Enter your email address below and subscribe to our newsletter
A Symphony of Memory and Change
The picture of a self-sufficient, unchanging Indian village society has been painted for long by orientalist thinkers. Metcalfe was the modern progenitor of the idea where an Indian village was viewed as an autonomous, isolated and idyllic body with its unique doctrines – a world unto its own. This ‘inner world’ remained largely unperturbed by the civilizational changes and retained a timeless character which was fundamental to India’s agrarian identity. Such romanticization of a village utopia faced staunch criticism in the 20th century after extensive fieldworks by prominent sociologists/anthropologists, M.N. Srinivas being the foremost amongst them, tried to empirically dismantle the orientalist claim.
Srinivas, trained at Oxford by the renowned sociologists like Radcliffe-Brown and Evans-Pritchard, was deeply motivated to use the theoretical lens of structural-functionalism in understanding the sociological mechanisms influencing quotidian village life in India. Years before he decided upon studying the village of Rampura in erstwhile Mysore, Gertrude Emerson, the renowned traveller and writer decided to do something similar out of her own keen interest in the Indian way of life. The site of Emerson’s study was Pachperwa, a North Indian village in the mid-1920s where she stayed for an entire year.
While both were motivated by varying reasons for choosing the particular villages in question, their works stand out as the two landmark ethnographic studies which pioneered the concept of ‘Participant Observation’. Their uniquely different vantage points imbibe their studies with a cultural significance which is undeniably crucial in assessing the nature of rural India. When juxtaposed they lead us to certain omnipotent truths and a plethora of conflicting insights into the complex mesh of the agrarian Indian society.
A major point of difference lies in the fact that Emerson was not a trained ethnographer unlike Srinivas which makes her narrative free of pre-imposed theoretical frameworks. On the other hand, Srinivas’ in-depth knowledge regarding ethnography makes his study more astute in its sociological objectives. Interestingly Emerson’s book was wholly based on her diary and notes. Srinivas lost his processed notes and findings to arson and was subsequently compelled to write this book in its entirety from memory thereby lending the name – ‘Remembered Village’. Hence, the sociologist’s work sprouted of an unorthodox origin while the traveller followed the more conventional norm of ethnography.
Emerson, deeply influenced by Gandhian nationalism – which projected the idea of self-ruling village republics, is amazed by the vivacity of life in a small, almost inconsequential village. Her status as a ‘respected outsider’, especially a ‘white lady’ enables her to be free of many restraints and obligations that Srinivas had to bear. She interacts freely with all sections of the society at length and her compassionate attitude is reflected in her writing. Her, being an American and not a Britisher also somewhat influenced the attitude of the Indians towards her. Not being associated with the colonial apparatus anyhow worked to her advantage.
Srinivas, a Brahmin by birth enjoyed many privileges in the village such as living with the headman and receiving powerful patronage but his caste identity restrained him from mingling freely with the Dalits and Muslims. He cautiously stretched the limits of social conformity by continuously testing his collaborators and aides in the village. His handicap rendered his work somewhat incomplete if viewed critically. On the other hand, he held a linguistic advantage over Emerson, being fluent in the native tongue (Kannada) of the villagers he was studying.
Both accounts are resplendent with very minute details regarding the individuals residing in the village, who gradually get entangled with the ethnographers’ lives. In Rampura we observe the power enjoyed by the Gowda family, who traditionally led the agrarian village society. Pachperwa on the other hand belonged to the princely state of Balarampur headed by an underage King. While in 1948, many of the princely states have already ceded their sovereign power to the Indian Union, in 1926 they still retained vestiges of their former glory as is evident from Emerson’s account. Thus, Srinivas’ book shows the emergence of an independent India, whose strenuous struggle throughout the previous two decades have finally borne fruit.
Keeping aside the historical changes, does the Indian village in 1926 differ from the Indian village in the 1960s? This pertinent question is emphatically answered via a through reading of both the texts. In Chapter XI of her book – ‘The Bazar Day’, Emerson diligently recounts her experience of a Wednesday market near the village where she is surprised to find extensive collections of imported goods. Although, she surmises that this increasing flurry of commerce is a recent byproduct of the expanding railway network, the facts duly portray how the village economy is neither restricted nor stagnant but is connected via various threads with the global market. Similarly, Srinivas, whose book contains observations on Rampura for a period of sixteen long years (1948-64) describes the first arrival of a bus in the village and electricity reaching the distant rural corners thereby quashing the notion of a static society left unchanged by technological progress.
Emerson’s work was widely acclaimed during her time for its empathetic and considerate tone in sharp contrast to Catherine Mayo’s controversial book ‘Mother India’. Yet it inadvertently reeks of ‘western supremacist biases’ at different junctures. It is amply clear that she nurtures an idealistic notion of the ‘Indian Village’ even before starting her work and the tries to fit her stories into the grand narrative throughout the book.
Srinivas’ brilliant prose which may make Emerson’s narrative appear dull and boring remains the primary attraction of ‘Remembered Village’ to its readers. It draws heavy criticism for its insufficient exposition of serious issues such as gender disparity, caste hierarchy and religious conflicts, but holistically manages to be a richly evocative and informative narrative. Thus, both Emerson and Srinivas, irrespective of their striking differences cogently quash many academic myths surrounding the Indian village and construct the story of a world which while retaining many of its structural uniqueness and cultural characteristics, evolves and enmeshes seamlessly with the outside world. Hence the ‘inside-outside’ binary is torn apart, and the village is portrayed as an integral part of civilisational transience.
Saukarya Samad is a Doctoral Candidate at the Department of History, University of Delhi. He’s an alumnus of Presidency University, Kolkata. His broad area of interest lies around the use of alternative/counter-archives (literature, music and films) in reconstructing the past.
