Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In this article, I critically examine the invisibilisation of Babasaheb Ambedkar in the list of ‘founders’ or ‘pioneers’ of Indian sociology despite his substantial contributions to the discipline. After examining the existing literature, I contend that unlike global sociology, which often recognises founders based on their substantive contributions to the field, Indian sociology favours those with specific university affiliations and a direct engagement with the discipline. Consequently, influential sociological voices like Ambedkar’s are often excluded. The article poses a critical question: Why do Indian sociologists hesitate to teach about Ambedkar as a pioneer while readily recognising Marx, who lacked any direct connection to a sociology department, as a ‘founder’ of the field? Utilising critical mass theory, the article argues that small groups of scholars and teachers from marginalised communities can effectively challenge dominant academic groups and transform the discipline of sociology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Muhammed Haneefa (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: