T.K. OOMMEN

 

T.K.  (THARAILETH KOSHY) OOMMEN

Born in 1937

B.A. (Economics), Kerala University, Trivandrum (India), 1957.

M.A. (Sociology), Poona University (India), 1960.

Ph.D. (Sociology), Poona University (India), 1965.  (Thesis topic, ‘Charisma, stability and change: an analysis of Bhoodan-Gramdan movement in India’; supervisor, Y. B. Damle.)

1964-70, Lecturer in Social Sciences, Delhi School of Social Work, Delhi University.

1970-71, Reader in Sociology, Delhi School of Social Work, Delhi University.

1971-76, Associate Professor, Centre for the Study of Social Systems (CSSS), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi.

1976 -2002, Professor of Sociology, CSSS, JNU.

2003-2006  In this period he undertook three public tasks: he was Chair of the Advisory Committee, Gujarat Harmony Project, to explore the possibility of reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims after the 2002 ‘communal’ carnage in Gujarat; he was a member of the Prime Minister’s High Level Committee, to study the Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India; he held a Ford Foundation Chair on ‘Non-traditional Security’. Each of these led to a book. 

2007, Professor Emeritus, JNU.

1990-94  President of ISA

BOOKS

Citizenship, Nationality and Ethnicity

Citizenship and National Identity

Nation and National Identity in South Asia

Classes, Citizenship and Inequality

Through these books T.K. Oommen raised  questions on citizenship, nationality and ethnicity

The focus of contemporary sociology is on issues pertaining to citizenship and ethnicity. Such subject matter  is not found in traditional sociology. Sociology is the study of interpersonal, collective, and institutional relationships. The social sciences are unable to study social interactions in the same manner that sociology does. The connection between citizens and the state is one that has grown in importance in the contemporary period in this respect. An institution of society is the State itself. MacIver classifies the state as one of the Great Institutions.

CITIZENSHIP

A citizen is a group of people who have civil rights in modern society. If we look into intellectual history, we will find some analysis about citizenship in ancient India and outside the country. When Greek cities began to take shape, they were called Polish cities. As these cities developed, discussions about who would live in them and manage their governance began, and decisions were made. It was during this period that the word "citizen" was first used.

Citizen: Who live in city and the city was surrounded by walls

There were three categories of people who lives in these cities

Master : Had all political, social and economic rights

They had right for the governance

Due to these privileges they were called citizens

Slaves and women were subject class (not citizens)

For the first time, citizenship was defined, and there were those who lacked citizenship on the other side of these citizens. They were not citizens, but subjects. Later, similar ideologies emerged in other European countries. There was a notion of Kings and Commoners (Raja and Praja) in India for a very long time. Praja had  to accept whatever rights granted to her by any state or monarch. Praja had no privileges; their sole duties were to pay taxes, defend the king's interests in battle, and serve in the army.

Praja : only subordinate under state and state officials

This kind of difference prevails in all societies till the coming of modernity. In moderns society this traditional ideology changed because of two revolutions led by subject class.

It was Britain that occupied America. Americans battled and succeeded in overthrowing colonialism, but the majority of those who did so were White, even if Black people helped them along the way. However, white people made up the majority of individuals who freed America. There are no rights for Black people. Thus, the American civil rights movement persisted until the reign of Abraham Lincoln. Thus, modernity is the source of Citizenship          

T.H. Marshall (Citizenship and Social Class, 1950)

Citizens are those who have three types of right

1                    civil rights (freedom of expression)

2                    liberty

3                    freedom of choice

Political rights:            voting rights

                                     interference in political matters

Socio-cultural/economic rights:           religious

                                                            cultural

                                                            occupational rights

Evolution of citizenship : U.S.A., BRITAIN, FRANCE, GERMANY ( earlier rights were there)

Though they did not have political rights, T.K. Oommen believes that women should be included in citizenship. According to him, citizenship ought to encompass women's political and sociocultural rights. This problem is not theoretical. Women have all rights under the Constitution, but do they actually have all rights? Since women do not have full access to sociocultural and political rights, citizenship is really partial.

According to Oomen, while religion, ethnicity, caste, ethnic groupings, and minorities all matter when it comes to the notion of citizenship, only the subject of gender is not significant. Ethnic, racial, and minoritarian groups all have citizenship rights in any given society. The question of whether citizenship rights are only theoretical or do they actually exist should be investigated.

He categorized three types of societies/countries

First World  (Big democracies) – Economically, socially and politically developed (Britain, U.S.A., Sweden, Finland etc.) 

Second World (Socialist) – Soviet Union, Russia, Georgia, China, Yugoslavia etc

Third World (developing countries) African nations, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, India, Pakistan, Malaysia etc.

The question of citizenship vary in these countries. Though their social structure is different so citizenship is according to their social structure.

Citizenship cannot be treated only on the basis of countries.

On one side citizenship have universalism and on the other there is particularism. on one side there is Homogeneity (China: one language society) on the other there is heterogeneity (India: 22 official languages)

United Kingdom call itself a nation but it is made up of four nations: England, Scotland, Wales and New Ireland.

India is a united country in civilizational manner but existing with plural structure. Here in India culture is diverse but composite. Political entity is in a form of one nation.

People of various groups should be treated under equal citizenship rights then in actual manner we are a nation

Globalization is also redefining the concept of nationality and citizenship. Example European Union is a composition of 26 countries. If anyone is citizen of any country of E.U that person automatically becomes the citizen of all 26 countries. The person can anywhere go, work or have residence in all countries of E.U.

After globalization there is a question that how citizenship can be associated with geographical boundaries. But Oommen says that identity is important. Citizenship is a complex concept. It has to be examined in the context of

Ethnicity

Globalization

Identity and

Plurality

SUMMARY  

Oommen conceives the nation as a product of fusion of territory or language. He demonstrates that neither religion nor race determines national identities.

As territory is seminal for a nation to emerge and exist the dissociation between people and their homeland makes them ethnic.

Oommen basic argument is that in some primordial beginning peoplehood was based on the coincidence of territory and language. People who sustain that connection constitute nations

Ethnicity arises when the link between culture and territory is broken. For example by migrations

Nations are ‘insiders’ ethnics are ‘outsiders’. Neither ethnicity nor nationality has any conceptual connection to state within which membership is purely a matter of citizenship.

He argued that citizenship has potential to create an arena of equality within which competing claims rooted in national and ethnic differences may be reconciled.

His position is similar to Habermas’s notion of constitutional patriotism. (Constitutional patriotism promises a form of  solidarity distinct from both nationalism and cosmopolitanism (used for multicultural societies).

Idea that people should form a political attachment to the norms and values of a pluralistic, liberal , democratic constitution rather than to national culture or cosmopolitan society.

Unfortunately however instead of trying to explain why countries like Germany link citizenship to nationality Oommen simply says that this is a conceptual mistake with negative normative consequences.

Oommen sets out to prove that there is no such things as nation –state by showing that even Great Britain, France and Germany have not achieved perfect coincidence of nation and state.

Oommen points out ethnification as a process of defining some collectivities as OUTSIDERS-thereby making their cultural differences salient for political and economic discrimination

The reverse is Nationalization which happens when people express an elective affinity for those of ostensible common ancestry, relocate to be with them and bind acceptance as member of the nation. 

Homogenization programs try to make the people of a country fit a national pattern.

Ooomen recurrently uses the term ‘authentic’ to describe some claims to a territory, generally those that are older.

He sees the Ibo outsiders and new comers after several hundred years in what is now Nigeria while Ikale are insiders after the same length of time compared to Crhobo who came in 19^th century.

Oommen never considers that there are no perfectly primordial people. Everybody ancestors moved sometimes. In passing that people’s identity may change. But he offers no account of the different way in which national identities may be constructed.

Oomen does recognize that sometime two nations inhabit the same homeland and may fight over it when one gets the upper hand  as nation and attempts or redefine other as outsider. For example Turks ethnified Armenians and ultimately produced their genocide. But he does not seem to see that the creation of sharp boundaries around national homeland is a distinctive features of modern states. Understanding of nation cannot proceed as he proposes from the view that the state is irrelevant. 

                                         

CHARISMA STABILITY AND CHANGE

 

Charisma stability and change is his PhD dissertation. Through macro orientation  he tried to understand the overall character of Bhoodan, Gramdan movement.

When he started his study on Charisma stability and change in early sixties it was not a pet area of research among Indian sociologists. At that time the prime areas of concern for the study among Indian sociologists were caste, family, village community etc.

His study belongs to three broad areas

1                    social movement

2                    utopian communities

3                    sociology of charisma

The objective of the study was to evaluate the change effected through Bhoodan Gramdan movement.

Theoretical purpose of this book is to examine the role of charisma in society : as a system of stabilizing or changing force

Traditionally charisma is understood to be a system of changing force but the function of charisma as a system conserving force needs to be expounded.

In social sciences there are lots of controversy and confusion regarding the validity and employment of the concept of charisma.

According to Wolpe Charisma is product of social structure. It is not independent.

Max Weber used the concept of Charisma in the context of typology of authority.

Weber : Charismatic’s are creative individuals who emerge from crisis situation and the ideas they propound and propose play an important role in the transformation of societies. These individuals may be philosophers, religious leaders, prophets or social reformers.

Charisma is a sudden eruption of novel forces from mostly in the situation of crisis provides new ideas.

Charismatic authority is antithetical, non-institutional and anti-institutional

Emerges in the process of routinization and devoid any systematic division of labor, specialization and stability

Problem is that Weber located Charismatic authority as legitimate authority.    

Weber was wrong in attributing authority to a charismatic leader because legitimacy and sanctions are attached to the office the leader occupies

Pure Charismatic leader operates in a non-institutional  context. He rebel against the prevalent institutions. Charismatic leader does not have authority i.e. power to influence the behavior of his followers. If group of people questions his power or disobey him he cannot punish them through a mechanism.

If the followers of Charismatic leader questions his leadership he suffers partial loss of his charisma. Charisma sustains by the voluntary obedience of the followers. Much confusion in this context arise for the fact that heads of several governments particularly in underdeveloped countries are also charismatic personality. If Nehru is termed as charismatic, it was not because he was charismatic leader but because he was occupying top position in politico-legal authority. While the case of Gandhi and Vinoba is different. They were not the part of any institution and not possess any rational-legal or traditional authority.

According to Weber Charismatic authority is exercised by prophet, Hero or any person by virtue of his magical powers or exemplary conduct or other moral qualities. Several writers criticizes the trend of dumping Hitler and Christ, Mussolini and Moses together. While totalitarian leader concern themselves with power religious leaders rarely do so. 

According to Oommen there are two important components of social movement:

1                    ideology

2                    organization

Whether ideology first appears or organization it depends on number of factors. He explains three types of social movements

CHARISMATIC:     Emerges from critical situation

                                    Source of inspiration can supra empirical

End or goal may be system change, revival, restoration, protection or stability

Leader of movement should be charismatic

Movement should be a mission

IDEOLOGICAL:      Emerge as a response of inadequacy of existing ideological status

                                    Offers alternate for those who are dissatisfied with present status

                                    Committed towards ideology Ex. socialist movement, student movement

If ideological movement does not develop organizational weapon it will not survive

ORGANIZATIONAL:         Organized attempt to attend the grievance of a given group

                                                Basic admission of movement is need not faith

                                                Ex. Trade union movement, cooperative movement

CHARISMA AND CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF BHOODAN AND GRAMDAN           

Bhoodan movement started in 1954 after the death of Mahatma Gandhi and Gramdan movement started in 1957 by Acharya Vinoba Bhave. Several social scientist characterize this movement and leadership as charismatic. Movement was described as ‘Social Miracle’, Vinoba Bhave as Saint and his achievement as superhuman.

Movement emerge out of the crisis situation of the Telangana peasant riot. No one before Oommen attempt to examine the charismatic traits of the movement. The manner in which first land donation came forth confirms the Charismatic characteristics of the movement.

Vinoba Bhave the initiator of the movement viewed as saint by the masses. Leading a simple and disciplined life, his behavior, appearance and conduct create awe and respect among masses. Movement aims to total transformation of contemporary Indian society. The goal was to restructure the agrarian society.   

Bhoodan movement emerge due to failure of land reforms. Behind the movement there is the ideology of Sarvodaya. Sarvodaya attempts to redefine Indian society in terms of Varna, Ashrama and Dharma.

Bhoodan and Gramdan possess several characteristics of Charismatic movement (Strong ideology, well knitted organizational base, act as a change propelling force)

But there are serious dilemmas:

1        Because of Sarvodaya ideology (both on tradition and modernity) the people associated with the movement may be of divergent background

2        Since movement operates at grass root level, the quality of local leadership was crucial for success.

3        Many people associated with the movement only for material benefits.

4        Since haves and have not’s participated in the movement so rich and poor, ideologist and bureaucrats, frustrated and power oriented, revivalist and modern all took shelter in the movement.

5        Sarvodaya ideology is diffuse in character so each group employ and interpret it according to their advantage  and interests.

6        Gramdan attempts to abolish individual ownership to replaced by collective ownership.

ECONOMIC CHANGES BY BHOODAN AND GRAMDAN

1                    Hardly any difference between the experimental and controlled villages

2                    Most villages were in the control of upper caste

3                    No systematic attempt to distribute land.

4                    Land distribution/donations are motivated by material returns or personal advantage

5                    Land donated is of mostly inferior quality

6                    Number of land conflicts found in Gramdan villages

7                    No noticeable change has come out in land operation

8                    The attempt to bring economic change remains abortive.

  

CONCLUSION

Though the ultimate aim of Bhoodan and Gramdan was to establish an exploitation free economy and communalization of land but it has not seen anywhere.

Ideal typical Charismatic movement should not have any government association but Bhoodan/Gramdan receive official patronage

If a Charismatic movement receives support from the rational legal authority (govt) there occurs an erosion of Charisma.

Leadership of Bhoodan movement – Pure Charismatic power exists only in the process of orientation

While stabilizing itself it either becomes traditionalized or rationalized or a mixture of two.

The leadership is predominantly Charismatic and do not possess any rational legal authority or derives its power from tradition.

However the organizational build up of the movement and the acceptance of traditions in several aspects show the trend towards routinization of Charisma.

Some local leaders attempt to add their effectiveness in styling themselves as little Charismatic, highly committed to the ideology of the movement, others are frustrated politicians or career seekers who used the movement for fulfillment of their political interests.

They are change retarding elements and are interested in the maintenance of status quo.

Thus in spite charismatic attributes they seem to possess that they are system maintainers and not change agents.

Charisma not only disrupts social order but also maintains and conserve it and Charismatic prosperity may be viewed as a function of the need for order and stability.