Yogendra Singh: Remembering the Sociologist (1932–2020)

Introduction

In my undergraduate days in Kolkata when I harboured the idea of studying sociology at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), I came across curious faces asking ‘Why JNU?’, ‘Who teach there?’ I replied saying, Yogendra Singh. For an undergraduate student of politics aspiring with considerable trepidation in heart to do a graduate degree in sociology, Yogendra Singh seemed to be the only name that appeared on my limited and shrunken horizon, the name with which I associated sociology and also my prospect of studying sociology at JNU. My sociological universe and the place that Yogendra Singh had occupied in it had not changed as I reached JNU. The university, its sprawling campus at the foothills of the Aravalli, the departments of the school of social sciences, all had their histories and journeys layered into them. Sociology or more specifically the centre (Centre for the Study of Social Systems, more popularly CSSS) also had its own stories to share. The chronicles of how the centre came about, how it started its journey abound. In all these chronicles shared amongst the students the name that reverberated was that of Professor Yogendra Singh, as someone who instituted the centre and made its journey possible. We live increasingly in a world where institution-building has become a lost art. With Professor Singh’s death, we lost yet another artist. We lost someone who belonged to the generation of institution builders who painstakingly crafted and made possible the centres of critical learning.

Professor Yogendra Singh passed away at the age of 87 in May this year. He lived a full and productive academic life (Gupta, 2020), yet the news filled us with a sense of void. We felt as though we were instantly transported back to the late 1960s, the initial and formative years of JNU, the years that witnessed the institution in the making under the leadership of G. Parthasarathi, the first vice-chancellor. In 1969, Yogendra Singh was invited along with Moonis Raza, S. Gopal, Rasheeduddin Khan and Krishna Bharadwaj—Dipankar Gupta in his recent article on Professor Singh called them ‘the gang of five’ (Gupta, 2020)—by Parthasarathy to lay the foundation stone of the university’s school of social sciences. These people belonged to the generation of institution builders who would hold to the ground as if not to let it go and achieve the task assigned with honesty and integrity. These luminaries did not simply set up the school and the centres, but with patience, perseverance and care sculpted what later became the emblematic school of social sciences of JNU.

Y. Singh: The Man I Knew

I did not do my MPhil or PhD with Professor Singh, yet my association with the centre for 5 years of my stay at JNU was enough to understand his persona. Yogendra Singh had a very quiet and calming presence at the centre. He had his room almost at one end of the corridor away from the departmental office, the epicentre of hustle–bustle and everyday business. Professor Singh’s room—barely furnished with a table and few chairs and the walls lined with bookshelves—had an air of simplicity quite like its occupant. The room had its door always left open or half-open making it possible for people to enter without much ado. I often found him making his way to the school of social sciences lost as he was in his world, yet never forgetting to recognize and greet familiar faces with a smile. He walked in his characteristic way taking small steps with his shoulders slightly leaning forward as though his humility was found inscribed, in his gait. He always came across as an elder member of a family lending his ears to the advice of his colleagues. In a fast-changing world where people tend to be something of a rolling stone, Professor Singh stood rock-solid confident in what he did, yet tolerant of views which were not always up his alley.

An unpretentious and a fine gentleman, Professor Singh nurtured in the centre a climate congenial for pedagogic and academic pursuits. Despite being the founder of the department, he never laid claim to its foundation stone. Neither did he allow his personal likes nor dislikes to prevail and become an obstacle to the furtherance of academic practices within the centre. As a founder, Singh had an enormous responsibility of bringing in academics who would make the centre an exciting and vibrant place. It was Professor Singh’s catholicity that made the centre a vibrant place throbbing with diverse, disparate and even conflicting perspectives. As I grow older, I realize with every passing day how significant the personality of a social scientist is; how important it is to connect one’s praxis to what one believes and preaches. There were very few people who came close to striking this fine balance. Professor Singh was certainly one of them. He would be remembered for his simple demeanour and unassuming behaviour. His life represented a unique blending of humility and fine intellect.

Life and Academic Life of Yogendra Singh

Yogendra Singh was born in a zamindar family in Uttar Pradesh. He went for higher education and got higher degrees from the University of Lucknow. Singh was part of the famous Lucknow school where stalwarts like D.P. Mukherjee, Radhakamal Mukherjee, D.N. Majumdar, A.K. Saran practised sociology. After his PhD and a brief stint at the Institute of Social Sciences at Agra, Professor Singh moved to Rajasthan in 1961, where he was among the founder members who founded the department of sociology at the University of Rajasthan. It was in 1969 that he was invited to join JNU and be the founder of not only the sociology department (the centre), but also one of the founder members of the school of social sciences. Professor Singh remained at the centre until his superannuation in 1997 and then he was designated as the Professor Emeritus. While he was at Jaipur he also served as the visiting faculty at the University of McGill in Canada and the University of Stanford at the United States. At the national level, he was also part of the research advisory committee of Planning Commission and Indian Council Social Science Research. He was the convener of the University Grants Commission’s national panel of sociology. Singh also served as the President of the Indian Sociological Society.

Very early in his career, Singh had won international recognition. Yet he remained unscathed, for he was down to earth, matured and level headed person. He never basked in self-glory and took his academic achievements in his stride. An institution builder of his calibre would not hesitate to widen his canvas and look beyond his immediate aspiration and self-interests. A person with these rare qualities was certainly a gift to the sociology fraternity. A person of his stature was tirelessly accessible for his students and a source of immense help for his colleagues.

The Teacher I Knew and I Wish to Remember

Singh had been an excellent teacher. Such was his popularity that his classes were often attended by students who came from other schools and centres of the university. During our MA days, we happened to have one semester’s class with Professor Singh. He taught us a course on two German sociological thinkers, Karl Marx and Max Weber. This one semester was more than enough to understand his mind and where he came from. We waited for his class and not even once in that entire semester did we feel disappointed. Yogendra Singh never carried any piece of paper to his classes, let alone teaching notes. We listened to him spellbound as Marx and Weber rolled off his tongue. He stood inside the classroom often with his arms folded or one arm scratching the other as though he was constantly trying to connect the students to the worlds of Weber and Marx. He not only introduced us to young Marx and Marx’s Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, but also offered deeper insights into Marx’s debate with Feuerbach and his reflections on human alienation. It was Professor Singh’s rendition that helped us capture Marx like never before. It would never have been possible for anybody to address Weber’s idea of calling (vocation) in a manner in which Singh did if he were not passionate about his own calling. Professor Dipankar Gupta—Yogendra Singh’s PhD student at JNU and also his colleague—in his recent article on Professor Singh mentions that Professor K.L. Sharma (Yogendra Singh’s first PhD student at Rajasthan and subsequently his colleague at JNU) once said that when Singh lectured Marx, one thought he must be a Marxist. Likewise, when he taught Weber, it seemed as if he were a Weberian (Gupta, 2020). That is the beauty of a true teacher who introduces students to newer ideas, widens their horizon, makes them aware of the transformative role of pedagogy, but never imposes his or her ideas on the students. It was Professor Singh’s sheer genius that his class brought Weber and Marx into a dialogue with each other. He was always on the lookout for the big question and it drove him in his intellectual pursuits, in the classroom and his writings (Gupta, 2020). We realized that Marx and Weber were important social theorists in that they presented him with an opportunity to draw a much wider canvas that exposed us to the questions and predicaments of human praxis. A person gifted with such teaching abilities and fine intellect was far from being bureaucratic. He was passionate about teaching but never appeared rigid with modalities of evaluation, in connection with the course he taught. Nor did he make a fuss about assignment submission deadlines. For him, these were not unimportant, but he never looked bogged down by the procedural details of academic pursuits.

Singh and His Modernization of Indian Tradition

Yogendra Singh moved in the realm of theory with complete elan. From classical sociological thinkers to contemporary theorists his journey was eloquent and comprehensive. He was as comfortable with Durkheim, Simmel as he was with Talcott Parsons, Dahrendorf or Levi Strauss. Yet, Professor Singh did not like to be identified with any particular theorist or a school of thought. Remembering his days with his teacher in Rajasthan Professor K.L. Sharma notes, At the University of Rajasthan, his students would call him George Lundberg one day, when he lectured on the foundations of sociology; the next day, he would be likened to Talcott Parsons, who, like him, was ‘an incurable theorist’. And at other times, we would call him C. Wright Mills, Peter L. Berger, Karl Marx, Max Weber, V. Pareto, and so on, so comfortable was he with all the building blocks of sociology (Sharma, 2020, p. 28). Yet, he was deeply grounded; always felt that theory/ies need to connect to the empirical realities and their changing nature. Social change or transformations lay at the centre of his sociological universe. No wonder that he made transformation an integral part of the sociological practices (both pedagogy and research) of the centre (CSSS) he set up at JNU. Both K.L. Sharma and Dipankar Gupta feel that Singh was always interested in the ‘why’ question (Gupta, 2020b; Sharma, 2020, p. 29) and it was this ‘why’ of social transformation that led him to his research.

Singh had never been a believer in esoteric concepts or theoretical schema. For him, theories would seem irrelevant if they were not accompanied by a deeper and comprehensive understanding of the empirical contexts. He emphasised the tripartite alliance between theory, method and data. With ease, he presented concepts through empirical realities and made reality come alive with theoretical substance (Sharma, 2020, p. 28). Being born in a village of UP, Professor Singh had first-hand knowledge of rural India and the transformation it was undergoing. He also witnessed the urban society emerging in India, its constantly changing traits. It was his concern with change and more importantly with the ‘why’ question that led him to his widely circulated and debated book The Modernization of Indian Tradition in 1973.

The opening lines of the book are demonstrative of the mind at work.

No single theoretical framework can effectively understand the complexity and diversity of social changes in India. It was this sense of unhappiness that led him to productively engage the idea of social change in India. Not only does the book make an exhaustive classification of the theories and concepts of social changes, but skilfully analyses them in the direction of what Singh calls his integrated approach. The book demonstrates the working of a mind at the highest level of erudition and abstraction. Yet, this integrated approach is informed by a closer and deeper understanding of the hard realities of social change in India at a variety of levels. Sharma describes Singh as a supreme synthesiser of complex ideas and frameworks (Sharma, 2020, p. 28). Synthesising is a great art which requires one to look at past and contemporary scholarship with great care and make a critical assessment of them so as not lose sight of their relevance in building one’s own perspective. Often Yogendra Singh’s book has been branded as being the Parsonian understanding of Indian reality. Only a cursory glance at the book could lead to such a hasty conclusion. The strength of the book is its ability to employ the universalistic framework of modernisation with a keen eye to the historical specificities of changes in India.

He understands social change at a variety of levels and at every level, Singh opens up a dialogue between meta-structure and microprocesses. In other words, Singh does not mindlessly apply universalistic categories. Neither does he seek to understand modernisation in terms of the conventional tradition and modernity duality. Rather, Singh, in employing his integrated approach, documents meta-structures and specific processes at every conceivable level of modernisation and traditionalisation. For every theme—macrostructure or great tradition or microstructure or little tradition—that he chooses to address in the book, he looks at a wide variety of literature, not simply sociological, but historical and Indological as well. According to Singh, it is not tradition which is only historically specific, but modernity as well. Both modernisation and traditionalisation have their ‘particularistic growth patterns’ and the narratives of tradition and modernity both have historicities minutely textured into them. This was an argument put forth by Singh way back in 1973 when modernity and tradition were predominantly being looked upon as universal and particularistic categories respectively. Professor Singh’s understanding of modernisation in India is a telling commentary on his theoretical insight tinged with sharp empirical sensibilities.

Yogendra Singh’s Idea of Culture

Another significant theme that recurs in Singh’s writings is that of culture, particularly cultural changes in contemporary India. Here his concern follows from the modernisation perspective he develops in his book Modernization of Indian Tradition and the subsequent essays on modernisation. For Singh, ‘the trauma of colonial experience’ is what triggers sociological interest in diverse domains of culture; different cultural traditions. The paradigm of cultural studies that evolved through this historicity led sociologists and anthropologists to debate on how the Indian tradition in its essential form could be made to adapt with Western culture without a loss of its core values or cultural identity (Singh, 1995, p. 1). It is this anxiety that has led to the prevalence of distinct paradigms or approaches to studying culture, namely western construction of Indian culture, the study of folk culture and elite culture, ideas of westernisation and modernisation, studies of cultural modernisation and the postmodern understanding of culture.

According to Singh no one paradigm is enough to understand the complexity of cultural changes in India, particularly since independence. Increased processes of modernisation lead to increased interactions between distinct domains of culture. This intermingling results in people imbibing modern institutions, values, consumption habits and cultural traits. Yogendra Singh argues that two contradictory processes are at work. The more occupational, techno-cultural and institutional changes are affecting and influencing caste, tribes and religious groups, the more conscious these groups are of their narrow cultural identities. Sociologists of culture should increasingly explore the relationship of the demands for cultural autonomy or ethnicity with the processes of cultural integration in Indian society as a whole (ibid., p. 5). The question of cultural identity becomes more pronounced in an era of globalisation. Singh’s book Culture Change in India: Identity and Globalization explores the processes of cultural homogenization whereby regional, local or ethnic identities are increasingly being incorporated into global market forces. The entry of mass media, global financial institutions, corporate capitalism render marketisation of cultural institutions and artefacts, resulting in the commodification of culture.

