Search results

Ethnicity, nation, nationalism and the nation-state have been politically volatile concepts marked by ambiguities and predominantly Eurocentric bias. These have impacted the formation of states and the dynamics within them. Is the nation-state the exclusive domain of ethno-nations forming a territorial state by exercising the right of self-determination? The emancipation of post-colonial states added a new dimension to the on-going discourse; among these, the contribution of the Indian subcontinent is prominent. Their leaders who were in the forefront of the freedom struggle were not only familiar with this discourse, but actually played out their politics on the basis of either subscribing to, or, in outright rejection of, the Eurocentric model. The latter, argued for, and established, a civic-secular nation-state that admitted ethnic plurality and class realities of equality, within an overarching civilisational bonding. This article examines how this dynamic played itself out in the laboratory of South Asia, particularly, with reference to the formations of India and Pakistan. Their top leaders Mahatma Gandhi and Quad-e-Azam Jinnah held opposing views on the concept of the nation and nation-state. I have argued that the Indian nation-state has steadily evolved through a continuous zig-zag process of differentiation and integration. In recent times, a new contradiction has surfaced out of believers in ethno-nation, introducing a volatile churning in the political process.

Abstract
Western ethnocentrism in the social movement discourse keeps cropping up now and again. An attempt is made to arrive at a theoretical orientation unconstrained by historical contingency, but at the same time, without being a-historical. Conceptually, a distinction is made between social mobilisations and social movements, and between social movements and quasi-social movements. Since social movements are inevitably linked with social changes, a classification of social movements by its intended changes is presented to distinguish between varieties of social movements. Finally, the use of means — institutional and non-institutional — is factored into the theoretical orientation.

Intro -- Preface -- Contents -- Editors and Contributors -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- List of Photographs -- Remembering the Scholar and His Scholarship -- 1 Remembering Ramkrishna Mukherjee: A Scholar Extraordinaire -- 1 Ramkrishna Mukherjee: A Biographical Sketch -- 2 Ramkrishna Mukherjee: Life Sketch of a Scholar Extraordinaire-Partha Nath Mukherjee -- 2.1 The Personal Touch -- 3 This Volume: A Tribute -- References -- 2 Ramkrishna Mukherjee: An Accomplished Academic Amphibian -- 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- 4 -- References -- Philosophy and Methodology -- 3 Unitary Social Science: An Idea and Its Prospects -- 1 Karl Marx: The Inspiration for the Idea -- 2 The Idea in India -- 3 The Development of Discrete Human (Social) Sciences -- 4 The Emanation and Debacle of Unified Social Sciences -- 5 Towards Unitary Social Science -- 6 The Reality in India -- 7 Conclusion -- References -- 4 Ramkrishna Mukherjee on Fact-Value Relations in Social Research -- 1 The Debate on Fact-Value Relations -- 1.1 Fact and Value -- 1.2 Positivist Theory of Knowledge and Fact-Value Dichotomy -- 1.3 Fact-Value Interface -- 1.4 Insights from Sociology of Scientific Knowledge -- 1.5 Post-normal Science -- 1.6 The Debate in Sociology -- 2 RM: Fact and Value Are Confounded Variables -- 2.1 Description: 'What Is It?' and 'How Is It?' -- 2.2 Explanation: Why Is It? -- 2.3 Prediction: What Will It Be? -- 2.4 The Normative Question: What Should It Be? -- 2.5 Fact-Value Relations -- 2.6 Value Accommodation -- References -- 5 Ramkrishna Mukherjee on Indian Sociology: A Review -- 1 A Personal Note -- 2 My Agenda -- 3 A New Analysis of Trends -- 4 Pre-sociological Reference Groups -- 5 Four Groups of Indian Sociologists -- 6 Prospects of Indian Sociology -- 7 Development of Inductive Methodology -- 8 Evaluation -- 9 Conclusion -- References -- Rural Society and Panchayat Raj.