenth of the total urban pop-
ulation of the world.6 India’s towns, and particularly its major cities – there are 35 of them
with a population in excess of one million – are growing rapidly. It is from within these cit-
ies that technological, economic, political, social and cultural changes are driven, posing
new problems for humanity’s survival. Whilst Patel’s focus is India – and she challenges the
Indian discipline’s blind-spot with regard to urban issues – the literature she draws upon
and the questions she poses have a wider resonance, and certainly significance for us in
6. According to Globalis (ongoing), in 2005 28.7% of India’s population lived in urban areas,
compared with 57.9% in South Africa.
viii South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1)

South Africa. Her starting point is Manuel Castell’s 1974 claim that, as she puts it, ‘space
… is not neutral; rather it is embedded in social relations. It is in perennial dialectical rela-
tion with other social forces’. From this, she endorses the need for urban studies to be
interdisciplinary and for urban sociology to enlarge its vision and draw on insights from
other disciplines. A review of the Indian urban phenomenon makes various interesting
points, including a contrast between Marx’s notion of conflict between town and country
and an Indian reality where landed elites created space for themselves in cities whilst
retaining a presence in the countryside. An important conclusion of her reflection is that
Indian cities now display increasing spatial and cultural separations along lines of class, eth-
nicity and sometimes gender.
Sharit Bhowmik, author of the third article, is also something of a rarity, an Indian
industrial sociologist. He provides a valuable overview of India’s labour force. This shows
that less than one in ten workers is employed in the formal sector (legally defined as
including units employing a minimum of ten workers if power is used, or a minimum of 20
if there is no power). Given that unionisation is negligible in the informal sector, this is a
key factor explaining the low level of unionisation in the India. Another is the undermining
of worker unity through the development of a multiplicity of party-aligned union federa-
tions. However, Bhowmik reports that the results of the Ministry of Labour’s verification
of membership of union federations – which are required to have at least 500,000 mem-
bers to be included - shows that their total membership - there are now 12 of them -
increased from just over four million in 1987 to around 25 million in 2007. He notes,
encouragingly, that this ‘totally belies the views of experts who believed that trade unions
had lost their significance after liberalisation’. His conclusion is that it is necessary and pos-
sible to unionise the informal sector. Whilst the size of the informal sector is qualitatively
greater than in South Africa, the questions of unions and party-alignment and of unionisa-
tion of informal workers are hot topics in South Africa.
The fourth paper, by Arvinder Ansari, also has topical relevance for South Africa. In
providing a gendered account of inter-communal violence, she signals, for us, the impor-
tance of looking at the 2008 xenophobic attacks in a way that distinguishes the experi-
ences of men and women. The empirical basis for her paper is provided by a study of the
1984 riots that followed Indira Gandhi’s assassination by her Sikh bodyguards. In violence
perpetrated by the Hindu majority on the Sikh minority, roughly 3,000 people were killed.
Probably most were men, with women often raped rather than killed. Drawing on inter-
views, Ansari argues that women became permanent victims, suffering from the memory
of loss of kin and dwellings, and having to absorb new responsibilities and new restrictions
on mobility. She notes that, whilst ‘a political movement encouraging communal violence
may be a national or regional phenomenon, determining who to attack, when to protect
neighbours, and whether to turn on friends is a local process that emerges from contexts
of relationship’. She concludes that, at least in conditions of communal strife, caste and
religious affiliations are a more powerful identities than gender
With the fifth article, we move the focus to India’s IT industry, to the ideological role
played by its owners. Carol Upadhya argues that this elite, who now style themselves as
public intellectuals, put considerable time and energy into creating and protecting a partic-
South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1) ix

