homo hierarchicusby louis dumont;religion, politics and history in indiaby louis dumont

Homo Hierarchicus by Louis Dumont; Religion, Politics and History in India by Louis DumontReview by: Pauline KolendaJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 93, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1973), pp. 120-124Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/600560 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 14:20

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.49 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:20:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos

http://www.jstor.org/stable/600560?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Journal of the American Oriental Society 93.1 (1973) Journal of the American Oriental Society 93.1 (1973)

the structure of 'expression-elements' of Dravidian; it violates the elementary structure of Dravidian phonic substance; it violates the syllabic patterns of any known Dravidian language, and hence, by inference, of Proto- Dravidian; further, it violates a rule which to me seems to be one of the fundamental rules (though this is still a hypothesis) of Dravidian structure: no clusters except on morph-boundaries.

Indeed, the status of the cluster -NP- (these clusters have obviously to be reconstructed for the protolan- guage as *-nk- *-nc- -n * -nt- *-nt- *-ni-) is obviously different from any other sequence of two consonants: 1. it may be reconstructed in root-syllables (e.g. *tont-, DED 2927); 2. hence it does occur elsewhere than on

morph-boundaries, unlike all other clusters; 3. it cannot be explained conveniently by the assimilation of some other two consonants in contact, as so many other clusters; 4. it is often the phonemic realization of a morpheme, e.g. the past tense marker, or, in alternation with -PP- of 'intransitivity' vs. 'transitivity.' In some ways, it almost 'behaves' as a unit phoneme, which might be called 'pre-nasalized stop.' We would, in fact, set

up phonemic units, consisting, phonetically speaking, of 1) single stops, 2) sequences of identical stops ('geminat- ed' or long stops), and, 3) sequences of 'homorganic nasal-stop,' i.e. -NP-.

There is yet another type of -NP-, namely the one which derives from assimilations of two consonants, e.g. Ta. ninrdn <*nil-*t-*-an, i.e. the root CVC *nil'to stand' + a morph *t 'past'> *It> * nr according to morpo- phonemic rules. This type is of course different from such -NP- clusters as in *tont-. These clusters typically occur on morph-boundaries: ninrdn, i.e. nil # t.

A cluster like *-NPP- violates this basic syllabic and phonetic/phonemic pattern of Dravidian, as stressed above.

Frankly speaking, I do not even see the necessity of positing an *-NPP-cluster. Let us examine Kumara- swami's basic case, the 'reconstruction' PDr *tdnttam (p. 16ff.). As far as this item is concerned, there are roughly three groups of languages. One (Tamil-Malaya- lam with Kota, Toda, Iodagu, etc.) has

*[to:nd-] verb: *[to:tt-l noun. Another (represented by Kannada) has

*[to:nd-] verb: *[to:tt-] noun, together with *[to:nt-] noun.

The third group (represented by Telugu) has *[to:nd-] verb: *[to:nt-] noun.

If we accept that PDr *-NPP- is a 'prohibited' sequence, and hence cannot be reconstructed, then we have either PDr *-NB- (i.e. nasal + voiced stop): *-NP- or PDr *-NB-: *-PP-. Since, in PDr, *-NP- does not occur (according to Caldwell's hypothesis of the 'convertibility

the structure of 'expression-elements' of Dravidian; it violates the elementary structure of Dravidian phonic substance; it violates the syllabic patterns of any known Dravidian language, and hence, by inference, of Proto- Dravidian; further, it violates a rule which to me seems to be one of the fundamental rules (though this is still a hypothesis) of Dravidian structure: no clusters except on morph-boundaries.

Indeed, the status of the cluster -NP- (these clusters have obviously to be reconstructed for the protolan- guage as *-nk- *-nc- -n * -nt- *-nt- *-ni-) is obviously different from any other sequence of two consonants: 1. it may be reconstructed in root-syllables (e.g. *tont-, DED 2927); 2. hence it does occur elsewhere than on

morph-boundaries, unlike all other clusters; 3. it cannot be explained conveniently by the assimilation of some other two consonants in contact, as so many other clusters; 4. it is often the phonemic realization of a morpheme, e.g. the past tense marker, or, in alternation with -PP- of 'intransitivity' vs. 'transitivity.' In some ways, it almost 'behaves' as a unit phoneme, which might be called 'pre-nasalized stop.' We would, in fact, set

up phonemic units, consisting, phonetically speaking, of 1) single stops, 2) sequences of identical stops ('geminat- ed' or long stops), and, 3) sequences of 'homorganic nasal-stop,' i.e. -NP-.

There is yet another type of -NP-, namely the one which derives from assimilations of two consonants, e.g. Ta. ninrdn <*nil-*t-*-an, i.e. the root CVC *nil'to stand' + a morph *t 'past'> *It> * nr according to morpo- phonemic rules. This type is of course different from such -NP- clusters as in *tont-. These clusters typically occur on morph-boundaries: ninrdn, i.e. nil # t.

A cluster like *-NPP- violates this basic syllabic and phonetic/phonemic pattern of Dravidian, as stressed above.

Frankly speaking, I do not even see the necessity of positing an *-NPP-cluster. Let us examine Kumara- swami's basic case, the 'reconstruction' PDr *tdnttam (p. 16ff.). As far as this item is concerned, there are roughly three groups of languages. One (Tamil-Malaya- lam with Kota, Toda, Iodagu, etc.) has

*[to:nd-] verb: *[to:tt-l noun. Another (represented by Kannada) has

*[to:nd-] verb: *[to:tt-] noun, together with *[to:nt-] noun.

The third group (represented by Telugu) has *[to:nd-] verb: *[to:nt-] noun.

If we accept that PDr *-NPP- is a 'prohibited' sequence, and hence cannot be reconstructed, then we have either PDr *-NB- (i.e. nasal + voiced stop): *-NP- or PDr *-NB-: *-PP-. Since, in PDr, *-NP- does not occur (according to Caldwell's hypothesis of the 'convertibility

of surds and sonants' in the parent speech, which we

accept, *-PP- has to be reconstructed as the alternation for the noun, and *-NP- (i.e. nasal + voiceless stop, as in Telugu) has to be secondary in such languages as

Telugu or Gadba; or else, a reflex of such dialects of PDr where the sequence was permitted. Hence, we have to reconstruct, for PDr, an alternation *[tond-]: *[tott-], with 'deviations' from this norm, like Te. tofa or Ga.(S) tfnta, which do not reflect the PDr state of affairs, but a later, post-separation period, when the PDr alternation *-NB-: *-PP- ceased to be effective in various independent languages (dialects?) or groups of languages. Kannada has preserved, frequently, both alternations, *-PP- and *-NP-, as in Ka. tota 'garden'

< *tottam: Ka. tonta 'id.' < *tfntam (similarly in e.g. Kuvi). One of the doublets represents an innovation (the form with -NP- may be considered as a later, non-

systemic, 'irregular' form, or else it represents a dialect where it had been permitted).

My second objection to Kumaraswami's monograph is his way of simplifying matters. Thus, e.g., on p. 20 he quotes several instances where, as he says, "in the Ta. PP reflex for PDr. *ANPP, the first plosive has the same point of articulation as the PDr. nasal, whereas in Malayalam, the nasal is simply dropped and the

plosives concerned remain intact." He quotes among his examples "Ka. teinku south: Ta. terku, cf. ten, Ma. tekku: *tenkk- (*-nkk > Ta. rk, Ma.kk)." In fact, this is a gross distortion of facts. DED 2839 Ta. terku, tekku, Ma. tekku, Ka. tenku, Kod. tekki, Tu. terik-, tenk-, tenuk-, are all results of the assimilation of *ten-ku > Ta. terku > tekku, Ma. *ter-ku > tekku, Ka. tenku, Kod. *terku > tekki, Tu. ten-k-/ten-u-k-. In Malayalam, like in Spoken Tamil, the long- kk- is the result of the assimilation of *-rk-, that is Ta.Ma.Kod. *ten-ku > terku with Liter. Ta. preserving the intermediate stage terkut, while spoken Ta. and Ma. assimilated completely (> tekku), and Ka. and Tu. assimilated *-n + k- > -nk-. Again, I do not see the necessity of positing an *-nkk- cluster for any of the languages.

N. Kumaraswami's solution, ingenious and attractive though it may at first sound, does not, I am afraid, withstand a critical scrutiny, and seems to me to be an oversimplification of reality, where facts were sacrificed for the sake of elegance.

KAnIL V. ZVELEBIL UTRECHT, THE NETHERLANDS

of surds and sonants' in the parent speech, which we

accept, *-PP- has to be reconstructed as the alternation for the noun, and *-NP- (i.e. nasal + voiceless stop, as in Telugu) has to be secondary in such languages as

Telugu or Gadba; or else, a reflex of such dialects of PDr where the sequence was permitted. Hence, we have to reconstruct, for PDr, an alternation *[tond-]: *[tott-], with 'deviations' from this norm, like Te. tofa or Ga.(S) tfnta, which do not reflect the PDr state of affairs, but a later, post-separation period, when the PDr alternation *-NB-: *-PP- ceased to be effective in various independent languages (dialects?) or groups of languages. Kannada has preserved, frequently, both alternations, *-PP- and *-NP-, as in Ka. tota 'garden'

< *tottam: Ka. tonta 'id.' < *tfntam (similarly in e.g. Kuvi). One of the doublets represents an innovation (the form with -NP- may be considered as a later, non-

systemic, 'irregular' form, or else it represents a dialect where it had been permitted).

My second objection to Kumaraswami's monograph is his way of simplifying matters. Thus, e.g., on p. 20 he quotes several instances where, as he says, "in the Ta. PP reflex for PDr. *ANPP, the first plosive has the same point of articulation as the PDr. nasal, whereas in Malayalam, the nasal is simply dropped and the

plosives concerned remain intact." He quotes among his examples "Ka. teinku south: Ta. terku, cf. ten, Ma. tekku: *tenkk- (*-nkk > Ta. rk, Ma.kk)." In fact, this is a gross distortion of facts. DED 2839 Ta. terku, tekku, Ma. tekku, Ka. tenku, Kod. tekki, Tu. terik-, tenk-, tenuk-, are all results of the assimilation of *ten-ku > Ta. terku > tekku, Ma. *ter-ku > tekku, Ka. tenku, Kod. *terku > tekki, Tu. ten-k-/ten-u-k-. In Malayalam, like in Spoken Tamil, the long- kk- is the result of the assimilation of *-rk-, that is Ta.Ma.Kod. *ten-ku > terku with Liter. Ta. preserving the intermediate stage terkut, while spoken Ta. and Ma. assimilated completely (> tekku), and Ka. and Tu. assimilated *-n + k- > -nk-. Again, I do not see the necessity of positing an *-nkk- cluster for any of the languages.

N. Kumaraswami's solution, ingenious and attractive though it may at first sound, does not, I am afraid, withstand a critical scrutiny, and seems to me to be an oversimplification of reality, where facts were sacrificed for the sake of elegance.

KAnIL V. ZVELEBIL UTRECHT, THE NETHERLANDS

Homo Hierarchicus. By Louis DUMONT. Pp. 385. Chi- cago: THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS. 1970. $10.50.

Homo Hierarchicus. By Louis DUMONT. Pp. 385. Chi- cago: THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS. 1970. $10.50.

120 120



Reviews of Books

Religion, Politics and History in India. By Louis DU- MONT. Pp. 166. Paris/The Hague: MOUTON PUB- LISHERS. 1970.

Louis Dumont is a leading French social anthropolo- logist, internationally known for his Indian studies, and noted for his insistence upon the need to combine In-

dology (the study of Sanskrit and other texts) with social anthropology. For years, the journal, Contributions to Indian Sociology, edited and largely written by Dumont and the British social anthropologist, David Pocock, was required reading for all sociologists and anthropologists interested in India. His important essays from that journal, many of them preliminary statements of

arguments in Homo Hierarchicus, appear in the second volume under review, Religion, Politics and History in India. Homo Hierarchicus first appeared in French, published by Gallimard in 1966. The English translation

by George Weidenfeld appeared in 1970, and it is that which is reviewed here.

In Homo Hierarchicus, Dumont does not intend a

thorough review of research on the caste system of India. He uses findings from recent and past empirical studies to illustrate parts of his argument; he criticises studies in light of his argument, but his endeavor is "to reach simple principles" (p. xix)-principles of social structure. Homo Hierarchicus is a Hegelian idealistic semi-deductive analysis of the structure of the traditional Indian caste system.

Dumont holds that the "introduction of the idea of structure is the major event of our times in social anthro-

pology . . . the essential problem for contemporary thought is to rediscover the meaning of wholes or systems, and structure provides the only logical form as yet available to this end." (p. 41) A structural analysis is concerned with relationships, not substances-relationships between parts, and between parts and totality. For Dumont, it follows that it is legitimate to include in the caste system only what we would call intercaste relations, and not intra-caste relations. He is critical of contemporary anthropologists who "take the part for the whole"-such as Irawati Karve, who took as her unit of study the indidividual caste as though it were a "small, self-sufficient society" (p. 30), and who, in Du- mont's view, did not address herself sufficiently to inter-caste relations or to the total system. Dumont also criticises anthropologists who have studied only one aspect of the system-such as the jajmani system (intercaste exchange of services and products) or food transactions between castes-because they seem to suggest that this aspect is the whole, or they fail to consider the whole caste system.

For Dumont, ideas are real. "The principle of equality

and the principle of hierarchy are facts, indeed they are

among the most constraining facts, of political and social life." (p. 3) The ideas or principles are not causes of the system, Dumont assures us; they, rather, make the system intelligible. For Dumont, the caste system is "a system of ideas and values, a formal, comprehensible, rational system, a system in the intellectual sense of the term." (p. 35)

Society may be seen as structured in terms of dominant and secondary ideas or principles. The dominant principles are conscious in the minds of people. The secondary are 'encompassed' by the dominant, and they are unconscious and hidden; yet, they exist importantly. They are, to use Dumont's adjective, "Shame-faced." In Indian society, the dominant principle is religious, and the secondary is politico-economic; in the West, the

priority is reversed. Since Westerners are highly conscious of the politico-economic and tend to be unconscious of secondary religious principles, they usually misinterpret Indian caste society where religion dominates and the politico-economic is the "shamefaced" lesser

principle. The dominant principle of the Hindu caste system is

hierarchy-hierarchy, of course, of a religious, rather than of a political, sort. Other key principles are purity- impurity which is also religious, and interdependence, by which parts are interrelated, and related to the whole. The latter principle relates to Dumont's insistence that caste society does not recognize the individual person or individual group, in contrast to the ideologically individualistic West. The Indian caste system is not individualistic; it emphasizes its totality, not its individual members. Relationship is important, not individual substances; relationship is reflected in the principle of interdependence.

Above all, ranking of castes should not be understood as resulting from material conditions. Dumont rejects the concept of 'social stratification' for many reasons, but in part, because it suggests that hierarchically- ordered social strata, including castes, are resultants of material conditions. The term also reflects the Western tendency to reduce the religious to the non-religious, and the failure of Westerners to understand hierarchy of a religious sort. Dumont rejects Fred Bailey's analysis of a local caste system in Orissa, because Bailey sees ranking in political and economic-that is, in material-terms, and he fails to see the overriding importance of religious principles in the Indian context (pp. 75-76).

Dumont's method is to seek for the ideology of the caste system in ancient religious texts, and to interpret what he finds in terms of binary oppositions, the latter a method he had taken from Claude Levi-Strauss. Ideo- logical principles are not always seen perfectly in native

121



Journal of the American Oriental Society 93.1 (1973)

thought or in texts, records of native thought. The social

anthropologist must "complete" and "systematize" in- digenous theory (p. 37). (This is the same sort of analytical extension which social anthropologists regularly practise, Dumont points out.)

The ancient law books, the DharmaSdstras (250 B.C.-

250 A.D.), for example, are replete with rules of purity- impurity, one of the principles of the caste system. Following a study by R. Fick, Dumont says that by the

eighth century B.C., religious texts indicate that the

religious principle was separate from, and dominant over the politico-economic. (Dumont does not separate politics and economics, because the ancient concept of artha covered both; in India, the two have never emerged as separate phenomena; they emerged as separate in the West only in the eighteenth century, Dumont re- minds us). (Pp. 164-165).

Structuring the ranking of castes is a system of binary oppositions based on as many principles as there are castes minus one-one principle distinguishing each pair of contiguous castes. Dumont sees such oppositions in the theory of the ancient social segments, the varnas. The Brahman priest outranked and was in opposition to the Kshatriya king. The two, priest and king, formed a segment in opposition to the Vaishya cultivator-pasto- ralist (later merchant), because the two were dominant over living creatures, while the Vaishya was dominant over animals. The three top varnas-Brahman, Ksha-

triya and Vaishya-formed the segment of the Twice- Born, because of their right to religious initiation, in

opposition to the Shudras who were not to be religious, but were to serve the Twice-Born. There was thus a

hierarchy of priesthood, political dominion, economic

activity, and service (p. 69). (Dumont has taken this version of the varnas from Georges Dumezil.)

The caste system in concreto-as observed-is com-

posed of ideology and a residual which is material and

largely politico-economic. The link between the ideological and the material is the king, or in the rural region, the dominant caste. Such rulers are subordinate to Brah- mans and must enforce the rules of the caste system; they link religious ideology and material power andwealth.

Having oriented the reader, let me outline the book and then, finally, make some critical comments.

The title of the monograph suggests that societies are natural species. Indian man is homo hierarchicus. West- ern man, we learn at the end of the book, is homo ae-

qualis (p. 236). The Indian caste system emphasizes hierarchy; western society emphasizes equality.

In the Introduction, Dumont places himself in the French school of sociology founded by l:mile Durkheim; he is especially grateful to his teacher, Marcel Mauss, from whom he claims to have taken his approach.

Homo Hierarchicus begins with an explanation of western scholars' inability to understand the Indian caste system properly; it is due to sociocentrism, our automatic transfer of individualistic attitudes to a non- individualistic context; our inappropriate imposition of social science concepts belonging to western culture upon phenomena of a vastly different culture; our tendency to reduce the religious to the non-religious; our in- capacity to appreciate hierarchy.

One hundred and forty years ago Count Alexis de Toqueville could stil Iremember the hierarchical aristo- cratic tradition of pre-Revolutionary France, and thus he could empathize with a hierarchical society, Dumont says, but modern Western man cannot. Dumont is strongly influenced by Toqueville's comparative analysis of government in America and in France, in which Toqueville emphasized the differing relations between religion and politics; in America, religion supported politics; in France, religion and politics were at odds. The difference in relations between religion and politics is central in Dumont's comparative analysis of Indian and western social structures, as we have seen above.

Dumont sees the caste system as structured in terms of ideological principles-purity-impurity, hierarchy, and interdependence. He takes these concepts from Bougle, a French scholar whose book on caste appeared in 1908; he rejects, however, Bougle's idea that castes mutually repell one enother. After Chapter One which reviews past analyses of the Indian caste system, chapters appear on the key structural principles of the system as these are expressed in the varna theory, the jajmani system, in hypergamy (the requirement that women marry into higher social segments), intercaste contact and food transactions. Then come chapters on "concom- itants and implications" of the caste structure. The concomitant on the material level (the politico-economic) adds up to a situation in which power is in the hands of kings at the level of little kingdoms, and in the hands of dominant castes on the local regional or village level. (The concept of dominant caste is M. N. Srinivas'; the concept of little kingdom is Eric Miller's. Both Srinivas and Miller are contemporary British-trained anthropologists.) Dumont emphasizes the fragmentation and distribution among many persons and castes of land rights and authority.

Implications of the caste system include Renunciation as counter culture to caste culture (the holy man is the individualist within caste-oriented India), processes im the system such as caste scissions (division into sub- castes), tolerance (if a group is different, it is given a low rank, not excluded from society entirely), and the political instability inherent in a society with an ideology giving no support to territorial unification. The last

122



Reviews of Books

chapter, "Comparison: Are there castes among non- Hindus and outside India?," states the conditions for the existence of a caste system-namely, a disjunction between religion and politico-economics, with religion dominant.

I have tried to outline the warp of the argument without commenting much on the woof of empirical findings running across it, but it seems to me that the warp is the more difficult to grasp. And it is what Dumont believes to be his contribution. Now for some brief criticisms.

The temptation for any structuralist is to reify the structure he has drawn. Reification is indicated when a structure becomes alive. Late in the book, in passages concerning change in India, Dumont suggests that the primary principles of the caste system resist change or are close to unchangeable, but the secondary principles do not resist change, and it is in their realm that change takes place. What Dumont is saying is that traditional ideas of purity-impurity and caste ranking continue to be held by Indians, even though they have adoptedideas in economics and politics from the West.

The reified is made mysterious when Dumont likens it to a divine in a passage he later (p. 212) indicates is of importance to his argument. He says:

As the mantel of Our Lady of Mercy shelters sinners of every kind in its voluminous folds, so the hierarchy of purity cloaks, among other differences, its own contrary. Here we have an example of the complementarity between that which encompasses and that which is encompassed, a complementarity which may seem a contradiction to the observer. (p. 78) Dumont considers very important this idea of hierarchy

that he has taken from his student, Raymond Apthorpe -that the higher segment encompasses the lower. It is important in that the assertion of it holds the opposing principles together in a single system. It is necessary for the Hegelian synthesis, but it is difficult to see what is meant empirically.

The principles are personified in the two top varnas. The Brahman is the religious; the Kshatriya is the politico-economic, and the two are opposed, but the former dominates the latter ideologically. Is Dumont's a system of ideas or a system of social segments ?

Aside from problems of reification, deification, and personification of the principles, Dumont says little about the role of the Brahman as reported in India today or in the recent past. He says much about dominant castes which are equated with Kshatriyas (although many dominant castes would not be considered to be in the Kshatriya varna), but little about Brahmans.

The idea that the ideology of the Kshatriya is unconscious or "shamefaced" seems doubtful; one could

bring to bear considerable evidence on the existence of conscious martial traditions. Dumont defines ideology entirely as religious. Politico-economic phenomena are residual and material, rather than ideational. This is a strange stricture on the concept of ideology.

The idea that hierarchy in India is different from that in other parts of the world because of its religious nature seems to be based on two ideas, that the Brahman priest is at the top, and that caste rank depends upon purity- impurity beliefs and practices. Dumont rejects the idea that morphological similarities of ranked strata are enough to make other sysems into caste systems. I agree, but I do not think one can say the contrary- that the caste system is not a system of social stratification. I think he is wrong in assuming that western sociologists would limit criteria of ranking to power and wealth; they would admit religious criteria.

Dumont seeks for analytical concepts in ancient texts; presumably these reflect native thought. This is what recent anthropology would call an "emic" analysis- analysing data with native concepts. While anthropologists have held this idea for over fifty years, they also consider it legitimate to use "etic" concepts-concepts coming out of social science. It is my belief that the test of a concept is its usefulness for understanding, not its pedigree. Dumont himself "shamefacedly" admits that the use of some social science concepts have been useful in understanding the secondary aspects of the caste system.

This is a very important book on the caste system, because Dumont has taken the subject very seriously. I think his emphasis is correct. He introduces a balance to recent studies with his emphasis upon a total pan- Indian system involving inter-caste relations based upon rankings in terms of purity-impurity, expressed in various forms of interdependence and distribution of rights.

But I do not believe in the structural ghost wearing her pure cloak which Dumont has let out of his French attic-at least, not yet.

Let me turn briefly to the second book, Religion, Politics and History in India. Seven of the eight papers were published in Contributions to Indian Sociology during the 1950's and 1960's. The seventh, "The In- dividual as an Impediment to Sociological Comparison and Indian History" suggests a theme already amply mentioned with respect to Homo Hierarchicus. Five other papers are on themes mentioned in the monograph. These are "For a Sociology of India," "World Renuncia- tion in Indian Religions," "The Conception of Kingship in Ancient India," "Nationalism and Communalism," and "A Fundamental Problem in the Sociology of Caste." "A Structural Definition of a Folk Deity of Tamil Nad: Ainanar, the Lord" presents a binary opposition between

123



Journal of the American Oriental Society 93.1 (1973) Journal of the American Oriental Society 93.1 (1973) Journal of the American Oriental Society 93.1 (1973)

a male warrior god, Ainanar, and the Village Goddess found in Tamil country. "The 'Village Community' from Munro to Maine," discusses these nineteenth century Britishers' understandings and misunderstandings of Indian peasant social structure.

"World Renunciation..." is especially stimulating. Dumont suggests that Tantrism is the 'sacred reversal' of Renunciation.

Dumont has a rich knowledge of Hindu texts and of Hinduism and other Indian religions. We may hope that his next book will be on religion, on the Yogi and the Aiyanar, perhaps.

PAULINE KOLENDA UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON









Modern India: An Interpretive Anthology. By THOMAS R. METCALF. Pp. x + 291. London: THE MAC- MILLAN COMPANY. 1971. $3.95.

"Modern" to the historian all too often essentially is a time period rather than a set of mutually related concepts. Moreover, "modern" India tends to focus on the British imperial period almost to the exclusion of the past twenty four years of independence. This anthology or reader, part of a series which includes volumes on China and Japan, reflects the structural limitations imposed by most history departments.

The above limitations aside, it is refreshing that almost all of the selections deal with South Asian cognitions and processes rather than the somewhat more usual concentration on the British in India. A bit of poetic justice finds one of the few pieces on the British written by an Indian: It is an excellent selection by Raghavan Iyer entitled "Utilitarianism and Empire in India."

A standard framework is employed for all three volumes in the series. It consists simply of four categories or perspectives: I. The Sense of Identity, II. The Sense of the Past, III. The Sense of Urgency, and IV. The Sense of the Future. Part II, in this volume tends to overlap with both Parts I and III; particularly in the selections from M. N. Srinivas on sanskritization and David Kopf on "The Orientalist in Search of a Golden Age."

Primary focus in this review should be on the book's utility for teaching undergraduates, particularly in history and introductory interdisciplinary courses. Con- ceptually and methodologically there is little for the advanced student in the organization or introductory sections. As a collection of good articles, however, the book performs a very useful function.

A small classic by W. Norman Brown, "The Cultural Continuity in India," along with selections from Jawa-













harlal Nehru and McKim Marriott emphasize the "unity in diversity" theme. An explanatory note on the "little" and "great traditions" would be helpful. This first section of the book is markedly enhanced by two articles on regions and regional elites, by Bernard Cohn and J. H. Broomfield, respectively. They underline the rich- ness and continuity of that intermediate area between all of the subcontinent and the village which are so essential to an understanding of the complexities of the nature of South Asian pluralism.

"The Sense of the Past" includes articles on rural life and the Islamic impact. Part Three, apparently focusing on "change" during the British period, includes a provoca- tive selection by Morris D. Morris disputing the com- monly voiced theme that Hindu values retarded economic development. Another somewhat revisionist article, by Kenneth W. Jones, analyses communal movements in Punjab, particularly the Arya Samaj, in terms of "mo- dernizing and reinterpreting a religious tradition."

The final section of the book contains three selections on the nationalist period, and W. H. Morris-Jones' deservedly much reproduced "India's Political Idioms."

A collection of good articles is useful and this volume meets that criteria. It, nonetheless, does not reach the standards set by C. H. Phillips or Edward Mason who, by focusing on important themes, provide more integrated and stimulating readers. Perhaps it is presumptious at this stage of scholarship to produce a short paperback reader on "modern India." But, courses must be offered and students must have books and, in this context, the present volume is to be commended.

PAUL WALLACE UNIVERSITY OF AIISSOURI











The Invasion of Nepal: John Company at War. By JOHN PEMBLE. Pp. xii, 389, 6 plates, 5 maps. Oxford: CLARENDON PRESS. 1971. $14.50.

Few things in the history of the British Raj in India have become so encrusted with legend as the Gurkha regiments of the Indian Army, four of which still soldier with the British Army. The Gurkhas first entered the service of the East India Company as a consequence of the 1814-1816 war between the Company and the Gurkha state of Nepal, which is brilliantly described and analyzed in Mr. Pemble's book. The author describes the rise, in the late eighteenth century, of the militant, expansion- ist Gurkha state, parallelling the growth of the Com- pany's power during the same period-a useful reminder that the Company's was initially only one of several competing imperialisms in India. The quarrel between the Gurkhas and the British, which erupted in war in





124 124 124



homo hierarchicusby louis dumont;religion, politics and history in indiaby louis dumont

Documents