ASSIGNMENT

DRIVE FALL 2013

PROGRAM BA - SOCIOLOGY
SEMESTER II
SUBJECT CODE & NAME
BAS 203 INDIAN SOCIETY: STRUCTURE AND CHANGE

CONTACT ME TO GET FULLY SOLVED SMU

ASSIGNMENTS/PROJECT/SYNOPSIS/EXAM GUIDE PAPER
Email Id: mrinal833@gmail.com
Contact no- 9706665251/9706665232/
www.smuassignmentandproject.com
COST= 100 RS PER SUBJECT

Q. No 1 Explain any five classifications of the Indian tribes on the basis of the conditions of their
economic life by Nadeem Hasnain.
Answer: THERE has been little media attention on the merits of Gujjars demand to get into the ST list.
Most commentators have pointed to the origin of Gujjars demand, and assumed that if Jats had not been
included in the OBC list, Gujjars would not have sought entry into the ST list, even though under the ST
list too, they would have faced stiff competition from the more powerful Meenas in the State. First, the
facts. The Scheduled Tribes are specified in accordance with the provisions of Art.342. The first list in
relation to a State/UT is by a notified Order of the President, after consultation with the State Government
concerned. Any subsequent modification can only be effected through an Act of Parliament, as it requires
an amendment of the Constitution. The first list was thus promulgated on Sep.6, 1950 and is known as the
Constitution (ST) Order 1950.The criteria fixed for inclusion of a community in the list of STs are:1.

Indications of primitive traits, 2. Distinctive culture,3. Geographical isolation,4. Shyness of contact with
the community at large, and 5. Backwardness. The communities fulfilling the above criteria are
considered for being notified as STs, in accordance with the modalities approved by Government in June
1999. (in the case of OBCs, the criteria is mainly about social, educational and economic backwardness,
whereas in the case of SCs, it is untouchability. The National and State BC commissions should normally
operate independently in their fields, namely the Central and State lists, though I am not sure of this).
These modalities have laid down a procedure to be followed with regard to inclusion or exclusion of any
community in the list. Before a Bill is introduced in Parliament for this purpose, any representation on
these matters must first be sent to the State Government for comments. If the State Government
recommends that the request be acceded to, the proposal with the recommendation of the State
Government will be sent to the Registrar General of India. If the RGI agrees with the comments of the
State Government, the proposal is then sent by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to the National Commission
for SC and STs. (it has now been split into one for SCs and another for STs).In case the State
Government, the RGI, and the NCST all agree, the Ministry then approaches the Cabinet for approval.
After the Cabinet approves the Bill, it is sent to Parliament. In case the State Government agrees but the
RGI does not agree, the proposal is sent back to the State Government along with the RGIs comments. It
is then open to the state Govt. to try to convince the RGI with new facts and figures. Where the State
Government and the RGI both agree, but if the NCST does not, then the Ministry of TA has to reject the
proposal. While considering a particular claim for inclusion, it is necessary that it must by and large
satisfy the five-point criteria mentioned above. There is no weightage assigned to each of these criteria.
Now, let us take some of the recent instances considered for inclusion. (There has been no inclusion to the
ST list for the past three years, even though some 1016 proposals are under various stages of
consideration, according to an answer given to an unstarred question no.941 on 6-3-07 in Lok Sabha).In
2001, the demand to include Gowada, Kunbi, Velip, and Dhangar communities of Goa in the list of STs
was considered. The Centre had failed to extend the Constitution (ST)Order 1950 to the U.T. of Goa,
Daman and Diu, immediately after the liberation of Goa in 1961. Although in 1968 the Goa, Daman and
Diu (ST) Order 1968 was promulgated, it declared only tribes from Daman and Diu as STs, while those
from Goa were excluded. The Government of Goa recommended the inclusion of these four communities
in the ST list of the State. The RGI and the NCBC (The NCSC or NCST were not in existence then)
concurred with the State Government with regard to Gowada, Velip and Kunbi communities. The RGI did
not favour Dhangars inclusion. A Parliamentary committee which examined the issue, however, favoured
Dhangars inclusion. The MTA told this Committee in 2001, that it was preparing a Cabinet note for the
inclusion of the other three communities. The MTA also told the committee that it was merely a post
office in finalisation of such claims, an admission which the Parliament committee had then deplored.

