MSO 004 Solved Assignment 2021-22

MSO 004 Sociology in India Solved Assignment 2021-22

All MSO 001 Sociological in India Solved Assignment 2021-22 available here , students can get all their assignments in free of cost. It helps students to get more marks.

Answer any five question selecting at least two from each Section. Your answer should be in about 500 words each.

Section-I

1.Discuss critically the three approaches to study Indian society and culture by the western scholars in     Pre-Independent India.

2. Describe the emergence of sociology as a discipline in India.

Answer-In order to comprehend any subject, it is pertinent to look into the socio-cultural coordinates of its genesis and growth. It is a truism that that the history of social life and its problems is as old as human being itself. The origin of sociology is associated with the evolution of man. However the roots of sociological understanding go back to the ancient Greek and Roman literature. But the systematic study of society emerged in the West. Besides, we do find references of law, the state and the society in Plato’s Republic (427-347 B.C) and in Aristotle’s Ethics and politics (348- 322 B.C.). Similarly, Roman philosopher Cicero’s book De Officiis (on justice) was a treasure of insights in philosophy, law, polities and sociology. St.Augustine’s De civitate Dei (345-430 A.D) deals with social concepts and questions. Later on significant works of subsequent ages like the summa theological and de regimine prnicipum of Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274) De Monarchia of Dante (1265-1321) deals with social concepts and questions of their time. In the modern periods, there appeared some writers who treated problems of life and society on a more realistic level. No clear cut distinction was made between state and society until the 16th century. Machiavelli in his famous work “The prince” made an objective discussion on state and statecraft. Another notable author of this period was Sir Thomas Moore (1477-1535) who, in his book “Utopia” published in 1515, dealt with day to day social problems. Scholars like Thomas Campanella (1568-1639) in his “City of the Sun” Sir Francis Bacon in his “New Atlantis” (1561-1628) and James Harrington in his “The common wealth of Nations” made discussion on what real life ought to be. Similarly, famous Italian writer Vico and French scholar Montesquieu gives stress on scientific investigation of social phenomenon. In his book”The New Science” Vico opined that society was subject to definite laws which could be observed through objective observation. Montesquieu in his famous work “The Spirit of Laws” had analysed the role of external factors in life of human societies French scholar Saint Simon tried to develop a new science which would study social life like physics studies the physical world. But the origin of sociology is attributed to the numerous developments in the 18th and 19th century especially the Industrial revolution and the French revolution. These two epoch-making events changed the entire history of human society. It resulted in metamorphic changes in the realm of economy, polity, culture and religiosity of mankind. This altered reality attracted the attention of the scholars like Saint Simon, Auguste Comte and others. They attempted to explain this social transition thereby envisioning their ideas on social reconstruction. Sociology owes its birth to this intellectual endeavour. Comte is rightly called as the founder of sociology because he coined the term and also its theme and methodology. Study of the social institutions was special significance for him. In his famous work “Positive Philosophy”, Comte pointed out the need for the creation of a distinct science of society which he first called “social physics” and later “sociology” that showed concern for analysis and explanation of social phenomena.

3.During the nineteen fifties and sixties the major focus of Indian sociologists was village India. Discuss critically.

Answer-Of all emerging economies, India is the only one that continues to be predominantly rural, with more than two-thirds of its population living in more than half a million villages. Over the past two decades, faster growth has also brought about greater rural–urban disparities. There has been pervasive crisis in rural occupations – in occupations such as handloom weaving as much as in agriculture. The process of economic growth and the integration of the village into larger markets and political systems have also brought about greater mobilisation and self-assertion among oppressed social groups, resulting in changes in rural power structures. Ironically, it has been in this period that priorities in social science research have shifted away from the agrarian question and rural transformation. The present volume on rural society, which carries a selection of essays published over the past four decades in the Economic and Political Weekly, is thus a welcome stimulus for us to reflect on the nature of research that has been done – and can be done – on rural society.

The volume contains a selection of sixteen essays on four broad themes: methods and perspectives; social and cultural life; social, economic, and political processes; and perspectives on change. These essays are preceded by a comprehensive introduction that traces the origins of the sub-discipline of rural sociology, and also provides a brief but succinct overview of village studies and the phases of rural transformation in India.

The first essay, by M. N. Srinivas (1975) on methodology and perspectives on village society, was written almost four decades ago, yet is of abiding interest to social scientists of all kinds and of different times. The thrust of the argument here is on the importance of fieldwork in the social sciences, and the art and craft of “participant observation” as a methodology. Srinivas begins by referring to the lack of a tradition of fieldwork in the social sciences, other than in social anthropology (or, to an extent, in sociology), and the consequent damage done. Lack of fieldwork affected the growth and development of the social sciences by alienating them from grassroots reality, which in turn resulted in woeful ignorance about the complex interrelations between economic, political, and social forces at local levels. According to Srinivas, the reason for the lack of a fieldwork tradition was the implicit assumption that people are like dough in the hands of planners and governments, and the illusion that, through “social engineering,” “directed social change,” and the like, governments could change the lives of the people.

Srinivas refers to participant observation as a great asset and a highly productive methodological aid, particularly in the study of culture and social life. He shows the relevance of participant observation as a method even for those interested in regional, state, or national studies. It can serve as a system of apprenticeship, can help in interpreting other data on social institutions, and can be a crucial aid to intellectual development. Participant observation need not be only for small communities. Srinivas has words of caution for social scientists with regard to participant observation, which requires empathy with as well as sensitivity towards the people being studied. At the same time, a scholar needs to retain a certain emotional and intellectual distance, and not become heady with the idea that one understands everything. Srinivas observes that, although it is absurd to generalise in the context of the bewildering diversity that characterises rural India, there are certain regional and even national similarities, and village studies can be productive in terms of knowledge and insights that can be translated into hypotheses, and provide leads to future research. Just as the village has never been an isolated unit but has always been connected, micro–macro linkages are best revealed through leads from macro-correlations to in-depth micro-studies, and by systematically testing hypotheses and questions from micro-studies over wider regions.

 

 

4. With education and urbanisation the nature and pattern of marriages in India has changed. Discuss critically.

Answer-Families have both structure and function. Like the skeleton and muscles in a body, the structure is what gives a family it’s size and shape. Also, like organs within the body that perform necessary functions to keep the body working, there are certain necessary functions that keep families healthy. It sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. It asserts that our lives are guided by social structures, which are relatively stable patterns of social behaviour. Social structures give shape to our lives – for example, in families, the community, and through religious organizations and certain rituals, or complex religious ceremonies, give structure to our everyday lives. Each social structure has social functions or consequences for the operation of society as a whole.

Social structures consist of social relationships, as well as any social institutions within a society. One example of a social structure is a social class (upper-class, middle-class, and poor). Another example of a social structure is the different levels of government. Family, religion, law, economy, and class are all social structures.

India and its family structure
India has a rich family structure with a patrilineal background, which help the family members to sustain a life with kinship groupings. Earlier, mostly joint families were found where family members live together under one roof. They all mutually work, eat, worship and co-operate each other in one or the other way. This also helps the family to get strong mentally, physically and economically, the children also get to know about the values and traditions of the society from their grandparents and elders. The family system has given a lot of importance in India and has worked more often to make the bonding among families stronger. The family system has given a lot of importance in India and has worked more often to make the bonding among families stronger. Meanwhile, urbanization and westernization had its influence on the basic structure of the Indian family structure. The division of the joint family into smaller units is not the symbol of people rejecting this traditional structure. The circumstances and conditions also made the need for people to split the family.

The family as a social institution has been undergoing change. Both in its structure and functions changes have taken place. In India, as in many traditional societies, the family has been not only the centre of social and economic life but also the primary source of support for the family members. The increasing commercialization of the economy and the development of the infrastructure of the modern state have introduced a significant change in the family structure in India in the 20th century. Especially, the last few decades have witnessed important alterations in family life.

India’s fertility rate has fallen, and couples have begun to bear children at a later age. At the same time, life expectancy has increased, resulting in more elderly people who need care. All of these changes are taking place in the context of increased urbanization, which is separating children from elders and contributing disintegration of family-based support systems.

Factors affecting family structures
Change in Fertility: An inevitable outcome of declining fertility rates and increasing age at first birth in most of the countries in the world, including India, is a reduction in family size. Fertility declined due to the combined effect of substantial socio-economic development achieved during the last two decades and the effective implementation of family planning programmes.

 

5.Describe the agrarian class structure in rural India.

Section-II

6.What do you understand by “Common Property Resources”? Discuss keeping in mind the villages in India.

7.What was the role played by the tribal population in India during the freedom struggle? Discuss.

Answer-As soon as the British took over Eastern India, tribal revolts broke out to challenge alien rule. In the early years of colonialisation, no other community in India offered such heroic resistance to British rule or faced such tragic consequences as did the numerous Advise Communities of now Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Bengal.

The fact needs reiteration and highlighting in history that the tribals of Orissa were the first ones in India to wage war against British Colonialism. It should also be noted that contrary to the historians this began as early as 1768 and not in 1820 as opined by them. It was in 1768 that under the feudal king Krushna Bhanja of Ghumsar, the Kondha fought a pitched battle against the British and many lost their lives.

The same year Raja Narayan Deb of Parlakhemundi fought another battle at Jalwara where 30 tribals died. Meanwhile, the British took over Ganjam as part of Madras Presidency and appointed Edward Court as its President. But repeated battles IS the British by the tribals under the leadership of Maharandpata Mahadevi Parala Bikaram Bhanja of and late Srikar Bhanja of Ghumsar led the British to abandon the idea of reigning the area and declare it as ‘deserted’.

In 1772 the Paharia revolt broke out which was followed by a five year uprising led by Tilka Manjhi who was hanged in Bhagalpur in 1785. In the next two decades, revolt took place in Singbhum, Gumla, Birbhum, Bankura Monbhoom and Palama, followed by the great Koi Rising of 1832 and Khewar and Bhum.j revolts (1832-34).

The various uprising of the “Kondh meli” and the revolt of the revolt for against their feudal ruler in 1837, the noteworthy militant struggle of the Khonds for a decade from 1846-56 under the leadership of Chakara Biso, and the resistance to British exploitation by the Santhals of Orissa under the Murmu Brothers among many others will go down as momentous events in the history of Onssa’s struggle against the British.

The rebellion of 1855-1857 was a great event in history of Santhal. In 1855 the Santhals wage war against the permanent settlement of Lord Cornwallis. On 30th June, 1855 a massive rally of Santhal, over ten thousand, protested against their exploitation and oppression. The ‘rally, led by Sidho and Kano, took an oath to end the oppressive rule of the British, Zamindars and money-lenders and, it deeded to set up an independent Santhali Raj.

The money-lenders and Zamindars had flocked into Santhal areas. The crops of the Santhal were forcibly seized, the interests chafed on loans varied from fifty to five hundred per cent. The Santhal uprising (1855-1857) was an attempt to recover the tribal land which was steadily lost to the outsiders and to wipe out the non-tribals from their territory. It is estimated that fifteen to twenty five thousand Santhals were killed in this uprising.

As stated earlier, in 1855 the Santhals waged war against the permanent settlement of Cornwallis and a year later, numerous Advice leaders play a key role in the 1857 war of independence. But the defeat of 1858 only intensified British exploitation of national wealth and resources.

8.What is social differentiation and how does social differentiation take place amongst the tribes in India.

9.What is migration? Can you identify some of the patterns of migration found in India? Discuss.

10.Distinguish between old Social Movement and the New Social Movement.

Answer-The New Social Movements’ is a theory that attempts to explain the nature of social movements that have come up in various western societies roughly since 1960s, that is, in a post industrial economy. The primary difference between the previous social movements of industrial economy and the new social movements of post- industrial economy is the change of focus on their goals. The new social movements focus on issues related to human rights such as gay rights or pacifism instead of issues on economic and political well-being such as labor movement. The new movements emphasize on social change in identity, lifestyle, and culture rather than on pushing for specific changes in public policy.

Some NSM theorists like F. Parkin (Middle Class Radicalism, 1968) argue that the key actors in these new movements are different as they are more likely to come from the ‘new middle classes’. Unlike pressure groups that have a formal organization and ‘members’, NSMs consists of an informal, loosely organized social network of ‘supporters’. It is important to note the distinction between ‘protest groups’ and NSMs. Protest groups tend to focus on single issue and are often local in terms of their scope and effect. In contrast, NSMs focus on larger issues and wish to bring change on national/international level.

The most noticeable feature of NSMs is that they are primarily social and cultural and only secondarily, if any, political. It is clearly elaborated by Habermas that NSMs are the ‘new politics’, which is about quality of life, individual self-realization, and human rights, whereas the ‘old politics’ focus on economic, political, and military security. A typical example is ‘gay liberation’ that focuses on social and cultural realization and acceptance of homosexuality.

NSMs such as ‘environmental movement’ focus not on materialistic values but on ecology, health, and human rights.

The old social movements were based more on outrage than ideology.

- Black people were being treated horribly. No voting. Constantly degraded. Limited educational or employment opportunities. Occasionally hung or shot. Routinely beaten or simply ignored as unworthy of attention.

- The war in Vietnam was costing us dollars and lives at a rapid rate. Our side was as brutal as the other guys. No one could make a case for it but our leaders held out constant hope that sending over another 100,000 young men will bring "victory". Then Walter Cronkite discovered much of what we were told were lies.

- Going back further, women could not vote, most senior citizens were in abject poverty, kids of 12 worked in the mines because they were short and still had working lungs.

FOR PDF AND HANDWRITTEN

Whatsapp-8130208920