3 Sociology from the regional margins

Anurekha Chari Wagh

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction

2. Section one: Challenges of Teaching Sociology in a Government College

3. Section two: Reflections of Teaching Sociology in Regional University

4. Section three: Sociology in North-East India: Interrogating Margins

5. Section four: Conclusion

Introduction

This module ties together the experiences and reflections of three practitioners of sociology as they teach sociology within regions referred to as the ‘margins’. Here it is important to conceptualise what one refers to as ‘margins’. In this module, ‘margins’ refers to the uneven divide with regard to the practice of sociology in India. The divide is between the centres and peripheries. It is important to recognize that regions have their own specificities and histories, hierarchies and discriminations (Chaudhuri 2010). This complexity impacts sociology teaching and research that is the practice of the discipline. According to Chaudhuri (2010) any examination of the details of everyday practices of the discipline such as teaching, dictating notes, evaluation, examining, writing textbooks, building curriculum and negotiating in decision-making bodies involve engaging with the world outside the institution. By reflecting on the everyday practices of teaching in regions, it brings to light issues of hierarchy in the educational system, politics of university and college institutions and issues concerning the discipline in this globalising neoliberal India.

The debate of the sociology in the margins is based on reflections of sociology practitioners about their teaching experience in different regional locations, the challenges it faces being located in regional institutions. The challenge is not only that of the practitioners but also that the discipline is facing. The module would use the reflections of three sociologists, Santosh Kr Singh, Pushpesh Kumar and Subrat Nanda, who teach in different regional universities but an analysis of their experiences and reflections would reveal that it crosses paths. It is important to recognize that these sociologists contextualize their reflections within the larger macro structures of disciplinary trajectories of sociology in India and the practices and policies of higher education in India. It is important to mention that the three scholars have theorised and conceptualized their reflections in an edited book titled ‘Sociology in India: Intellectual and Institutional Practices (ed) Maitrayee Chaudhuri, Rawat Publications, 2010. And this book is an important reading for the paper ’Sociology in India’.

While focusing on the experiences of the margins it is important to recognize that margins/ meteropolitan centres are not homogenous. Rather they are further divided into hierarchies of centres and margins. It is very important to recognize this. This module would have four sections. Section one would discuss and analyse the reflections of Santosh Kr Singh, teaching in a Government Degree College, in Uttaranchal. Section two would examine the experiences of Pushpesh Kumar, teaching in a regional university based in the West of India. Section three would evaluate the thoughts and perceptions of Subrat Kr Nanda, as he engages with the fact of what it is like teaching in a university based in the Northeast of India. Section four would tie up the reflections and reflect on the similarities and differences in experiences as presented and shared by the practicing sociologists.

What would the students learn from this module?

From this module students would learn four important perspectives:

1. Understand that there are many disciplinary practices towards the discipline. Many of these practices are based in hierarchies. Sociology in India does not refer to one ‘homogenous model’, but there are a number of practices which make up the discipline in India.

    2.  Locations of regions impact the manner in which we approach the discipline. The politics of the region, where the region is located, the students, the teachers, the intersections of caste, class, gender, language and other structures define very much the manner in which the discipline is structured within a region.

3. The disciplinary trajectories also relate very much to the macro structures of national policies on education, infrastructure and funding.

4. Personal reflections that capture the everyday experiences of dealing and living with the discipline are crucial methodological tools to analyse disciplinary practices.

Section One: Challenges of Teaching Sociology in a Government College

In the chapter titled ‘Practising Sociology on the Outside Edge’, Singh (2010) reflects on what it is to practice sociology on the outside edge, referring to his location of teaching at a Government Degree College, in an underdeveloped region up in the north of India. Singh conceptualized margins in terms of the region, especially perceives it within the frame of non -meteroplitan. Further his academic training in one of the centres of learning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, puts this perspective in a particular context. Analysis of the reflections reveals that though most of his observations do critically engage with teaching in the margins, this experience is always contextualized within his training in one of the centres as mentioned above. Never does he critically engage with the centre itself, pushing him to frame the centre ‘ahistorically’.

Based on his experience of teaching sociology in what he refers to as the ‘’outside edge’, periphery or the non-meteropolitan world’, the Government Degree Colleges, in Uttaranchal, Singh (2010) argues that his location plays an important part of not only how he perceives the disciple; but also how the students learn sociology and how the community views the discipline. This could have an important impact on the perception and growth of the discipline. Singh argues that we also need to understand that they do not form a homogenous entity in itself that is to refer to the fact that margins are also based on hierarchies. Singh argues that the concepts of centres and margins are not so much the geographical spaces, but rather more the complexity of ideas. For example, if Delhi is a centre and meteropolitan ‘space’ for colleges and universities in Chandigarh, then Chandigarh itself becomes the centre for a college based in a rural district of Punjab. In the same way, Delhi becomes a margin in relation to an established university abroad. The concept is relative, based on an intermixture of geographical location and ideas generated.

Singh (2010) reflecting upon the teaching experience of sociology for the teacher, the student and the wider community, conceptualizes it in the sense of ‘lack’ or a sense of inadequacy in the whole process. According to him these inadequacies are many and diverse. The stakeholders, the students, teachers and the community, feel that the experience of engaging with sociology is ‘insufficient’. This sense of inadequacy has to be contextualized within the larger story of sociology, especially in the context of higher education, with particular regard to humanities and to the unequal spread of education across regions, across cities and towns, metros and villages. Especially where practitioners and policy makers regard sociology as irrelevant in the present neoliberal structures of education. Further, such irrelevance is compounded by the hierarchy of academics between the centre and periphery which give way to undemocratic practices that go against the very spirit of equal access to education.

Such issues have to be analysed within the overwhelming neoliberal educational practices now being entrenched within the higher education practices. What are these? These refer to the pressure on sciences to become ‘applied knowledge’, emphasis on ‘state of art infrastructure’ as leading to better education, the drive towards ‘placement melas’ or fairs in undergraduate colleges so as to make social sciences relevant in this globalised world or succumbing of teachers to the ‘project driven culture’. To this one can add the evaluation of teacher performances through Academic Performance Index (API) structures which emphasize on revenue generated targets to evaluate the performance teachers, which push them to apply for a number of projects and to write reports rather than to focus on teaching.

Singh (2010) argues that within India, in the higher education scenario there are many worlds and these worlds are placed within hierarchical structures. One of such structures refers to meteropolitan versus the ‘muffasil’, based on regional disparities with regard to quality and access to education. Singh (2010) argues that if one analyses the development of sociology in India, one can argue that there are two kinds of sociology that grew together but were separate in hierarchies. One branch of sociology has prospered in the proximity of a research friendly environment and in the company of top-ranking academia in metropolitan centres like Delhi, Mumbai and other central institutions. The second range of sociology has struggled to survive and sustain itself, and grew in places such as Government Degree Colleges. According to Singh, in the meteropolitan centres the discipline is considered a serious science leading to knowledge construction and a serious academic engagement. Where as in the muffasil centres, sociology is considered to be ‘easy’, ‘passable’, ‘soft’ and ‘feminine’.

Singh, while reflecting upon his experience of teaching in a Government Degree College, reflects on the absurdity that defines the higher education system in India. It is a system, according to Singh, that has ‘utopias’ such as Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) along with a large number of government recognized colleges that award degrees in sociology. Here sociology is highly popular, because it is believed to be about society and therefore requires no library, is self-reliant and largely experimental. Students are not expected to attend lectures nor are teachers expected to teach, because the students depend on ‘guides’. The education system becomes part of a nexus. Singh (2010: 107) writes, ‘The teacher becomes redundant, for chances are that those students who did not follow the patterned answers of these guides would end up with ‘poor’ marks. After all, paper ‘evaluation’, is also a business. Patterned answers are easy to evaluate; given that most of the time it is a ‘family affair’ of the enterprising sociology practitioners’. According to Singh, the issue is not that such practices are rampant but the fact that they are considered ‘normal’ and not considered an aberration and an irregularity. Such practices puts a huge question on both the institutional and practices of doing sociology in India.

