IGNOU MSO-004 Assignment Answers 2025: : Sociology in India Solved Part 2

 

Question 3: Describe the ‘Brahminical’ perspective on caste system in India.

Answer: The ‘Brahminical perspective’ on the caste system in India refers to the traditional, religiously sanctioned explanation and justification of caste hierarchy as developed and maintained by Brahminical scriptures and ideology. This viewpoint originates from the ancient Hindu texts, especially the Vedas, Dharmashastras, Manusmriti, and Puranas, which collectively shaped the social and moral framework of Hindu society. From a sociological standpoint, this perspective represents a religio-ideological justification of social stratification, legitimizing inequality as divinely ordained and natural.

The Brahminical interpretation of caste was not merely a religious belief system but a socio-political ideology that ensured the dominance of the Brahmin and upper-caste groups in the hierarchical social order. To understand this, it is important to analyze its origin, principles, functions, and critiques within the context of Indian society.

1. Religious Origin of the Brahminical Perspective

The foundation of the Brahminical caste ideology lies in the Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda (Book X, Hymn 90), which mythologically explains the origin of the four varnas (social classes) from the cosmic being Purusha. According to this hymn:

• The Brahmin emerged from the mouth of Purusha (symbolizing wisdom and knowledge),
• The Kshatriya from his arms (symbolizing power and protection),
• The Vaishya from his thighs (symbolizing sustenance and trade), and
• The Shudra from his feet (symbolizing service).

This divine origin theory was used to sacralize social hierarchy, portraying caste distinctions as divinely created and immutable. The Brahminical ideology thus presented social inequality not as a product of human exploitation but as part of the cosmic order (Rita or Dharma).

2. The Doctrine of Varna and Dharma

In the Brahminical framework, society was organized into four varnas, each associated with specific duties (dharma).

• The Brahmins were assigned duties of teaching, performing sacrifices, and preserving sacred knowledge.
• The Kshatriyas were expected to govern and protect society.
• The Vaishyas were responsible for trade, agriculture, and wealth creation.
• The Shudras were designated to serve the higher varnas.

The concept of varna-dharma reinforced a hierarchical division of labor, where each group’s occupation was predetermined by birth and governed by religious morality. This system claimed to ensure social harmony and order, though in practice it perpetuated inequality and exclusion.

From a sociological viewpoint, this framework reflects functional differentiation justified through religious values — a way of organizing social labor under the guise of divine law. However, it also institutionalized ascriptive status, denying individuals mobility and equality.

3. Justification of Hierarchy and Purity-Pollution

A central feature of the Brahminical perspective is the notion of purity and pollution, which became the moral foundation of caste hierarchy. The Brahmin was considered the purest, owing to his association with sacred rituals and knowledge, while the Shudras and the so-called “untouchables” were deemed impure due to their involvement in manual or polluting occupations.

This purity-pollution ideology regulated social interaction, marriage, occupation, and dining, ensuring segregation and hierarchy. The higher castes maintained social distance from lower castes to preserve ritual purity. Sociologist Louis Dumont (in Homo Hierarchicus) later interpreted this as a system of hierarchical interdependence based on the opposition between purity and impurity, emphasizing that caste hierarchy is primarily ideological rather than purely economic.

4. Manusmriti and the Codification of Caste Rules

The Manusmriti (Laws of Manu), one of the most influential Dharmashastras, codified the Brahminical interpretation of social order. It prescribed the duties, rights, and restrictions of each varna and reinforced the superiority of the Brahmin. It also laid down strict penalties for violating caste boundaries, particularly punishing the lower castes severely for transgressions such as inter-dining or inter-marriage (varna-sankara).

From a sociological perspective, the Manusmriti represents an early attempt at social control through religious law. It institutionalized inequality by granting ritual and moral authority to the Brahmin, political power to the Kshatriya, and economic functions to the Vaishya, while marginalizing the Shudra and excluding the untouchables from the social order entirely.

5. Functions and Consequences of the Brahminical Perspective

From a structural-functional viewpoint, the Brahminical system aimed to maintain social order and stability by defining clear roles and moral duties for every group. It justified the division of labor and authority in religious and moral terms, creating a sense of duty and interdependence among castes.

