A. Indology (G.S. Ghurye) Indology is a branch of social sciences dealing with the interpretation of ancient texts and linguistic studies to understand ancient Indian culture. Characteristics of Indological Approach: The Indological approach rests on the assumption that historically, Indian society and culture are unique. This uniqueness of Indian society could be grasped better through the texts. It is a historical and comparative method based on Indian texts in the study of Indian society. Indologists use ancient history, epics, religious manuscripts, and texts, etc., in the study of Indian social institutions. The texts which Indologists refer to include the classical ancient literature of ancient Indian society such as Vedas, Puranas, Manu Smriti, Ramayana, Mahabharata, and others. Indologists analyze social phenomena by interpreting the classical texts. Apart from Sanskrit scholars and Indologists, many sociologists have also extensively used traditional text to study Indian society. Therefore, it is called a "textual view" or "textual perspective" of social phenomena as it depends upon texts. Thus, the textual variety of sociology that emerged in the late 1970s marks a noticeable shift from the European to the American tradition of social anthropology. The studies conducted during this period cover a wide range of subjects, such as social structure and relationships, cultural values, kinship, ideology, cultural transactions, and symbolism of life and the world. Most of these studies are based on textual materials either drawn from epics, legends, myths, or from the folk traditions and other symbolic forms of culture. Most of them have been published in 'Contribution to Indian Sociology' edited by TN Madan. An Indological and culturological approach has also been the hallmark of several sociologists. They have hammered against the acceptance of theoretical and methodological orientations of the western countries. These scholars emphasized the role of traditions, groups rather than individuals as the basis of social relations; and religion, ethics, and philosophy as the basis of social organization. Yogendra Singh has argued that when field studies in many areas of their interest in India became difficult, textual analysis, either of classics or ethics or field notes from earlier data, represented a fruitful basis for continued analysis of Indian structure and tradition in the 1970s and 1980s. RN Saxena agrees with this Indological or scriptural basis of studying Indian society. He stressed the role of the concepts of Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Dumont and Pocock emphasize the utility of Indological formulations. Indology is representative of people's behavior or that guides people's behavior in a significant way. Sir William Jones established the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784 and also introduced the study of Sanskrit and Indology. Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1893 - 1984) He has often been acclaimed as the 'Father of Indian Sociology'. In Cambridge, he wrote his doctoral dissertation under WHR Rivers (who had studied the Toda tribes) and later AC Haddon. He succeeded Sir Patric Geddes as Head of Department of Sociology in the University of Bombay in 1924. He founded the Indian Sociological Society and its journal Sociological Bulletin. According to DP Mukherjee, while others Theoretical Approach of Ghurye: Ghurye was not dogmatic in the use of theory and methodology. He seems to have believed in practicing and encouraging disciplined eclecticism in theory and methodology. Despite his training at Cambridge under Rivers and his broad acceptance of the structural-functional approach, Ghurye did not strictly conform to the functionalist tradition when interpreting the complex facets of Indian society and culture, which he chose to investigate. The pioneers of Indian sociology were 'armchair' or 'lecture-ism' sociologists. But Ghurye had conducted village, town, and community studies. Srinivas and Panini are of the view that "Ghurye insisted on fieldwork, though he himself was an armchair scholar". It may be said that although trained in the craft of Indology, Ghurye was not averse to the fieldwork traditions of social and cultural anthropology. Also, his field survey of 'Sex Habits of Middle-Class People' in Bombay and the monograph on the Mahadev Kolis demonstrated Ghurye was far from promoting an armchair textual scholarship. Ghurye was a practitioner of 'theoretical pluralism'. He was interested in inductive empirical exercises and depicting Indian social reality using any source material - primarily Indological - his theoretical position bordered on laissez-faire. Similarly, when Ghurye conducted survey type research involving primary data collection, he did not conform to accepted methodological canons. He often ventured into generalization on the basis of scanty and unrepresentative evidence. Example: Social Tensions in India. Ghurye's flexible approach to theory and methodology in sociology and social anthropology was born of his faith in intellectual freedom, which is reflected in the diverse theoretical and methodological approaches that his research students pursued in their works. Ghurye also used historical and comparative methods in his studies. Ghurye was initially influenced by the reality of the diffusionist approach of British social anthropology but subsequently he switched on to the studies of Indian society from Indological and anthropological perspectives. Ghurye utilized his profound knowledge of Sanskrit literature, and extensively quoted from the Vedas, Shastras, epics, and poetry of Kalidas or Bhavabhuti to shed light on the social and cultural life in India. He made use of the literature in vernacular, Marathi, and cited from the literature of modern writers like Bankimchandra Chatterjee as well. Assessment of Ghurye: Venugopal Ghurye stressed that Indian traditions are actually Hindu traditions. One must know the Hindu traditions to understand Indian society. In fact, Ghurye created a special kind of Hindu sociology. Also, he did not define traditions. He also did not discuss the impact of modernity. His main concern was the core of Hindu society. In this sense, the traditions of Indian society have their roots in scripture, which is a very narrow vision of Indian society. It has been argued that most of Ghurye's works are based on textual and scriptural data. The choice of scripture and the way of writing may have bias towards one section of society to another. Ghurye fails to recognize that qualitative change has occurred in modern India. The past is important for the present. The question is how much of the past is useful. Some argue that Ghurye did not have this realization as his knowledge of India's past, instead of helping him, stood in his way of analysis. However, Ghurye was not only concerned with the past evolution of Indian society but also with its present tensions and problems. The task of sociologists, according to him, is to explore the social history of the past. He says one cannot understand the present without the reference of the past. Ghurye introduced a down-to-earth empiricism in Indian sociology and social anthropology.