Singh argues that in most of the colleges based within the muffasil centres of India, the state of sociology is distressing. The problem lies not in the manner in which students relate to the discipline but also to the way the syllabus is constructed. According to him, higher education structures such as Board of Studies, more often than not is highly political by nature, influenced by petty politics of local petty political networks. Singh presents an example which reflects the manner in which sociology is taken to be a discipline having a casual approach. Singh (2010: 108), states that ‘the syallbus designed by the University for the final year (sociology) pass course mentions the phenomenon of ‘suicide’ as an example of ‘personal disorganisation’, which is a serious lapse given that one of the founders of the discipline Emile Durkheim…. argues it to be a social fact’.

 Such an approach does not facilitate the growth of sociology as a scientific discipline.

Singh argues that another hierarchy facing sociology is the difference in perception with regard to goal of Universities and colleges. It is widely accepted without any question that universities are for research and colleges for teaching. The difference between them is wide, without any real communication between them and there is a sense of isolation. There is no engagement between college and university faculty, where the latter act as if they are superior in knowledge and position, and look down upon college faculty. The engagement is mostly in terms of an annual exchange over a seminar or conference. Singh argues that unless one questions this binary of perceiving universities as centres of research and colleges as institutions of teaching, is not possible to nurture a vibrant academic culture. Singh, framing a conceptual category of ‘academic apartheid’, argues that college teachers with better academic credentials are treated unfairly. This becomes complicated where university faculty practice self exclusivity, thinking themselves to be much better than the college teachers and so they do not encourage engagement on academic issues. Singh believes that there is a need to recognize and question the fact that there is preponderance of hierarchialised organizational structures and therefore a need to nurture engagement between university and college faculty in an amicable, non-hierarchised ambience, between various academic landscapes.

Singh (2010) argues that such an imbalance becomes more critical when it is further related to the growing question of relevance of the discipline. Globalising India emphasizes on ‘applied knowledge’ as useful, which puts applied and theoretical within a binary. In this context, an institutional building is perceived as emphasizing on investments in infrastructure rather than nurturing quality education. New universities are being established as centres of excellence without much effort being taken to address the concerns of the already established universities which were, in the past, institutions of educational excellence. Educationists have reflected on how erstwhile important universities are experiencing chaos, mismanagement and academic mediocrity, characterised by dominance of money, political mafia, muscle power and increasing political interference in functioning of universities. This picture is further complicated by the increasing skewed pattern of funding with the central universities receiving a major chunk.

In such a scenario what are then the anxieties of the peripheries? Singh (2010) argues that there needs to be a concerted effort to recognize the talent and caliber of academics at the peripheries. There is a need to have more meaningful dialogues between the centres and the peripheries and to build bridges of interdisciplinarity between cross borders, focusing on collaborative spaces.

Section Two: Reflections of Teaching Sociology in Regional University

In the chapter by Pushpesh Kumar (2010) titled ‘Sociology in the ‘Regional’ Backwoods: A Fictional Rendering’, he focuses on three aspects of teaching sociology. One presents and analyses the perceptions of both the teachers and the students to the discipline. Two, he also critically reflects on the local production of text books in local languages and its consumption by teachers and students. Three, he reflects on doctoral thesis submitted. Kumar recognizes that non-meteropolitan/regional centres are not homogenous but rather they are lined with multiple levels of hierarchy.