However, in practice, this led to rigid stratification, social inequality, and hereditary hierarchy. The ideology legitimized Brahminical dominance, maintained by control over education, rituals, and religious interpretation. Over time, it suppressed social mobility and perpetuated economic exploitation of lower castes and marginalized groups.

6. Critiques of the Brahminical Perspective

The Brahminical view of caste was challenged by several sociological, reformist, and anti-caste movements. Thinkers like B.R. Ambedkar and Jyotirao Phule criticized it as an ideology of oppression that sanctified inequality. Ambedkar, in “Annihilation of Caste”, argued that the Brahminical system was a form of graded inequality that destroyed the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Modern sociologists view the Brahminical ideology not as a divine order but as a social construct serving specific power interests. It functioned as a mechanism of social domination, allowing the upper castes to monopolize knowledge, status, and resources while excluding the lower castes from social participation.

Conclusion

In summary, the Brahminical perspective on caste in India is a religious and ideological justification of social hierarchy rooted in Hindu scriptures. It portrays the caste system as a divinely ordained, natural, and moral order based on the principles of varna, dharma, and purity. While it aimed to maintain social stability and moral order, it also institutionalized inequality, exclusion, and exploitation. From a sociological viewpoint, this perspective represents how religious ideology can be used as a tool of social control and domination. The critique of this system by modern sociologists and reformers has been crucial in understanding caste not as a sacred order but as a historically constructed system of social inequality that continues to influence Indian society today.

 

 

 

Question 4: Discuss the different views of Ambedkar and Lohia on Indian Society.

Answer: The study of Indian society would be incomplete without examining the contrasting yet complementary perspectives of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, two of the most influential social thinkers and reformers of modern India. Both were deeply committed to the transformation of Indian society and the establishment of an egalitarian social order. However, they approached the problems of social inequality, caste, and economic justice from different ideological and methodological standpoints. While Ambedkar focused on the annihilation of caste and the emancipation of Dalits, Lohia emphasized socialist reconstruction and equality through a synthesis of caste and class struggles. Their views together provide a rich sociological understanding of the structural inequalities and dynamics of social change in India.

1. Ambedkar’s Perspective on Indian Society

Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891–1956) approached Indian society primarily through the lens of caste, religion, and social exclusion. He viewed the caste system as the most significant and destructive feature of Indian social structure.

(a) Caste as a System of Social Inequality

Ambedkar argued that caste is not merely a division of labor but a division of laborers, where hierarchy and exclusion are justified through religious ideology. In his famous work “Annihilation of Caste” (1936), he described caste as a graded inequality, where each caste oppresses those below it while submitting to those above. This created a system of hierarchical interdependence that destroyed the spirit of equality and fraternity necessary for democracy.

Unlike earlier sociologists who studied caste as a cultural institution, Ambedkar analyzed it as a social system of power and domination. He believed that the caste system denied the lower castes, particularly the Dalits, not only economic resources but also human dignity and social recognition.

(b) Religion and Social Hierarchy

Ambedkar was critical of Hinduism’s Brahminical ideology, which he saw as the religious basis of caste inequality. Texts like the Manusmriti were, in his view, tools of oppression that sanctified hierarchy and untouchability. He argued that true social equality could not be achieved without rejecting the religious foundations of caste.

His conversion to Buddhism in 1956 was both a personal and political act — a way to seek liberation from Hindu social structures and to promote a rational, ethical, and egalitarian religion. For Ambedkar, Buddhism represented a moral community based on equality, liberty, and fraternity — the principles he considered essential for an ideal society.

(c) Social Justice and Political Democracy

Ambedkar’s vision of Indian society was one of social democracy, where liberty, equality, and fraternity were not just political ideals but social realities. He emphasized that political democracy cannot succeed without social and economic democracy. Therefore, he advocated constitutional safeguards for the Scheduled Castes, including reservations in education, employment, and politics, to correct historical injustices and promote social mobility.

From a sociological standpoint, Ambedkar’s approach can be understood as a structural critique of Indian society — one that exposes how social stratification based on caste hinders modernization, democracy, and human development.

2. Lohia’s Perspective on Indian Society

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (1910–1967), on the other hand, was a socialist thinker and political activist who sought to combine the struggles against caste and class exploitation. His sociology of Indian society was rooted in the idea of “sapta kranti” (seven revolutions), encompassing struggles against inequality in caste, gender, race, wealth, and colonialism.

(a) Caste and Class: The Dual Structure of Inequality

Lohia recognized caste as a deeply entrenched social reality but approached it differently from Ambedkar. While Ambedkar saw caste primarily as a system of religious exclusion, Lohia viewed it as both a social and economic structure. He argued that caste and class were interlinked forms of inequality in Indian society.

For Lohia, the upper castes controlled both economic resources and political power, while the lower castes suffered from material deprivation and social stigma. Hence, he called for a “socialist revolution” that attacked both caste and class hierarchies simultaneously. His slogan, “Jati tod, samaj jodo” (break caste, unite society), summarized his belief that economic equality was impossible without the destruction of caste.

(b) Emphasis on Equality and Socialist Reconstruction

Lohia’s thought was rooted in democratic socialism, but he adapted it to Indian conditions. He emphasized “Chaukhamba Raj” — decentralized governance through four pillars: village, district, province, and center. He believed that real social change could only come through participation of the masses, especially the backward classes, in political and economic life.

He was also among the first Indian thinkers to highlight the importance of women’s liberation in the struggle for social equality. His socialist vision thus combined economic justice, caste equality, and gender emancipation.

(c) Critique of Western Socialism and Indian Elitism

Lohia criticized both Western Marxism and Indian liberalism for ignoring the unique structure of caste in India. He believed that a mere focus on class struggle, as in Marxism, could not transform Indian society because caste divisions preceded and shaped class inequalities. Therefore, he proposed a “Socialism in Indian context”, rooted in indigenous realities.

He also opposed the dominance of English-speaking elites, arguing that linguistic and cultural hierarchies further reinforced social exclusion. His advocacy for Hindi and regional languages was part of his broader goal to democratize knowledge and power.

3. Comparative Analysis: Ambedkar and Lohia

Aspect	Dr. B.R. Ambedkar	Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia
Primary Concern	Caste oppression and untouchability	Interlinkage of caste and class inequalities
Approach	Constitutional reform and social justice	Socialist reconstruction and political mobilization
View of Religion	Criticized Hinduism; embraced Buddhism	Focused more on socio-economic equality than religious reform
Method of Change	Legal measures, education, and social movements	Political activism and socialist reorganization
Key Concept	Annihilation of caste	Caste-class synthesis (Jati tod, samaj jodo)
Goal	Social democracy based on liberty, equality, fraternity	Democratic socialism with equality across caste and gender

Conclusion

Both Ambedkar and Lohia sought to transform Indian society into an egalitarian and democratic order, but they differed in focus and strategy. Ambedkar emphasized the eradication of caste and the establishment of social justice through constitutional means, whereas Lohia envisioned a socialist society that attacked both caste and economic inequality. From a sociological perspective, Ambedkar represents a structural and moral critique of caste hierarchy, while Lohia provides a socio-political framework for integrated social transformation.

Together, their ideas highlight that Indian society’s problems cannot be solved by addressing either caste or class in isolation. True equality requires a synthesis of social, economic, and political reform — a vision that continues to guide contemporary debates on justice and democracy in India.

 

 

 

Describe the socio-economic background of emergence of sociology.

Why did the major focus of sociologists and social-scientists became the village studies in India during the nineteen fifties? Discuss.

Describe the ‘Brahminical’ perspective on caste system in India.

Discuss the different views of Ambedkar and Lohia on Indian Society.

Describe the agrarian class structure in India with examples.

What are the village commons? Discuss its significance.

Discuss the debate between Verrier Ellowin and G.S. Ghurey regarding the tribes in India.

Discuss the different roles that religion plays in Indian society with suitable examples.

What is urbanisation? Discuss its role in transforming the urban areas in India.

What are the difference between old social movements and new social movements? Discuss with examples.

IGNOU MSO-004 Assignment Answers 2025: : Sociology in India Solved Part 2