Model Answer:

Internal labour migration, driven by agrarian distress and urban opportunities, forms the backbone of India’s informal sector. These migrants, termed “footloose labour” by Jan Breman, face multifaceted challenges perpetuating their vulnerability.

Economic Exploitation and Precarity

• Low wages and irregular payments: Migrants receive below-minimum wages with unpredictable payment schedules, making financial planning impossible.

• Job insecurity: Without formal contracts, they face arbitrary ‘hire and fire’ practices and extreme precarity.

• Debt bondage: Many fall into ‘neo-bondage’ (Breman) with contractors, as seen among brick kiln workers across states.

Social Exclusion and Deprivation

• Inadequate housing: Migrants inhabit overcrowded slums or worksites lacking clean water, sanitation, and basic amenities.

• Denial of entitlements: Without local identity documents, they cannot access PDS rations, healthcare, or education, limiting their capabilities (Amartya Sen).

• Cultural alienation: They face discrimination based on regional, linguistic, and caste identities.

Absence of Social Security

• No safety nets: Excluded from provident funds, ESI health insurance, and pensions.

• Hazardous conditions: Work without safety equipment or injury compensation, treated as Marx’s disposable ‘reserve army of labour’.

• Political voicelessness: Being disenfranchised in host states, they lack collective bargaining power.

Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed these structural vulnerabilities when millions walked home. Urgent interventions—portable social security, universal documentation, and enforced labour protections—are essential for India’s invisible workforce.

Model Answer:

Political mobilization in Independent India has historically drawn from deep-seated social structures. While traditional bases persist, their nature has undergone substantial transformation over seven decades.

Traditional Bases (1947-1980s)

Caste Politics:
Rajni Kothari’s concept of “politicisation of caste” dominated early decades. Dominant castes (Reddys, Marathas, Jats) controlled regional politics while Scheduled Castes formed vote banks through reservation politics and Ambedkarite movements.

Religion and Region:
Religious identities shaped communal politics, with secular parties consolidating minority votes. Linguistic reorganization (1950s-60s) spawned regional parties like DMK, AIADMK, and Akali Dal, mobilizing through linguistic-cultural identity.

Contemporary Transformations

Fragmentation and Assertion:
– Post-Mandal, monolithic caste blocs fragmented into sub-caste mobilizations (MBCs, Mahadalits, Pasmanda Muslims)
– OBC consolidation through parties like SP, RJD, BSP created new equations
– Christophe Jaffrelot’s “Silent Revolution” through backward caste assertion

New Mobilization Patterns:
– Labharthi Politics: Beneficiary class emerged around welfare schemes (PM-KISAN, Ujjwala, cash transfers), transcending traditional identities
– Gender: Women courted as decisive voting bloc through targeted schemes (Ladli Behna, free bus travel)
– Aspirational Politics: Urban youth mobilized on employment, governance, anti-corruption
– Issue-based Movements: Environmental (Chipko, Narmada), farmers’ protests (2020-21) created new coalitions

Conclusion: Contemporary mobilization reflects multi-layered reality—from identity assertion to development-centric politics, marking India’s democratic deepening beyond primordial loyalties.

Model Answer:

Village industries, once integral to India’s self-sufficient rural economy, have witnessed precipitous decline due to multiple interconnected factors spanning colonial exploitation to contemporary market dynamics.

Colonial De-industrialization

• Unfair Competition: Manchester textiles flooded Indian markets through one-way free trade policy—heavy duties on Indian exports but duty-free British imports
• Railway Exploitation: Transport network primarily extracted raw materials and distributed British goods, undermining local producers
• Loss of Patronage: Collapse of princely states eliminated traditional support for skilled artisans

Post-Independence Policy Neglect

• Planning Bias: Nehru-Mahalanobis model prioritized capital-intensive heavy industries, marginalizing village industries in development planning
• Unequal Competition: Traditional artisans faced competition from modern small-scale industries with superior access to technology and institutional credit

Structural Transformations

• Jajmani System Breakdown: Disintegration of reciprocal economic relationships between artisan castes and land-owning patrons, as documented by William Wiser
• Market Exploitation: Dependence on middlemen due to lack of direct access to markets, credit, and quality raw materials

Socio-Cultural Shifts

• Changing Preferences: Consumer shift toward mass-produced goods—plastic replacing earthenware, machine textiles replacing handloom
• Skill Erosion: Low social status and meager incomes discourage younger generations from learning traditional crafts

Conclusion:

The decline represents both economic marginalization and cultural loss, necessitating comprehensive policy intervention to preserve these industries’ economic and heritage value.