ular image of the industry. The unifying theme of their message is that they are different
from old-style capitalists. With middle-class origins, they are purportedly more ethical,
more professional and efficient, and more global and dynamic. Upadhya argues that their
difficulty lies in having to articulate these claims, simultaneously, to diverse audiences.
These include foreign clients, political elites within the different layers of the state, the
middle class they depend upon for political support and personnel, and the broader popu-
lation, especially those close to centres of IT activity. Sometimes they come unstuck. She
gives the example of a major controversy that followed the failure to sing the national
anthem in the presence of the President, on the grounds that this might embarrass foreign
guests. Another example is that of ‘land grabbing’ to establish to new campuses, which
allowed villagers to contrast claims of ethical practice with a contrary reality. One won-
ders whether it wouldn’t be instructive to compare India’s new capitalists with South
Africa’s BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) millionaires.
A.R. Vasavi picks up on a very different phenomenon related to liberalization - suicides
of peasant farmers, which are said to have reached epidemic proportions in some regions.
On the basis of detailed analysis of reports from the five worst affected provinces, she
argues that, ‘from being silent, individual acts of desperation, suicides are becoming politi-
cal acts by which despondent agriculturalists seek to highlight and protest their degraded
conditions’. Most end their lives using the pesticides that symbolise ‘the key source of dis-
tress’, and the trend is towards suicide notes addressed to the government. The victims
are generally the owners of tiny plots, with a significant number coming from traditionally
non-cultivating castes, who were forced into agriculture as a consequence of mass pro-
duction undermining their livelihoods. Poverty stricken and ill-informed, these farmers are
unable to adapt to the new techniques and products that make success a possibility. Torn
between the individualism that is the order of the day and traditional responsibilities,
debts multiply and become unbearable. Eventually, suicide seems the only way out of a
crisis that, whilst the product of social change, is experienced as personal defeat and break-
down. Each suicide is the tragic ending to a story of marketisation of rural life.
D. Parthasarathy presents a parallel account of suffering, but this one is taken from an
urban setting, from the lives and deaths of people living close to Mumbai’s Mithi River.
Reading his analysis my mind was immediately taken to the similar plight of people living
along the banks of the Juskei River in Johannesburg’s Alexandra township. In recent years,
climatic change has led to flooding and landslides in Mumbai, with these ending in loss of
lives and property, particularly among poorer people, who tend to be the ones living in
high risk areas. Parthasarathy rejects popular views blaming government and/or the poor
themselves for the disasters, arguing that these obscure any analysis of who, in social
terms, was living in the risk prone situations and why they were there. He proposes that
accounts of risk should also assess ‘vulnerability’, which is conditioned by social inequality
and a lack of meaningful choice. This takes him to a stinging critique of Ulrich Beck, whose
work on risk is seminal. ‘Despite an explicit recognition of the globalization of risk, Beck
seems to be unaware of the spatial distribution of risk, and the fact that in most countries
the socially marginalized are also the ones pushed to the environmentally more risky spa-
tial margins of society’. In a conclusion that underscores claims made in the opening para-
x South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1)

graphs of this essay, Parthasarathy pushes home his point. ‘Clearly’, he says ‘Beck’s thesis
about the diminishing significance of class and other modern social categories in addressing
the issue of risk seems to be limited by the experience of the European context.’
Satish Deshpande’s article, the final one, should be of interest to everyone involved
with higher education in South Africa. This addresses the issue of job reservation, specifi-
cally in Indian universities. The debate involves a distinction between Hindu upper castes
(those said to be ‘twice born’, i.e. Brahmins, khsatriyas and vaishyas), Hindu other back-
ward classes (sic) or OBCs (i.e. shudras), scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (i.e. dalits
and adavasis), and others (mainly Muslims). Deshpande gives the respective shares of the
urban population (where higher education is concentrated) as 36.9% (HUCs), 24.2%
(OBCs), 15.5% (SC&ST) and 23.4% (others). Immediately after independence a propor-
tion of jobs were reserved for SC&ST, and there were complaints about this, but in 1991
reservation was expanded to include OBCs, producing a substantial reaction, particularly
from upper caste youths. In developing his argument, Deshpande makes two significant
observations. First, of the total population with degrees, 62.1% were from HUCs and
only 10.0% were OBCs (compare with figures above). However, secondly, among the
OBCs, there is a significant minority who are relatively well-off and/or politically powerful;
these are the so called ‘creamy layers’.
Compared to South Africa, the percentage of the population who are potential benefi-
ciaries of affirmative action is smaller, but the mechanism for implementing redress, reser-
vation, is much more rigid (with vacancies sometimes remaining unfilled). There is
similarity, though, in terms of the ideological underpinnings of the debate, which pits
‘merit’ against ‘justice’. Deshpande carefully unpicks what ‘merit’ means concretely, and
then does the same for ‘justice’. In the process he argues against ‘conflating competence
and ill-founded claims of excellence’ and insists upon distinguishing ‘deprivation’ and ‘dis-
crimination’. Simplifying a sophisticated argument, he comes down on the side of saying
that we need ‘multiple criteria for determining entitlements’, with these including eco-
nomic considerations among others, and that these should be implemented on a locally
specific basis.
Patel (2006: 393) recently concluded:
[We] need to historicize and spatialize … sociological traditions through
the construction of new theories and methodologies … [This] implies a
need to change the vocabulary of sociology from its peculiar particularistic
variant disguising itself in universal principles to comparative international-
ist positions. Can sociology and sociologists take up this challenge?
This special issue is a tiny step in the direction that Patel outlines, taking us, hopefully,
towards a new, internationalist post-post modern sociology. It makes no grand claims, but,
in showcasing some of the best of contemporary Indian sociology, it provides a glimpse of
the country’s post-liberalisation social world that goes beyond media images of capitalist
dynamism. In so doing, it suggests similarities and differences that exist between that
space and the one inhabited and researched by most readers of this journal, and it reveals
a little of the lenses through which Indian sociologists define their world. Well that’s our
hope. But this has been an experiment, and readers must judge its success. If it works,
perhaps future editors will contemplate similar initiatives, maybe focusing on elsewhere in
South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1) xi

Africa, or Brazil, or even, conceivably, China. We maybe located in South Africa, but we
can have an orientation towards the development of international sociology.
Finally I would like to thank my fellow editor, Sujata Patel. Without her familiarity with
South African sociology, combined with her high standing within the ranks of Indian coun-
terpart, it would not have been possible to garner the collection of articles that follows.

Appendix

A Memorandum of Understanding Between the Indian Sociological Society

and South African Sociological Association.
The above associations, being the representative bodies for Sociology in their respective
countries, agree to seek ways and means to increase co-operation and discussion
between their organizations and between sociologists in South Africa and India. In this we
are motivated by the following:
1. The recognition that, as part of humanity, we have a common interest in sustaining and
improving life on our planet. To this end, we welcome opportunities to develop asso-
ciational and personal relationships across national borders.
2. Agreement that, to better understand the world in which we live, we should encour-
age research and debate between scientists in different countries. To this end we
assert our support for the International Sociological Association.
3. An appreciation that scientific knowledge has, hitherto, been dominated by scholars
from a small number of wealthier countries, thus limiting our understanding of the
world. As representatives of sociology in two of the less-wealthy countries, we have a
particular responsibility to nourish new ideas that might advance a fuller understanding
of society.
To advance the aforementioned co-operation and discussion, we agree that:
1. The secretaries of the two associations will inform each other of the contact details,
including web site addresses, for their respective societies.
2. On the web sites of the two societies, there will be a link to the web site of the other
organization.
3. The members of one association are welcome to attend, and will have papers consid-
ered for presentation at, the conferences of the other. The rate for attendance at con-
ferences will be no greater than the rates for local participants.
4. The secretaries of the two societies will inform each other about the location, dates
and themes of their own organization’s conferences in good time. They will also assist
in providing each other with information about conferences, seminars and workshops
that might be relevant to the interests of sociologists in the other country.
5. Members of both associations are encouraged to become members of the other
organization without right to be elected to offices in the constituent organisation.
6. Members of both societies are encouraged to subscribe to, and read, the journal of
the other organization.
7. Leaders of both associations will endeavour to facilitate the linking of sociologists,
including sociology students, in the furtherance of research collaboration and other
xii South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1)

scholarly exchanges.
8. Leaders of both societies will endeavour to inform each other about changes in condi-
tions for pursuing sociological enquiry in their respective country. This will include
information about support for, or opposition to, sociology by the respective govern-
ments or other agencies.
9. The Presidents of both associations, and their representatives, will endeavour to
attend the main conferences of each other’s organization.
10. Both societies will, from time to time, give further consideration to means of strength-
ening ties between their organizations and between sociologists in the two countries.
11. Any change in this MoU will be made only through bilateral between the two organisa-
tions.

Signed on 8 July 2008 at Stellenbosch, South Afica.

Prof. U. B. Bhoite
President, Indian Sociological Association

Dr. Simon Mapadimeng

President, South African Sociological Association

References
Alexander, P. 2007. ‘Women and Coal Mining in India and South Africa, c1900-1940’, African Studies
66(2&3).
Breman, J. 2003. The Labouring Poor in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press
Deshpande, S. 2006. Contemporary India: A Sociological Review. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
Globalis. Ongoing. Interactive World Map. This is a partnership of various UN and Norwegian
institutions. Data can be downloaded from globalis.gvu.unu.edu.
Modi, I. 2008. ‘From the Secretary’s Desk’. ISS Newsletter 7(1).
Patel, S. 2006. ‘Beyond Binaries: A Case for Self-Reflexive Sociologies’. Current Sociology 54(3).
Patel, S. Forthcoming, ‘Colonial Modernity and Nationalist Imagination in the Sociological Visions of
M.N.Srinivas and A.R.Desai’. In S. Patel (ed.), Sociology in India: Contesting Identities,
Perspective and Traditions.
Patel, S. 2009. The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions. London: Sage.
Wale, K & Alexander, P. 2008. ‘Too Poor to be Unemployed: Underemployment in South Africa’.
Paper presented to British Sociological Association Conference, Cardiff.
South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1) xiii

Contributors

Peter Alexander is Professor of Sociology at the University of Johannesburg, where he is

Director of the Centre for Sociological Research. He was educated at London University,
where he obtained his doctorate in 1994. He held various positions in London and was a
Research Fellow at Oxford University. He moved permanently to South Africa in 1998,
where he was initially employed at Rhodes University. His books include Racism, Resist-
ance and Revolution (1987), Racializing Class, Classifying Race: Labour and Difference in Brit-
ain, the USA and Africa (2000), Workers, War and the Origins of Apartheid: Labour and Politics
in South Africa, 1939-48 (2000), and Globalisation and new Identities: a View From the Middle
(2006). He is on the advisory board of Work, Employment and Society, Africa Editor of Glo-
bal Networks, and convener of the new Editorial Collective of this journal. His current
work is on the history South Africa’s coal miners, which has included a comparative essay
on women miners in India and South Africa, and on understanding class in South Africa,
specifically Soweto. He has been awarded a fellowship by the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of
Advanced Studies.

Arvinder A. Ansari is Associate Professor in Sociology at Jamia Millia Islamia in New

Delhi. After her schooling in Kashmir she moved to Delhi for higher studies, gaining a first
degree from Delhi University and an MPhil and a PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Her doctoral dissertation was titled: ‘The Impact of Communal Violence on Women: A
Sociological Study of Delhi and Surat Riot Victims’. She specialises in gender studies, eth-
nicity, conflict and peace studies, and teaches in these areas. She has completed major
research projects on the ‘Socio-Economic Profile of Muslims in India: A Case Study of
Delhi’ and on ‘Inter–Religious Marriages in India’. She has research collaborations with
academics at Boston University, Budapest University and the University of Birmingham.

Sharit K. Bhowmik gained his MA in Sociology from the University of Bombay (now
Mumbai) and his PhD. from the University of Delhi. His dissertation, completed in 1979,
was titled ‘A Sociological Study of Tea Plantation Workers in Eastern India’. He taught at
the University of North Bengal, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Delhi University,
and University of Mumbai, before joining the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai,
where he as Professor and Dean of the School of Management and Labour Studies. His
research interests include plantation labour, worker cooperatives, and labour in the urban
informal economy. He is a member of the Managing Committee of the Indian Sociological
Society and a Council Member of the Indian Council of Social Sciences Research. He is also
a member of the Executive Council of the National Alliance of Street Vendors of India, a
federation of street vendors’ trade unions. He has three monographs, two on plantation
labour and one on worker cooperatives. He has published several papers in peer
reviewed journals and has several chapters in books. An edited book on street vendors in
Asia, Africa and Latin America will be published shortly by Routledge.

Satish Deshpande is Professor of Sociology at the University of Delhi. He was born in

xiv South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1)

Karnataka, and studied at St.Stephen’s College, Delhi, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and
the Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram. After a short stint as a lec-
turer in economics, he earned a masters degree in sociology at the University of California
at Santa Cruz, where he obtained a doctoral degree in 1991 for a dissertation entitled ‘To
Mould and Harness: Disciplinary Techniques and Discursive Practices in California Agricul-
ture, 1860-1940’. He has been on the faculty of the University of Hyderabad and the Insti-
tute of Economic Growth, Delhi; and has held visiting appointments at the University of
California, San Francisco and the University of Chicago. His books include Contemporary
India: A Sociological View (2003), Untouchability in Rural India, (2006), and Anthropology in
the East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology (2007). He was Reviews Editor of
Contributions to Indian Sociology (1996-2007) and has been Associate Editor of International
Sociology since 2004. He authored a report on ‘Dalits in the Muslim and Christian Commu-
nities’ for the National Commission on Minorities, and was part of the seven member
committee that designed the Equal Opportunity Commission proposed by the Govern-
ment of India. His interests include caste and class inequalities, the theory and practice of
social justice, the history and politics of the social sciences, and South-South intellectual
interactions.

T. K. Oommen is Professor Emeritus at Jawaharlal Nehru University and was Professor

of Sociology at this University for 26 years, until he retired in 2002. He gained his doctor-
ate from Pune University. He has authored 16, co-authored three and edited five books.
These include Citizenship, Nationality and Ethnicity: Reconciling Competing Identities (1997),
Pluralism, Equality and Identity: Comparative Studies (2002), Crisis and Contention in Indian
Society (2005), Understanding Security: A New Perspective (2006), and Knowledge and Soci-
ety: Situating Sociology and Social Anthropology (2007). His latest book is Reconciliation in
Post Godra Gujarat: Role of Civil Society (2008). He has been editorially associated with 15
professional journals; seven Indian and eight foreign. Prof. Oommen has served as Presi-
dent of the International Sociological Association and was the President of the Indian Soci-
ological Society. He has held visiting professorships at the University of California,
Berkeley, the Australian National University, the Institute of Advanced Studies, Budapest,
and the Scandinavian Institute of Advanced Studies. He was the recipient of the Rao Prize
in Sociology (1981), the Ghurye Prize in Sociology and Anthropology (1985), and the
Swami Pranavananda Award in Sociology (1997). Professor Oommen was a member of
the Prime Minister’s High Level Committee on the Social, Economic and Educational Sta-
tus of the Muslim Community in India (2004-06). In 2008 he was conferred with the Pres-
ident of India’s Padmabhushan award, being only the fourth sociologist to be recognized in
this way.

D. Parthasarathy is Professor of Sociology at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bom-

bay, and is currently spending a sabbatical year at the Asia Research Institute, National Uni-
versity of Singapore. Born in Madras, he was mostly educated in Hyderabad, acquiring his
PhD in Sociology from the University of Hyderabad in 1995. His dissertation was on ‘Patterns
of Collective Violence in a Provincial City’. He has been working at the IIT Bombay since
South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1) xv

1997, before which he was at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid
Tropics. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University (2003). He is the
author of Collective Violence in a Provincial City (1997) and Next Generation Tools for Assessing
Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change (2007), and has authored articles and edited
books in the areas of development studies, agricultural sociology, urban studies, and govern-
ance. He was awarded a Panos Media Fellowship (2003) and a Second Place Medal by the
Global Development Network (2000). D. Parthasarathy is a member of the Advisory Board
of the International Beliefs and Values Institute, James Madison University, and is Convener
of the Indian Sociological Society’s Research Committee on Economy, Polity, and Society.

Sujata Patel is Professor of Sociology at the University of Hyderabad, having moved

there from the University of Pune. She obtained her doctorate from Jawaharalal Nehru
University. She specialises in the areas of social theory, political sociology and urban sociol-
ogy, and writes on the themes of history of sociology, class formation and conflicts, caste
and reservation, gender construction, communalism and city formation in India. She is the
author of The Making of Industrial Relations (1997), and co-editor of five books: Bombay:
Metaphor of Modern India (1995), Bombay: Mosaic of Modern Culture (1995), Thinking Social
Science in India (2002), Bombay and Mumbai: The City in Transition (2003) and Urban Studies
(2006). She is corresponding editor of the International Journal of Urban and Regional Stud-
ies and in the editorial collective of International Sociology Review of Books. Sujata Patel was
Vice President of the International Sociological Association (2002-06). She is the Series
Editor of Studies in Contemporary Society (OUP) and Cities and the Urban Imperative
(Routledge). Presently she is writing a book titled, Framing Society: The Challenges to Indian
Sociology and has edited three forthcoming publications: Sociologies in India: Contesting
Identities, Perspectives and Traditions; The International Handbook of Diverse Sociological Tra-
ditions, and Exclusion, Social Capital and Citizenship: Contested Transitions in South Africa and
India (the last of these with Tina Uys and Sakhela Buhlungu from the University of Johan-
nesburg).

Carol Upadhya is a Fellow in the School of Social Sciences at the National Institute of
Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India. She was born in the Netherlands Antilles and edu-
cated in the United States. She received a doctorate in Social Anthropology from Yale Uni-
versity in 1988, writing a dissertation entitled, ‘From Kulak to Capitalist: The Emergence
of a New Business Community in Coastal Andhra Pradesh, India’. She has been living and
working in India since 1980, where she earlier taught sociology at SNDT Women’s Uni-
versity in Mumbai. Her research interests focus on contemporary Indian society and cul-
ture, globalisation, labour, urban studies, and anthropological approaches to business and
the economy. Her publications include: Small Business Entrepreneurs in Asia and Europe:
Towards a Comparative Perspective (1997), and In an Outpost of the Global Economy: Work
and Workers in India’s Information Technology Industry (2008). She recently completed a
comprehensive study of the Indian IT industry and its workers, with A.R. Vasavi. She is a
member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Contributions to Indian Sociology.
xvi South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1)

A. R. Vasavi is Professor, School of Social Sciences, National Institute of Advanced Stud-

ies, IISc Campus, Bangalore. She was educated at the Delhi School of Economics for her
masters, and received her doctorate in Social Anthropology from Michigan State Univer-
sity. Her dissertation, ‘Land and Life in South India’, was published as Harbingers of Rain:
Land and Life in South India in 1999. She has been on the faculty at Tufts University (Massa-
chusetts) and at the Indian Institutes of Management at Ahmedabad and Kozhikode. A. R.
Vasavi has published on the social anthropology of India, and agrarian, development and
education issues. She is on the international advisory board of the Journal of Peasant Studies
and is a board member of the Centre for Research and Training for Social Transformation
(Kozhikode, Kerala), and an advisor to the Vidyankura project, which focuses on promot-
ing elementary education among marginalised people. Her forthcoming books are Suicides
and the Predicament of Rural India, The Inner Mirror: Translations of Kannada Writings on
Society and Culture, and a collected volume of her writings on Karnataka.

View publication stats