MS2 PDF
MS2 PDF
MS2 PDF
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Sociological Bulletin
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Sociological Bulletin
62 (2), May - August 2013, pp. 254-268
© Indian Sociological Society
Vasanthi Raman
This paper is at once a tribute to a great teacher, a guru in the best sense
of the term to many of us and to me personally, and one who introduced
the exhilarating worldview of Marxism to the students in the latter
1960s: Professor Akshay Ramanlal Desai (1915-94). This is also simul
taneously a modest attempt at discussing some of the significant ideas in
his work.
There is a certain historical serendipity involved here. We are
discussing Desai's contribution when indeed global capitalism is in a
crisis of the magnitude that the world has not witnessed since the 1930s.
The historical attempts at building socialism have come to nought.
Present-day global capitalism seems to have let loose two tendencies: (i)
the enormous wealth-generating capacity of humans which has eroded
the capacity of nation states to pursue independent policies, and simul
taneously (ii) enormous concentration of wealth and heightened
inequalities, both among and within countries and between regions,
between peoples, classes, and genders, and intensified all existing
faultiness. The polarising tendency implicit in capitalism has got further
exacerbated. As one Marxist scholar has pithily put it:
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Marxist Sociology of A.R. Desai and the Bombay School 255
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
256 Vasanthi Raman
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Marxist Sociology of A.R. Desai and the Bombay School 251
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
258 Vasanthi Raman
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Marxist Sociology of A.R. Desai and the Bombay School 259
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
260 Vasanthi Raman
What is significant i
leading practitioner
pology.
An integral part of Desai's vision was a historical dimension. For
him, history was essential to an understanding of the contemporary social
processes. Besides, he believed that a unified science of society which
would draw on the different disciplines was necessary for a holistic
understanding of society and was uncomfortable with disciplinary
boundaries. A mere interdisciplinary approach, is not the same as a
holistic understanding of society. Perhaps his own ideal and wish would
have been to be considered part of a more ambitious project - something
like Lucien Goldmann's The Human Sciences and Philosophy (1969).
The question of judgement of fact and judgement of value has been a
much debated issue in Marxist literature. There are divergent viewpoints
among Marxists as to whether socialism was an ethical imperative or a
historical necessity. This is also a much debated issue in social science in
general. Desai was strongly critical of any stance of value neutrality. In
his social vision both, that is, the judgement of fact and the judgement of
value, were fused and united. In this he struck a different note from the
dominant structural framework which was premised on a separation of
the two.2
Contemporary Dilemmas
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Marxist Sociology ofA.R. Desai and the Bombay School 261
We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of
two things in Indian society. One of these is equality. On the social plane,
we have in India a society based on the principles of graded inequality
which means elevation of some and degradation of others. On the
economic plane, we have a society in which there are some who have
immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th
January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics
we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote, and one vote one
value. In our social life, we shall by reason of our social and economic
structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long
shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life?
(Ambedkar 1949).
Let us take the question of caste. Caste has generally been theorised
divorced from class. Desai's discussion on the caste problem in his
Social Background of Indian Nationalism (1976/1948) is an example,
though this was the dominant tendency even among other left scholars
and practitioners. Caste was relegated to the superstructure. Desai's
reluctance to engage seriously with the question of caste was probably
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
262 Vasanthi Raman
Special representation
meaning, since there
castes comprising the
composing one of its
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Marxist Sociology of A.R. Desai and the Bombay School 263
political, of non-Brahmin millowners would be served by joining the
millowners' association, an aggregation of millowners belonging to all
castes and communities. Similarly the interests of non-Brahmin workers
would be served of workers who belonged to all castes and communities.
Special representation only perpetuated communal divisions just as the
democratic movement of the non-Brahmins for social and legal and
religious equality paved the way for the dissolution of communal divisions
(ibid: 259).
Desai further cites approvingly Ghurye from Caste and Race in India:
One of the reasons for this intellectual blind spot in Desai was that it
was assumed that, with the advent of colonial capitalism, Indian
feudalism was destroyed and what was left were merely survivals of the
old society. Or alternately, there was an insufficient understanding of
caste feudalism, despite Kosambi. Besides, perhaps it was assumed that
the modern classes of capitalism, the working class was to have a
decisive role in social transformation and the other classes were vestiges,
still mired in the stagnation of the old society. Here one needs to note
that Desai firmly held that colonial rule could not and did not play a
progressive role and differed from the reigning view of Marx's that
colonial rule would destroy the old society and pave the way for the
development of capitalism.
The response to colonial conquest resulted in collective social
mobilisation wherein the locus of such mobilisation was often caste,
tribe, and even religion, particularly in the 19th century. But all these
categories were not neat watertight compartments at any point of time;
they melded together in an untidy manner and, whatever the basis of
community, be it language, caste, region, or even occupational category,
during the colonial period, 'community' was the focal point of organising
and mobilising for collective articulation. As A. Ahmad has put it,
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
264 Vasanthi Raman
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Marxist Sociology of A.R. Desai and the Bombay School 265
Concluding Remarks
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
266 Vasanthi Raman
Capitalist globalisation does not homogenize the world but, on the contrary
organizes it on the basis of ever stronger and more pronounced hierarchies.
The peoples which are its victims are thereby deprived of active and equal
participation in the shaping of the world. By encouraging culturalist
responses, globalisation strategies make as much use as they can of
diversity inherited from the past. At the same time, however, capitalist
globalisation imposes on the dominated some of the 'specificities' that
characterize its dominant centres (2004: 191).
The need for combining the macro and the micro approaches seems all
the more necessary, the one for examining the structures of global
capitalism and its reach, and the other to examine and analyse the impact
of these on the micro structures and institutions of the society.
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Marxist Sociology of A.R. Desai and the Bombay School 267
There were many questions that Desai raised regarding the paradigm
of development which were critical questions, which, in turn, led to
intense debates amongst his students and admirers, many of whom may
not have necessarily agreed with his analyses. But the greatness of Desai
was that he had a catholicity of spirit which encouraged debate on some
of the most significant questions of the time, in the spirit of a collective
quest.
Notes
A similar point has been made by T.N. Madan with regard to what has been
considered the 'Lucknow School'; Madan highlights the differences in style and
orientation of the leading sociologists/social anthropologists, Radhakamal Mukeijee,
D.P. Mukerji, and D.N. Majumdar (cited in Uberoi, Deshpande and Sundar 2007:
29).
This is a much debated subject in the field of sociology and social anthropology, and
social sciences in general. A more recent discussion on the subject is that by André
Béteille (2009). Béteille affirms an old and dominant position that sociology is an
empirical rather than a normative discipline, although he adds that the question of
value judgments and judgments of reality is a difficult subject on which there are
differences of opinion.
References
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
268 Vasanthi Raman
This content downloaded from 112.79.203.87 on Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms