4 Contesting voices from the margins: challenge of dalit, women and muslim voice to sociology

Anurekha Chari Wagh

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Dalit’s Voice: Challenges to Sociology in India

3. Challenges of Women’s Studies of Sociology in India

4.Voice from the Margins: Muslims Challenge to Sociology

5. Conclusion

Introduction

In this module we start with the question- Why is there a need for a discussion on the voices from the margins? As students we recognize that asking questions is the start of knowledge construction. Sociology is at present, in an exciting, dynamic and challenging period. Its boundaries are being continuously pushed with new ideas that are displacing the old ones; innovative approaches are being experimented with, which in turn is leading us to a sociology that which is ‘messy’ but interesting. We need to recognize that rather than being fixed, sociological categories, concepts, content, methodologies, and ideas have always been in a state of flux and continuously a part of debates (continuously debated upon). Scholars in Dalit, gender, religious, queer, race, ethnicity theorists and many more positions are have constantly challenged and broadened the borders, and have ‘pushed the envelope’ far. Thereby expanding our understanding of society, questioning institutionalized epistemology and develop multiple and creative pedagogies, within sociology. Scholars have analysed the zealous efforts by mainstream sociologists to keep the ‘doors closed’ to new ideas, the most used concept being that of ‘institutionalised gatekeepers’ (Foucault 1984).

Having established the need to hear and incorporate challenges from the margins, the question is – how are we going to deal with it? This module will incorporate three voices, which will include the Dalit, the women and the Muslim challenge to Sociology in India. In of terms of the structure of the module, we would have three sections dealing each with one challenge and the last section will be the conclusion tying all the arguments together. Section one, will engage with the challenge of the Dalit voice; section two with the voice of women’s studies and section three the challenge of the Muslims in India. Section four will be the conclusion.

What would the students learn from it? One, that knowledge is dynamic, it keeps on changing and that asking questions of ‘why’, ‘how’, is important to the making of any discipline. Two, students will understand how knowledge systems gets constructed then institutionalized, and how difficult and important it is to push the institutionalized boundaries. Three, how the voices of the groups in the margins find it difficult to push established knowledge domains, but also how rewarding it is when it does.

Section One: Dalit’s Voice: Challenge to Sociology in India

In this section we draw upon two articles; one by Edward A. Rodrigues1, titled ‘Dalit’ Struggle for Recognition within Indian Sociology (2003) and the other by Vivek Kumar2 titled ‘Situating Dalits in Indian Sociology’ (2005). By drawing on the above referred works, we theorise on how sociology as a discipline has failed to address the challenges of Dalit studies. Rodrigues (2003) focuses on three important issues by historicizing the process of institutionalizing of sociology, one, response of sociology to analysis of untouchability; two, teaching of dalit issue in sociology and three the need to reorient learning in classrooms to make it sensitive. Kumar (2005) on the other hand focuses on one, ignorance and apathy of academics with regard to dalits, two, failure of sociologists in India to develop a vocabulary to capture the identity of dalits, and three lack of sociological literature to address the multiple forms of exclusion faced by dalits.

Rodrigues (2003) argues that we need to analyse the dominant understanding that sociology as a discipline emerged out of the scientific, technical and industrial revolution experienced in Europe. Sociology in this context is constructed as part of the larger scientific project developed by the enlightenment in the ‘positivistic’ mould of a ‘problem solving’ science – with a quest for universal laws for human progress. Critics of enlightenment have often questioned the historical validity of such claims on progress. They argue that such modes of analysis legitimise and reproduce the ruling-class interests in any given society. Thus it is important to recognize that sociology is a profoundly political discourse and that critical sociology, often working from the margins of the discipline, confronts its dominant positivistic counterpart, contesting assumptions of human progress and the implications of these for social policy. This is important because if sociology makes claim to explain and interpret the social world, it becomes pertinent that we need to know that there are many different social worlds. Further, each has its many ‘forms of knowledge’ and ‘worldview’ concerning the everyday world.

If this is the context, then Rodrigues (2003) argues that the important question to pose is – To what extent does each of the social worlds find expression within Indian sociology? Rodrigues (2003) states that Sociology in India, has always been both ideologically and politically a site of contestation, because its progressive project of human emancipation in India, has from the beginning been by, for, and of elite. This progressive project of the elite has been done through the following processes. One, Ideological Context of Indian Sociology – Sociology, through its dominant curriculum, carries out its ideological programmes through specific practices and strategies that reproduce its underlying values. This practice refers to the whole upper caste community intellectuals who struggled for control over the processes of knowledge production under colonialism. Especially in higher education, theoretical models, fixation of boundaries to specify the legitimate concerns of the discipline and making the boundaries fixed and non responsive to challenges of new ideas.

1 Rodrigues A Edward (2003): ‘Dalit’ Struggle for Recognition within Indian Sociology in Maithreyi Chaudhuri The Practice of Sociology, Orient Longman, New Delhi.

2 Kumar Vivek (2005): Situating Dalits in Indian Sociology. Sociological Bulletin, 54 (3), September‐December pp. 514‐ 532.

Two, Influence of Functionalism – This influence laid the foundation of many works carried out based on a historical perspective, conservative treatment of social reality and complete inability to undertake any serious analysis of social reality. It was through this influence of functionalism and process of institutionalization, that sociology in India was shaped to represent the idea and ideology of the elite. Vision for the poor, the marginalized, women, the displaced and the dispossessed, sociology remained a discourse of progress in which they existed as the ‘other’, i.e the untouchables (Rodrigues 2003).

Three, Response to untouchability – In privileging caste within sociological analysis, it failed to have any serious engagement with class issues of exploitation and oppression that confronted the Dalits and other weaker sections of Indian society. Secondly, in centering their (upper caste) knowledge and experience as the starting point for sociological analysis – Indian sociology had knowingly or unknowingly asserted an upper caste bias to sociological analysis. The upper castes had, through control over higher education, controlled knowledge production – which marginalised Dalit issues in Indian sociology through their command over intellectual and cultural resources. Indian sociology seemed unable to incorporate within its thinking, a body of knowledge – social, political and historical writings produced by leaders from the dalit movement- Jyotiba Phule, B. R. Ambedkar, Periyar- who have presented a rich critique of the caste system in India (Rodrigues 2003).

There is a disjunction between the politics of the untouchability movement and the sociological response to this issue. Sociology in India turned out to be acutely insensitive to the political upheaval that had engulfed the social structure. From its very beginning the discipline was in control of scholars from upper caste intelligentsia. They were unable to engage with untouchability, which not only reflected their upper caste bias historically but also laid the basis for how sociology in post independent India would marginalize some groups of the community.

Through the 1960s, Rodriguues (2003) the study of untouchability underwent a change of orientation, in the direction of social mobility, where the focus was on improvement of their (untouchables) conditions as a result of the benefits of the State’s reservation policy. The 1970s was a turbulent period, a time of grass root social movements, when the dalits began to redefine their struggle in terms of rights, including right to life, the right to human dignity and self-respect. By infusing the identity of ‘Dalit’ with radical notions of empowerment and emancipation- the Dalit Panthers rejected both the – concessions of the State and the elusive gains of electoral politics and, instead, advocated direct retaliation. Unfortunately this does not find reflection in mainstream sociology of the 60s and 70s. However, the late 1970s saw the emergence of a new body of writings- Gail Omvedt, Gopal Guru, E Zelliot, Kancha Ilaiah- who altered the way to engage with issues of untouchability, but their writings, for a long time, remained in the margins.

Rodrigues (2003) takes his analysis to the teaching of the dalit issue in sociology. Unfortunately, sociology in the classroom continues to be an apolitical, non-committal pedagogy lacking the conviction to interrogate, confront and reject the prejudices and values that dominate the classroom. According to him, given the history to the institutionalization of the discipline as discussed above, Dalit concerns within teaching of sociology remains almost non- existent. There is lack of sensitivity as the integration of untouchables within the working environment of academic institutions is an issue and is changing the classrooms. In the socio-cultural context of class rooms the issue of untouchability is dealt with as one among many social problems. To develop alternative theoretical perspective that is sensitive to issues of class-caste oppression, Rodrigues (2003) argues that there is a need of a critical sociology that would interrogate the hegemonic practices of the upper castes, especially in the sphere of knowledge production, control and access of institutions of higher education.

