Sociology Mains Sample notes crackingias.com

8/10/2019 Sociology Mains Sample notes crackingias.com

1/38

CrackingCrackingCrackingCrackingIASIASIASIAS.com.com.com.com IAS EXPRESSIAS EXPRESSIAS EXPRESSIAS EXPRESS Fueling Pages and not Filling PagesFueling Pages and not Filling PagesFueling Pages and not Filling PagesFueling Pages and not Filling PagesSOCIOLOGY MAINSSOCIOLOGY MAINSSOCIOLOGY MAINSSOCIOLOGY MAINS SSSSAMPLEAMPLEAMPLEAMPLE NOTESNOTESNOTESNOTES 350+ selections since 2005

Study materials available Political Science, Sociology, General Studies, Essay & CSAT Paper 1& 2Z-block. 3007, 2

ndstreet, 13

thmain road, Shanti Colony Road. Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.

Landmark: Adjacent to Natesan Institute. (Take 2nd

RIGHT from police booth).

KARL MARX - HISTORICAL

MATERIALISM

(resented a scientific analysis of human history

(Term coined by Engles) (realistic interpretation of

history), MODE OF PRODUCTION

Historical Materialism is the application of

Marxist science to historical development. The

fundamental propositionof historical materialism can

be summed up in a sentence: "it is not the consciousness

of men that determines their existence, but, on the

contrary, their social existence that determines their

consciousness." (Marx, in the Preface to A Contribution

to the Critique of Political Economy.)

Marx views human society as an interrelated

whole. The social groups, institutions, beliefs and

doctrines within it are integrally related. Thus, he hasstudied their interrelations rather than treating them

separately or in isolation. Such aspects as history,

politics, law, religion or for that matter education cannot

be treated as separate spheres.

Dialectics (Thesis+ Antithesis= Synthesis)

was first used by the Greeks to refer to processes of

argument and reasoning. Karl Marx borrowed the

concept of dialectics from Hegel.Marx presented a

scientific analysisof human history through dialectics.

From Feuerbach, from his journalist work and studies of

political economy, and with the help of Friedrich Engels,

Marx developed an approach known as an historical

materialist approach.

Marx views society as inherently mutable, in

which changes are produced largely by internal

contradictions and conflicts. Such changes, if observed

in a large number of instances, according to Marx, show

a sufficient degree of regularity to allow the formulation

of general statements about their causes and

consequences. Both these assumptions relate to the

nature of human society.

Hegel was a philosophical idealist who

believed that we live in a world of appearances, and

true reality is an ideal. Marx accepted this notion of

the dialectic, but rejected Hegel's idealismbecause

he did not accept that the material world hides from

us the "real" world of the ideal; on the contrary, he

thought that historically and socially specific

ideologies prevented people from seeing the material

conditions of their lives clearly.

According to Marx there is no permanent

persistence of human nature. Human nature is neither

originally evil nor originally good; it is, in origin,

potential. If human nature is what human beings make

history with, then at the same time it is human nature

which they make. And human nature is potentially

revolutionary. Human will is not a passive reflection of

events, but contains the power to rebel againstcircumstances in the prevailing limitations of human

nature.

It is not that people produce out of material

greed or the greed to accumulate wealth. But the act of

producing the essentials of life engages people into social

relationships that may be independent of their will. In


2/38



ndstreet, 13




most of human history, according to Marx, these

relationships are class relationships that create class

struggle.

Basic tenets of Historic materialism

1.Theproductive forces tend to develop throughout

history. (The productive forces are the means

available for transforming nature to satisfy human

wants. Raw materials, tools, labor power,

technological knowledge about how to produce

goods with various inputs, are all examples of

productive forces.)

2.The nature of the productive relations of a given

societyis explained by the level of development of its

productive forces (to a far greater extent then the

reverse). (The productive relations are relations

involving people and control of productive forces.

Examples: The capitalist hires workers. The boss

owns the factory. The serfs born on a feudal manor

are required by enforced custom to remain there and

work sometimes for the benefit of the lord of the

manor. As Marx states in the 1859 Preface to the

Critique of Political Economy, The sum total of

these relations of production [in a given society]

constitutes the economic structure of society.

3.

The character of the noneconomic institutions ofsociety, especially its political-legal order, is

explained by the character of its economic

structure(to a far greater degree than the reverse).

4.

The development of the productive forces

periodically produces conflict between forces and

relations. At these times the existing productive

relations are fetters on the forcesthe former hinder

the effective utilization and further growth of the

latter. A time of social instability ensues. The

outcome in the long run is that the existing relations

of production adjust to the new forces of production

rather than the other way round.

5.All history is the history of class struggle. The

class that winsthe class struggle is the one that in its

time is best able to preside over the productive

forces. That is, the class that wins is the one that is

best able to bring it about that the productive forces

are for the reasonably foreseeable future effectively

utilized and that their further growth is encouraged.

For Marx economic structure of society is made

of its relations of production. The legal and political

superstructure of society is based on relations of

production. Marx says that relations of production

reflect the stage of societys force of means of

production.

The process of socio-political and intellectual life

in general is conditioned by the mode of production of

material life. The development of the productive

forces, as well as contradictory forces that are built

into societys social structures, create stresswithin thesesocial and economic structures and lead to class conflict.

When the small quantitative changes accumulate to the

point that a major, qualitative change results, the old

form of organization may be overthrown or end, and a

new form of social and economic organization may

emerge. New developments of productive forces of


3/38



ndstreet, 13




society come in conflict with existing relations of

production. When people become conscious of the state

of conflict, they wish to bring an end to it. It means that

new forces of production take roots and give rise to new

relations of production. This period of history is called

by Marx the period of social revolution. The revolution

brings about resolution of conflict. Thus it is the growth

of new productive forces which outlines the course of

human history. This is the dialectical process. The

productive forces are the powers society uses to produce

material conditions of life. For Marx, human history is

an account of development and consequences of new

forces of material production. This is the reason why

his view of history is known as historical

materialism.

Marx divided human history into stages or

periods, which he called modes of production. These

stages refer to the whole society or social system, how it

is structured, how it holds together, what are the

contradictory forces within it, and how it changes. The

modes of productioninclude both forces of production

(FOP)and relations of production (ROP).

Forces of production (FOP) include the

technological know-how, the types of equipment in use

and goods being produced for instance, tools,machinery, labour and the levels of technology are all

considered to be the forces of production. Productive

forces have an intrinsic tendency to develop, as

human beings knowledge and mastery over nature

increase. As these forces develop, successive social

relations of production develop and consequently give

way. The means of production are composed of two

parts 1.The objects of labour. 2. The instruments of

labour. For Marx, the objects of labour are the raw

materials on which workers exercise human labour. The

instruments of labour include the tools, machinery,

buildings, equipment, and so on that are part of the

production process.

Relations of production (ROP) refer to the

fundamental property relations. Relation of production is

not merely the ownership of means of production. The

employers relation to the worker is one of

domination and the workers relation with co-

workers is one of cooperation. The relations of

production are relations between people and people

whereas means of production are relations between

people and things. The relations of production can

influence the momentum and direction of the

development of the productive forces.

Forces and relations of production are strongly

interrelated. The development of one leads to a growing

incompatibility or contradiction with the other.

Contradiction or dialectic between the FOP & ROP

(act as the motor of history) leads to class struggle and

change in the form of revolutions thus producing

SOCIAL CHANGE. Any historical mode ofproduction is an integral unity between the forces of

production and the relations of production. Each mode

of production has its specific relations of production.

These are not developed by chance or by accident. They

are deliberately ordered because they help the property


4/38



ndstreet, 13




owning class extract the surplus from the working

people.

In general, Marx believed that the means of

production change more rapidly than the relations

of production. For Marx this mismatch between

base/infrastructure and superstructure is a major

source of social disruption and conflict. The history of

the means of production, then, is the substructure of

history, and everything else, including ideological

arguments about that history, constitutes a

superstructure.

Marx has described stages of human history in

terms of the four modes of production, namely, the

Asiatic, Ancient, Feudal and Capitalist. The history of

the West according to him, tells us about the ancient,

feudal and capitalist (bourgeois) modes of production.

More than one mode of production may exist within any

particular society at a given point in time. But in all

forms of society there is one determinate kind of

production which assigns rank and influence to all the

others.

Primitive Communism

The primitive communism existed in prehistory, and

was a form of classless society.The basis of primitive

society was gathering and hunting. The only division oflabour was that between men and women for the entirely

natural biological reason that women were burdened

much of the time with young children. They gathered

vegetable foods while the men hunted. The land was

communally owned.

The first great revolution in mankind's history

was the agricultural or neolithic revolution. Grains

were selected and sown, and the ground ploughed up

with draught animals. For the first time a substantial

surplus over and above the subsistence needs of the

toilers came into existence.

Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP)

The AMP refers to the structural elements of a special

type of pre-capitalist societies:

a) Absence of private property of the means of

production,

b) Collective organization (economic, political and

ideological) of the ruling class in a despotic state,

c) Collective organization of the ruled-laboring class in

(village) communities.

As in the case of all pre-capitalist modes of

production, the ruling class had the economic

ownership of the means of production (the land), i.e. it

appropriated the surplus labor, whereas the ruled-

laboring class had not been freed from the means of

production, but it had the direct possession of them,

i.e. the power to put them to work (to cultivate the

land). In societies where the AMP was dominant,

however, surplus labor was (not privately but)

collectively appropriated by the ruling class, whereasthe peasants directly possessed the land only under the

presupposition that they belonged to a village

community. The appropriation of surplus labor by the

ruling class took thus the form of a tribute tax, paid to

the state by all agrarian or town communities.


5/38



ndstreet, 13




The state officials had no heritage rights of

their position, but they were appointed (and

discharged) by a higher state-authority. On the highest

level, state authority was personified to the ruler, who

was regarded as the direct representative of divine

order and right. The state officials appeared as

executive organs of the highest authoritys edicts

(which were, in most cases, written). The communities

shared a certain degree of autonomy from the central

state authorities, as long as they paid the tribute. They

were articulated to the Asiatic social order through the

rule of a local stratum of notables and religious leaders,

who guaranteed the status quo in contact with district

or even, in some cases, central state authorities. Great

Asian Empires, like China, Russia and the Ottoman

Empire at least until late 18th century, or India under

the Mongolian rule were social formations in which the

AMP was dominant.

The main issue in the class struggle down

the ages has been the struggle over the surplus

produced by the toilers. The way this surplus was

appropriated - grabbed - depended on the different

mode of production inaugurated by agriculture. This

change provided the base for the complete

transformation of social life.

The mode of Classical Antiquity (sometimes

referred to as the slave mode) -(Greece and

Rome)

Primary relationship was that between master and

slave.

Production of wealth required military conquest, in

order to capture slaves who could be put to work

for the slave-owners.

In the slave mode the dominant form of struggle

was between slaves and slave-owners, and the

contradictions caused the need for a strong military.

The feudal mode (Western Europe)

Primary relationship was that between lords and

serfs.

Unlike slavery, the lord did not own the serfs, but

the serf was bound to the land by tradition, law, and

custom.

Social relationships were not primarily monetary,

but were personal, hierarchical, and hereditary.

The feudal mode led to the growth of new social classes

and new social relationships (bourgeoisie and proletariat)

that undermined feudalism and created the conditions

for capitalism to develop.

The capitalist mode

Marx was primarily concerned with thismodeof

production. The social relationship that characterizes

capitalism is that between capitalists as owners of

property and workers as owners of only their ability to

work. Capitalists as a group form the bourgeoisie, or

capitalist class, and they own and control the means ofproduction. Their ownership of property is turned into

capital when they hire workers to produce products and

extract surplus labour from the workers. The

subordinate social class which has no property other

than their ability to work formed the workers, or the

proletariat. The primary relations of production in the


6/38



ndstreet, 13




capitalist system then are the capitalist/worker

relationship.

Marx believed that capitalism would inevitably

lead to increasing class polarisation and class conflict.

Through its own inherent processes of development it is

destined to give rise ultimately to its own dissolution: to

a revolution which will result in its own overthrow and

to the creation of a socialist society.

Dictatorship of the proletariatmeans the rule

of the working class. It is a state of the workers in the

socialist society which follows the capitalist society. It is

the dictatorship of the workers in the socialist society in

the sense there is the dictatorship of the capitalists in the

capitalist society. There capitalists rule the way they

want; now the workers rule in the socialist society the

way the workers want. Nevertheless, Marx makes it clear

that the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the workers

state, is an interim or a transitional arrangement

which functions between the capitalist society and

the communist society. He concluded that a transitory

stage of Proletarian democracy must normally and

inevitably culminate in communism.

The communist mode.

When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means

becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victoriousonly by abolishing itself and its opposite. Then the

proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which

determines it, private property.

Once the socialist society is completely

established, the workers state will not be needed (i.e.) it

will wither away (disappear slowly). Lenin insists that the

dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the

bourgeois state, both quantitatively and qualitatively (at it

looks after the interests and welfare of the whole

multitude of the workers rather than handful of

capitalists).The socialist society that follows the capitalist

society after its abolition is a classless society. It is a

classless society in the sense that all are workers

wheresoevers they work, in the office, in the factory or

on the fields: each gets job according to ones ability

(from each according to his abilities to each according

to his work). The communist society which follows the

socialist society will be both the classless society and the

stateless society.

The base-superstructure model is atheoretical framework that charts the different parts ofsociety, how the elements interact, and how they forma coherent social structure. It is a tool that has beenused by Marxiststo schematize the shape that society

takes at a particular time (hence it is a historicalmodel). It has two main elements: the base and thesuperstructure.

The base is the economic foundation ofsociety, what Marx describes as the economicstructure determining the material conditions oflife. Its first level consists of the means ofproduction. These means of production, according toMarx, are constrained by the historical context; theydepend first of all on the nature of the actual meansof subsistence [men] find in existence and have toreproduce.

SUPER STRUCTURE (Law, Philosophy, Government, Religion etc.)

ROP

Social relations

Class structure

Resources Technology

FOP INFRA STRUCTURE / BASE

This process of materially producing the

conditions of existence is, as Marx phrases it, a social


7/38



ndstreet, 13




production of [peoples] life, i.e. in producing material

goods for their economic subsistence, men are not

Robinson Crusoes producing in isolation just for

themselvesthey necessarily relate to each other, i.e.

men enter into definite relations that are

indispensable and independent of their will.

These relations form the relations of production, the

second level of the economic base. These are the

relationships that a worker forms with a co-worker, an

employee with a boss, an employee with a customer, a

worker from this part of the production process (e.g.

the packing of cans with sardines) with another worker

from that part (e.g. the printing of the corporate logo

on the can), etc. Thus, Marx can say, referring to the

economic base, that this mode of production must

not be considered simply as being the production of

the physical existence of the individuals. Rather, it is a

definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite

form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on

their part. The economic base, in other words,

conditions not only the actual goods produced and

how they are produced, but the relations that people

form themselves, which, moreover, does not merely

refer to economic relations.

Above the economic base (above its twolevels) rises a legal and political superstructure,

the first level of the superstructure. As delineated more

specifically by Althusser, this is the political realm

he calls the Repressive State Apparatus (RSA)

(Gramsci calls this political society), which consists

of the particular political system a society adopts, the

form of government, the constitution, the laws, and

government institutions (including the military).

Above the legal and political structuresimply

put, the Statelie all other institutions, i.e. social [. . .]

and intellectual life process in general that determines

the consciousness of men. Here we find what

Althusser calls the Ideological State Apparatuses

(ISAs) (Gramsci calls this civil society). These

include legal institutions other than the government

(e.g. political parties, non-government organizations,

etc.), religions, schools, the family, the media,

cultureinstitutions surrounding men, propounding

certain ideologies, influencing them how to think, i.e.

shaping their consciousness. The superstructure

reflects, protects, organizes and strengthens the

base.

The leap in society begins with the

introduction of qualitatively new productive forces.

The leap is a series of changes wherein one quality is

replaced quantitatively, or stage by stage, by another

quality. Revolution is not simply the overthrow of one

class by another, but rather the disruption and

destruction of the entire society brought about by the

introduction of the new quality. The base begins to

disintegrate, and new relationships struggle to be born.New groups or new classes are created, unable to exist

in the old productive relations.

The seeming reduction of the role of thought,

of ideas, of notions of truth, is made worse by what

comes to be known as the dominant ideology thesis,

in which Marx is interpreted as suggesting that in a


8/38



ndstreet, 13




given society, there is only one ideology, i.e. one

consciousness, one collective notion of truth. Marx

explains that the class which [controls] the means

of production [i.e. the economic base . . .] has

control at the same time over the means of mental

production [i.e. the superstructure], so that

thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those

who lack the means of mental production are

subject to it. This implies then that there is only one

ideology in society: the ideology of the ruling class that

dominates society.

The presence of ideology is one reason why

the relationship between economic and socio-political

processes becomes complicated. In every epoch, the

ruling classes promote a dominant ideology. This

dominant ideology, or way of seeing the world, tends

to justify the domination of the ruling class and the

existing social order. For example, dominant ideologies

may encourage poor people to believe that they are

poor not because they are exploited by the rich but

because of fate, or because of bad deeds in a previous

life, and so on. This is a false ideology and creates a

false description of reality. It also produces a FALSE

CLASS-CONSCIOUSNESS, which means that

members of both classes hold illusions about theirrelationship. Both classes come to believe that there is

a greater.

However, dominant ideologies are not always

successful, and they can also be challenged by

alternative worldviews or rival ideologies. As

consciousness spreads unevenly among classes, how a

class will act in a particular historical situation cannot

be pre-determined. Hence, according to Marx,

economic processes generally tend to generate class

conflicts, though this also depends on political and

social conditions. Given favourable conditions, class

conflicts culminate in revolutions.

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM .vs.

ECONOMIC DETERMINISM

Economic determinism implies the idea that

relations in the economic sphere of human activity

determine the shape and form of all other human

relationships. Marx was well aware of this (especially in

relation to his discussion of class consciousness) and

recognized that the influences upon human behaviour

are many and varied and economic influences and

pressures are but one (albeit very important) influence.

Marx recognised that without culture there can

be no production possible. For him, mode of

production includes social relations of production

which are relations of domination and subordination

into which men and women are born or involuntarily

enter. The reproduction both of life and of the

material means of life cannot be understood without

turning to the culture, norms and the rituals of the

working people over whom the rulers rule. Anunderstanding of working class culture contributes to

an understanding of the mode of production.

Class is a category that describes people in

relationships over time, and the ways in which they

become conscious of these relationships. It also

describes the ways in which they separate, unite, enter


9/38



ndstreet, 13




into struggle, form institutions and transmit values in

class ways. Class is an economic and also a

cultural formation. It is impossible to reduce class

into a pure economic category.

Significance: -

1.While Marx's model of capitalism was historical and

theoretical, it provides a close description and

explanation of how capitalism in mid nineteenth

century Britain was organized and operated.

Capitalism of this period had the social structures and

dynamics of capitalism that are part of the model of

Marx.

2.Marx introduced entirely new element (i.e) relations

between social classes determined by the mode of

production, to understand the structure of each

society. This feature of historical materialism offered

a more promising starting point for exact and realistic

investigations of the causes of social change.

3.Marxs purpose was to achieve a better understanding

of the conditions of human development. With this

understanding he tried to accelerate the actual process

by which mankind was moving toward an association,

in which the free development of each was the

condition for the free development of all.

4.

While capitalism has changed since Marx's day, manyof the social forces and structures that he described

still exist and are important aspects of the further

development of capitalism.

Critical Review

No doubt, theory of historical materialism is a great

contribution of Marx to the modern world. However,

Marxs theory is criticized on the following grounds: -

1.Changes do not occur simply because of the clashes

between the opposing classes. History is indebted to

class cooperation as well for its development.

2.Ignores the non-economic Factors. Material factor,

though important and dominating it may be, is not

the sole factor in explaining the whole complex of

societys intricacies. Indeed, man does not live by

bread alone, but it is also true that he cannot live

without it.

3.

Marxism has underestimated the worth and

strength of national/ patriotic sentiments. To say

that the workers have no fatherland of their own, as

Marx used to say, is to make them parentless.

Marxism also underestimated the importance of the

state. To say that the State is a class institution and

therefore, an oppressive and exploitative one is to

oversimplify things.

4.Neglects Asian societies by treating Asiatic mode

of production as static.

5.No society could possibly remain in a state of

socialism for the rest of history Eg. Russia, China.

The Marxian formulations, in practice, have beenreally disappointing. Marxism, as a practice, has failed,

whatever be the reasons. One chief reason has been

its centralizing tendency: the dictatorship of the

proletariat becomes the dictatorship of the

communist party, the partys dictatorship becomes,

ultimately, the dictatorship of one man: be that a


10/38



ndstreet, 13




Stalin or a Mao. In the Soviet Union, reform

movement (Glasnost, especially) initiated by Mikhail

Gorbachev marked the beginning of the end of the

communist movement not only in Europe but almost

the world over. The communist China has introduced

numerous liberalization measures in its economy and

polity. The relevance of Marxism as an alternative

ideology before the world is no more unquestioned.

6.Functionalistshave criticized Marxs theory of class

struggle on the following grounds: -

Inequality, some degree of class struggle or

stratification system of the society is functional for

the society. David & Moore have argued that the

different people or strata of society have different

qualities or skill to perform; therefore their position

& status in the society should be ranked accordingly.

Functionalists favored the prevalence of class system

while Marx was in favor of a classless society.

7.Weber has argued that the market situation of an

individual determines its class situation, which to

some extent seems reasonable.

8.Christopher Lloyd holds that The materialist

interpretation of history does not explain the decline

of Rome or the outbreak of our recent wars.

A.R. DESAIDesai was a life-long Marxist and became

involved in Marxist politics during his undergraduate

days at Baroda, though he later resigned his membership

of the Communist Party of India. For most of his career

he was associated with various kinds of non mainstream

Marxist political groups. His doctoral thesis was

published in 1948 as The Social Background of

Indian Nationalism, which is probably his best known

work. In this book, Desai offered a Marxist analysis of

Indian nationalism, which gave prominence to

economic processes and divisions, while taking account

of the specific conditions of British colonialism.

Although it had its critics, this book proved to be very

popular and went through numerous reprints. Among

the other themes that Desai worked on were peasant

movements and rural sociology, modernization, urban

issues, political sociology, forms of the state and human

rights.

Class stratification of Indian society

Under the impact of British rule and its economic

policies, India has been transformed from a feudal to a

capitalist country. The Indian society is now stratified

into new classes like capitalists (commercial, industrial

and financial), professional classes like lawyers, doctors

and others, fairly large sized middle class employees and

an overwhelming section of the urban proletariat living

on wages in urban areas.

In rural areas we find the society regrouped into

classes of agrarian landlords, peasant proprietors, tenants

and agricultural laborers along with strata of ruinedartisans and group of money-lenders and traders, the

marketing of agricultural produce is largely in the hands

of a body of men who as distinguished from government

and co-operatives represent private interests and who

control both the sources of credit and disposal of the

produce. Hence the position of cultivators has been


11/38



ndstreet, 13




relegated to the level of a bargainer to bargain (only if he

can) with the men who commands the money,

commands the credit and commands the market. This

signifies the immense power of the new class of

creditors and traders in an underdeveloped rural

economy which is switching on from production for

subsistence to that of market. As A.R.Desai has stated

the distribution of rural classes as below:-

1. Landowners- 22.2%

2. Tenants- 27.2%

3. Agricultural labourers 30.4%

4. Non-agriculturists- 20.2%

Marginal Cultivators- 10 hectares of land- 18%

The medium cultivators (2/5

th

of the cultivators)have less than 1/3rdof the sown area under him. There is

an even steeper descent when we come to the small

cultivators; his sown area is just a little more than 1/10th

of the total area sown by the cultivators.

Under privileged in Indian society

The rise of the agrarian proletariat, the existence

of a large section of un-economic holders of land and

the prevalence of an enormous group of ruined artisans

who constitute the bulk of the non-agricultural section

of the rural population reveal the tragic tale of the

miserable economic life lived by the large section of rural

population in the Indian union.

Viewed from the standard of economic

stratification, India contains the following categories of

people whose problems are becoming explosively

urgent:-

Vast groups of Scheduled tribes who are almost

living the life of agrarian serfs or debt slaves.

Agricultural laborerswhose grim tale of existence

is portrayed in the studies conducted by agricultural

labor enquiry committee.

The cultivators of uneconomic holdings gripped

in the ever tightening pincer of un-profitable deficit

production, taxation, claims of the money lender and

market fluctuations.

A large majority of artisans and craftsmen who

are progressively being ruined due to the blows of

competitive market economy.

The bulk of the petty producerswho just produce

enough in normal times to make both ends meet.

The bulk of rural un-employedor under employed

whose position and horrible helpless mode of

existence is indescribable.

In urban areas the unemployed, the wage

laborers, the bulk of middle class employees,

handicraftsmen and petty shop keepers and traders

constitute the bulk of the population who form theeconomically under privileged groups living a

precarious, insecure existence. Along with these

sections it would be proper to mention the group of

displaced refugees whose by far the largest section

still lives a very unstable and economically precarious

life.


12/38



ndstreet, 13




Sociological problems confrontingGovernmental policies

Problems of negative character which arise due toimmense deadweight of old social institutions like castesystem, joint family, religious beliefs etc.

Problems of positive character which arise due toindustrialization, commercialization and monetization.

Wealth concentration in Indian society - India is

not merely poor and under-developed but is having a

class stratification wherein a few capitalists (financial,

industrial and commercial), a few money lenders and

traders (many a time fused with either urban capitalist

groups or with landowning sections in the rural India), a

small section of the upper stratum of the professional

groups, a layer of big-landlords, prosperous capitalists

agricultural farmers and the top stratum of the peasant

proprietors, have concentrated wealth and economic

resources among themselves. This peculiar class

configuration is very subtly correlated with the

groups with specific linguistic, caste and educational

stratifications, making the problem of economic, social

and cultural progress of the Indian people as a whole

complex and difficult.

Sociological problems of economic development

The traditional self sufficing village

community of pre British era, which was based on

equilibrium of agriculture and artisan industry, was

replaced by the principle of competition which set into

motion a whirlpool in the social structure. This restricted

new form of insufficient economy prevented the full

blossoming of a new form of social unity and solidarity

(national in character) and a new modern outlook. Every

development in the material, social and ideological

domain, exhibited mainly two characteristics

hybridness and underdevelopment. Such was the

legacy British rule left to the Indians.

Problems of negative character

Monopoly position of castes and groups has

generated peculiar unrest in the modern competitive

social setting. It engenders and keeps alive a bitter

competitive struggle among the privileged groups

themselves as well as between them and the

underprivileged also. This struggle exercises a highly

detrimental effect on the development of a healthy

national economy. Desai observes that caste inheres

in it an underdeveloped but potentially exploitative

class-character. He considers the Indian capitalistic

in its essence and reality, as the state holds economic

power and uses political power for granting or


13/38



ndstreet, 13




denying economic power to the people.

Persistence of backward types of loyalties resulting

into factionalism and division of the Indian people

into groups with petty caste and other group egos to

the detriment of the growth of a highly developed

national consciousness.

The above problems of negative character

obstruct the proper economic development in a number

of ways:-

1.

It leads to the practice of nepotism (i.e) in group

loyalty often become the basis of the selection of

personnel. It leads to favoritism and corruption.

2.

It results in wrong unproductive investments

patterns and wrong consumption patterns. viz.

Speculation, Hoarding, money lending, landowning

and trading attract capital with far greater temptation

than industrial enterprises. A considerable wealth is

also consumed in conspicuous consumption.

3.It generates distorted attitudes to work, to the

problem of efficiency, to the selection of vocations,

also the allocation of resources and patterns of

production and consumption.

4.It obstructs the growth of those mores and

sanctionswhich are basic to a developing economy

in modern times, viz. mores and sanctions based onlaw, respect for personality, concept of equal

citizenship and also based on contract.

Problems ofpositive character

Industrialization uproots the old division of

labor, creates new occupational patterns

demanding new training, new discipline, new

routine and a new mode of living.

Commercialization brings about a shift of power

and authority in village. Not the farmers and

producers but owners and administrators are

becoming the ruling groups. The center of

political power of the village shifts from elders

and old gentry to usurers (money lenders),

merchants, landlords, prosperous capitalist

farmers and the group of officials.

Monetization is fraught with sociological

problems such as more uneven distribution of

burdens of fluctuating prices, greater spending

on non-essential items and relative deterioration

of the agriculturalist.

Social changes demanded by the above problems

New property institutions will be required to be

built up

Provision of cultural and social amenities

New forms of co-operative social activities

New forms of secular, egalitarian and democratic

norms and mores

New techniques of overhauling the outlook of

the people

A.R. Desai on the StateThe modern capitalist state was one of the significant

themes that interested A.R. Desai. As always, his

approach to this issue was from a Marxist perspective. In

an essay called The myth of the welfare state,Desai

provides a detailed critique of this notion and points to it

many shortcomings. After considering the prominent


14/38



ndstreet, 13




definitions available in the sociological literature, Desai

identifies the following unique features of the welfare

state:

(i) A welfare state is a positive state. This means that,

unlike the laissez faire of classical liberal political

theory, the welfare state does not seek to do only the

minimum necessary to maintain law and order. The

welfare state is an interventionist stateand actively

uses its considerable powers to design and implement

social policies for the betterment of society.

(ii) The welfare state is a democratic state.

Democracy was considered an essential condition for

the emergence of the welfare state. Formal democratic

institutions, especially multi-party elections, were

thought to be a defining feature of the welfare state.

This is why liberal thinkers excluded socialist and

communist states from this definition.

(iii) A welfare state involves a mixed economy. A

mixed economy means an economy where both

private capitalist enterprises and state or publicly

owned enterprises co-exist. A welfare state does not

seek to eliminate the capitalist market, nor does it

prevent public investment in industry and other fields.

By and large, the state sector concentrates on basic

goods and social infrastructure, while private industrydominates the consumer goods sector. Desai then goes

on to suggest some test criteria against which the

performance of the welfare state can be measured.

These are:-

Does the welfare state ensure freedom from

poverty, social discrimination and security for all its

citizens?

Does the welfare state remove inequalities of

income through measures to redistribute income

from the rich to the poor, and by preventing the

concentration of wealth?

Does the welfare state transform the economy in

such a way that the capitalist profit motive is made

subservient to the real needs of the community?

Does the welfare state ensure stable development

free from the cycle of economic booms and

depressions?

Does it provide employment for all?

Using these criteria, Desai examines the performance

of those states that are most often described as welfare

states, such as Britain, the USA and much of Europe,

and finds their claims to be greatly exaggerated.

Thus, most modern capitalist states, even in the most

developed countries, fail to provide minimum levels of

economic and social security to all their citizens. They

are unable to reduce economic inequality and often seem

to encourage it. The so-called welfare states have also

been unsuccessful at enabling stable development free

from market fluctuations. The presence of excesseconomic capacity and high levels of unemployment are

yet another failure.

Based on these arguments, Desai concludes that the

notion of the welfare state is something of a myth.

A.R. Desai also wrote on the Marxist theory of the

state. In these writings we can see that Desai does not


15/38



ndstreet, 13




take a one-sided view but openly criticizes the

shortcomings of Communist states. He cites many

Marxist thinkers to emphasize the importance of

democracy even under communism, arguing strongly

that political liberties and the rule of law must be upheld

in all genuinely socialist states.

According to A.R. Desai (1986) a new class

configuration has emerged as a direct consequence of

the conjunction of peasant mobilization and government

measures over the last few decades. It contains the

following categories of rural population:

a.Rich Farmersand Land lords owning 15 acres and

more, possessing 50 per cent of the total land and

constituting 7 per cent of the population.

b.Middle Farmers with 5 to 15 acres of land,

possessing 30 per cent of the total land and

constituting 19 per cent of the population.

c.Poor Farmers owning between 1 and 5 acres,

possessing 17 per cent of the total land and

constituting 30 per cent of rural population.

d.Agricultural Labour without land or owning less

than 1 acre of land, possessing about 2 per cent of

the total land and constituting 44 per cent of the

population.

Desai (1977) observed that the Bastar Tribes wereuprooted from their mode of production in the same

way as were millions of cultivators and artisans living in

the multitude of unmitigated villages of pre-British India

from their self-sufficient, self contained village

community setting. During British period under the

impact of new administrative, political and economic

measures these tribesmen lost their moorings from their

traditional age-old socio cultural settings. A large section

of them became pauper, which ultimately forces them to

live in the status of bonded labour or serfs to the

Zamindars, contractors or moneylenders.

A.R. Desai on the Communalism

Communalism was a consequence of uneven socio-

economic and cultural development of different

communities under British rule. The British rule thrived

on communal divisions in India. They introduced the

institutions of Communal award, Communal

electorate, Communal representation and also

engineered communal troubles and ensured that such

troubles escalated.

Communalism was only the disguised expression of

the struggle between the vested interests belonging to

different faiths who gave a communal form within which

the struggle of the professional classes of different

communities over posts and seats was carried on. One of

the most effective methods to combat communalism

was to unite the lower strata of different communities in

a movement for securing their common and other

interests.

SOCIAL BACKGROUND OF INDIAN

NATIONALISM [Doctoral Thesis of A.R.Desai]Social background of Indian nationalism was the

Doctoral Thesis of A.R.Desai. He finds the Marxist

approach quite appropriate and fruitful to analyze the

social background of Indian nationalism.

Class based inequalities and contradictions according


16/38



ndstreet, 13




to Desai determine the nature of social change and

development. The emergence of nationalism in India is

the product of the material conditions created by British

colonialism.

1.Transformation of agriculture: the new land

revenue policies of the colonial rule led to

fragmentation of land holdings and created a form of

private ownership of land. Hence a process of class

polarization went on continuously at increasing pace

among the agrarian population. This created a pre-

requisite for the capitalist development of agriculture.

As the agrarian problems gradually assumed national

character, it mobilized people on a national scale.

2.Ruin of Handicrafts: Measures such as Forcing of

British free trade on India, imposing heavy duties on

Indian Manufactures in England, the export of raw

products from India, transit and custom duties ruined

handicraftsmen who became modern proletariat

(factory and transport workers), tenants and land

laborers.

3.Development of modern Industry: The

establishment of railways and accumulation of

sufficient savings in the hands of the Indian

merchant class to serve as basic capital, made

possible the creation of modern industries in India.Despite the insufficient and unbalanced character of

modern industrialization, it led to the consolidation

of unified national economy. It brought into

existence modern cities which became the centers of

modern culture and increasing democratic social life

and from which all progressive movements, social,

political and cultural emanated. Industrialization led

to the rise of two classes the bourgeoisie and

proletariat.

4.Development of modern means of transport and

communication: Despite favoring rapid

industarialsiation this led to the emergence of

political consciousness with national color. Following

the establishment of INC several other political

organizations came into existence representing the

nationalist feeling of India.

5.Development of modern education and press

played a notable role in creating class consciousness

and mobilized public opinion to organize political

movements and thus promoted nationalist feeling.

The introduction of the modern system of education

opened the opportunities for the assimilation of the

modern Western ideas with the Indian ideals. As a

result the political consciousness of the west blended

with the Indian political thinking.

6.Working class movements: The Indian working

force which emerged as a credible force during 1920s

began to fight for proper working conditions, wages,

security etc. The various government measures in this

direction were piecemeal in character. The INCleaders were able to aggregate the seemingly

conflicting interacts of working and bourgeoisie

classes and succeeded in bringing these processes for

nationalist struggle.

7.

Rise of new classes: The altering of the economic


17/38



ndstreet, 13




arrangement like introduction of new land relation,

opening of Indian society for exploitation by the

capitalists world, introduction of a new administrative

arrangement, a modem education system and the

establishment of modern industries were the factors

largely responsible for the emergence of the new

social' classes.

The emergence of new classes did not follow

any uniform pattern everywhere and among all the

communities. The new economy causing the rise of

new classes was introduced in the areas, which came

under the British control. The conquest of India was

not achieved in one stroke. It was done in tits and bits.

The part of country coming under British control early

witnessed the early rise of the new classes. Bengal was

the first to usher in the two new classes the Zamindars

and the tenants because British conquest started from

Bengal and it was in Bengal where for the first time the

permanent settlement, which gave birth to the

zamindars and the tenants, was introduced. Even

among the different communities the emergence of

new social classes was not uniform.

The Indian society was thus stratified into new

classes like capitalists (commercial, industrial and

financial), professional classes like lawyers, doctors andothers, fairly large sized middle class employees and an

overwhelming section of the urban proletariat living on

wages in urban areas.

A.R.Desai thus notes that these socio-

political forces by their very nature came into conflict

with British imperialist policies and administrative

system and sparked the fire of Indian nationalism.

1. Transformation of agriculture in colonial

India

With the establishment of private property in land

and the individuals right to its free disposal, there

appeared centrifugal tendencies within the joint

family, the members of which previously jointly held

and cultivated the land assigned to it by the village.

This led to fragmentation of land holdings which

made it very difficult for the agriculturist to carry on

agricultural operations efficiently.

The progressive inability of agriculturist to meet the

increasing revenue claims of the state from his

declining income brought about his subsequent

indebtedness. Due to the expanding indebtedness

of the agriculturists, large-scale transfer of land from

the hands of the peasant proprietors to the

moneylenders took place in the Ryotwari areas and

mass ejection of tenants from land occupied by them

in the Zamindari zones.

Hence a process of class differentiation went on,

continuously at an increasing pace, among the

agricultural population. The number of cultivating

owners and tenants steadily diminished while that ofthe non-cultivating landlords grew. There was an

increasingpolarization of classesin agrarian areas.

The mass of Indian handicrafts men ruined as a result

of the influx of manufactured machine-goods of

British industries were not absorbed in any

extensively developed indigenous industries. The


18/38



ndstreet, 13




ruined mass of these handicraftsmen took to

agriculture for subsistence. This led to overpressure

on agriculture.

A new class of absentee landlords emerged which had

no interest in land and hence the technical basis of

agriculture remained the same. The development of

Indian agriculture was adjusted to suit the British

capitalist interests. Thus Indian agriculture was lop-

sided in its development.

The British rule over India elevated Indian agriculture

to the status of a national agriculture. The agrarian

problems assumed a national character. It served to

mobilize people on a national scale.

2.

Decline of handicrafts

India held a prominent place in the world in the

field of handicraft production. The textiles were the

most important among the Indian industries. Its cotton,

silk and woolen products were sought after all over the

world. Particularly, the muslin of Dacca, carpets of

Lahore, shawls of Kashmir, and the embroidery works

of Banaras were very famous. Ivory goods, wood works

and jewellery were other widely sought after Indian

commodities. Besides textiles, India was also known

widely for its shipping, leather and metal industries.

These entire handicrafts industry indicated a vibranteconomy in India. Despite enjoying such fame in the

world, the Indian handicraft industry had begun to

decline by the beginning of the 18th century due to the

following:-

The policies followed by the English East India

Company proved to be highly detrimental to the

Indian handicrafts industry.

The Indian market was flooded with the cheap

finished goods from Britain. It resulted in a steep

decline in the sale of Indian products both within and

outside of the country.

In 1769, the Company encouraged the cultivation of

raw silkin Bengal while imposing service restrictions

on the sale of its finished products.

In 1813 strategies were devised by the Company to

enhance the consumption of finished goods from

Britain. In this respect the tariff and octroi policies

were suitably modified to suit the British commercial

interests. To cite an example, in 1835 only a minimal

import of British duty of 2.5 per cent was imposed on

the import of British manufactured cotton cloth

whereas a very high 15 per cent export duty was

charged on Indian cotton textiles as per the new

maritime regulations.

The Industrial revolution led to the invention of

new machinery in Europe. Power looms replaced

handlooms. In India also the advent of machines led

to the decline of handicraft as now the machine-made

products were available at cheaper rate and moregoods could be produced in much lesser time.

The new communication and transport facilities

brought about a revolution in public life. The import

of goods from England also increased with the

simultaneous increase in exports of raw materials

from India, leading to massive loss of jobs among


19/38



ndstreet, 13




Indian artisans and craftsman who lost their only

means to livelihood.

Thus, with the rise of British paramountcy in India, the

process of decline in the power and status of Indian

rulers had set in.

3. Development of modern industry

The establishment of railways and accumulation

of sufficient savings in the hands of the Indian merchant

class to serve as basic capital, made possible the creation

of modern industries in India. However there was a

lopsided growth of Indian industries due to the

following:-

The smallness of Indias capital resources

Absence of considerable well-established heavy

metallurgical and machine producing industries

which are vital for a balanced and rapid industrial

development.

Immense poverty of the agricultural population

which constituted about4/5th of the Indian people

and who represented a formidable potential market

for industrial goods.

Inadequate technical man power

Despite these shortcomings, this led to the

consolidation of unified national economy. Also it

engendered the rise of two important classes thebourgeoisie and proletariat, which played a vital role in

the national movement.

4. Development of modern means of

transport and communication

Lord Dalhousie initiated the process of

modernizing the means of transport and communication

through his famous Minutes on Railways. However there

was a lopsided growth of Indian industries due to the

following:-

The establishment of railways accelerated the process

of industrialization.

The economic isolation of the village, the main cause

of its social and cultural stagnation broke down.

Mass migration of people from one part of the

country to another possible.

Travel of Hindu untouchables along with the

Brahmins in the train weakened the adamantine

orthodoxy of the Hindus.

The provincial political unrest, which was limited

within a small area, came in contact with the

nationalist current of the whole India. More than

anything, the growth of railways has unified the

country.

The railways had facilitated the growth of nationalism

more than any other advantages. Moreover the

development of modern postal system and the

introduction of electric telegraph in the post 1850

helped to unify the country. As a result the disjointed

political consciousness came in contact with each

other, which helped for the emergence of a

consciousness with a national color.

The growth of the political organizations like Indian

national congress was the upshot of the national

consciousness of the unified India. Following the

establishment of the Indian National Congress,

several other political organizations came into

existence representing the nationalist feeling of India.


20/38



ndstreet, 13




The organizations like All India Trade Union

Congress, All India Kishan Sabha etc would not have

come into existence unless the growth of efficient

transport and communication.

5. Development of modern education

The introduction of the modern system of education

opened the opportunities for the assimilation of the

modern Western ideaswith the Indian ideals. As a

result the political consciousness of the west blended

with the Indian political thinking.

The English intellectuals took a momentous decision

in 1835 to introduce the English education and the

study of Westerns philosophy in India. The English

educationwas originally aimed for the Indian rulers

in the interest of efficient administration. However

the English education opened to the educated Indians

the gates of the liberal political thoughts of the West.

The liberal and radical thought of the European

writers inculcated the liberal political thought among

the educated intellectuals in India.

The idea of liberty, self-government made them

conscious of the oppression and diplomacy of the

British rulers in India. In this way the sense of Swaraj

and independence developed the nationalist feeling

among the Indians. The newly educated class beingconscious of the citizen rights could form a political

consciousness of their own. They began to make the

common people aware of their rights and duties.

The educated intellectuals being conscious of the

political rights found that the promises contained in

the Charter Act of 1833 had not been fulfilled. This

created a sense of discontent throughout India against

the British Raj. Thus the spread of modern education

inculcating the feeling of political consciousness gave

to the educated intellectuals a common language- a

lingua franca. Through this they can communicate

with one another and can transact theirs conferences

and congresses. In the absence of such lingua franca it

would have been difficult for the people of different

languages to come on a common platform and

organize a movement of anal India character.