The emphasis may shift from content to packaging of culture. The revolution in information and communication technology, together with an increase in the means of transport, extended networking of markets of culture industries, such as tourism, inter-cultural meets and exchanges, institutionalized exchange of cultural objects and so on, contribute to a globalization of culture (ibid., p. 7). Such aggressive processes of globalisation may heighten real or perceived threats to local or regional cultural identities leading to the loss of meaning and values of cultural objects. The book deals with how these processes have led to the rise in popular culture, changes in the form and style of leisure activities, given rise to new normative standards for defining community relationships, political leadership and generally how it reflects upon India’s ability in the future to maintain cultural and social resilience to face up to the new challenges of globalisation. In his presidential address at the 21st All India Sociological Conference in 1994, Singh invokes the term cultural policy and emphasises its relevance in meeting challenges of globalised culture and protecting regional and ethnic identities and their cultural expressions (ibid., p. 8). Yet, under no circumstances would he consider culture as a pure category impervious to assimilation or integration.

Singh on Social Stratification and Change

Singh’s writings also touch on the issue central to sociology, namely that of stratification, hierarchies and change. His work focuses on the stratification system in relation to a number of categories such as caste, class and peasantry and elites. He explores the career of these categories as they are constantly configured and reconfigured by the social and political processes of modernization in India. K.L. Sharma in his recent writing on Singh notes that lately, Singh analysed Indian society in terms of caste, class and community, where he examined caste in terms of class and power. This allowed him to view this phenomenon as a social resource and as a means for accomplishing a variety of mundane activities as well (Sharma, 2020, p. 29). This only demonstrates Singh’s reluctance to view any of the components of stratification as something of a pure category. His writings on stratification often bring in the policies of reservation, their encounter with and impact on caste and vice-versa. Far from viewing them as foundational concepts, he examines the reservation policies, their impact on scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward castes and more importantly the dynamics of integrative processes unfolding in Indian society. In fact one comes across this idea in Singh way back in 1970 in his essay (he wrote jointly with I.P. Desai ) that reviewed Rajni Kothari’s edited volume Caste in Indian Politics. Viewing Kotahri’s volume as trend-setting in many ways, both Singh and Desai argue that the greater politicisation of caste also renders it outward-looking. The acceleration of this process of looking outward would depend on what is happening outside both the caste and the political systems (Desai and Singh, 1970, p. 1970). They further argue that

Because of its encounter with politics, new structural differentiation outside the loci of caste comes into being and this adds a new dimension to the political process. Political alignments begin to cut across caste lines and tend to assume a cr[l]ass-like character. (ibid. 1968, ‘l’ added)

They observe that during electoral politics people’s loyalties cut across caste and this often results in intercaste competition among caste groups. They also notice the importance of charisma in political mobilisations, that is, prominent personalities who mobilised and inspired their castes (ibid., 1970). The observation they made in 1970 makes sense when today we find ourselves confronted with questions pertaining to reservation, elite manipulation and creamy layer.

Of Youth, Disintegration and Adaptation

The theme of modernisation, its integrative and disintegrative consequences inescapably figure in Singh’s writings. He focused not simply on the abilities of different cultural pockets, domains and institutional forms to adapt to the forces of modernisation, but also on the adaptive capacities of different communities such as Hindus and Muslims undergoing the process of cultural modernisation. In his book Ideology and Theory in Indian Sociology he focuses on professional groups and working classes undergoing adaptive changes towards modernization. Yogendra Singh’s writings address the issue of youth and their problems. Once again the forces of modernisation prove to be a major catalyst in providing a lens to understand the youth problem. In his early writing on youth problem, Singh attributes youth problem to the social structure undergoing a rapid transformation under modernisation. For him, the youth in India is confronted with huge economic insecurities like unemployment, job-uncertainties, and economic exploitation which may be treated as a constant and overall problem (Singh, 1960, p. 1628). Apart from poverty and illiteracy in which the rural youth are often found to be immersed, youth problem can be grasped through recourse to an understanding of the Indian social structure. According to Singh, the Indian social structure since independence had been undergoing tumultuous changes. Both in the urban and the rural community the values, social and economic systems around which equilibrium was established in the past, have been either abolished by law or stand outmoded as legacies of past (ibid.). While the older generation looks at the changes with a sense of apathy, the youth is often left with a sense of void, without a sense of direction. This results in a sense of alienation, frustration (or which could also be expressions of exaggerated aspirations) or resentment among the youth. The resentment (or exaggerated aspiration) often finds manifestation in the youth, particularly the urban youth resorting to violence or showing lack of confidence in the norms and institutions of the society.

