Abstract
Dattatreya Narayan Dhanagare (1936–2017)
Source: Professor B. B. Mohanty
With the sad demise of Professor Dattatreya Narayan Dhanagare, Indian Sociology has lost one of its outstanding scholars. The level of excellence that he has bequeathed to historical sociology in India provides a formidable challenge and inspiration to future generation of sociologists. With his book Peasant Movements in India (1983), based on his PhD research in Sussex, closely followed by Tom Bottomore, there was no going back. In particular, his last two books Writings of D. N. Dhanagare: The Missing Tradition (2014) and Populism and Power (2016) bear testimony to his meticulousness and rigour, in substance and theoretical sophistication. Non-doctrinnaire Marxism is the paradigm that informs his works.
When we met in Pondicherry last November (2016), attending a workshop organised by the French Institute of Pondicherry in collaboration with Pondicherry University, little did we know of the dim forebodings, for it was here that he got into a severe heart condition prompting admission to the ICU of the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences. Battling valiantly against two odds, with his kidneys giving way, he breathed his last on 7 March 2017 at Pune. But it was a memorable reunion at Pondicherry; we had our last hearty laughs over excellent cuisine by the sea-side restaurant, reminiscing joyously over anecdotes and experiences in which none were spared—neither gurus, nor peers—all in good spirit. Regarding his last book, he remarked ‘Do you know Partha, this book has been in the making for the last 30 years!’
Dhanagare could be undeterred and obstinate to the extreme to keep to principles he upheld, at whatever price. At the same time, he was amongst the most humane and fair. In 2002, we were locked against each other for the presidentship of the Indian Sociological Society, each holding to one’s principles. Both suffered this dilemma as good friends. Our resulting campaigns were marked by positivity. In the end, just before polling, we wished each other success! I lost by seven votes. In the ensuing Jaipur conference, he openly said that the result could have gone either way! When I had expressed my inability to attend the conference for pressing reasons, he made sure from me, ‘Partha, I hope it has nothing to do with the election result?’ I had laughed in reply, ‘Not at all. I rejoice in my friend’s victory. I too have won.’ Later, he made sure from me that I would be a symposium speaker in the next conference—he was quite clear, ‘[W]e should not send the wrong signal that the election brought a change in our relationship.’ He was wrong. It did bring about a change. Our relationship got cemented as never before.
I tried declining his request for a Foreword: ‘Why do you need a Foreword from me of all persons? There is no dearth of worthier academics who will oblige you? Besides, you don’t need a Foreword from anyone.’ This was with reference to his book Writings of D. N. Dhanagare. He persuaded me till I had no option. He said, ‘Please write whatever is your true understanding of the book. Any criticism is most welcome.’ I did a critical appreciation that did not spare him on some points. He thanked me profusely and accepted my criticisms as much as appreciation.
Unlike many distinguished scholars, Dhanagare invited criticism and revelled in it. He was a scholar extraordinary. It is not only the profession that has lost a scholar par excellence but there are scores like me whose personal loss is insurmountable.