B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 2 Indian Society: Continuity and Change 2012 Jan Question Paper with Solutions

For full marks, cover: what "plural" and "heterogeneous" each mean, and how they differ; Furnivall's idea of a plural society and whether it fits India; the sources of India's heterogeneity (peopling, race and genetics, language families, religion, caste and community, region, tribe, rural and urban, class); the features that make Indian society plural (coexisting groups, group-based institutions, legal recognition, layered identities); the counterweights that keep it from breaking apart; the problems and debates; a conclusion that takes a position.

Two words, two ideas

The statement joins two words that sound alike but say different things.

Heterogeneous describes the raw material of a society. A heterogeneous society is made of parts that differ in origin, appearance, speech, belief and custom. The opposite is a homogeneous society, such as a small island community where nearly everyone shares one language and faith.

Furnivall's plural society

The term "plural society" was given its classic meaning by J. S. Furnivall, a British colonial official and scholar. In Netherlands India (1939), he studied colonial Java, and he later compared it with Burma. He described a society of two or more social orders living side by side in one political unit without mingling. Europeans, Chinese and local people each kept their own religion, language and ways. They met only in the market place, in buying and selling, and they "mix but do not combine".

Furnivall added that such a society lacks a common will. Each section pursues its own interest, and only colonial power holds them together. He used the idea to criticise colonial rule, which in his view had divided society along lines of race and economic function.

Does India fit this model? Partly. Many Indian groups do keep separate marriage circles, festivals and personal laws. Residential clustering by caste and religion is common in villages and cities. Yet India differs from Furnivall's model in three ways.

1. Long coexistence. India's groups have lived together for centuries, not just under recent colonial rule. They share festivals, saints, music, food and ideas.

2. Mixed ancestry. Colonial anthropologists tried to sort Indians into fixed racial types, a method now rejected. Genetic research in 2009 by David Reich, K. Thangaraj and others suggested that most Indians descend from a mixture of two ancient populations. Their proportions vary from group to group. The finding points to long mixing, not to separate races.

3. Language families. The Language Atlas of India (2011) places Indian languages in several families. About 78 per cent of people speak Indo-European languages, mainly of the Indo-Aryan branch. About 19.6 per cent speak Dravidian languages, such as Kannada, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam. Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman languages each account for about one per cent. The 2011 Census counted 121 languages with ten thousand or more speakers, of which 22 are in the Eighth Schedule.

4. Religion. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism arose in India. Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism came from outside and took root. The 2011 Census found that just under four-fifths of Indians were Hindus and just over one in seven were Muslims. The rest were Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and followers of tribal faiths.

What makes the heterogeneity plural

India's differences are not simply present. They are organised and lasting, which is what makes the society plural.

1. Groups that reproduce themselves. Caste and religious endogamy mean that most people marry within their own group. Each group thus passes on its customs, language and identity to the next generation.

2. Group-based institutions. Many groups run their own temples, mosques, churches, mathas, caste associations, schools and charities. These institutions keep the group alive as a social unit.

3. Separate family laws. Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Parsis are governed by different laws of marriage, divorce and inheritance. The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 covers Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. Muslims follow Muslim personal law, and the Special Marriage Act 1954 offers a common civil option.

2. Sociological unity. G. S. Ghurye and M. N. Srinivas pointed to a common civilisation that links regions, seen in Sanskritic ideas, sacred geography and pilgrimage. Irawati Karve's study of kinship found four regional zones, each with its own rules, within one wider culture.
3. Economic interdependence. Markets, migration and national firms tie regions and groups together.
4. A common Constitution. One citizenship, equal rights and elections give every group a stake in the same political order.

Problems and debates

1. Conflict. Pluralism can turn into conflict when groups compete for land, jobs or power. Communal riots, caste violence and disputes over language and river water are examples.
2. Inequality between groups. Some groups are rich and powerful, others poor and stigmatised. Pluralism does not by itself ensure equality.
3. Does recognition harden boundaries? Some critics argue that recognising groups in law and reservation keeps their identities rigid. Supporters reply that recognition protects weaker groups from being swallowed up.

Conclusion. The statement is broadly true. India is heterogeneous because its people differ in origin, ancestry, language family, religion, caste, region, tribe, place of living and class. It is plural because these differences are organised into lasting groups with their own institutions, family laws and constitutional recognition. India is not, however, a plural society in Furnivall's colonial sense of groups that meet only in the market. Shared culture, cross-cutting ties, economic links and a common Constitution bind its groups together. The task for Indian society is to keep its plurality while reducing the inequality and conflict that can come with it.