Accordingly, the three tribes were added to the ST list. One does not know whether the non-inclusion of
the fourth community was an election issue at all in the recently concluded Goa assembly elections.In
another instance, the West Bengal Government recommended the inclusion of Deswali Majhi
community in the ST list. The West Bengal government claimed in 1999 that this community might have
some association with the Santals in the long past, but at present it is a separate community. The RGI in
1981 did not favour its inclusion on the ground that they had given up Santal language, and they were not
considered by Santals as belonging to their community. The community fulfilled only two of the fivepoint criteria for inclusion 1 & 5. However, a Parliamentary committee found in 2001 enough historical
evidence suggesting that it was a tribe, and asked MTA to seek RGI to expedite reconsideration of the
State Governments recommendation in this regard. As in the Goa case, the current ST list for West
Bengal does not include this community, and one does not know the views of RGI and NCST in this
regard. The statement furnished in the Lok Sabha in response to a question in March this year reveals that
Assam tops the list of proposals being considered for inclusion in the ST list (113). There are 18 proposals
from Rajasthan. But if the reports are any indication, the State Government is yet to forward its
recommendation on Gujjars demand to the Centre; therefore, Gujjar is certainly not one of these 18
proposals. Gujjars have been recognized as STs in Himachal Pradesh and J&K, but not in other States,
underlying the geographical differences. Despite their recent fury, there has been no attempt on the part of
their leaders to articulate their demand for inclusion in the ST list, or how they qualify the criteria. Merely
because Meenas, a community similarly placed, has been in the ST list, does not ipso facto sustain their
claim. It is said that only Bhil Meenas in South Rajasthan, especially in Udaipur belt, are the real STs, and
that other Meenas have been wrongly included. If it is so, then it has to be shown with proof, to convince
the authorities concerned, without taking recourse to agitations, which would politicize the issue, and
make it beyond resolution.

2 Differentiate between Rural and urban areas. (any five)

Answer: Urban areas are characterized by having higher population density and vast human features
compared to the surrounding areas. Cities, towns are commonly referred to as urban areas. It must also
have ongoing urbanization for further development. Metropolitan cities, which include satellite cities, are
also considered as urban places. Urban areas have also been characterized by high amounts of pollution
(noise and air), large-scale industrialization and faster lifestyles. Pollution in urban areas are high due to
the large amount of people, cars, buses, train, factories etc. Industrialization includes factories, machines
and offices. It also has a higher employment rate compared to rural areas. Lifestyle in urban areas is

considered to be fast paced, where time for little things are not enjoyed. People are often depicted as
workaholics or having an active social life. Urbanization also includes having more advance technology
and science, where hospitals have more advanced machinery and people have smartphones, tablets,
laptops, desktops, etc.

Dictionary.com defines urban as:

Of, pertaining to, or designating a city or town.

Living in a city.

Characteristic of or accustomed to cities.

Rural areas are characterized with having small, tight-knit communities. Ever seen those shows, where
everyone knows everyone else, well thats a rural community. Villages or small towns are considered to
be rural areas. People know each other and are neighbors, friends, etc. Rural areas are classified according
their small population and having farming abilities. Many people in rural areas are considered to be
farmers. Rural areas are more dependent on natural resources and organic materials. They have small
stores and family run business, compared to the big supermarkets in urban areas. Many governments have
also taken an active part in trying to further urbanize more rural areas and provide extra help in forms of
technology, medical and other resources. Rural areas are more community based people and depend on
social gatherings and other similar events. Rural places also have pollution due to lack of large factories.
Dictionary.com defines rural as:

Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the country, country life, or country people; rustic: rural
tranquillity.

Living in the country: the rural population.

Of or pertaining to agriculture: rural economy.

