Breaking down the question
The command word here is elaborate, which asks you to explain A. R. Desai's distinctive standpoint in detail and demonstrate why it occupies a separate place among perspectives on Indian society. Desai is the foremost exponent of the Marxist method in Indian sociology, so the answer must foreground dialectical historical materialism as his organising lens.
The examiner wants three things — Desai's method, his substantive analysis of Indian realities such as nationalism and the modern state, and an appraisal of what this perspective contributes and where it is criticised. A purely descriptive account of his biography will not suffice.
How to approach it
Open by locating Desai within the materialist tradition, contrasting him briefly with the structural-functional and indological perspectives. Then move through his method, his classic study of nationalism, and his later work on the Indian state and capitalist path of development. Close with a balanced evaluation.
Use his own works as anchors — Social Background of Indian Nationalism and State and Society in India — and connect his method to Marx and to Indian materialists like D. D. Kosambi. You may reference Marxist sociology and A. R. Desai for the underlying framework.
Model answer
A. R. Desai insisted that Indian society be studied through dialectical historical materialism rather than through culture, tradition or consensus. For him the material base — the mode of production and the resulting class relations — determines the broad contours of social life, and change proceeds through the contradictions and struggles this base generates.
His Social Background of Indian Nationalism applies this method to the freedom movement. Desai argued that Indian nationalism was not a timeless spiritual awakening but a modern phenomenon produced by British colonial capitalism, which created new economic classes — a bourgeoisie, a working class and a modern intelligentsia — whose interests shaped successive phases of the national movement. Nationalism, in his reading, was substantially a bourgeois project.
In later works Desai turned to the post-independence state, which he saw as advancing a capitalist path of development that deepened inequality and left agrarian and tribal populations marginalised. He was sharply critical of the claim that the Indian state was neutral or welfare-oriented, treating it instead as an instrument reflecting dominant class interests. His writings on democratic rights and rural unrest extend this concern.
Desai's contribution lies in bringing rigour, a materialist causal logic and an emphasis on conflict and inequality into a discipline then dominated by functionalist and indological readings. He compels attention to political economy, colonialism and the state.
Critics note that his framework can underplay the autonomy of caste, religion and culture, which do not reduce neatly to class. The privileging of the economic base has been questioned for its determinism. Even so, Desai remains indispensable for any critical, structurally grounded understanding of Indian society.
Examiner's perspective
Top answers name the method — dialectical historical materialism — explicitly and tie it to concrete works rather than floating abstractly. The examiner rewards candidates who show how nationalism and the modern state are analysed through class, and who then offer a fair critique regarding culture and determinism. Precise references to Desai's books and a comparative remark against functionalism lift the answer into the higher band.