Revision summary
Srinivas studied India as an observed village structure, not a book of sacred rules. Function explained how custom held groups together. Desai’s class reading and Beteille’s disharmony expose the harmony bias. The village monograph cannot stand for mill, city, and tribe. Keep the field tools; refuse the closed-system claim.
Model answer
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
Introduction
M. N. Srinivas’s structural-functional view mapped Indian society as a living village system of caste, kinship, and faction. The critique is not that the field view was useless. It is that harmony language, village closure, and a weak class eye limited what the method could see.
Body
What the perspective did
- Structure was the observed network of groups and statuses, not a varna chart. Function was what a custom did for order, as in Rampura festivals that tied patrons and clients.
- Dominant caste and Sanskritization put mobility inside the system, so change did not have to mean collapse.
- The method corrected G. S. Ghurye’s book view with interaction.
Limits of function and harmony
- A. R. Desai argued that landlord, tenant, and labourer are class relations. Treating them as functions of village solidarity hides surplus extraction.
- Andre Beteille’s Sripuram kept structure but named disharmony: equality as a public value beside ranked caste and class.
- Sanskritization explains ritual climbing. It does not explain annihilation of caste as Ambedkar demanded.
Village as the whole
- Rampura is a powerful case, not India. Town, mill, plantation, and tribe sit outside that frame.
- Women and Dalit labour were often under-seen when the informant was a headman.
Use after critique
- Keep field method, dominant caste, and Sanskritization as tools.
- Add class, gender, and extra-village power.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD SF[Srinivas structure function] --> RP[Rampura field view] RP --> DC[Dominant caste Sanskritization] CL[Desai class] --> CR[Critique] BT[Beteille disharmony] --> CR CR[CR] --> SF[SF]
Conclusion
Srinivas’s structural functionalism is strongest as a field correction to Indology. It is weakest when Indian society is reduced to a self-balancing village. Critique means adding class, disharmony, and the Constitution, not throwing Rampura away.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Which is more significant, the principle of 'hierarchy' or the principal of difference; in inter caste relations in the present day ?
Next question on this syllabus topic (2017 · Q1(b)). View answer →
-
Does critique mean Srinivas ignored conflict?
He saw faction and mobility. He still framed them as adjustments of a structure, not as class war.
-
Is the method only functionalist?
It is structural-functional in the Radcliffe-Brown line, rewritten with Indian tools of dominant caste and Sanskritization.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
-
2026 · Q1(a) · Sociology GS 2 · 10 marks
In what respect is M. N. Srinivas' study of Indian village society based on structural and functional perspective? Analyse.
More from this topic
Q5(e) · UPSC Mains 2026 · Sociology GS 2 · 10 marks · Solution
Bring out the debates of 'insiders' and 'outsiders' approaches in understanding Indian society.
Perspectives on the study of Indian society
• The insider (emic) approach studies Indian society using native categories, sacred texts, and cultural immersion, championed by G.S. Ghurye and D.P. Mukerji. • Critics argue the insider view suffers from upper-caste bias and ignores ground realities in favor of normative texts. • The outsider (etic) approach applies universal models and comparative frameworks, famously used by Western scholars like Louis Dumont. • Critics dismiss the outsider view as orientalist reductionism that imposes Western concepts and misinterprets local idioms. • Modern Indian sociology bridges this binary through a reflexive methodology combining cultural familiarity with analytical rigor. • Ultimately, combining native insights with objective scrutiny is essential to capture India's complex social dynamics.
Q5(a) · UPSC Mains 2026 · Sociology GS 2 · 10 marks · Solution
Discuss the challenges faced by the aged people in receiving 'elder care'.
Perspectives on the study of Indian society
• India's aging population faces severe elder care challenges due to the breakdown of traditional joint families and youth out-migration. • Over 80% of seniors lack formal pensions because they worked in the informal sector, worsening financial vulnerability. • High out-of-pocket medical costs for chronic illnesses quickly drain meager personal savings. • Public hospitals suffer from an acute shortage of geriatric specialists, dedicated wards, and rehabilitation facilities. • Implementation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 remains weak, leaving legal tribunals overburdened. • Solutions require shifting from a welfare approach to a rights-based framework, combining community care networks with strict legal enforcement under Article 41.
Q4(c) · UPSC Mains 2026 · Sociology GS 2 · 10 marks · Solution
Compare G. S. Ghurye's and A. R. Desai's approaches used in understanding Indian society
Perspectives on the study of Indian society
• **Ghurye’s Indological Approach:** Relied on sacred texts and classical literature to study Indian society through civilizational continuity. • **Core Themes in Ghurye:** Focused on caste, kin, and how Hinduism historically integrated diverse tribal and regional groups. • **Desai’s Materialist Approach:** Rejected textual idealism in favor of Marxist political economy to study social structures. • **Economic Formations:** Analyzed Indian society through successive modes of production—ancient, feudal, and colonial capitalist. • **Caste vs. Class:** Viewed caste and religion as superstructural elements that mask underlying economic exploitation. • **Critique of State and Nationalism:** Argued that the nationalist movement was bourgeois, leaving agrarian inequalities intact post-independence. • **Key Contrast:** Ghurye highlights cultural tradition and integration, while Desai emphasizes economic power and class conflict.