History and Sociology: A Successless Intercourse History and Social Development; Vol I: Elites in Modern India by B. M.

Bhatia Review by: C. S. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 9, No. 37 (Sep. 14, 1974), pp. 1577-1578 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4363982 . Accessed: 11/10/2013 04:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 04:30:50 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEW

History and Sociology: A Successless Intercourse

Cs History and Social Development; Vol I: Elites in Modern India by B M Bhatia; Vikas Publishing House, Delhi, 1973; pp xiii + 384; Rs 45.
CONSIDERING the amount of painstaking research that has obviously gone into this work, one feels a certain compassionate ccnstraint in describing it as confuised and unduly ambitious. 'Know thy mind' - put in a variety of jargon - continues to be one of the fashionable dicta of historiography. It is intriguing, therefore, that the author, who set out on a theoretical interpretation of modern Indian history, did not pause to ask himself whether he possessed the requisite subtlety perception and logical rigour. Bhatia is unhappy with historical materialism as a frameeworkfor exp'aining historical development. He finds it nonocausal. He also thinks materialism is that, since hi!forical informed with a specific philosophy of historv, it tends to restult in the fitting of facts into a pre-fabricated mould. And yd;t, on both these counts, the kind of exercise he is undertaking can
be mutatis mutanidis found wanting:

Thtis. not only is the theory of power elite incapable of permitting multicausal explanations, it can easily induce the fitting of facts into a given mould. Bhatia also says that history is not one long continuum; it is a series of continua, each continuum having its own special features. But explanations emanating from the theory of power elite hold for the entire course of human history. Mosca is approvingly and unquestioningly quoted. Then, in almost the same breath, we are told: "A general covering law of history for the entire period of evolution of human society on earth, in the very nature of things, is simply inconceivable". What does Bhatia actually believe? Only if one had the power to divine! Before coming to Bhatia's actual 'interpretation' of Indian social development during the 190 years between 1757 and 1947, it may be pointed out that, wvhile applying the power elite theory to modem Indian history, he has used terms without clarity. He does not, for instance, distinguish between

'pover' and 'pre-eminence'; for him they are synonymcus. Nor does be care to distinguish between 'power' wblJOse support the colonial rulers are andc 'authority'; yet this distinction almost always able to enlist. Herein could have exposed the serious limi- lies the validity of the competition/ tations of the theory of power for ex- collaboration model. plaining the dynamics of a traditional Ncw, all these developments cannot society such as India's with its strong b-e explained exclusively within the frasense of community. The result has mew-orkof the power theory. What apBhatia has been able p ars on the surface is only a fragteen that, w,Nhile to put forward a partial - and often ment of the historical reality. The change tussle for power among groups may explanation of defective during the 190 years under study, he be seen by a historian only at the obhas completely ignored the continuity vious level of a tussle for power. in the same period. But another historian may also decide to discern the roots of what, on BHATIA'S POSITON suLrface,appears to be a mere tussle The position taken by Bhatia may for power. And that might take him he best stated in his own words: to the concluision that the tussle for "Indian history is studied more real- power is but a means to achieve a istically and meaningfully in the con- particular end. In other words, purelite ap- sulit of self-interest may be - and ceptual frams.work of the proach and pow-er theory of history often is - an end in itself. Having rather than in that of the historical ma- 1e. n suiccessfuilly pursued, it may terialism of Karl Marx. In fact, the create ati urge for pow,er. More often anything, pro- than no, clirect pursuit of power or Incdian experience, if v des a refuitation of the Marxian for- indirect manlipulationof it are only the mulation on history as a doctrine means to facilitate promotion of selfof universal validitv". But approach interest. It is, however, possible for is obviously different from theory. p, ople to pursue power per ge. Elite approach simply implies that That Bhatia is too obsessed with study of elite action and role provides the universality of the power theory, is a vantage point for looking at the clear from his insistence on presenting march of history: but it does not con- the aDti-Brabmini movement in the stittute an exp-lanation of what hap- Souith merely as the result of the purpens in history. It is for theory to suit of pow)x,7er by a non-Brabmin elite. perform that function. (And this Antd this he does in spite of his own thleorv, one may add, is provided by a)(lmjision that, "the whole non-Brabpower.) mninmovement was built on the founUnless one is to take a dogmatic, dation of the prevailing widespread Adl. 'rian, position which, inciden- anti-Brahmin sentiment in the presitally. Bhatia is not doing s,nce he has (dency resulting from the social opnot once mentioned Adler's name in pri-ssion of lower castes by high caste his text thbcgh he does go back to Brabmiins. The manifestation of cerHobbes and Mandeville in the 17th tain forces is more important to him century - it is difficult to see how than the complex working of the formaterial self-interest can be ignored ces thems.elves. Thus, what remains as a motivating force, at least during significant in the anti-Brabmin movethe early phases of social development ment, according to him, is that "bein a colonial situation. For material hind the communal facade lay in this self-interest not only provides the ini- case,. as in similar others, the striving tial impetus for the formation of for its own power on the part of the groups - call them elite groups, non-Brahmin elite". The trouble with Bhatia is that he political groups, pressure groups, or 1577

what you like - but it also brings in the gradual discovery of the basic irreconcilability between the interests of the rulers and the ruled. But the further fact to be discovered is that the ruled are even the interests of often not homogeneous, and they generate internal tensions and rivalries. This, togethbr with the slow pace of realisation about the basic irreconcilability betvween interests of. rulers and ruled, explains the existence of groups

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 04:30:50 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

September 14, 1974 is neither consistent nor clear. He accepts Mosca's division of society into the ruling class and the rest, and looks only upon the ruling class as constituting the elite. If this is so, it is absurd to talk of an Indian elite during the 190 years of British rule. Or, does this also need elaboration? In fact, there are Marxian historians who have argued that it is indeed unhistorical to talk of an indigenous elite in a colonial society. This assertion stems from the theoretically unjustifiable restriction of the concept of 'elite' to the 'government elite'. Be that as it may, if Bhatia wants to apply the elite approach to the study of 'British Indian' history, he has to move away from this simplistic dichotomy between the ruling class and the rest. For, as any sociologist will readily agree, to conceive of the ruling class as a homogeneous unit and the rest as an undifferentiated single mass, is functionally of doubtful value. And, any historian will readily concede that, this is historically suspect. The French society on the eve of the 1789 Revolution offers an instructive illustration. So far as Indian society is concerned, with its strong traditions of almost autonomous communal life which political authority could only rarely and marginally affect, the ruling-class-and-ret dichotomy neither corresponds to actual reality nor provides a theoretical model to explain it. From Bhatia's use of the term 'elite' one learns nothing about the sense in which it is being used. But it is revealing that most of the time he is talking of an elite and not of elites. This, in conjunction with his acceptance of two unities in society, goes pretty far to explain how he could make the wild statement that the modern Indian elite performed a modemising role in the country's development. He cannot see the simple fact that elites in mnodernIndia have not been necessarily modernist in outlook and that they have also performed other than modernist roles. Whatever the facts of modern Indian history may have been, they do not justify Bhatia's comment: "The modern elite also lent active support to the British administration in the enactment of social reform measures - such as prohibition of the inhuman practices of sati and female infanticide that had come down from medieval times... Later, social reform was made a part of the national freedom movement itself .... 1578

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY How simple and easily explicable sies between the orthodox and the promodern Indian history is, has been gressive sections about the best way amply demonstrated by Bhatia. Un- of dealing with their contemporary fortunately, the tragedy of a less am- situation in its varied complexity) bitious scholar, who may want to un- make him wary of Bhatia's concluderstand what actually happened be- sions. fore aspiring to provide a reliable Bhatia ends his elaborate theorisaframework, is that Bhatia's own cre- tion on the note: Modem India is dentials - indisputably established in what its elites made it. Yes, very the volume under review - and the largely so. But they did not make mouniversally known facts of modem dern India what it is the way Bhatia Indian history (such as the controver- has described.

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, CALCUTTA

Applications are invited for posts of Research Fellows and Teaching Assistants in the following areas: 1. Behavioural Sciences: Second Class Master's Degree in Minimum Qualifications Social Psychology or Sociology or Social Anthropology or Statistics. 2. Economics: Minimum Qualifications - Second Class Master's Degree in Economics or, in Statistics/Mathematics with some knowledge of Economics. 3. Entronment: (a) Law - Min. Qualifications: Graduate with 1st Class Law Degree or Master's Degree in Law with Second Class Honours in the fields of Economics, Political Science or Sociology. (b) History - Min. Qualifications: Second Class Master's Degree in History with interest in Modern Indian History, preferably in Economic History. (c) Political Science - Min. Qualifications: Second Class Master's Degree in Political Science preferably with an interest in the area of Political Sociology. (d) Sociology - Min. Qualifications: Second Class Master's Degree preferably with an interest in the area of Macro Sociology of India. 4. Finance: Min. Qualifications: Second Class Master's Degree in Commerce or Economics with Statistics; or should have passed the final examination of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India or Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India. System: 5. Management Infornmation Min. Qualifications: Master's Degree in Engineering or Economics or Statistics or Mathematics or Management, with some knowledge of Computer Programming and Analysis. 6. Marketing: Min. Qualifications: Second Class Master's Degree in Economics or Statistics or Commerce or Applied Psychology. 7. Operations Management: Min. Qualifications: Second Class Master's Degree in Mathematics or Statistics or Engineering. Candidates should mention the areas of interest from amongst those mentioned above. Preference will be given to persons having relevant research or work experience. For the positions in Research Fellow Cadre a minimum experience of three years will ordinarily be required. Scale of Pay: (a) Research Fellows: Rs 400-40-800-(E.B.)-50-950. (to be revised as per Central Government). (b) Teaching Assistant: Rs 550-25-750-(E.B.)-30-900. (revised). Candidates must apply to the Director, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, 56A, B. T. Road, Calcutta-50, within a month from the date of this advertisement in prescribed form obtainable from Director's Office by sending a self-addressed stamped envelope (9" x 4"). A passport size photograph is to be enclosed with the application. A crossed postal order of Rs 10.00 for Research Fellow position and Rs 7.50 for Teaching Assistant position is to be enclosed along with the application payable to the Director, Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta.

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 04:30:50 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions