Indological approach gives emphasis on studying India by keeping our culture in Mind.This approach of studying India still persists even after the emergence of Marxism and structural functional approach in Indian sociology.
Many contemporary Indian sociologists believe that man in India is not an Individual who is independent,rational and guided by writs,rather he is person committeed to our culture.
Therefore culture defines the behaviour, thoughts,action and practices among the people.Thus,there is a need to study India from cultural perspective ,this is glorified in the writings of Dumont and pocock who speak about Ethno-sociology and need for studyof India.Mckim Marriot and Milton S Singer consider that there is a synchronic linkage between little tradition and great tradition in India.
This ideology is also glorifies by Madan and Veena Das.
There exist three categories
- Raja
- Brahmin
- Sanyasis
Non are superior.
Therefore structure and cognition are different and should be studied by ethno-cultural perspective.
Ghurye considers that vidya is not just knowledge offered to the people in search of employment.It is essential to transform an instictive human being into a culturally arrogance,ego and individualism.
Kautilya writes that,
"vidya is a vehicle for self purification and also helps a ruler to understand the intricacies of Dandaniti,Rajaniti and Arthaniti."
Therefore he considers that transmission of knowledge from teachers to students and preachers to masses through oral tradition establishes harmony between knowledge givers and its receivers promoting common cultural consciousness.This cultural unity is evolved through transmission of knowledge, exposure to Sanskrit language.
He writes that during 1st to 2nd century BC ,the source of knowledge were Vedas,from 1nd to 3rd century AD source of knowledge were the puranas from 3rd century to 4th century AD the source of knowledge were samhitas, smritis and other vedantic literature.
From 4th century to 5th century ,the source of knowledge was JATAK (Buddist Literature), from 6th to 9th century it was Vyakaran, Ganit, Archeology, Mimansa, Jarkshsta and so on.
Because of Islamic invasion of India; Hindu Empire got into their shells and royal alliances disappeared.There was no royal patronage to the vehicles of culture dissipation. Sanskrit as an official language was replaced by persian.
Therefore the culture that was unifying India lost its credence giving rise to division on the basis of religion,religion and ethnicity.This division further got accelerated with the rise of British Rule in India.
Forced conversion,replacement of Sanskritic education centers by vernacular and English medium schools converted man(a cultural person) in India into an individual.
Therefore Ghurye,a Indologist looking at Indian Unity on the basis of common cultural and value consensus is looking for cultural revivalism in India to promote unity.
The biggest limitation of Ghurye's understanding of India is that he never ackonwledged the cultural pluralism in India coming out of the contribution of Islam and Christianity.
T K Ooman says prior to Mughal rule in India, Muslims were present in India and so were Christian cultures are not borrowed from outside,rather they are the products of Indian civilization contributing for cultural pluralism in India ,what Ghurye refuses to acknowledge.
SC Dube writes that changes one cannot get back to past if he not happy with the present.One can consider Ghurye as
"Indian Emile Durkheim expecting the emergence of new cultural consciousness which can merge all people together, ignoring their religious and ethnic distinctions."
His approach is mostly criticized as a culture bound myopic, textual and Brahmanic view of India. However, the other approaches to India came as a reflexive critique to the writings of Ghurye.
Hence ,while studying India one should start with Ghurye's understanding of India.