3 Write a short note on the changing nature of the joint family system.
Answer:

The joint family system was best suited to an agrarian society characterized by limited mobility, simple
division of labour and the prevalence of customs and traditions.
But consequent upon the forces of industrialization, urbanization and modernization, the Indian joint
family too has undergone profound changes in recent times. The changes are structural, functional and
interactional in nature.
Structural Changes in the Hindu Joint Family:
1. The trend of family form:
The trend of family form is towards a breakaway from the traditional joint family form into nuclear
family units.
2. Small family size:
The size of the joint family has become small. The reason of the small size of the joint family is attributed
to the prolific use of contraceptives and the tendency to regard children as an obstacle to the progress and
enjoyment of family life.
3. Functional jointness:
The number of fissioned families is gradually increasing. Even then they are keen in fulfilling their
traditional obligations towards their parental families.
4. Equal status for women:
In the past, the position of women in the joint family set-up was miserable. Several factors such as spread
of female education on a war-footing, growing economic and employment opportunities for them,
abolition of child marriage, introduction of widow remarriage, increased political consciousness on the
part of females etc have gone a long way in according equal status for women. Further, today women
share the responsibility with their husbands while arriving at major family decisions. All these have
affected the stability of the joint family system.
5. Viewed in terms of castes, in villages, higher castes have predominantly joint family while lower castes
show a greater incidence of nuclear family.
6. Freedom in mate selection:
In the traditional joint family system, the boys and girls had no role to play in choosing their lifepartners. The decision of the parents was final in the selection of mates. But today due to the influence of
liberalism, individualism and economic independence, the young boys and girls are increasingly

participating in the decision-making process of mate selection. Conjugal relationship has also been treated
on par with consanguine relationship.
7. Exercise of authority:
So far as the traditional joint family was concerned, the oldest male member of the family called Karta
used to exercise absolute authority over other members. But in the changing social scenario his control
has been lessened to a great extent. Today educated and employed women are given much importance in
the decision making process. Further, the Karta has delegated some of his power to his sons. All these
have vitally affected the joint family system.
8. Decrease in importance of blood relationship:
In the modern context there has been a continuous decrease in the importance of blood relationships. The
joint relations are mostly confined to parents-children, siblings, and uncles-nephews etc. The joint family
is successively shaking off the collateral relations beyond grandparents generation.
9. Ownership of property:
Common property was an essential feature of the traditional joint family. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
grants woman the right to family property. Modern legislations have given individual members the right
to earn money or property or dispose of it in any manner they like. All these factors have worked against
the spirit.
Functional Changes in the Joint Family:
1. Regulation of sex and procreation:
The rigidity traditionally associated with marital and sexual relationships no longer characterises the
modern joint family. Today there is open expression of love and affection between husband and wife
which was not the case in the past. Further, procreation has been viewed as an essential part of family life
and not as a matter of religious obligation.
2. Religious functions:
The importance of ritualistic activities performed by the members of the joint family has been lessened.
Some of the religious activities like Shraddha Karma are held symbolically as a part of Kula
Parampara.

3. The task of upbringing of children:

In the traditional joint family system, senior members especially grandparents played an important role in
socialising the children. But today the work of looking after the children is being performed in crches,
children parks, kindergarten schools etc.
4. Recreational activities:
In the past the joint family system acted as a veritable source of entertainment and recreation. But today
recreational opportunities are offered by commercial organisations, from cinemas to clubs and holiday
resorts and are purchased in the open market rather than being manufactured at home.
5. Economic functions:
The traditional joint family was a centre of both consumption and production. But with the decline in the
traditional skills and household crafts, the family has ceased to be the unit of production. Many of the
economic functions which were previously being performed by the joint family are now being performed
by the factories, industries, government and other associations.
Interactional Changes in the Hindu Joint Family:
1. The distance between the father-in-law and the daughter- in-law has been reduced to a considerable
extent. The relationship between the daughter-in-law and the mother- in-law is governed by adjustments
and compromise rather than by conflict.
2. So far as the relationship between husband and wife is concerned, wives are being treated at par with
their husbands. They are increasingly playing an important role in the decision making process as regards
the domestic realm.
3. Wife going with husband for social visits, taking food with husband or even before he does, visiting
movies and restaurants together-all these indicate the increasing companion role of the wife in recent
times.
4. The relations between parents and children have undergone significant changes. In the past the head of
the family usually called the patriarch exercised absolute control over the matters relating to the
education, occupation, marriage and the career of children. But today the children enjoy considerable
degree of freedom in these spheres. At the same time they respect and fear their elders.
5. Along with culture and ideological factor the resource factor also affects relations.

In fine, these are the structural, functional and interactional changes experienced by the joint family
system in recent years.

4 Explain M.N. Srinivas contribution as a sociologist to sociology.

Answer: Research in the areas of Sociology and Social Anthropology was initiated at NIAS in 1997 by
Prof. M.N. Srinivas, when he held the J.R.D. Tata Chair. Prof. Srinivas sought to expand and reinforce
ethnography and field-based social research as key methods for understanding contemporary India. In
addition, he was keen that NIAS engage in sociological research that would lend itself to interdisciplinary
endeavours.

Prof. M.N. Srinivas (1916-1999) was a pioneering sociologist/social anthropologist who received his
higher education at the Universities of Bombay and Oxford. Returning to India in 1951, he established the
Department of Sociology at M.S. University, Baroda and later, in 1959, the Department of Sociology at
the Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University. He was also a co-founder of the Institute for Social and
Economic Change, Bangalore. He joined NIAS in 1992 and held the J.R.D. Tata Chair until his death in
1999.

Through his work, Prof. M.N. Srinivas not only legitimised the study of ones own society by
anthropologists (who traditionally studied other societies), but also strongly advocated field-based
research in Indian sociology. His work on religion, caste, village societies, politics, and social change led
him to develop new perspectives on India, including the persistence (but also transformation) of caste as
both a social system and as central to political processes in the newly independent nation. He coined
several key terms that have not only gained currency in Indian sociology but have also become part of the
common lexicon, such as dominant caste, sanskritization, and vote bank. Through his significant
contributions to the body of sociological knowledge, his key role in the establishment of several
departments and programmes of sociology where he insisted that sociology and social anthropology be
combined and through training many of the next generation of prominent Indian sociologists, Prof.
M.N. Srinivas was the most influential leader of the sociological profession in India.

5 Write short notes on Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism.

Answer: Nichiren Daishonin established the principle of the fivefold comparison as a means to judge the
correctness and superiority of a religion. It is expounded in the Gosho, The Opening of the Eyes
(Kaimoku-sho). The first level of the fivefold comparison compares Buddhist and non-Buddhist
teachings. In that comparison, the superiority of Buddhism over the teachings of other religions is
discussed and verified. However, within the realm of Buddhism itself, the teachings can be further broken
down and critically compared, in order to arrive at the most superior teaching. The second level of the
fivefold comparison is between Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhism.
Mahayana means great vehicle and Hinayana means lesser vehicle. A great vehicle is like a large ship
that can carry many people over the ocean. A lesser vehicle is like a little boat that can carry only a few
people across a river. The word vehicle is used to describe the Buddhas teachings, since the ultimate
purpose of the teachings is to carry people from the shore of this impure world to the other shore of
enlightenment.
Conflict between Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism
After Shakyamunis passing, the Buddhist order split into two groups, the Theravada school, which
literally interpreted Shakyamunis teachings and doctrines and strictly followed traditions, and the
Mahasamghika school, which tried to understand the true meaning of the words to reveal their true spirit.
These two groups eventually divided into twenty schools.
In the process of shifting from Shakyamunis fundamental Buddhism to sectarian Buddhism, the
Theravada school and its branches started to adopt non-Buddhist teachings. Seeing this, the people from
the Mahasamghika school reconsidered their position on non-Buddhist teachings adopted by earlier
schools and voluntarily went back to fundamental Buddhism. The Mahasamghika school was the
forerunner of the Mahayana movement. Gradually, Mahayana Buddhists differentiated themselves from
the earlier schools of Theravada, calling them Hinayana. The Daishonin discusses this in his Gosho, The
Teaching, Capacity, Time and Country:
The references to the teachings of the Agon sutras as Hinayana come from the various Mahayana sutras
such as the Hodo, Hannya, Lotus and Nirvana sutras.

After the Mahayana movement started to grow, the majority of the Mahasamghika schools became part
of Mahayana Buddhism. Thus, Mahayana Buddhism, which arose from the conflicts between the
Theravada school and the Mahasamghika school, actually comprised both teachings. In other words,
Mahayana Buddhism was not newly formed with new elements but rather, the Theravada School and its
branches decided to reconsider their non-Buddhist views and sought to restore the original spirit of
Buddhism.
Furthermore, if the differing views on Buddhism are classified into orthodox and unorthodox based on
their evolution from the fundamental Buddhism of Shakyamuni to Mahayana Buddhism, it becomes clear
that the Mahasamghika School was the orthodox school and the Theravada School was unorthodox. Also,
Mahayana Buddhism, which emerged to unite the orthodox and unorthodox views at a higher level, was
widely practiced for the enlightenment of all humanity, transmitting the fundamental spirit of
Shakyamunis Buddhism.

CONTACT ME TO GET FULLY SOLVED SMU

ASSIGNMENTS/PROJECT/SYNOPSIS/EXAM GUIDE PAPER
Email Id: mrinal833@gmail.com
Contact no- 9706665251/9706665232/
www.smuassignmentandproject.com
COST= 100 RS PER SUBJECT

6 Discuss the relation between Jainism and Hinduism.

Answer: The Terms Hinayana and Mahayana
The terms Hinayana (Lesser Vehicle or Modest Vehicle) and Mahayana (Greater Vehicle or Vast Vehicle)
originated in The Prajnaparamita Sutras (The Sutras on Far-Reaching Discriminating Awareness, The
Perfection of Wisdom Sutras). They are a rather derogatory pair of words, aggrandizing Mahayana and

putting down Hinayana. Alternative terms for them, however, have many other shortcomings, and so
therefore I shall use these more standard terms for them here.
Hinayana encompasses eighteen schools. The most important for our purposes are Sarvastivada and
Theravada. Theravada is the one extant today in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. Sarvastivada was
widespread in Northern India when the Tibetans started to travel there and Buddhism began to be
transplanted to Tibet.
There were two main divisions of Sarvastivada based on philosophical differences: Vaibhashika and
Sautrantika. Hinayana tenet systems studied at the Indian monastic universities such as Nalanda, and later
by the Tibetan Mahayanists, are from these two schools. The lineage of monastic vows followed in Tibet
is from another Sarvastivada subdivision, Mulasarvastivada.
There is quite a significant difference between the Hinayana and Mahayana presentations of arhats and
Buddhas. Both agree that arhats, or liberated beings, are more limited than Buddhas, or enlightened
beings, are. Mahayana formulates this difference in terms of two sets of obscurations: the emotional ones,
which prevent liberation, and the cognitive ones, which prevent omniscience. Arhats are free of only the
former, whereas Buddhas are free of both. This division is not found in Hinayana. It is purely a Mahayana
formulation.

To gain liberation or enlightenment, both Hinayana and Mahayana assert that one needs nonconceptual
cognition of the lack of an impossible soul. Such a lack is often called selflessness, anatma in
Sanskrit, the main Indian scriptural language of Sarvastivada and Mahayana; anatta in Pali, the scriptural
language of Theravada. The Hinayana schools assert this lack of an impossible soul with respect only to
persons, not all phenomena. Persons lack a soul, an atman, that is unaffected by anything, partless, and
separable from a body and a mind, and which can be cognized on its own. Such a soul is impossible.
With just the understanding that there is no such thing as this type of soul with respect to persons, one
can become either an arhat or a Buddha. The difference depends on how much positive force or so-called
merit one builds up. Because of their development of the enlightening aim of bodhichitta, Buddhas
have built up far more positive force than arhats have.

Mahayana asserts that Buddhas understand the lack of an impossible soul with respect to all phenomena
as well as with respect to persons. They call this lack voidness. The various Indian schools of

Mahayana differ regarding whether or not arhats also understand the voidness of phenomena. Within
Mahayana, Prasangika Madhyamaka asserts that they do. However, the four Tibetan traditions explain
this point differently regarding the Prasangika assertion. Some say that the voidness of phenomena
understood by arhats is different from that understood by Buddhas; some assert the two voidnesses are the
same. Some say that the scope of phenomena to which the voidness of phenomena applies is more limited
for arhats than it is for Buddhas; some assert it is the same. There is no need to go into all the details here.