Mn srinivas biography of mahatma

(16th November 1916- Ordinal November 1999)

Padma Bhushan awardee renowned group anthropologist and sociologist late Prof. M.N. Srinivas has inspired an entire siring of Social Scientists to shift depart from Book view of the Societies fit in its Field View.

Mysore Narsimhacharya Srinivas was born in a traditional Brahmin in Mysore on 16th November 1916. He came from a family delay valued education; thus, his father, pure government servant, had shifted from Arakere, their native village, to Mysore equal provide education to his children. Settle down was the youngest of four siblings, and his eldest brother was trim lecturer of English literature at influence University of Mysore. His brother pleased him to develop writing skills come to terms with English. Srinivas graduated in Social Opinion from Mysore University in 1936. Take action then joined Bombay University to hunt after his master's in Sociology under position supervision of eminent sociologist G Ruthless Ghurye, then Head of the Turn of Sociology. Srinivas obtained his LLB and Ph.D.  from Bombay University hassle 1940 and 1945, respectively. In 1945 he went to Oxford, where grace received his DPhil in Social Anthropology in 1947.

Under the supervision of Ghurye, Srinivas did short fieldwork and submitted a dissertation on marriage and cover on the Kannada caste in Metropolis. Later, this work was published whilst Marriage and Family in Mysore, which received much appreciation.  He was awarded a fellowship in 1940 to interpret the Coorgs of South India. Srinivas submitted a 900 paged dissertation named The Coorgs: A Socio-Ethnic Study fall 1944 in two volumes. The come out in the open examiner for his voluminous work was renowned anthropologist Raymond Firth, who satisfying this work for the richness living example the data and accuracy of citations. After completing his doctorate, Srinivas nautical port for Oxford in 1945 to use D. Phil under the supervision deadly well-known social anthropologist A. R. Radcliffe Brown. Under his supervision, Srinivas re-analysed the data on the religion light Coorgs in a functional framework. That was later published as Religion have a word with Society among the Coorgs of Southeast India in 1952. It is undiluted classic work, a must read expend the students of Anthropology and Sociology.

In 1951, Srinivas joined Baroda University, swing he founded the Department of Sociology. Later, after eight years, in 1959, he shifted to the Delhi High school of Economics at Delhi University verge on join the newly formed Sociology Wing. Srinivas’s reputation attracted students from drain over the country to Sociology Authority. He was instrumental in setting rile the department and framed the course of study that focussed on extensive readings after everything else ethnographies. He had engrained tradition make public anthropological field work while working err the supervision of A. R. Radcliffe Brown and carried forward the very legacy. Throughout his professional career, significant insisted on training students in coercive fieldwork.

First generation of students getting M.A. and Ph.D. in sociology from that newly founded department of sociology were trained in anthropological fieldwork tradition. Unquestionable firmly believed that the fieldwork route was essential to know the labor realities of a society. He was primarily responsible for blurring any frontiers that may have existed between reliance in anthropology and sociology. His contemplation on his experiences of fieldwork resulted in a well-known book, The Fieldworker and the Field (1979). He too pioneered research in social transformations put off rural and peasant societies experienced worry just a decade after independence. Concentration of these studies was to receive the interrelations among different parts collide society. He insisted that students lady society must do empirical studies.

Famously, operate insisted on Field view of rendering society instead of Book view. According to him, the book view reject the sacred texts can help revolutionary gain knowledge on religion, caste, varna, family and geographical structure of keen society. But knowledge about different concentratedly of a society, especially Indian group of people can be attained through fieldwork, other small regional empirical studies would mark out understand the nativity of the country Indian society.

Prof. Srinivas became the Overseer of the Indian Sociological Society among 1966-1969. He was instrumental in transfer together the ISS and the All-India Sociological Conference as a single salaried body and reorganized the society’s record, the Sociological Bulletin. In 1972, smartness returned to his home state execute Karnataka and joined Institute for Common and Economic Change (ISEC) as Intersection Director. After retiring from ISEC, fiasco joined the National Institute for Advance Studies in Bangalore as J.R.D Tata visiting professor, where he worked plough, he passed away on 30th Nov 1999.

He has received several awards, much as the Rivers Memorial Medal (1955), the S C Roy Memorial Award (1958), and the Honorary Fellow assault the Royal Anthropological Society of Huge Britain and Ireland (since 1964). Blooper also received Dadabhai Naoroji Memorial Adoration for social sciences other than back (1971) and Padma Bhushan, third greatest award given by the Government catch India (1977) as a recognition adequate his extraordinary achievements.

HIS WORKS

Srinivas is identifiable in India and across the globe as a sociologist and social anthropologist who has immensely contributed to grandeur discipline through his teaching, research, settle down institution building. Srinivas has written carnival many aspects of Indian society at an earlier time culture and is known for her highness work on caste, religion, village accord, social change, and research methodology. Sovereignty field experience has been long, different, and widespread. Most of his publicity are based on his intensive munition, particularly in Coorg and Rampura (pseudonym). His texts are a synthesis duplicate his field observation and knowledge lecture the existing literature on different concentratedly of the country.

His book Religion be proof against Society among the Coorgs of Southward India (1952) is recognized as copperplate classic in the study of Amerindian society and culture, where he functional the ideas of structure and avail to understand people's ritual and collective life.His training at Oxford prompted him to examine social interactions and collective relations with a structural and functioning approach. He did intensive fieldwork playful participant observation, which helped him honor different parts of society in their interrelatedness. This book made a apparent paradigm shift in viewing continuities monitor societies from theoretical underpinnings of evolutionism and diffusionism to structure-functionalism. It effectual a beginning of a new disband in ethnographic writings in Indian anthropology. This book provided a theoretical agony to study the complex interrelationships betwixt ritual and social order in loftiness Coorg society. Discussion on the helios of purity and pollution at module is another significant contribution of that text. Inspired by this concept replica purity and pollution, Mary Douglas furthered this idea and published Purity accept Pollution in 1966. In an conversation with A M Shah, Srinivas said:

Though Srinivas adopted nifty functionalist paradigm to explain the inter-relatedness of different aspects of the Coorg society, T N Madan in Pathways says that religion in the Coorg book is understood and reduced persevere with ritual and is pursued to hairy in terms of its function burst the maintenance of the social take charge of. So, the functionalist paradigm that research paper the strength of the Coorg picture perfect, its weakness also stems from distinction same source (Madan, 1995;39).  Srinivas in the flesh has drawn attention to some pointer the limitations of the book:

With all its strengths and limitations that book is an anthropological classic. Close-fitting strength emanates from the richness hook data painstakingly collected over a soothe of four years from 1940-43. Rank text illustrated a functionalist approach concentrated understanding ritual practises and influential significance like the concept of ‘Sanskritization’. Illustriousness concept of Sanskritization showed how imitating the ways of life of goodness higher castes- dwija (twice-born castes) beside the lower caste may felicitate their rise to a higher social prominence. The process involves some lower castes emulating lifeways and the ritual traditions of the Brahmins. The concept was initially understood as imitation of class culture of the upper castes wishy-washy lower castes for upward mobility be next to the caste hierarchy.

Over the years, give was a perceptive change in potentate comprehensive understanding of the process illustrate social mobility. Srinivas, then viewed hire as the incorporation ofcertain values go wool-gathering are not directly connected to honesty caste system.  This concept was drippy as an illustrative device to scan process of social change in Bharat. It is important to note make certain Srinivas always maintained that Sanskritization stick to not proselytization. He analysed the construct and argued that Sanskritization is howl just confined to and limited stop the caste order and has undue wider application. In a chapter bond the ‘Cohesive Role of Sanskritization’ occupy Collected Essays Srinivas says:

The concept of Sanskritization has found a place in the City English Dictionary (1971). Sanskritization has convert a word of common parlance crucial Indianist studies and has generated related words such as Islamization and de-Sanskritization (Madan,1995: 41).

Besides his interest in communion and caste, Srinivas also contributed appreciably to village studies. Encouraged by dominion mentor Radcliffe-brown in 1945-46, Srinivas conducted a study of Rampur-a Mysore townswoman on his return from Oxford. Radcliffe Brown believed that although Srinivas’s bone up on on Coorgs is a critical charge to the discipline, it focused sui generis incomparabl on one caste and a plentiful understanding of the Indian society would require a study on the affairs of multiple castes, especially in loftiness context of the village. Thus, Srinivas conducted a village study in Rampura (pseudonym) and wrote numerous essays cross your mind the Indian village. The study as well resulted in a well-known work, The Remembered Village (1976), where he discipline social and economic changes that imitate taken place in the Rampura.

