Breaking down the question
The question asks how one might characterise G. S. Ghurye as a practitioner of theoretical pluralism. The task is to explain and justify this label — to show that Ghurye did not follow a single fixed theory or method but drew eclectically on several, matching approach to problem.
Theoretical pluralism is the key term: the deliberate use of multiple, even competing, theoretical and methodological traditions rather than commitment to one paradigm. You must demonstrate this with evidence from Ghurye's actual work.
How to approach it
Begin by defining theoretical pluralism and noting that it captures Ghurye's refusal to be boxed into one school. Then illustrate the plurality — his blend of Indology, diffusionism, evolutionism and comparative method, and the range of substantive themes he handled. Weigh whether this eclecticism was a strength or a lack of rigour, and close with a measured verdict.
Model answer
Theoretical pluralism describes a scholar's willingness to draw on several theoretical and methodological traditions rather than adhering to a single paradigm, selecting whichever tools best suit the problem at hand. G. S. Ghurye, the father of Indian sociology, fits this description closely, and the label is a fair and illuminating one.
Ghurye's pluralism is visible first in his methodology. He is best known as an Indologist who reconstructed Indian society from classical texts — the Vedas, Dharmashastras and epics. Yet he was trained at Cambridge under W. H. R. Rivers in the diffusionist tradition, and this shows in his work on the spread of culture traits. He also drew on evolutionary and comparative frameworks, and he did not wholly ignore historical and empirical evidence. His method was therefore a blend of the textual, the comparative, the diffusionist and the historical.
Second, his pluralism appears in the breadth of his substantive concerns. Across a long career he wrote on caste and race, tribes, kinship and the gotra system, religion and the sadhus, cities and civilisation, the Mahadev Kolis, sex and even Indian costume and architecture. No single theory could organise so wide a canvas; each problem drew a different conceptual approach — his study of caste leaning on textual and historical analysis, his tribal work on the assimilationist backward Hindus thesis, his cultural studies on diffusion.
Third, Ghurye was consciously non-doctrinaire. He resisted allegiance to any one -ism, whether functionalism, Marxism or structuralism, preferring a flexible, problem-driven eclecticism. This openness let him bridge Indology and empirical sociology and institutionalise a distinctively Indian discipline through the Bombay school.
The pluralism has been read two ways. Critics see a lack of a unifying theoretical framework and a tendency towards descriptive, sometimes ideologically coloured, generalisation. Defenders argue that in a young discipline confronting a civilisation of great complexity, such eclecticism was a strength — it kept sociology responsive to Indian reality rather than forcing it into an imported mould. On balance, theoretical pluralism is an apt and largely appreciative characterisation of Ghurye, though it must be qualified by the charge of insufficient theoretical unity. For fuller treatment, see the note on Indology and Ghurye.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners expect the candidate to first define theoretical pluralism, then evidence it from Ghurye's work rather than assert it. The marks lie in specifics — his diffusionist training under Rivers, his textual method, and the sheer range of his subjects from caste to costume. The strongest scripts treat the label critically, weighing eclecticism as both a strength and a want of theoretical unity, and deliver a reasoned verdict. That combination of definition, evidence and evaluation secures the top band.