Kumar (2010) argues that sociology practitioners in regional universities, while preferring to teach in local languages, nurture the idea that learning and teaching sociology in the English language is ‘alien’. Immense amount of antagonism is created with regard to teaching and learning in English. This divide is further strengthened if one realizes that there is a great difference between college and university faculty, especially with regard to their training. That is most of the university faculty are trained outside the region in English language and the college faculty trained locally in regional languages. The issue is not that English has higher quality as compared to local languages but that a binary seems to be nurtured – local and regional languages versus outsider and English language.

This binary is accentuated with the argument that teaching sociology in English makes students alienated because sociology taught in regional languages is rooted in local culture. The argument is not that teaching in vernacular languages is bad and teaching in English is good. Kumar states that even university faculty that teach in English lack professional commitment. The problem is not the language of teaching but that of the casuality of approach taken towards learning of the discipline. Kumar (2010:123) draws on Beteille (2002) here, ‘by and large, the sociological practitioners remain submerged in the commonsense of their own environment’.

Such a divide is further strengthened by the perceptions of students, teachers and community towards sociology. The discipline is perceived as soft, light and is tied to a belief that a casual approach would help us to understand the discipline. An understanding that the discipline is not a ‘catch’, that there are few career options available, renders students (with exceptions) to take the discipline casually. Even when there are teaching jobs, it is difficult even for qualified candidates to get selected because of rampant corrupt practices. On the whole there is not much that pushes the students to shed the casualness of approach and take up the discipline in its rigour.

Such an approach Kumar (2010) argues also has to do with the background of the students. The students are mostly from rural areas. Most of the male students have agriculture/ agro based businesses which they believe they can handle along with pursuing a degree in sociology, as it is an easy and soft discipline. One does not really need to study hard. Girls take on sociology as they believe it is easy and they get a degree which is an added feature in the marriage market. Thus, it is not surprising that Kumar states that a postgraduate degree is an important qualification that yields social prestige, especially in kinship and communitarian domains.

As far as the issue of text books is concerned Kumar (2010) states that most of the books referred to by the students are locally produced text books. The issue of concern is not that they are written in local regional languages but the fact that ideas and issues written in these books are coloured by the caste status of authors, most of who are upper castes. Based within the structural functionalist paradigm, they do not integrate counter texts and arguments that challenge the upper caste brahmanical perspective. This is surprising, as Kumar argues that there is a strong Dalit activism in the region. But such development is not surprising as the manner in which sociology has been institutionalized it has never engaged with the mass movements that question structures of inequality.

The students and teachers are so dependent on these text books that there is a process to introduce a new theme or area in the syllabus, the demand from the teachers is to drop it because they do not have local text books dealing with the issue. For example, when there was an effort to incorporate subaltern approach in the syllabus, there was a demand to drop the approach as there are no text books written on the topic under consideration. Such pratcices have led to increasing casualisation of the discipline. Such practices reflect on the sociological trajectories in universities located in non-meteropolitan spaces. Kumar draws upon the argument of Oommen (1983:124) who referred to college teachers as ‘instrumental sociologists’, who look upon themselves merely as communicators of available knowledge to the students and not as producers of knowledge’.

For Kumar (2010) such a dependence on locally produced textbooks is a ‘sociological tragedy’. Why? These textbooks are used by teachers in classroom teaching and by students for passing exams. The articulations in the text books are highly commonsensical, highly gendered, casteist, moralist and lack professionalism. The ideas presented within the text books, argues Kumar, have the potential to reiterate cultural prejudices and stereotypes. To illustrate his argument Kumar gives an example, he quotes from a book on women’s freedom, where it is stated that ‘as a result of (women’s) freedom, women have become more freedom loving and immoral. Because of their immorality, there has begun a growing incidence of sexual disease, foeticide, AIDS and suicide’ (Kumar 2010: 133). To add to this dilemma students read these books, prepare for exams and get very high percentages.

Kumar further states that this picture is true not only of post graduate programmes but also of the doctoral programmes. Analysis of the doctoral dissertations would reveal that research students do not engage with any critical literature and no clear reference to methodology but mostly is a collection of opinions without any analysis. To conclude this section, reflections of Kumar demonstrate that the practices of disciplines reflect the complexities of the region where it gets institutionalized. Hierarchies of academic practices get translated into hierarchies of knowledge production and consumption. And therefore any analysis of disciplines has to take into consideration the complexities of disciplinary locations.

Section Three: Sociology in North-East India: Interrogating Margins

In the chapter by Subrat K Nanda, titled ‘Sociology in the Northeast India: A Synoptic View’, builds up the specificity of the region, referred to as ‘Northeast’. We need to understand the region and recognize that ninety eight percent of the borders of the Northeast India are international borders. Only two percent is connected to India which points to the tenuous geographical and political connectivity to the Indian mainland (Upadhya 2006). The region is characterized by amazing ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious diversity and is inhabitated by three distinct groups of people- the Hill tribes, the plain tribes and non- tribal population of the plains (Verghese 1997). Such diversity is further stretched by development disparities and socio economic inequalities, the result of uneven, unplanned and unsustainable development policies followed by the colonial government and carried on for decades by the Independent Indian state. The result of such policies has also led to the region being marked by insurgency, ethnic clashes, and political turmoil and turbulence (Nanda 2010).

It is important for us, as students of sociology to recognize that using a generic term ‘Northeast’ to define, frame and describe a region which is very diverse, into a single unitary geopolitical category is problematic and thus needs to be acknowledged. Its diversity, its colonial history and its geographical location makes for a case requiring keen analysis. Understanding and making sense of such diversity is further complicated with the geographical remoteness of the region. The Northeast is linked to India with a thin land corridor- a rea of 12,203 square kilometers- the Siliguri Corridor-connecting mainland India with the outlying borders states of the Northeast (Upadhaya 2006).

Such a fragilely connected region was systematically undermined and exacerbated by the colonial policies of progressive systematic exclusion and segregation. The words of Robert Weid, Governor of Assam, 1937 to 1942 to Royal Geographical Society of London, in 1944 in a lecture on ‘Excluded Areas of Assam’ stated that, ‘Northeast India was heterogeneous, and the only thing that they shared in common is that neither racially, historically, culturally nor linguistically do they have any affinity with the people of plains or with the people of India proper’. If they were tacked on as an Indian province it was only a matter of historical accident and natural administrative convenience’ (Reid 1944:19) cited in Baruah 2008:15). What does this imply? Baruah argues that a problem that the British scholar-administrator confronted in the Northeast was how to make sense of the relatively egalitarian mores and habits among the people. Given that the colonial notion of India was that it was essentially a hierarchical civilization, they found it difficult to figure out whether the peoples of Northeast were ‘outside’ or ‘inside’ the racial unity of India. It is in this contested history of the region that one has to analyze, what doing sociology refers to and means to teachers, students and practitioners of the discipline.

Nanda (2010) argues that sociology, as a discipline, spread from the late 1960s onwards. But the region has a strong legacy of Anthropology, because of the large diverse presence of tribal population. The idea of Northeast as a region always had an uneasy presence in the minds, and in this region nationalism and nation building is a very contentious issue. But such uneasiness, discomfort and disquiet was never reflected in the issues introduced to be taught within sociology. In its process of institutionalization, the sociology syllabus presented an unproblematic idea of Indian society to its students and thus continued and reiterated the process of exclusion of the region. Most of the areas focused on sociological courses taught elsewhere. Specific courses on sociology of minorities and marginalized, of the exclusion and marginalization of the region did not find space within the institutionalization process. Thus the specific issues of the region such as indigenous medicine, healing practices, livelihoods, biodiversity, colonial construction of the region, cultural diversity, etc did not find reflection in the syllabus.

