Page 56 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Unit 2: Major Segments of Indian Society

Lastly, urban bias also acts as a source of conflict between rural and urban sectors. Inequalities in Notes
income, and better opportunities for occupational mobility and for raising living standards create
biases among the villagers for the city people. Though the government has laid emphasis on
agricultural development, rural reconstruction and poverty alleviation programmes, in practice,
the villagers’ lot has not improved much. The rural people also feel strongly about the diversion
of rural funds to urban infrastructure of education, health, housing and transport facilities, etc.
Some people describe the urban bias as a state of mind, yet the fact is that it creates stresses and
conflicts.
Generally, researchers study adjustments which villages have to make due to changes taking
place in towns and cities. But Victor S. D’Souza examined how changes taking place in the rural
areas produce their impact on the urban centres. He found large-scale transformation in urban
functions and increasing trade and commerce predominating most of the towns and cities because
of the rural impact.
On the other hand, scholars like B.R. Chauhan (1970) and N.R. Seth (1969) found lack of meaningful
and intimate interaction between people in the towns and those of the villages. N.R. Seth has even
pointed out social, political and economic differences dividing urban and rural communities in
India. Notwithstanding this disjunction, intimate and complementary relationship between the
two segments is considered to be normal and desirable state of affairs. A town and a city, by and
large, act as service centres for their surrounding village community. L.K. Sen (1971) has shown
that like a town and a city, a large village also performs central-place functions for the city as well
as surrounding smaller villages.
Is Indian Society Moving from ‘Rural’ to ‘Urban’
If instead of using the terms rural and urban we use Parsons’ terms of traditional and modern
societies, it would enable us to use his pattern variables and distinguish between the two societies.
The characteristics of traditional society are: Ascription (status given by birth), role diffuseness
(broad relationship), particularism (each person treating others in a personal way), affectivity
(satisfaction of emotions), and collective orientation (shared interests). The modern society is
characterised by achievement (status acquired through one’s own efforts), role specificity (relationships
developed for specific purposes), universalism (same rules applying to everybody equally), affective
neutrality (controlled emotions) and self-orientation (individual interest being important). It makes
sense to think in terms of a graded rural-urban continuum of which above-mentioned pattern
variables are the extremes. In India, these characteristics appear together in various ‘mixes’ both
in rural and urban areas. Since the rural communities have urban characteristics too and urban
societies have rural characteristics also, it will be illogical to hold that Indian society is moving
from rural to urban.
Urban Social Organisation: Continuity and Change
The urban social organisation needs to be analysed at two levels: (i) level of change which family,
caste, and kinship systems and religious values are undergoing, and (ii) its comparison and contrast
with rural social organisation. If we take the second aspect first, it could be said that while rural
social organisation is caste-based, urban social organisation is class-based. D’Souza (1985) (ICSSR
Report, 1974, Vol. 1: 161) too has said urban social organisation is class-based and secularoriented.
However, some other scholars like William L. Rowe (1973), David S. Daykin, and Bradley R.
Hertal (1978) hold that caste, kinship, and religion still have their traditional hold over urban
communities in India. The change in rural and urban communities on this level is not because of
the place of residence but because of the difference in the socio-economic status. S.P. Jain (1971)
holds, on the basis of his study in Uttar Pradesh towns, that Hindus and Muslims continue to have
traditional caste hierarchy. Sylvia Vatuk (1973) too on the basis of a study of migrants in a North
Indian town held that kinship continues to assume importance among the migrants. Mary Chatterjee
(1974) and M.F. Khan (1976) have said that kinship is the primary principle of social organisation.
The traditional features of social organisation in towns and cities are brought out in a clear focus
especially during religious occasions. Milton Singer (1968) has pointed out the prevalence of
traditional Indian joint family in urban and industrial settings. Several studies on relationship

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 51