Andre Beteille’s day out
This
blogger had the fortune (in certain way misfortune!!) to listen to Andre
Beteille, one of the leading sociologist in the country. Intellectuals in power
seeking alleys of Delhi live in allusion of grandeur surrounded by competing sycophants,
untroubled by appraising eyes, but then “what is excluded doesn’t disappear but
always return to unsettle every construction, no matter how secure it seems” (Derrida).
Mr.Beteille
seems like an unabashed follower of MN Srinivas, from this perch Sanskritisation
is a stellar view. A question was asked by a young lad on a contrarian stream
–essentially subaltern in strictly hierarchical Indian pantheon– Palisation/Dalitisation
(recently put forth by Kanchan Illiah). There was a gasp from the audience,
irritation writ heavily on somber faces that has learned to live on taxpayer’s
money (indeed Nehru library talks are costly affair -adding the value of
property and historicity). To be fair Beteille seemed unperturbed even managed
a sly “I was expecting it”. That “the sociologist is only being objective” is
valiant effort on hiding an elephant in the room. That it adds to skewed
narration makes it vulgar.
In
his long talk on MN –almost a eulogy– he also mentioned how MN’s english skills
attracted the British. Aha. Indeed Beteille on being asked about importance of
field research did say, apart from other things “...on away from mother and
wife…”. The question was asked to a sociologist by an aspirant (this context
has to be emphasized), if this is objectivity by ‘leading sociologist’ then god
save us. What about “father and husband”? Clearly he was not able to dissociate
himself while answering. Objective
analysis has embedded subjectivities, we live with ‘multiple identities’
(Amartya Sen). That MN Srinivas, indeed any social researcher, was uniquely
qualified to be objective, therefore sanskritisation is objective is gibberish.
When most theorist/intellectuals come from one section of society these
prejudices gets reiterated. Indeed Indian sociology seems to work on these
frameworks. If Sanskritisation makes sense then Palisation should very well
make sense, it is a new entrant, since for so long, there was no one to see the
world from this reality, the very reason why Sankritisation got so much
credence, though the theory essentially is reflection of MN Srinivas’s
background that is sought to be generalized (in this context Westernisation is
a tribute to masters).
Sociologists,
particularly from Indian reality that too in the beginning of the 20th century, are difficult to be objective. It isn’t possible. Sociology
is not a science, despite the tools employed and intentions. Ultimately
subjective reality does come in when one seeks to analyze empirical evidences and
judge society. Therefore it is important for different understandings to exist.
Palisation should find mention in texts, indeed there need further study on
this. Prima facie there is substance to it and should be encouraged. Otherwise
it is monopolization of reality.