Nanda observed that for most of the tribal students of the region, especially the Christian tribal students, understanding the paper Indian Society, was difficult. The reasons of discomfort were based on the fact that in the syllabi, most of the concepts dealt with within ‘India’ focused on mainstreamed Hindu social institutions, culture, values and religious order. Little or no reference was made to the peripheral or the minority societies of the Northeast. The Hindu social order, particularly the Brahmanical order conceptualized as Indian, made the students feel alienated. Nanda (2010) goes on to argue that in most of the cases, both the textual view that focused on Indological sources to understand India and the book view that focused on villages. Studies in mainland India on mainstream Hindu social institutions did not address the concerns, queries and questions of the students.

Adding to the feelings of alienation, students also faced the absence of sound text books, which made them depend on ‘guides’, which were filled with erroneous, flawed and incorrect observations and arguments (Nanda 2010). Students perceived sociology as easy, and many equated it with social work. Such a perception pushed many of them to apply for sociology degrees for it is believed that they would get jobs due to the presence of a large number of national and international NGOs in the region (Nongkyrik 2013).

The situation is better with reference to doctoral research. Nanda (2010) argues that in such research the specificities of Northeast region are better reflected. There are multitude studies on tribal ethnography, tribal religion and culture, issues of ethnicity and identity, conflict patterns, reform movements, secessionist movements and student unrest movements. But the approach of most of the research is explorative, empirical and descriptive. Nongkyrik (2013) argues that social science research in Northeast India requires not only proper application of theory and methodology, but also sensitive understanding of local languages and specific cultural contexts.

Section Four: Conclusion

If one goes back to the introduction one would clearly see that the objectives laid down at the start were fully explored in the above three sections. We now understand sociology practices are multiple and diverse and knowledge gets produced and consumed with different institutions placed differentially within hierarchical power positions. For a study of sociology, Chaudhuri (2010) argues that one should explore both the micro politics of everyday life and macro politics of institutional silencing and exclusion. This is what the above scholars did in their analysis. They related their experience of teaching sociology in their particular regional locations, with the larger macro politics of the region and institutions. Using experiences and observations from their everyday life, they could reflect critically on their own disciplinary practices and engage with it.

Analysis of the above and interpreting their ideas reveal that all the above referred papers have focused on the marginality of the region. It questioned the manner in which sociology as a discipline failed to take cognizance of the specific issues defining the region to make it relevant to the practitioners of the discipline. One should recognize that being away from the centres of education also, to a certain extent, impacts the quality of education being imparted because there is less interaction, discussion and engagement of the senior scholars with the young developing ones. Especially in the context where sociology is taught as a discipline requiring no thinking, reflection and abstraction and where the idea of questioning itself does not have a space.

In addition, all the above scholars have interrogated the issue of spurious, faulty and commonsensical textbooks and guidebooks. Despite the fact that all the three were reflecting on their experiences in different marginalized regions, they all share the trauma of having their students and colleagues depend on these textbooks and guide books. There seems to be a nexus between the students who do not want to learn and work hard, the teachers who find it easy to use these references as they then do not have to read and engage with new ideas and the market, which makes a profit from the scarcity of good text books for students. Here the teaching and learning become a matter of rote and routine, neither challenging, nor professionally committed.

Another important pattern that was similar, especially to the reflections of Kumar and Nanda, was that sociology as a discipline did not engage with the large presence of protest movements in the region. In the Western region, as argued by Kumar, there was a strong presence of the Dalit movement and the Northeast, as Nanda observes has a troubled history and occurrences of protest movements of diverse kinds. Unfortunately, sociology taught and internalized in these regions has remained aloof, ignorant and did not engage academically with these movements, leading to the institutionalization of a discipline, Sociology which is irrelevant to the lives and experiences of its practitioners, the students, the teachers and the community.

