48 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
goal to social sciences and to see that academic and theoretical fields are not exploited by vested interests.
While viewing Beteille's perception of the relationship between Marxism and sociology can we afford to ignore the Beteillean mode of theorization of this relationship? To Beteille, ^the mutual intolerance of Marxists and sociologists owes itself to the basic similarities of their pro* jects rather than to their basic differences"8 and "there is in the realm of ideas...what the anthropologist describes as sibling rivalry".6 Nobody can deny that such reductionism sidetracks the vital issues and is conducive to the creation of confusion in attempting to demarcate the areas of disagreement and the potential of a mutually benefiicial relationship between Marxism and Indian sociology.
From my own experience of discussions and association with them it is my understanding that Indian Marxists welcome the development ®f social sciences which do not distort social reality to suit the designs of vested interests in the country or abroad. It is true that establishment social science has become an object of suspicion in the eyes of Indian Marxists especially due to its failure to bring to light the realities of class exploitation and deteriorating conditions of the working masses of India. Marxists3 criticisms do not stem from a sense of envy of 'development' of sociology but are centred on practical questions of commitment to changes leading up to a classless society.
Myth of Value-free Social Science
Beteille rules out the possibility of the integration of Marxism and Indian sociology by asserting that
for thirty years Indian Marxists have had a zealous attachment to the Soviet Union... Several factors have been responsible for the disenchantment with Soviet society, but the most important of these, at least among younger Marxists in India, is the emergence of a more romantic alternative in China...The sociologist only demands that all sc-cieties—American, British,Chinese, Soviet as well as Indian—be viewed in the same cold, clear light... Marxists have...always treated one society—whether Soviet or Chinese—as a privileged exception. Sociology insists on treating all societies alike....This must in the end bring the sociologist into conflict with those who have a zealous attachment to some particular society, whether their own or another.7
Beteille's sole reason for Marxists' incompetence to make a scientific study of society appears to be the alleged bias of viewing a particular type of society with 'attachment'. In the absence of any sociological data to substantiate his observations it becomes quite difficult to say whether this 'attachment' pheomenon in fact exists or not. It will be interesting to make a study of Marxists' and official sociologists' identification with different types of social systems. An overwhelming majority of sociologists and social anthropologists have tended to view status quo and sta» bility as either ideal or desired conditions of a society.