In his later work Culture Change: Identity and Globalization, he notes that the globalization of economy and the production of goods and services by the multinational corporations have considerably altered youth self-perceptions and the perception of their life-world. The processes of modernisation have displaced youth from their refuges and the globalisation has only reinforced them at an unprecedented level. The rural youth keeps migrating to the cities in search of employment either in the formal or informal sectors, whereas the young people belonging to the urban middle classes either move into government jobs or increasingly find employment in private multinational companies. There is an increasing tendency among those working for a multinational corporation or private enterprises to imbibe almost blindly the market forces, market-driven technologies and market-induced consumerism. Under these situations, there has been a weakening of the authority structure of the older generation in the families, in the urban and to a certain extent in rural areas. With the market forces, fast gaining ground the young people are beginning to be at the helm of affairs within the families and outside. Many values that belonged to the previous generation are increasingly being put in jeopardy. This results in the eroding of the mystique of parental authority in deciding and guiding the youth’s future and future aspirations. The forces of modernisation and globalisation have imparted freedom to the youth in defining their life and choices of profession. There is certainly enough freedom for the youth, yet this freedom, according to Singh, has not come without its costs.

Singh in his earlier article on youth problem and welfare invokes the necessity of social planning as an instrument which may enormously help to check and minimise the process of dysfunction in the social structure undergoing fast changes (ibid., p. 1629). For the welfare of youth, he feels, attempts can succeed only through systematic organization with adequate incentives. These incentives may not always be economic; they may be social, cultural, and psychological (ibid.). Singh’s observations about the youth are not only sharp, but also informed by a deeper understanding of the empirical processes at work; by the ground realities. His reflections, particularly his invocation of the idea of social planning points to his interest in the youth not simply as a sociologist, but also as an activist. This shows the responsibility and commitment of a sociologist to the larger society, especially the one that is fast transforming.

Institutional Histories and Social Context for Sociology

In 1970, Yogendra Singh, the sociologist and institution builder, wrote a piece on the institutional history and the predicaments of the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR). He critically looks at the functioning of the ICSSR which was set up two decades after India gained independence. The future of this institution of science and knowledge depends to a large extent on the social context within which it flourishes. Singh argues that institutional innovations such as the ICSSR, which are supposed to be an experiment in modernity and science, are often metamorphosed by the impact of native traditions to develop many dysfunctions (Singh, 1970, p. 671). The tradition induced authoritarianism prevalent in societies like India is often instrumental in producing attitudes of servility and uncritical conformity that are obstacles to the growth and transparency of these institutions (ibid.). For Yogendra Singh, the other important obstacle to the democratic functioning of the ICSSR would be posed by the state itself. State funding and state patronage prevent the institution from being autonomous, something which would be crucial if institutions of knowledge and science were to function in a neutral and democratic manner.

Singh later in his book Indian Sociology: Social Conditioning and Emerging Concerns reflects on and contextualises the beginning and development of sociology in India. Of course, colonial experience is what facilitates the building blocks of sociological knowledge, but sociology as a discipline is increasingly constituted by the journey of independent India. Following from his arguments in Modernization of Indian Tradition, Singh documents diverse theoretical traditions shaped by the possibilities and predicaments of the new nation. His exploration of the social conditioning of sociology lays bare the ideological tensions associated with the growth of the discipline. The author looks at diverse substantive issues that are not only symptomatic of the Indian society in transition but also significant themes around which contentious perspectives emerge within Indian sociology. Singh revisits the theme of institutional history in their edited volume Science and Modern India: An Institutional History 1784–1947 (co-authored with D. P. Chattopadhyaya). The second part of the book reflects on the development of social anthropology and sociology and their relation with western sciences. The first part of the book documents the cultural histories of communication and science.

Singh wrote on a wide variety of issues ranging from stratification, modernisation-social change, and institutional histories of science to peace and non-violence. It is interesting to note that professor Yogendra Singh was not simply an institution builder, but he made his role as an institution builder an object of sociological reflection and critique. His early writing on the ICSSR and the subsequent volumes on social conditioning of sociology amply demonstrate his ability to indulge in self-introspection and critique, a rare quality often found missing in the social science fraternity.

Conclusion

Professor Yogendra Singh has left. We have not only lost him but the generation of social scientists who were not rolling stones. They were teachers, institution builders and social scientists. Behind that unassuming and simple man was a fine intellectual responsible for what he uttered and conscious of his commitments to the larger society. The world of Y Singh would die hard no matter how fast we head towards social science practices institutionalised and assisted by information technology; no matter how busy we get with journal indexing, Google scholar or research gate citations, academic presence on the internet and the academic-social media interface. Suffering the pandemic one wondered if the world would ever become a normal place to inhabit. Even if the world did, would the void Yogendra Singh’s demise created ever be filled?