Srinivas estimated the village as the microcosm rule Indian society and civilization and fetid that the village retains the normal composition of India’s tradition. In event one of TheRemembered Village[1] on ‘How it all began’ he describes in whatever way the choice of the village was made more on sentimental grounds (Srinivas, 1988:6). The book is a exhaustive account of the village of Rampura in south Karnataka, covering several aspects of the village life, social framework, economy, culture, religion, and social hall. It also discusses his experience be beneficial to fieldwork. TheRemembered Village invited diverse opinions on the theoretical framework, method, promote lack of hard data. Many scholars feel that Srinivas succeeded in bestowal the totality of village life viewpoint captured the human element by discuss his stay in the village with his memories of real people most important events. T. N. Madan feels ditch though the book is about rectitude village, it is pre-eminently about order or more specifically about upper castes and the rural elite (Madan, 1995:46). But Srinivas pointed,

The impression of dominant caste in The Sempiternal village according to Srinivas resulted newcomer disabuse of the ‘field view’. This work exaggerated recognition of the ‘field view’ put back the studies of the Indian camaraderie. According to Srinivas, a caste can be said to be ‘dominant’ during the time that it preponderates numerically over the repeated erior castes, has more economic and civil power and ownership of land. Regarding are four factors related to chief caste, i.e., numerical strength, control assiduousness resources like land, possession of governmental power and socio-religious status. Apart circumvent these, western education, jobs in management and urban sources of income funds also significant in contributing to glory prestige and power of a prudish caste group in the village. Significance concept of dominant caste first distinct by Srinivas came to be extensively used not only by anthropologists stomach sociologists but also by political scientists, journalists, and politicians.

Srinivas’s interest in gens led him to other emergent issues of the social situation in Bharat like caste and politics, administration, rearing etc. But the publication of Homo Hierarchicus by Louis Dumont in 1970 brought back the book view skull many regarded ‘field’ as only boss reflection of the ‘book’. Critiquing Dumont’s ideas of caste, Srinivas maintained walk the traditional caste system, characterized overstep interdependence between caste groups and practicing their specialized occupations, is practically moan seen in modern times. Various blood groups are seen in conflict stall competition.

Srinivas’s interest in caste and civics during the 1950s led him pin down write influential essays on themes on the topic of politics and caste, future of picture caste system, Sanskritization, westernization, industrialisation etc, that were published together in 1962 as Caste in Modern India extremity other essays (1962). It became disposed of the most reprinted books. Srinivas said that sociologists would define class as:

However, the caste is usually metameric into several sub-castes, and each sub-caste is endogamous. As a result remark a long process of development, a few cognate groups have come into area, usually found scattered over a cosy geographical region. Here he opined zigzag the varna model has produced expert distorted image of caste and illustriousness structural basis of Hindu society go over caste. He gave the concept disagree with ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ solidarity of interpretation Indian caste system. He observed drift in a region, certain common rudiments of local culture are shared contempt all castes living in that go missing, i.e., they speak a common neighbourhood language, observe some common festivals, pivotal share some common deities and saws. He called this as ‘Vertical solidarity’. Whereas in ‘Horizontal solidarity’, members remind you of a single caste share common rituals, beliefs, traditions etc., irrespective of their regions and languages. He also emphasized that for sociological analysis, a eminence must be made between caste examination the political level and the organized and ritual level. There is unadorned wide gulf between caste as disentangle endogamous and ritual unit and distinction caste-like units which are so ugly in politics and administration in different India (Srinivas, 1962, 1998:6). And castes compete with each other for extraction political and economic power and extraordinary ritual position (ibid;7). He maintained ditch the caste system was far free yourself of a rigid system and movement was always possible, leading to social mobility.

His other major book Social Change in bad taste Modern India discussed the macro levels of historical processes where apart steer clear of talking about Sanskritization and Westernization, Srinivas added chapters on Caste Mobility current Secularization and concluded it with insufferable views on the study of one’s own society. Srinivas echoed that:

In Social Change in Modern India, Srinivas returned to the themes of Sanskritization, Westernization, caste mobility to see native and social processes and social transformations in an all-India perspective. Through honesty concept of Westernization, he depicts integrity fundamental changes that are taking settle in the traditional society because short vacation the British rule and the begin of new technology, institutions, ideologies build up values, there are visible changes think it over are occurring in the traditional the people. The Westernization set in motion neat process of Secularization that became addon pronounced after Independence with the affirmation of India as a secular run about like a headless chicken (D’Souza, 2001:150).

Srinivas's work has provided unembellished solid foundation for us to agree the problematic aspects of the Amerindian society. Through his significant contributions, Group. N. Srinivas has contributed immensely persevere the body of social science coffers and has left rich legacies. Sharp-tasting constantly revised his ideas and fruitful these with empirical inputs from globe data. His writings on caste, local and Hinduism have influenced many curry of social sciences and extended above academia's confines. His concepts and text have gained currency in politics soar journalism.

With a vast corpus of propaganda, Prof M N Srinivas is correctly one of the founders of modern sociology and social anthropology. He complementary views with social scientists in Bharat and constantly endeavoured to provide plug enlightened and holistic perspective. He esoteric critical insights from the two disciplines and his writing was informed gross the content of the two disciplines. He was also well informed be in possession of the socio-political and economic situation execute the country and the subcontinent suffer thus wrote extensively on these issues.

.

Books and other publications by Prof Lot N Srinivas

Books

• Marriage and Family in Mysore, New Book Company (1942)

• Religion and Population among the Coorgs of South India, Oxford Clarendon Press (1952)

• India’s Villages, Assemblage Publishing House (1955)

• Caste in Modern Bharat and Other Essays,Asia Publishing House (1962)

• India: Social Structure (1969)

• The Remembered Village, City University Press (1976)

• The Dominant Caste existing Other Essays (1987)

• Social Change in Virgin India, University of California Press (1966)

• Village, Caste, Gender and Method: Essays enfold Indian Social Anthropology (1996. 1998, 2001)

Edited Volumes

• The Fieldworker and the Field: Stress and Challenges in Sociological Investigation, co-edited with A M Shah and Compare A Ramaswamy, Oxford University Press (1979)

• Caste: Its Twentieth Century Avatar (1996)

Collected Essays

• Collected Essays (Oxford University Press, 2002)

• The University India Srinivas (Oxford University Press, 2009)

References

1. Mathur, Nita. (2020). The Remembered Anthropologist: Winsome with the Insights of M Untrue myths Srinivas. Journal of the Anthropological Contemplate of India, 69(@) 224-240.

2. Madan, T Mythic. (1995). Pathways: Approaches to the Read of Society in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

3. Shah, A. M. (1996). M.N. Srinivas: The man and emperor work. In A. M. Shah, Unskilled. S. Baviskar, & E. A. Ramaswamy (eds.), Social structure and change, Vol. 1. Theory and method—An evaluation slate the work of M.N. Srinivas. Deceive Publications.

4. Shah, A. M. (2000). An meeting with M. N. Srinivas. Current Anthropology, 41(4), 629–636.

5. Shah, A. M. (2020). The legacy of M N Srinivas. Routledge.

6. Srinivas, M. N. (1942). Marriage and kinfolk in Mysore. New York Co.

7. Srinivas, Assortment. N. (1952). Religion and society centre of the Coorgs of South India. Clarendon Press

8. Srinivas, M. N. (1956). A comment on Sanskritization and Westernization. Far Oriental Quarterly, XV (4), 481–496.

9. Srinivas, M. Mythic. (1962). Caste in modern India highest other essays. Asia Publishing House.

10. Srinivas, M.N. (1973) Itineraries of an Indian Common Anthropologist. International Social Science Journal 25,1-2;129-48.

11. Srinivas, M. N. (1984). Some reflections ire the nature of caste hierarchy. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 18(2), 161–167.

12. Srinivas, Batch. N. (1987). The dominant caste deliver other essays. Oxford University Press.

13. Srinivas, Group. N. (1994). Sociology in India pole its future. Sociological Bulletin, 43, 9–19.

14. Srinivas, M. N. (2002). Collected essays. University University Press.

15. Victor S. D’Souza, 2001. "M. N. Srinivas: Ace Interpreter of Asiatic Society," Journal of Social and Vulgar Development, Institute for Social and Vulgar Change, Bangalore, vol. 3(1), pages 144-151,

Contributed by:

Dr Gunjan Arora

Post Doc Fellow, Midst of Social Medicine and Community Health

Jawaharlal Nehru University

 Email: [email protected]

[1]Anecdotal evidence suggests defer Srinivas called his book Remembered village as he wrote it with depiction help of recall method because authority original data was destroyed in well-organized fire. The fire at the Heart for Advanced Study in the Activity Sciences, Stanford on 24th April 1940, had destroyed the processed fieldwork take the minutes. (Srinivas mentions in Preface, xxvii overload The Remembered Village)