6. Role of press in Indian nationalism

The emergence of the modern Press both in English

and the Vernacular was one of the significant reasons for

the growth of nationalism in India in the late nineteenth

and the early twentieth century. It was the Europeans

who set up Printing Presses in India and published

newspaper. Gradually the Vernacular Press came into

existence, which was developed in the pattern of the

English newspapers. Originally the English newspapers

could not express political conditions properly, since

those were entirely controlled by the government. Thus

when the Vernacular press made bare the oppressive and

the repressive policies of the British the Government put

restrictions over its circulations.

Several Acts were passed to stop the circulations ofthe vernacular Press. The Indian press had played a

notable role in mobilizing the public opinions,

organizing political movements, fighting over political

controversy and promoting nationalism. The newspapers

like The Indian Mirror, the Bengalee, the Amritabazar

Patrika, Bombay chronicle, the Hindu Patriot, the


21/38



ndstreet, 13




Marhatta, Keshari etc exposed the excesses of British

Indian administration. Moreover these newspapers also

popularized the ideas of representative government,

liberty, democratic institutions, Home rule and

independence etc. Press became the primary medium of

public education and probably played the most

important part in forming the Public opinion. Thus

Press became the mirror of Indian nationalism.

7. Political and administrative unification of

India

British rule brought about the political

unification of the country. Such a unity was unknown in

pre-British era, which was almost chronically divided

into numerous feudal states, frequently struggling among

themselves to extend their boundaries.

The British established a uniform reign of law in

the country. They enacted laws and codified them. The

laws were made applicable to every citizen of the state

and were enforced by a hierarchically graded system of

tribunals which constituted the judicial section of the

state.

They established hierarchically graded public

services which brought about the administrative

unification f the country. Thus were created, imperial,

provincial and subordinate services which formed theexecutive section of the centralized state.

It enabled the people to think India as one

nation. The social and religious reform movements also

brought awakening and the people together.

8. Rise of new classes in India

The altering of the economic arrangement like

introduction of new land relation, opening of Indian

society for exploitation by the capitalists world,

introduction of a new administrative arrangement, a

modem education system and the establishment of

modern industries were the factors largely responsible

for the emergence of the new social' classes.

The emergence of new classes did not follow any

uniform pattern everywhere and among all the

communities. The new economy causing the rise of new

classes was introduced in the areas, which came under

the British control. The conquest of India was not

achieved in one stroke. It was done in tits and bits. The

part of country coming under British control early

witnessed the early rise of the new classes. Bengal was

the first to usher in the two new classes the Zamindars

and the tenants because British conquest started from

Bengal and it was in Bengal where for the first time the

permanent settlement, which gave birth to the zamindars

and the tenants, was introduced.

Even the industrial enterprises which gave rise to the

class of industrialists and workers were first set up in

Bengal and Bombay areas. The professional and the

educated middle class also came into being in these areasmuch ahead of the other areas. It was because of the

introduction of a new administrative apparatus and the

modem educational system. Gradually the whole country

came under the British control. So the economic system,

the administrative set up and the modem education

system introduced by the British enveloped the whole of


22/38



ndstreet, 13




country. This is how the emergence of the, new classes

became a countrywide phenomenon.

Even among the different communities the

emergence of new social classes was not uniform.

Baniyas and Parsis were first to be drawn to the

commerce and banking so they blossomed into capitalist

class. Similarly the Brahmins were first to take the

modem education introduced by the British. That is why

they largely constituted the class of professionals and the

intelligentsia.

The Muslims witnessed late emergence of the new

classes because they stayed away from the trade and

commerce and looked at the modem system of

education with suspicion and they lived in northern

India, which came under the British subjugation at a

much later stage. Bengal had a very large Muslim

population.

The Indian society was stratified into new classes like

capitalists (commercial, industrial and financial),

professional classes like lawyers, doctors and others,

fairly large sized middle class employees and an

overwhelming section of the urban proletariat living on

wages in urban areas.

Rise of Modern Indian Intelligentsia

In the early decades of the nineteenth century thenumber of the educated persons was very small. The

spread of modem education was largely the work of the

British government. But the Christian missionaries and a

large number of enlightened Indians had also established

schools and colleges over the country. Around the

middle of the nineteenth century there emerged a large

section of intelligentsia. They assimilated western

democratic culture and understood the complex

problems of the incipient Indian nationhood. They led

many social and religious reforms movements to

integrate Indian people into a modem nation.

Leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhle, Dadabhai

Naoroji, M.G. Ranade and others led the moderate

phase of the nationalist movement. In the militant phase

the trio of Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and B.C.

Pal together with Aurobindo Ghose were main leaders.

When the freedom struggle acquired a mass base after

the non-cooperation movement of 1919 its leadership

passed into the hands of leaders such as M.K. Gandhi,

Motilal Nehru, Ballabh Bhai Patel, J.L. Nehru, S.C. Bose

and intellectuals with socialist and communist leanings.

All of them were products of the modem education

system. This class was fired with a modem rational,

secular, democratic and nationalist vision they were

imbued with ideas of democracy, equality, liberty and

justice. They realized the negative impacts of the British

rule and could grasp the contradiction between British

interest in India and the Indian interest according to

Bipan Chandra it would be wrong to think that the

nationalist movement was a product of modem

education system launched during the British rule. Infact Indian nationalism was born out of and sustained by

conflict of interests between India and Britain.

The modem education system helped to understand

the nature of conflict in a better way. This class, which

included scientists, poets, historians, economists and


23/38



ndstreet, 13




philosophers, had a dream of a modem, strong,

prosperous and united India.

The middle class, which comprised of lawyers,

doctors, professors, journalists, government employees,

students and others, was the product of modem

education system. In the second half of the nineteenth

century their number swelled because of the expansion

in the number of schools and colleges. But the growth in

the numbers of educated Indians was not matched with

corresponding increase in number of jobs. The

economic policies followed by the government failed to

create adequate number of jobs that could absorb the

educated persons produced by the academic institutions.

The discontent among the educated unemployed was the

main factor behind the rise and growth of militant

nationalism led by Lala Lajpat Roy, Bal Gangadhar Tilak,

Bipan Chandra Pal and Aurobindo. This was true also

about the growth of

Sociology Mains Sample notes crackingias.com

Documents