Page 91 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Social Stratification

Notes role in Indian politics and policy because of the centrality of a third factor—the State. The Indian
State has acquired the role of a defender and protector of the interests of the poor and the working
class. There are also strong unions and organizations of the white-collar groups which in turn
weaken both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Business has exercised some influence on the
government but it has not been able to control it directly or indirectly.
The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 though reasserts the constitutional position that the
‘common good’ of the people and ‘distributive justice’ would remain the central concerns; the role
of larger industrial houses and multinationals remains unaffected to a large extent (Siddharthan,
1979). Associations formed by the capitalists have been used to promote economic as well as
political interests (Mukherjee, 1978; Sharma, 1981). However, Desai (1984) considers the Indian
State as an agent of the bourgeoisie pursuing the capitalist path of development. The state has
been ‘repressive’ and ‘oppressive’ in nature.
Whether the Indian big bourgeoisie like the big landlords were a product of colonial rule or not is
not a much relevant question for us. What is important here is that the Indian bourgeoisie was
never a monolith, and its character was partly determined by the colonial rule and partly by the
class character of the Indian National Congress, the movements launched by it and the fact of
India’s freedom and partition. The bourgeoisie is divided as it comprises two categories : (i) big
comprador, and (ii) the small and medium national bourgeoisie (Ghosh, 1985). Because of the
comprador character of the big bourgeoisie and latent tendency in the national bourgeoisie to
follow suit have resulted into ‘guided industrialization’. A similar historical account of the Parsi
Seths regarding their roots, entrepreneurship, and comprador role is provided by Guha (1984).
The Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship
Let us now take a note of the entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. In a situation of new social
dynamics new opportunities for economic activities are perceived for enhancement of one’s
economic and social standing. While presenting an integrated view of entrepreneurship, Tripathi
(1985) deliberates on the entrepreneurial process taking into account constellation of forces,
entrepreneurial initiative, and change in constellation of forces. An entrepreneur is a person who
finds a constellation of socio-political and economic forces favourable for venturing into one or
other enterprise, and if he succeeds, he becomes socially and economically distinct from those
who remain out of such activities and from those who prove to be a failure.
Recent studies have shown that money-lending and trading were taken even by the landlords and
substantial cultivating families in many parts of the country prior to independence. Today,
entrepreneurial area is wide open for castes and communities which were earlier engaged in non-
merchantile pursuits. There were ‘peasant entrepreneurs’, and there were upper caste manual and
agricultural workers. Moreover, entrepreneurship is not confined to agriculture, business and
industry alone. It has spread to the do mains of medicine, science, government service, teaching,
etc.
Interest in the study of entrepreneurs as a significant stratum in the scheme of social stratification
is evident in some of the recent studies (Singh, 1985; Trivedi, 1991; Akbar, 1990). Singh’s study
shows that 39 per cent of the total entrepreneurs in an eastern Uttar Pradesh carpet manufacturing
town were Muslims, whereas 56 per cent were Hindus, 3 per cent Jains and 2 per cent Sikhs.
Banias, Muslims and to some extent Rajputs dominate carpet industry. A close tie is found between
landownership, leadership and entrepreneurs by R.S. Singh (1985). However, about 75 per cent of
the rural entrepreneurs belong to three upper castes, namely, Brahmins, Rajputs and Bhumihars.
In the city of Calcutta, Mahisyas, a peasant caste, have dominated the engineering industry
surpassing both Brahmins and Kayasthas, mainly due to historically contingent factors after the
Second World War (Owens, 1973). Trivedi’s study of 250 tribal entrepreneurs explains emergence
of new criteria of status-determination. Muslim entrepreneurs find no social values obstructing
entrepreneurial growth (Akbar, 1990).

86 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY