Breaking down the question
The phrase how do you view invites an evaluative response — you are asked to assess the continuing relevance of Beteille's distinction, not merely to define it. The controlling context is the changing Indian society, so the answer must connect his conceptual pair to observable trends of change.
You need to define harmonic and disharmonic social structures precisely and then judge whether Beteille's argument — that India has moved from the former towards the latter — still holds. This demands both exposition and appraisal.
How to approach it
Begin by defining the two structures through Beteille's own criteria: the relationship between the dimensions of inequality — ritual status, economic class and political power. A harmonic structure is one where these coincide and inequality is regarded as legitimate; a disharmonic structure is one where they diverge and inequality is contested.
Ground the discussion in his Sripuram study of a Tanjore village, which traced this shift empirically. Then evaluate: in a changing India of reservations, market mobility and democratic politics, argue that the disharmonic tendency has intensified, while noting persistence of older congruences.
Model answer
Andre Beteille's conceptions of harmonic and disharmonic social structures remain a valuable lens for reading change in Indian society. The distinction rests on the relationship between three dimensions of stratification — ritual status (caste), economic position (class) and political power. In a harmonic structure these dimensions are congruent and mutually reinforcing: those high in ritual rank also hold land and power, and this cumulative inequality is accepted as legitimate. In a disharmonic structure the dimensions diverge — a person may be high on one axis and low on another — and inequality comes to be seen as illegitimate and open to challenge.
Beteille developed this through his study of Sripuram, a village in Tanjore, Tamil Nadu. He observed that the traditional order had been broadly harmonic, with Brahmins commanding ritual, economic and political superiority together. Over time, however, the axes had begun to separate: land reforms, new economic opportunities and adult franchise meant that ritual status no longer guaranteed wealth or power. Sripuram was becoming disharmonic.
Viewed against the changing India of today, this framework has grown more, not less, apposite. Reservation policy has redistributed political and educational access; market forces have created wealth independent of caste rank; and electoral democracy has empowered numerically strong lower castes. The result is a widening gap between the axes — a Brahmin need not be affluent, a wealthy entrepreneur need not be upper caste, and political power increasingly rests on numbers rather than ritual purity.
Yet the picture is not one of complete disharmony. In many rural and semi-urban settings the axes still overlap substantially, and Dalits remain disadvantaged across all three dimensions simultaneously. Cumulative inequality persists even as the dominant trend moves towards dispersal.
One may therefore view Beteille's conceptions as an enduring analytical tool: they capture precisely the direction of change — from congruent, legitimate hierarchy towards divergent, contested inequality — while leaving room for the uneven persistence of the old order.
For further discussion, see perspectives on caste.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners look for a precise definition built on the congruence or divergence of the three dimensions, not a loose paraphrase. Anchoring the answer in Sripuram signals genuine engagement with Beteille's fieldwork. The evaluative core — arguing that democratisation and the market have deepened disharmony — is where marks are earned. A concluding acknowledgement that cumulative inequality endures for Dalits keeps the assessment balanced and precise.