Kumar (2005) argues that it is important to address the misunderstandings about dalits. There is a great deal of ignorance, misconceptions among the politicians, policy makers, social reformers, bureaucrats, and even academicians harbor with regard to Dalits. Kumar presents a narrative to emphasize this point. He writes, ‘Even as late as 1999, a high profile university professor, who has extensively worked on the issues related to caste, asked me, ‘What is the difference between Jai Shri Ram and Jai Bhim, as both are religious sysmbols?’ I had to explain to the learned professor that this ‘Jai Bhim’ is not the Bheem of Mahabharat; it is the first name of Bhim Rao Ambedkar which has now become the greeting symbol of dalits ’ (Kumar 2005: 514). Why is this narrative important and what does it signify with regard to the dalits and sociology? It is problematic because an academic who has worked on issues of caste should have known the symbolic and political inference of the ‘greeting’. The fact is that inspite of having worked on ‘caste’ for years the sociologist does not realize or take cognizance and implication of the difference. Such an approach reflects the manner in which sociologists in India have analysed caste. There are three issues with regard to the kind of analysis:

One, Sociologists in India has never been able to explain the location of the dalit within the Hindu social order, thereby Indian society itself. Kumar is posing the question ‘if’ the dalits have been studied objectively by the Indian sociologists. He argues that it has not been. Therefore it is an important academic concern how Indian sociology has failed to locate dalits in the Indian society in general and Hindu social order in particular. Kumar argues that sociologists have analysed caste in India based on the ‘book view’ approach. This approach states that there are four varnas, and that the dalits are the fifth varna of the Hindu society without any strong argument. According to Kumar no sociologist has ever given a convincing argument for the fact that, even though they are included for exploitation of cheap labour, they have been excluded from every other interaction pattern.

Two, sociologists in India have not been able to come up with a politically correct terminology. Along with other social scientists, they use stigmatized identities like ‘lower castes’, ‘exterior castes’, ‘untouchables’, ‘Harijans’, for dalits. The language stigmatizes dalits. Further the sociologists have not even recorded the fact that the dalits are not comfortable with these identities. One needs to contextualize this with the fact that there has been a gradual awakening of self-respect among the dalits and that they have challenged these names and consequently protested for a change in their caste names. Dalits rejected the name of ‘harijan’ (name popularly believed be given by Mahatma Gandhi, but in actuality used originally by Narsinha Mehta, Kumar 2005). The sociologists now academically use the term ‘scheduled castes’ decided by the government- referring to the untouchable castes who were put in a Schedule for the purpose of providing them constitutional safeguards under the British government in 1937, which was continued by the free Indian government. In the 1970s a new identity namely ‘dalit’ was asserted. Dalit-meaning the oppressed, represented their socio-economic political position in Hindu India. It is unfortunate that sociologists in India have used the stigmatized social identities for referring to dalits (Kumar 2005).

Indian sociologists have not been able to document and analyse the substantive issues about dalits. While analyzing this, Kumar draws upon the work of Oommen (2001) and argues that Indian sociologists have addressed social exclusions faced by the dalits only in a descriptive manner. The sociological literature is silent not only on the number of movements launched by the dalits for their independent status from the Hindu social order but also the religious conversion of dalits to Islam, Sikhism and Christianity. Such a silence hides the reality of conversion and the history of violence and exploitation of the dalits at the hands of the caste Hindus. The role played by the dalits in the independence movement, their literature and culture is not recorded and are blacked out by caste Hindu media, intelligentsia, and academia. Adding to this process of wiping out, studies by Indian sociologists have not undertaken any quantitative or qualitative analysis of the processes of exclusion and deprivation of dalits in Indian society.

Kumar (2005) argues that sociologists have failed to record the impact of this social, economic, political exploitation on dalit communities, who have been robbed of their cultural capital generation after generation. The sociologists could have analysed creatively, the manner in which everyday forms of speech and practices ridicule dalits, but they have not. Kumar argues in favour of using dalit literature, the creative, political and ideological to understand and analyse the lives of dalits. According to him, these writings are sociological as they have emerged out of existential and experimental realities of dalits. Further, it keeps in context the historicity and dynamism of the lives thus arguing for use of dalit literature as sociological research material. Select writings from dalit literature can be introduced in sociology curriculum and taught and discussed by teachers and students contextually. Lastly, Kumar argues specifically for a specialized branch of sociology – sociology of dalits- to be introduced, developed and nurtured. Further, Kumar (2005) introduced the framework of Human Distress Index (HDI) for dalits, which can measure the social exclusion of dalits. Such a development will help to realize and capture the fact that atrocities on dalits have a social structural basis of caste prejudice.

Analysis of the above pushes one to the approach that, for a long time, sociologists in India had taken with regard to caste studies. The fact of matter is that most of the sociologists were ‘upper castes’ themselves, and I believe have therefore, analysed caste with a kind of ‘patronage’ feeling. This has had an impact on the way caste was learnt. It is important because by the time caste identity had become an important resource for the dalits, for the ‘upper caste’, it remained mostly at symbolic levels. They had become seemingly ‘caste less’, because now for the upper caste, such an identity rather than helping them getting access to resources, paradoxically acted as a hindrance. The caste identity was very much naturalized to the extent that it was not referred to as important to reiterate. To the extent that ‘sensitivity’ to caste issues was interpreted as not asking the caste identity directly of people but to strategically look for signs, such as last name, food habits and other such cultural practices that would straight away put invisible barriers between people.

Section Two: Challenge of Women’s Studies to Sociology in India

In this section we draw upon the works of a number of scholars who have analysed and theorized about the challenge of women’s studies to sociology in India. Scholars like Neera Desai, Maithreyi Krishnaraj, Sujata Patel, Maitreyi Chaudhuri, Sharmila Rege, S. Anandhi, Padwini Swaminathan, Meena Gopal to name some have posed questions with regard to the challenge of women’s studies to social sciences in general and sociology in particular.

One of the earliest voices in India to question and challenge the disciplinary gatekeeping of sociology was that of Neera Desai (1970) who discussed about the challenges of teaching women’s studies within a discipline like sociology that was ignorant of the voice of women in India. Adding to this was the argument of Chaudhuri (1982), that Indian sociologists have confined themselves only to the studies of middle class and upper class women and even these dealt with only conflicts and blending of ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity’. The question is, why is it that, in sociology, whenever women’s issues were dealt with it was the experience of ‘middle class women’? As an analysis of this question one can draw insights from Rege’s (2003) analysis that there is a need to understand that the agenda of the liberal reformists and revivalists of the nineteenth century in India set the contours for the ‘woman in sociology’ in the cognitive structures of education in India. Therefore, when sociology became institutionalized the space within the sociological discourse came to be granted either to the women in the ‘texts’ or the ‘middle-class women’, in the context of modernization. Thus it is the reformist concern with the qualities and domain of women of the middle classes that instituted the suvarna, middle-class women, as the object of sociological analysis of the status of women in India.

Continuing the debate Rege (1997, 2003) argues that knowledge is socially constructed and therefore there is a need to recognize that boundaries get created by institutions and professionals, (and to this I would add established ideologies of the time) who act as gatekeepers. There has been immense work on the fact that feminist scholarship has challenged- methodology, content and epistemology (Knowledge construction) of the social sciences discipline including sociology.

The discussions above clearly make a call for the argument that feminist studies are political, as it an intellectual movement for justice, recognition and emancipation from subordination. It challenges the philosophical and epistemological underpinnings of knowledge that endorse and legitimize inequality, especially gender inequality. It offers a critique of the existing paradigms including tools, concepts, and techniques in all institutionalized disciplines. Lastly by building and drawing upon the relationship with women’s movement, it questions the dichotomy between thought and action, which makes it political (Rege 1997).

The works on women prior to institutionalization of women’s studies, which went beyond the positivist framework established within the discipline include A. R Wadia’s Ethics of Feminism 1923- explored the effects of feminist thought on marriage, motherhood, home-life, education and professions. Chandrakala Hate‘s thesis on Hindu Women (1946) and S.C Dube’s review of the roles of men and women in India (1963). Iravati Karve’s over the period of 1950s and 1960s on work marriage, family, motherhood using legends and folk songs- need deliberation. Karve’s work has been criticized for the Brahmanical underpinnings. Rege (2003) argues that it was only in the 1980s with the growth of women’s movement, that scholars began to underline the wide gap between the everyday worlds of women and sociological knowledge. Through this analysis Rege underlines the ‘mainstream’ and ‘malestream’ of sociology, and thereby underlines the invisibility of women in sociology.

Anandhi and Swaminathan (2006) argue that the foundation of women’s studies was laid in the 1970s with the tabling of the Report of the Committee on the Status of Women in India called ‘Towards Equality’ (1974). This was followed by Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) Advisory Committee on Women’s Studies (1977) that demanded new research on the social and economic conditions of women. Furthermore, the declaration of the Decade for Women (1975-1985) by the United Nations also gave priority (impetus) to research activities in all aspects concerning the situation of women, facilitated by funding from the government of India. Here the research was geared on issues that could identify the impediments to women’s full contribution to the development programmes. The Committee underlines the fact that the purpose of these research activities was to challenge the marginalization and misrepresentation in social sciences by adding new knowledge about through generating data.

Anandhi and Swaminathan (2006) argued that, initially women’s studies were largely perceived as a critical perspective and as an intellectual pursuit in social research and not as a discipline or a separate programme. However in the early 1980s both the Indian Association of Women’s Studies (IAWS) and University Grants Commission (UGC) believed that women’s studies needed to be integrated into existing academic disciplines as courses and specialized centres. These centres for women’s studies were expected to play a ‘catalytic role’ in making the entire university community to address issues that concern women. Scholars were urged to link women’s scholarship with action programmes of women’s movement.

Continuing the argument Rege (2003) states that the twin origins of women’s studies; from the women’s movement and the UGC, without much interaction with university authorities and change in the conceptual frameworks, has posed several conceptual and operational problems. The increased interest in research on women, often translated into studies on dowry, unmarried mothers, modernization, among women, female criminality, problems of female folk artistes, employment among Brahman women and the impact on family patterns and domestic servants in urban spheres. Further, the studies on these issues were often couched under studies on social change, modernization, impact on family patterns, social problems, which excluded all possibility of any analysis from gender inequality in public and private spheres. Though women’s studies conceptually and politically, demanded greater interdependence with women’s studies, the institutionalization of women’s studies has lead to greater distancing of academics with the movement.

Rege (2003) states that responses of feminist critique was mostly in three ways: one, Inclusion – into cognitive structures without challenging assumption. Two, Separatism – for sociology of women from the women’s standpoint and three Reconceptualization-challenge the ‘taken for granted categories of sociology and rework it to integrate the concerns and experiences of women incorporating the class, caste, and other structural variations.

Rege (2003) continues her argument and states that a textual analysis of the syllabus of number of sociology departments made apparent the ‘optional’ and ‘additive’ character of courses on women and society. What does additive refer to? It refers to the fact that in most of the universities the mediations between experience, history and sociological categories (so essential in feminist pedagogies) is near absent in the sociology syllabus, teaching and pedagogy. What is feminist pedagogy? It involves an enduring connectedness to the living and the concrete, an emphasis on participation and interaction, collaboration and cooperation, teaching with a vision and not applied knowledge but historical perspective on knowledge.

What then would help in engendering sociology? According to Rege (2003), it refers to interrogating the processes through which sociological categories are constructed, was gendered. Further it also calls for feminist reflexivity that underlies the ways in which sociological discourse is patriarchal, middle class, Hindu and Brahmanical. It also involves the reconceptualization of basic categories of analysis, bringing to the centre- the lived experiences of the marginalized. Further along with teaching with a vision that involves ‘passionate pedagogy’ it also understands that teachers and students bring their ‘texts’ of their own. Thus sociology of the marginalized would need to be based on the questioning of the epistemological basis of ‘malestream’ discipline of sociology.

Section Three: Voice from the Margins: Muslims challenge to Sociology

The third section in this module deals with an important voice from the margins, that of the Muslim voice. In this section we would be drawing heavily on the works of an eminent scholar Nasreen Fazalbhoy, who has very clearly in her works over the years drawn the attention of sociologists to the lack of sociological work on Muslims in India. To develop this section, two of her articles are used; one titled ‘Sociology of Muslims in India: A Review’ (1997) was published in Economic and Political Weekly, and ‘Sociology and Muslims in India: Directions, Trends, Prospects’ (2005) published in the Sociological Bulletin. Fazalbhoy (1997, 2005) argues that one needs to recognize that as compared to the number of Muslims in the world, India has the second largest Muslim Population in the whole world. So if presence is an issue then Muslims are large in numbers, then the important question is, why has the sociological work on the Muslims been so disproportionately little?

This is problematic because the lack of unbiased research on Muslims leads to a situation where people do not have much information with regard to the community, which in instances of communal tensions could lead to increased levels of mutual suspicion. Fazalbhoy further argues, the term ‘Muslim’ in the Indian context has tended more and more to conflate a social as well as religious identity, to develop a picture of ‘one singular Muslim identity’. In such a situation people do not recognize the fact that there is as much diversity in the Muslim population as there is among the Hindus.

Fazalbhoy drawing on S. Misra (1963) who described 130 Muslim communities in the state of Gujarat alone and the Anthropological Survey of India‘s, Peoples of India project (Singh 1996) emphasized on the diversity among the Muslims, and also argued that there could be as much as 15 percent of the population that cannot be classified as one or the other. The reasons of diversity as stated by Singh (1996) include region of origin, history of conversion, the class background, the migration patterns, the language, etc which reflect not only in social aspects but also in religious observances. So what is the point in this? As students of sociology we need to recognize that we need to develop a nuanced understanding of Muslims in India, and question the ‘the dominant Muslim identity’ legitimized in popular imagination.

Fazalbhoy (1997, 2005) then goes on to analyse why there could be a dearth of post Independence studies on Muslims. Important scholars who have worked on Muslims include Imtiaz Ahmad (1972) and T.N Madan (1976, 1995, 1992). The focus areas of Ahmad in his articles included sociological study of Muslim social structure and the interaction patterns of Muslims with non-Muslims, in particular the Hindus. According to Fazalbhoy important studies worth mentioning are Leela Dube (1969), monograph on Matriliny and Islam 3 and Pratap Agarwal’s (1971) research on Meos of Gujarat4, both of which analysed the diversity present within religion.

Ahmad’s collection of four edited books published in the 1970s and 1980s, where he put together articles on Muslims in areas of family and kinship, caste, modernization and change, and religion and ritual was very crucial. Within the framework developed by him to study the Muslims in India the important concept was that of ‘syncreticism’. According to him, ‘while Muslims in India (as Muslims elsewhere) believe in and practice the cardinal principles of faith, the practice of Islam in India is heavily underlined by ‘elements which are accretions, drawn from the local environment and contradict the fundamentalist view of the beliefs and practices to which Muslims must adhere (Ahmad 1981:7 cited Fazalbhoy 1997:1548). Thus the general orientation of the studies was ‘syncreticism’ where the focus was on impact of Hinduism on Islam and not vice versa.

Based on his work, Ahmad noted that by and large, sociologists have concerned themselves with Hindus in India. If one analyses the works of earlier sociologists on village studies, studies on religion, modernization and development, there is clearly few if not any sociological works on Muslims in India. Ahmad referred to the lacuna in empirical work, having any reflection on Muslims. Such an absence was conceptualised by him as

3 Leela Dube (1969) ‘Matriliny and Islam’ explored the theoretical issue of how a matrilineal kinship system works in a society which otherwise adheres to Islam, ‘which in its ideology as well as in its prescriptions, mandates and injunctions assumes and emphasizes a patrilineal social structure’ (Dube 1969: 3 cited in Fazalbhoy (2005: 498)

4 Pratap Agarwal’s (1971) research on the Meos, tried to anaylse as to why the Meos, who had been nominal Muslims for almost 300 years became more committed to their Muslim identity after Partition. This is interesting because after the partition the trend was to shed the Muslim identity rather than reiterate it (Cited in Fazalbhoy 2005)‘important to reflect then on how India itself was viewed’. Ahmad argued that by not giving space to the non- Hindus in the study of India one would end up with Hindu sociology, Muslim Sociology, Christian sociology, but not Sociology of India.

If one reflects on his concerns it clearly brings out the contradictions present in the making of identity of ‘India’. What contradiction? While on one hand there was a conscious process of showcasing the ‘unity in diversity’ imagery and on the other a conflation of Indian identity as ‘Hindu’, and the other religions as ‘other’. This was especially true of the Muslims, and as far as the other religious communities were concerned they were not simply taken into cognizance even to refer to them as the ‘other’. Thus it is very safe to argue that the information on Muslims in particular and minority in general is scare and often met with ‘silence’. Whatever work is done, easily frames Muslims within ‘straight jacketed religious identity’, without any effort to present the diversity and variety within the Muslim communities.

How do we understand this silence? Fazalbhoy (2005) tries to analyse this by drawing on the works of Saberwal (2005), who commented that there were ideological, methodological and conceptual reasons for this paucity. Ideologically it referred to the feeling that following the trauma of partition, there was a tendency to ignore marks of differences in Indian society, especially that of religion. Thus scholars working with categories of ‘Hindu’ or ‘Muslim’ could be accused of being communal and the focus was to celebrate the ‘unity’ rather than the ‘differences’. Conceptually the focus of sociological research was on ‘caste’, which was identified with Indian society, and caste itself identified with Hindu, especially upper caste as presented in section one in this module. Methodologically, sociologists in India were disinterested in historical developments, such a perspective contributed to a general neglect of Muslims in sociology in India.

Fazalbhoy (1997) argues that one needs to understand that Muslim societies were not simple reflections of textual religion- notion of ‘lived Islam’. We still need to find categories and approaches that would help us to explore India, not only in terms of religious groups but also in their mutuality. It is not possible to study a community- Muslim in India, without taking into account the impact of political developments that have made Muslims very insecure. The allegations directed to Muslims, as them being anti-national, they fanatically adhere to religious practices, their treatment of women is conservative, practice ploygamy and do not believe in family planning. It is a malicious argument used by political groups mobilizing people on grounds of religion. So in this context it becomes important to have sociological studies on Muslims in India so as to dispel these needless, unwarranted and dangerous ideas.

Fazalbhoy argues that by the late 1980s the shift had occurred, and a few anthropologists, sociologists and historians started working on three areas; communalism and communal identity, sufism and women. It was in the area of women that much of the research on Muslims was on the issue of ‘purdah’. In particular Zoya Hassan’s work was very important. Fazalbhoy argues that the work of Hassan (1993) on the social construction of Muslim women especially as important signifiers of Muslim identity is very crucial in the context of communal politics today. Fazalbhoy (1997, 2005) argues that it is important to focus on everyday details of Muslims in India, thereby contetxualising the Muslim life as an inherent part of landscape of India. Areas that need focus are – working of the legal system, customary practices, marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

What are the reasons for this state? Fazalbhoy (1997, 2005) has discussed many important reasons. One, the changing political climate associated with increasing suspicion between communities does not make it easy to take up studies on Islam. Two, the syllabus taught either at undergraduate or postgraduate level does not include any reference to the lives of Muslims. Three, the teachers and students lack a proper holistic historical perspective needed to discuss, teach and learn about Muslims. Four, the discussions on Muslims are not contextualised in terms of social structure, which is very problematic. Five, infrastructural facilities that encourage sociological studies of Islam are lacking in India. These facilities include departments that specialize in study of Islamic societies, associated library facilities, and conferences, seminars and workshops.

Here it is important to ask the question ‘whose voice’? I have been teaching in a state university for the past 10 years and I can count the number of students who were Muslims. The lack of sociological analyses on Muslims in India could be related to the conceptual framework of ‘insider-outsider’. The question is how many non-Muslims take up research work either as doctoral dissertation or project work on the Muslims in India. How many are comfortable working on it? Furthermore, how many Muslim sociology students go on to higher education and pursue research? To add to this how many teachers are Muslims? All these are interconnected. Obviously I do not argue that one should be a Muslim to work on ‘Islam and Muslims’, but reflecting on the state of sociological research on Muslims in India, one can state that the majority of sociologists in India being non-Muslims could have been a factor contributing towards paucity of work on this issue. Such a question of ‘who can speak for whom’ which is applied to address issues of gender, caste, sexual orientation, could also be applicable in this issue.

Conclusion:

The questions and challenges of marginalized perspectives offer sociology the methods, frameworks and passion to analyse critically its knowledge base. Thereby pushing it to ask relevant, contextual questions and engage with new emerging dimensions of social reality. By critiquing the existing research and theories, the voices, challenges and scholarship from the margins, enrich existing mainstream knowledge structures sometimes by building on them and at other times by completely rewriting them to create new knowledge domains. We also need to remember that these new knowledge structures can and should also be questioned. It is through engaging and constant questioning and re-engaging that disciplines are built. Voices and challenges from the margins in India include the voices of Dalits, Women, Minority, Queer and other groups which are not given a space within the institutionalized sociological discourses in India. The question then is, what does the challenge from the margins imply for the sociology of India? It implies that first recognizing that such voices exist and then addressing them would help in changing epistemology, methodology and pedagogy of sociology in India, thereby enriching it. Such enrichment will contribute towards making sociology in India stronger and more relevant. Why relevant? Through this the discipline will engage in conversations with the rapidly changing social dynamics in the society, will engage with everyday life of people, thereby making it accountable to the social realities of people.

DID YOU KNOW?

1. http://www.ansi.gov.in/people_india.htm

This website of the Anthropological Society of India provide data with regard to diversity in India.

2. http://www.ncdhr.org.in/dalits-untouchability/

This website provides information with regard to Dalits in India.

3. http://www.csas.ed.ac.uk/mutiny/confpapers/Gupta-Paper.pdf

This paper by Charu Gupta provides new insight towards engendering Dalit narratives of in Indian history.

Web links

http://www.dalitstudies.org.in/ http://patwardhan.com/%3Fpage_id%3D92

http://csis.org/event/muslims-and-muslim-institutions-india

http://www.anti-caste.org/muslims-and-caste.html

http://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1692%26cont ext%3Djiws

EXTRA READING POINTS:

1.http://www.ntu.ac.uk/apps/news/15947215/Unique_study_to_bring_Indias_Dalit_literature_to_new_audiences.aspx

2.http://www.mcrg.ac.in/inst1.htm This site has information on institutions, publications and eminent individuals working on minority rights.

3. http://www.india-seminar.com/2000/495/495%20sharmila%20rege.htm Histories from Borderlands, Sharmila Rege.

4.http://www.unipune.ac.in/snc/cssh/HistorySociology/A%20DOCUMENTS%20ON  %20HISTORY%20OF%20SOCIOLOGY%20IN%20INDIA/A%201%20Debates  %20on%20sociology%20and%20anthrpology%20of%20India/A%201%2018.pdf Feminist Pedagogy and Sociology for Emancipation in India: Sharmila Rege

5. http://www.india-seminar.com/2005/549/549%20zoya%20hassan.htm Reservations for Muslims: Zoya Hassan

Assessment:

1. Critically analyse Dalit’s voice as it pushes the established knowledge domains?

2. Why is there a need for a discussion on voices from margins?

3. Analyse how knowledge systems gets institutionalized by erasing the voices from the margins?

REFERENCES:

1. Ahmad, I. (1972): ‘For a Sociology of India’, Contributions to Indian Sociology, 6: 172-78.

2. Ahmad, I (1981): Ritual and religion among Muslims in India, New Delhi: Manohar

3. Chaudhuri, Maitreyee (1982): Sociology and Studies on Women. Social Scientist. Vol 10, No 10 (October 1982). Pp 21-29.

4. Chaudhuri, Maitreyee (2003): The Practice of Sociology. Orient Longman. New Delhi.Chaudhuri, Maitreyee (2010): Sociology in India: Intellectual and Institutional Practices. Rawat Publications: Jaipur.

5. Dube, Leela (1969): Matriliny and Islam: Religion and Society in the Laccadives. Delhi: national

6. Fazalbhoy, Nasreen (1997): ‘Sociology of Muslims in India: A Review’ published in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 32, No 26. June 28-July 4, pp 1547-1551.

7. Fazalbhoy, Nasreen (2005) ‘Sociology and Muslims in India: Directions, Trends, Prospects’ Sociological Bulletin. 54(3), September-December pp 496-513.

8. Foucault, M (1980): Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writings, 1972-177New York: Pantheo

9. Kumar Vivek (2005): Situating Dalits in Indian Sociology. Sociological Bulletin, 54 (3), September-December pp. 514-532

10. Rege, Sharmila (1997): Institutional Alliance between Sociology and Gender Studies: Story of Crocodile and Monkey. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 32, No 32 (August 9-15), pp 2023-2017.

11. Rege, Sharmila (2003) (ed): Sociology of Gender: The Challenge of Feminist Sociological Knowledge. Themes in Indian Sociology, Vol 1. Sage Publications. New Delhi 2003.

12. Rege, Sharmila (1999): If this is Tuesday…it must be Social Roles: Sociology and Challenge of Gender Studies. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 29, No 19 (May 7th,1999) pp- 1155-1156.

13. Rodrigues, Eddie (2003): Dalit Struggle for Recognition within Indian Sociology In Maitreyee Chaudhuri (ed) The Practice of Sociology. Orient Longman: New Delhi.

14. S. Anandhi and Swaminathan, Padmini (2006): Making it Relevant: Mapping the meaning of Women’s Studies in Tamil Nadu. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 41, No 42 (October 21-27). pp 4444-4451.