Model Answer:

The transfer of land from cultivating to non-cultivating owners represents a fundamental process of de-peasantization that is restructuring India’s socio-economic fabric and accelerating societal transformation.

Transformation in Agrarian Class Structure

Daniel Thorner’s framework illustrates this shift clearly:
• The ‘Kisan’ (owner-cultivator) class is shrinking as farmers lose land to moneylenders, corporations, and urban investors
• Former landowners become ‘Mazdur’ (landless agricultural laborers), marking their proletarianization
• New absentee landlords emerge with purely commercial interests, exemplified by developers acquiring agricultural land around Delhi-NCR for speculation

Socio-Economic Consequences

This ownership shift triggers cascading changes:
• Distress migration intensifies as landless farmers seek non-agricultural work, creating what Jan Breman calls “footloose labour” in urban informal sectors
• Contract farming emerges in Punjab and Maharashtra, transforming independent producers into dependent workers for corporations
• Rural inequality widens as wealth concentrates among non-cultivating owners while former cultivators face poverty

Political Mobilization

Land transfers have sparked new forms of resistance:
• Movements in Singur and Nandigram against forced acquisition for SEZs demonstrate shifting rural politics from traditional patronage to resource-based conflicts
• These struggles represent broader contestation over development models

Conclusion: The transfer from cultivators to non-cultivators fundamentally restructures India’s class hierarchy, fuels migration patterns, and creates new arenas of socio-political conflict, thereby transforming the very nature of Indian society.

Model Answer:

Kinship and G.P. Murdock’s Contributions

Kinship is a fundamental social institution organizing human relationships through networks of rights and obligations based on blood (consanguinity), marriage (affinity), and adoption. This cultural construct defines social groups, governs inheritance and succession, and shapes individual status and roles within society.

G.P. Murdock’s Key Contributions

1. Cross-Cultural Comparative Method
Murdock revolutionized kinship studies through systematic comparison of hundreds of societies in his landmark work ‘Social Structure’ (1949). Using the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF), he moved beyond single-case studies to identify universal patterns in social organization.

2. Statistical Analysis
He pioneered applying statistical methods to establish correlations between social phenomena. Notably, he demonstrated strong relationships between descent rules (e.g., patrilineal) and post-marital residence patterns (e.g., patrilocal), revealing functional interconnections.

3. Kinship Classification Systems
Murdock refined and popularized the classification of kinship terminology systems—Eskimo, Iroquois, Hawaiian, Crow, Omaha, and Sudanese. This standardized typology enabled anthropologists to compare how cultures categorize relatives, reflecting underlying social structures.

4. Nuclear Family Universality
He argued that the nuclear family exists universally as society’s fundamental unit, serving four essential functions: sexual regulation, reproduction, economic cooperation, and socialization.

5. Incest Taboo Analysis
Murdock identified universal incest taboos and their variations across cultures, contributing to understanding social regulation of sexuality.

6. Ethnographic Atlas
He created the comprehensive Ethnographic Atlas coding cultural traits of 1,267 societies, providing invaluable data for comparative research.

Conclusion: Murdock’s empirical and positivist approach transformed kinship from descriptive ethnography to scientific analysis, establishing a robust framework for structural-functionalist understanding of social institutions globally.

Model Answer:

Industrial Class Structure as a Function of Indian Social Structure

The statement that India’s industrial class structure is a function of its traditional social structure holds substantial validity. Modern class formation did not emerge in a vacuum but was deeply shaped by pre-existing caste hierarchies, creating what sociologists term a “superimposition” of class upon caste.

Caste-Class Overlap in Industrial Hierarchy

The translation of caste hierarchy into class positions, what Andre Beteille calls “cumulative inequality,” is evident across industrial sectors:

– Capitalist Class: Traditional merchant castes (Vaishya Varnas) like Banias and Marwaris leveraged their historical trade expertise and accumulated capital to dominate industrial entrepreneurship
– Professional-Managerial Class: Upper castes, particularly Brahmins with educational monopoly, transitioned into white-collar positions, validating Milton Singer’s observation about traditional social capital determining modern opportunities
– Working Class: Shudras and Dalits, historically landless and resource-deprived, concentrated in manual and unorganized sector employment, reflecting M.N. Srinivas’s concept of “dominant caste” extending to industrial contexts

Mechanisms of Social Reproduction

– Network-Based Recruitment: Job information flows through caste-kinship channels, as Mark Granovetter’s network theory reveals when applied to Indian contexts
– Cultural Capital Transmission: English education and urban exposure, concentrated among upper castes, become industrial prerequisites—what Bourdieu would identify as inherited advantages
– Segmented Labor Markets: Jan Breman’s fieldwork demonstrates how contractors recruit workers from specific castes, perpetuating occupational segregation
– Community Credit Systems: Traditional banking networks (Chettiars, Marwari hundis) operate along caste lines, restricting capital access for lower castes

Industrial Dynamics and Limited Mobility

While caste provides foundational structure, industrialization introduces selective transformative elements:

– IT sector creates merit-based opportunities but shows subtle caste networking in career progression, as Carol Upadhya’s studies reveal
– Reservation policies facilitate Dalit middle-class emergence, though glass ceilings persist in private sector
– Trade unionization often follows caste lines, limiting cross-caste worker solidarity

Conclusion: India’s industrial class structure fundamentally reflects its social structure, with caste determining access to capital, education, and networks. While industrialization introduces new dynamics, class formation remains inseparable from traditional hierarchies.

Model Answer:

Pioneer of Village Studies in India

M.N. Srinivas is widely regarded as the pioneer of systematic, field-based village studies in India. His work marked a significant shift from the Indological ‘book view’ to empirical understanding of Indian society, treating villages as social microcosms for studying national complexities.

Major Contributors and Their Contributions

M.N. Srinivas: Structural-Functionalist Pioneer
Through his study of Rampura village in The Remembered Village, Srinivas provided structural-functionalist perspective on village dynamics:
– Sanskritization: Process by which lower castes emulate upper caste rituals to improve social standing
– Dominant Caste: Concept describing land-owning caste with numerical strength and political power controlling village life
– Westernization: Analysis of changes brought by British rule in technology, institutions, and ideology
– Focused on social mobility within existing caste structure

S.C. Dube: Multi-dimensional Approach
In Indian Village (Shamirpet study), Dube offered holistic analysis examining villages from multiple angles:
– Six-fold Factors: Analyzed social structure, economic organization, ritual practices, political factions, kinship, and leadership
– Multiple Traditions: Highlighted co-existence of classical, regional, and local traditions
– Provided comprehensive ethnography without rigid theoretical framework
– Emphasized technological change and modernization impact

A.R. Desai: Marxist Perspective
In Rural Sociology in India, Desai applied historical-dialectical approach challenging harmonious village notion:
– Class Conflict: Argued villages were sites of economic inequality and exploitation
– Impact of Capitalism: Focused on colonial transformation leading to land alienation and peasant pauperization
– Analyzed external historical forces reshaping rural economy
– Emphasized structural contradictions over cultural continuities

Distinct Approaches

Theoretical Frameworks: Srinivas employed structural-functionalism focusing on integration; Dube adopted descriptive, multi-faceted ethnography; Desai used Marxist analysis emphasizing conflict.

Methodological Focus: Srinivas prioritized participant observation and indigenous concepts; Dube combined empirical description with comparative analysis; Desai emphasized historical-materialist interpretation.

Change Perspective: Srinivas saw change through cultural processes; Dube through modernization; Desai through class struggle and capitalism.

These diverse approaches enriched understanding of Indian villages, revealing their complex social, economic, and cultural dimensions.

Model Answer:

Indian New Middle Class: Features and Distinctions

The Indian new middle class emerged post-1991 economic liberalization, shaped by globalization and market-driven economy, possessing distinct characteristics that differentiate it from the pre-liberalization old middle class.

Main Features of the New Middle Class

As analyzed by sociologists like Pavan Varma and Leela Fernandes, this class exhibits:

• Economic Base: Predominantly employed in private sector—IT, finance, media, telecommunications—unlike old middle class’s public sector dependence

• Consumption Culture: Characterized by aspirational consumption, brand consciousness, and credit-financed lifestyle (EMIs), marking shift from saving to spending culture

• Global Outlook: Cosmopolitan, individualistic orientation with English as primary professional language, prioritizing personal achievement over collective values

• Urban Concentration: Overwhelmingly urban phenomenon, concentrated in metropolitan and Tier-II cities where service economy thrives

Distinctions from Old Middle Class

The contrasts are fundamental:

• Economic Ethos: Old middle class valued frugality and job security; new middle class embraces risk-taking and investment

• Employment Pattern: Shift from government ‘babus’ and traditional professions to MNCs and globalized services

• Social Orientation: Transformation from community-caste networks and joint families to merit-based, nuclear family structures

• Political Ideology: Evolution from socialist welfare-state alignment to pragmatic focus on governance and economic growth

Conclusion: While the old middle class was state-created, the new middle class is market-produced—its identity forged through consumption choices and global aspirations rather than traditional social moorings.

Model Answer:

British Economic Reforms and Disruption of Traditional Indian Economy

The British colonial economic reforms systematically dismantled India’s pre-colonial economic system, transforming a self-sufficient economy into a colonial appendage serving British industrial interests, fundamentally altering its agrarian structure, industrial base, and social fabric.

Transformation of Agrarian Structure

The British land revenue systems completely overturned traditional land relations through commodification of land:

– Permanent Settlement (1793) in Bengal created parasitic absentee landlords (Zamindars), destroying community ownership and customary rights of cultivators
– Ryotwari System in Madras and Bombay Presidencies imposed heavy taxation directly on cultivators, leading to widespread peasant indebtedness and land alienation
– Social Transformation: A.R. Desai argued these reforms created new exploitative classes – moneylenders and landless agricultural laborers
– Traditional System Collapse: The Jajmani system of reciprocal village exchange was replaced by cash economy and formal legal systems

Deindustrialization and Forced Commercialization

British policies systematically destroyed India’s thriving handicraft industries while reshaping agriculture:

– Textile Destruction: One-way free trade flooded markets with cheap Manchester textiles, decimating world-renowned Dhaka muslin and Surat textile industries
– Forced Cash Crops: Peasants were coerced into cultivating indigo, cotton, and opium instead of food grains, making them vulnerable to global price fluctuations
– Famine Creation: Shift from subsistence to commercial farming led to devastating famines like the Bengal Famine
– Resistance: The Indigo Rebellion of 1859 exemplified peasant opposition against forced cultivation

Colonial Capitalist Integration

Infrastructure development primarily facilitated colonial exploitation:

– Drain of Wealth: Dadabhai Naoroji demonstrated systematic wealth transfer through Home Charges, interest on public debt, and unfavorable trade terms
– Railway Network: Built to transport raw materials from hinterland to ports for British industries while distributing finished goods inland, not for interconnecting Indian markets
– Structural Subordination: India became supplier of raw materials and captive market for British manufactured goods

Conclusion:

British reforms destroyed village self-sufficiency, replaced production-for-use with production-for-market, creating structural underdevelopment that persisted post-independence.

Model Answer:

Nation Building and the Role of Religion

Nation-building is the conscious process of constructing a cohesive national identity, social solidarity, and political legitimacy within state boundaries. It involves integrating diverse populations into a unified political community, fostering shared belonging and destiny—what Benedict Anderson termed an “imagined community.” This process requires creating common institutions, symbols, and narratives that transcend primordial loyalties.

Religion’s Dualistic Role in Indian Nation-Building

Religion’s impact on India’s nation-building manifests through its paradoxical dual potential:

Religion as Unifying Force:

– Collective Conscience Formation: Durkheim’s concept of “collective conscience” finds expression in India where religious traditions provide shared moral frameworks. M.N. Srinivas’s concept of sanskritization demonstrates how religious practices create cultural integration across caste hierarchies.

– Mass Mobilization: Gandhi’s strategic use of religious idioms like “Ram Rajya” and “Sarva Dharma Sambhava” during the freedom struggle united diverse masses against colonial rule. His synthesis of religious and political messaging created what Partha Chatterjee calls the “spiritual domain” of nationalism.

– Syncretic Traditions: India’s composite culture—Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb, Sufi-Bhakti traditions—historically fostered unity. T.K. Oommen argues this religious pluralism, when properly channeled, strengthens democratic nation-building.

Religion as Divisive Force:

– Communalism and Fragmentation: When politicized, religious identity breeds communalism where group allegiance supersedes national loyalty. The 1947 Partition exemplifies religion’s destructive potential—creating two nations amid unprecedented violence.

– Contemporary Challenges: Post-independence communal riots (1984, 1992, 2002) demonstrate continuing tensions. Ashis Nandy critiques how modern secularism inadvertently strengthens religious fundamentalism by creating rigid boundaries between religious and political spheres.

– Vote Bank Politics: Religious mobilization for electoral gains undermines Nehru’s vision of secular nationalism, creating what Paul Brass terms “institutionalized riot systems.”

Conclusion: Religion’s role in Indian nation-building remains contextual—shaped by political mobilization and social interpretation. Managing religious diversity through constitutional secularism while respecting India’s inherently religious society remains the critical challenge.