Last but not the least is the issue of language, especially regional versus English. The students interested in this issue should refer to the module on Sociology in Crisis Debate, where it is discussed in great length. But in the context of this module, I would like to state that it is not a question of either or, but both. We have to deal and engage with both English and other regional languages, especially where the languages of the regions where we go to study, or to teach or to conduct research. As sociologists we need to write, and engage in a number of languages, while recognizing its cultural contexts and power hierarchies.

As this module was based on personal reflections, experiences and anecdotes, I would like to end this by sharing one anecdote which I believe reflects the state of education we share. My son in class Four was preparing for his social studies exams, during the time the new state of Telangana was declared. In his social studies book, it was mentioned that India has 28 states, but as Telangana was already declared to be the newly formed state, I specifically told him to that there are 29 states. He wrote 29 states as an answer to the question, ‘how many states are there in India’? And he was evaluated to be wrong. When I asked the teacher as to why it was marked wrong, the teacher stated that in the prescribed Social Studies text book it is 28 states, and so the students have to write 28. So till the time the change is not reflected in the text book, the students are expected to write 28 instead of 29 states. What does it reflect about education in India? We are never encouraged to question, think independently and reflect critically. So it is not a wonder that we approach sociology as something fixed and so learned by rote and not a discipline that needs to be engaged with.

Weblinks

1.Hooks on the Language of Power www.newlearningonline.com/literates/chapter‐6/hooks‐on‐the‐language‐of‐power

2. Sharmila Rege: Feminist Pedagogy and Sociology for Emancipation in India. Sociological Bulletin, 44(2), September 1995

http//www.unipune.ac.in/sns/cssh/HistorySociology/A%2520DOCUMENTS%2520ON%HISTORY%2520o

3.  A.M Shah: Sociology in a Regional Context www.india‐seminar.com/2000/493/495%20a.m%20Shah.htm

4.Social Science Research in Vernacular Languages

www.academia.edu/237848/Social_Science_Research_in_Vernacular_Languages

5.  A.K Nongkynrih: Social Science Research in Northeast India: The Position of Sociology. The NEHU Journal Vol XI, No.2, July 2013, pp 1‐18

www.nehu.ac.in/Journals/JournalJuly/DecArt1111213.pdf

REFERENCES:

• Upadhaya, Archana (2006): Terrorism in the Northeast: Linkages and Implications. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 41, No 48 (Dec 2‐8), pp 4993‐4999
• Baruah, Sanjib (2008): Territoriality, Indigeneity and Rights in the Northeast India. Economic and Political weekly. Vol 43, No 12/13 (mar22‐April4), pp 15‐19.
• Nongkynrik, A.K (2013): Social Science Research in Northeast India: The Position of Sociology. The NEHU Journal, Vol XI, No 2, July. Pp 1‐18.
• Chaudhuri, Maitrayee (2010): Sociology in India: Intellectual and Institutional Practices. Rawat Publications, Jaipur
• Singh, K Santosh (2010): Practising Soicology on the Outside Edge in Maitrayee Chaudhuri (ed): Sociology in India: Intellectual and Institutional Practices. Rawat Publications, Jaipur
• Kumar, Pushpesh (2010): Sociology in the ‘Regional Backwoods: A Fictional Rendering in Maitrayee Chaudhuri (ed): Sociology in India: Intellectual and Institutional Practices. Rawat Publications, Jaipur.
• Nanda, K Subrat: Sociology in Northeast India: A Synoptic View in Maitrayee Chaudhuri (ed): Sociology in India: Intellectual and Institutional Practices. Rawat Publications, Jaipur

DID YOU KNOW?

1. Siliguri Corridor: The Siliguri corridor’s dimensions extend lengthwise approximately 200 kilometer with a width between 20 to 60 kilometers. While every other part of India is joined integrally geographically to the mainland the Northeast hangs on a narrow stretch of land between Nepal and Bangladesh (Upadhya 2006)
2. Inner State Line Permit: It is a official travel document issued by government of India to allow inward travel of an Indian citizen into a protected/restricted area for a limited period. The states that require permit are Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland.