www.ignou-ac.

in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

N
1
www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in1

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

ASSIGNMENT SOLUTIONS GUIDE (2014-2015)

M.S.O.-4
Sociology in India
Disclaimer/Special Note: These are just the sample of the Answers/Solutions to some of the Questions given in the
Assignments. These Sample Answers/Solutions are prepared by Private Teacher/Tutors/Auhtors for the help and Guidance
of the student to get an idea of how he/she can answer the Questions of the Assignments. We do not claim 100% Accuracy
of these sample Answers as these are based on the knowledge and cabability of Private Teacher/Tutor. Sample answers
may be seen as the Guide/Help Book for the reference to prepare the answers of the Question given in the assignment. As
these solutions and answers are prepared by the private teacher/tutor so the chances of error or mistake cannot be denied.
Any Omission or Error is highly regretted though every care has been taken while preparing these Sample Answers/
Solutions. Please consult your own Teacher/Tutor before you prepare a Particular Answer & for uptodate and exact
information, data and solution. Student should must read and refer the official study material provided by the university.
SECTION I
Q. 1. Describe the historical roots of Indian sociology.
Ans.The Historical Roots of Indian Sociology: Sociology is related to the norms, values, ideas, ideals etc., of the
humans and their society. Thus every society has its distinct social culture so the theories or concepts of one society differ
from the other society. Thus we can say that Sociology is hardly fit with the natural sciences. As on today, Indian Sociology or say Sociology in India (as these two expressions have been used interchangeably) is passing through a critical
phase. It is still dominated by the changing paradigms of Western sociology and enamoured by their methodologies. It has
not yet succeeded in making its contribution to social theory and conceptual development.
Sociology as a subject came into existence in West due to the intellectual response of problems which that society
was facing as a result of industrialization and the type of social upheaval and transformation that were taking place.
French Revolution and Industrial Revolution had taken the Western society into the enlightenment phase. The old aged
feudal system and great importance of church had been abolished. Thus society become into a chaotic and uncertain
situation. And at that time a group of scholars come to share a particular viewpoint towards the study of socio-cultural and
other aspects of human life, a particular sociological approach emerges. Such an approach is accompanied by appropriate
concepts, theory or theories, methods and techniques for studying society.
Sociological researches in India had already been initiated much before the advent of formal sociology by British
administrators. Absence of proper grasp and appreciation of Indian social realities as also the inadequate, and often inaccurate,
understanding of local customs and traditions and misjudgements about different institutional arrangements led the colonial
administrators to make use of sociology and social anthropology to run the colonial administration smoothly.
Sociology in India also had to deal with Western writings and ideas about Indian society that were not always correct.
These ideas were expressed both in the accounts of Colonial officials as well Western scholars. For many of them Indian
society was a contrast to Western society. We take just one example here, the way the Indian village was understood and
portrayed as unchanging. In keeping with contemporary Victorianevolutionary ideas, Western writers saw in the Indian
village a remnant or survival from what was called "the infancy of society". They saw in 19th century India the past of the
European Society.
Yet another evidence of the colonial heritage of countries like India is the distinction often made between sociology
and social anthropology. A standard Western textbook definition of sociology is "the study of human groups and societies,
giving particular emphasis to the analysis of the industrialised world" (Giddens 2001: 699). A standard Western definition
of social anthropology would be the study of simple societies of non-western and therefore "other" cultures. In India the
story is quite different. M.N. Srinivas maps the trajectory:
In a country such as India, with its size and diversity, regional, linguistic, religious, sectarian, ethnic (including
caste), and between rural and urban areas, there are a myriad 'others'... In a culture and society such as India's, 'the other'
can be encountered literally next door...
(Srinivas 1966: 205).

N
2

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in2

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

Furthermore social anthropology in India moved gradually from a preoccupation with the study of primitive people
to the study of peasants, ethnic groups, social classes, aspects and features of ancient civilizations, and modern industrial
societies. No rigid divide exists between sociology and social anthropology in India, a characteristic feature of the two
subjects in many Western countries. Perhaps the very diversity of the modern and traditional, of the village and the
metropolitan in India accounts for this.
In India, interest in sociological ways of thinking is a little more than a century old, but formal university teaching of
sociology only began in 1919 at the University of Bombay. In the 1920s, two other universities those at Calcutta and
Lucknow also began programmes of teaching and research in sociology and anthropology. Today, every major university
has a department of sociology, social anthropology or anthropology, and often more than one of these disciplines is
represented.
Now-a-days sociology tends to be taken for granted in India, like most established things. But this was not always so.
In the early days, it was not clear at all what an Indian sociology would look like, and indeed, whether India really needed
something like sociology. In the first quarter of the 20th century, those who became interested in the discipline had to
decide for themselves what role it could play in India?
Q. 2. What is the colonial persective on caste system?
Ans. Compared to the ancient past, we know a lot more about caste in our recent history. If modern history is taken to
begin with the 19th century, then Indian Independence in 1947 offers a natural dividing line between the colonial period
(roughly 150 years from around 1800 to 1947) and the post-Independence or post-colonial period (the six decades from
1947 to the present day). The present form of caste as a social institution has been shaped very strongly by both the
colonial period as well as the rapid changes that have come about in independent India.
Scholars have agreed that all major social institutions and specially the institution of caste underwent major changes
during the colonial period. In fact, some scholars argue that what we know today as caste is more a product of colonialism
than of ancient Indian tradition. Not all of the changes brought about were intended or deliberate. Initially, the British
administrators began by trying to understand the complexities of caste in an effort to learn how to govern the country
efficiently. Some of these efforts took the shape of very methodical and intensive surveys and reports on the 'customs and
manners' of various tribes and castes all over the country. Many British administrative officials were also amateur ethnologists and took great interest in pursuing such surveys and studies.
But by far the most important official effort to collect information on caste was through the census. First begun in the
1860s, the census became a regular ten-yearly exercise conducted by the British Indian Government from 1881 onwards.
The 1901 census under the direction of Herbert Risley was particularly important as it sought to collect information on
the social hierarchy of caste i.e. the social order of precedence in particular regions, as to the position of each caste in the
rank order. This effort had a huge impact on social perceptions of caste and hundreds of petitions were addressed to the
Census Commissioner by representatives of different castes claiming a higher position in the social scale and offering
historical and scriptural evidence for their claims. Overall, scholars feel that this kind of direct attempt to count caste and
to officially record caste status changed the institution itself. Before this kind of intervention, caste identities had been
much more fluid and less rigid; once they began to be counted and recorded, caste began to take on a new life.
Scholars have agreed that all major social institutions and specially the institution of caste underwent major changes
during the colonial period. In fact, some scholars argue that what we know today as caste is more a product of colonialism
than of ancient Indian tradition. Not all of the changes brought about were intended or deliberate. Initially, the British
administrators began by trying to understand the complexities of caste in an effort to learn how to govern the country
efficiently. Some of these efforts took the shape of very methodical and intensive surveys and reports on the 'customs and
manners' of various tribes and castes all over the country. Many British administrative officials were also amateur ethnologists and took great interest in pursuing such surveys and studies.
But by far the most important official effort to collect information on caste was through the census. First begun in the
1860s, the census became a regular ten-yearly exercise conducted by the British Indian government from 1881 onwards.
The 1901 Census under the direction of Herbert Risley was particularly important as it sought to collect information on
the social hierarchy of caste i.e. the social order of precedence in particular regions, as to the position of each caste in the
rank order. This effort had a huge impact on social perceptions of caste and hundreds of petitions were addressed to the
Census Commissioner by representatives of different castes claiming a higher position in the social scale and offering
historical and scriptural evidence for their claims. Overall, scholars feel that this kind of direct attempt to count caste and
to officially record caste status changed the institution itself. Before this kind of intervention, caste identities had been
much more fluid and less rigid; once they began to be counted and recorded, caste began to take on a new life.

N
3

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in3

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

Other interventions by the colonial state also had an impact on the institution. The land revenue settlements and
related arrangements and laws served to give legal recognition to the customary (caste-based) rights of the upper castes.
These castes now became land owners in the modern sense rather than feudal classes with claims on the produce of the
land, or claims to revenue or tribute of various kinds. Large scale irrigation schemes like the ones in the Punjab were
accompanied by efforts to settle populations there, and these also had a caste dimension. At the other end of the scale,
towards the end of the colonial period, the administration also took an interest in the welfare of downtrodden castes,
referred to as the 'depressed classes' at that time. It was as part of these efforts that the Government of India Act of 1935
was passed which gave legal recognition to the lists or 'schedules' of castes and tribes marked out for special treatment by
the state. This is how the terms Scheduled Tribes and the Scheduled Castes came into being. Castes at the bottom of the
hierarchy that suffered severe discrimination, including all the so called 'untouchable' castes, were included among the
Scheduled Castes. Thus colonialism brought about major changes in the institution of caste. Perhaps it would be more
accurate to say that the institution of caste underwent fundamental changes during the colonial period. Not just India, but
the whole world was undergoing rapid change during this period due to the spread of capitalism and modernity.
Q. 3. Discuss critically the significance of joint and nuclear family in India.
Ans. Joint and Nuclear Family in India: In India the family is the most important institution that has survived
through the ages. India, like most other less industrialized, traditional, eastern societies is a collectivist society that
emphasizes family integrity, family loyalty, and family unity.
The Indian family has been a dominant institution in the life of the individual and in the life of the community. For the
Hindu family, extended family and kinship ties are of utmost importance. In India, families adhere to a patriarchal ideology, follow the patrilineal rule of descent, are patrilocal, have familialistic value orientations, and endorse traditional
gender role preferences. The Indian family is considered strong, stable, close, resilient, and enduring. Historically, the
traditional, ideal and desired family in India is the joint family.
A Hindu Joint Family is an extended family arrangement prevalent among Hindus of the Indian subcontinent, consisting of many generations living under the same roof. All the male members are blood relatives and all the women are
either mothers, wives, unmarried daughters, or widowed relatives, all bound by the common sapinda relationship. The
joint family status being the result of birth, possession of joint cord that knits the members of the family together is not
property but the relationship. The family is headed by a patriarch, usually the oldest male, who makes decisions on
economic and social matters on behalf of the entire family. The patriarch's wife generally exerts control over the kitchen,
child rearing and minor religious practices. All money goes to the common pool and all property is held jointly.
There are several schools of Hindu Law, such Mitakshara, the Dayabhaga, the Murumakkattayam, the Aliyasanthana
etc. Broadly, Mitakshara and Dayabhaga systems of laws are very common. Family ties are given more importance than
marital ties. The arrangement provides a kind of social security in a familial atmosphere.
Six key aspects of Joint Family are:
head of the family takes all decision
all members live under one roof
share the same kitchen
three generations living together (though often two or more brothers live together, or father and son live together
or all the descendants of male live together)
income and expenditure in a common pool- property held together.
a common place of worship
all decisions are made by the male head of the familypatrilineal, patriarchal.
SECTION II
Q. 4. Discuss critically the debate between Verrier Elwin and G.S Ghurey.
Ans. The Framing of the Tribal Question: Elwin and Ghurye Indian tribes are abstract sections which hold in an
astounding number of tribal populations in the country, meticulously assimilating each characteristic specialty. Indian
tribal people amount to an 8.14% of the total population of the country, numbering 84.51 million, according to the 2001
census. These tribal people reside in approximately 15% of the country's area. Indian tribals primarily reside in various
ecological and geo-climatical conditions ranging from plains, forests, hills and inaccessible areas, that perhaps lies dotted
in the panoramic Indian terrain. According to Article 342 of the Indian Constitution, at present, there exist 697 tribes
notified by the Central Government. These Indian tribal groups of people have been notified to reside in more than one
State. More than half of the Indian tribal population is concentrated in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,
Maharashtra, Orissa, Jharkhand and Gujarat. On the other hand, in other states of India like in Chandigarh, Delhi,
Puducherry, Punjab and Haryana there is no particular tribal group that is reckoned as a specific tribal group.

N
4

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in4

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

Tribals in India originate from five language families, i.e. Andamanese, Austro-Asiatic, Dravidian, and Tibeto-Burman. It is also important to point out that those tribals who belong to different language families live in distinct geographic settings. For example, in South Orissa there are languages that originate from the Central Dravidian family,
Austro-Asiatic (Munda) family and the Indo-Aryan. In the Jharkhand area, languages are from the Indo-Aryan, North
Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic.Tribals in India live in the following territories:
The Himalayan Belt: (Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, hills of
Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh).
Central India: Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh. 55% of the total tribal population of India lives
in this belt.
Western India: Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
The Dravidian Region: Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
Andaman, Nicobar and Lakshadweep islands:
The coexistence of fundamentally different culture patterns and styles of living has always been a characteristic
feature of the Indian stage. Unlike most parts of the world, in India, the arrival of new immigrants and the spread of their
way of life did not necessarily cause the disappearance of earlier and materially less advanced ethnic groups.
The old and the new co-existed. Such a consequence was partly due to the great size of the subcontinent and dearth
of communications. More important than this was an attitude basic to Indian ideology, which accepted variety of cultural
forms as natural and immutable, and did not consider their assimilation to one dominant pattern in any way desirable. This
does not mean, however, that none of the tribes ever became incorporated in the systems of hierarchically ranked castes.
Wherever economic necessity or encroachment of their habitant by advanced communities led to continued inter-action
between tribes and Hindus, cultural distinctions were blurred, and what had once been self-contained and more or less
independent tribes gradually acquired the status of castes.
In many cases they entered caste systems at the lowest rung of the ladder. Some untouchable castes of Southern India,
such as the Cherumans and the Panyers of Kerala, were undoubtedly at one time independent tribes, and in their physical
characteristics they still resemble neighbouring tribal groups, which have remained outside the Hindu society. There are
some exceptions, such as the Meitheis of Assam who achieved a position comparable to that of Kshatriyas. Tribes who
retained their tribal identity and resisted inclusion within the Hindu fold fared on the whole better than the assimilated
groups and were not treated as untouchables, even if they indulged in such low-caste practices as eating beef. Thus the
Raj Gond princes sacrificed and ate cows without thereby debasing their status in the eyes of their Hindu neighbours, who
recognized their social and cultural separateness and did not insist on conformity to Hindu patterns of behaviour.
This respect for the tribal way of life prevailed as long as contacts between tribes and Hindu populations of open
plains were of a casual nature. The tribal people, though considered strange and dangerous, were taken for granted as part
of the world of hills and forests, and a more or less frictionless co-existence was possible, because there was no population pressure and the advanced communities did not feel any urge to impose their own values on people placed clearly
outside the spheres of Hindu civilization.
'Tribe' plays an increasingly important role among political movements in India. Organisations representing 'tribal'
communities unite as adivasis 'first people' and claim that they are 'indigenous' to India. The presumption is then that
present day adivasis or 'tribes' are distinct cultural communities which are historically marginalised and/or are descendants of the 'original' inhabitants of a given territory. The latter positions other residents of the same territory as the
descendants of later migrants, who are subsequently denied 'first' rights towards that land and its resources (Baviskar
2006, Karlsson and Subba 2006). Political movements that build on 'tribal' or adivasi claims tend to further reify the
cultural characteristics of these communities: ancestral rituals become staged performances, and photographs of 'tribal'
dress and material culture are pictured as hallmarks of 'tribality' on calendars and so on. However far such cultural
vignettes are removed from their earlier setting, they allow many of the people concerned to link the present to the past.
Contemporary public displays of 'tribality' tend to be romanticised imaginations that have gained prominence due to
specific historical and political circumstances, but that does not mean that the people who belong to the communities
concerned do not share certain pasts, habits and cultural practices that set them apart from others. Notably, the latter sort
of claims are not only advanced by democratic means, but are also more or less explicitly associated with various insurgency movements in central and north east India. Some of these movements have been at war with the Indian state for
more than half a century, and are considered by the state as a very serious threat to its integrity
Contemporary academic debates on the applicability of categories such as 'tribe' and (more recently) 'indigeneity' in
India have a long history. The category 'tribe' has been criticised from the mid-20th century onwards and the forefathers

N
5

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in5

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

of an anthroplogy on Indian 'tribes' continue to inspire both popular opinion in India as well as academic debates. G.S.
Ghurye (1963-1943) argued that there were no sociological grounds on which a fundamental distinction could be made
between caste and 'tribe'. One of his main opponents was the self-taught anthropologist Verrier Elwin (1964). Contrary to
Ghurye, Elwin argued that 'tribals' were the custodians of unique cultural traditions that were not just distinct but superior
to both the Indian and European mainstream. Elwin feared that a denial of the distinctiveness of the 'tribes' would result
in their being categorised as low caste Hindus, despised and rejected for habits that went in many ways against the grain
of the mainstream population. Thus perceived, the debate on 'tribe' cannot be disconnected from the eff orts made to defi
ne mainstream Indian society as centred on a kind of high culture, far removed from what then becomes the folk culture
at its margins. In many ways, these juxtaposed positions continue to be of importance in the debate on 'tribe' in India
today. On the one hand, there has been a steady stream of contributions of those who consider 'tribe' as a colonial
construct (such as: Bates 1995; Unnithan-Kumar 1997; Pels 2000; Shah 2007).
On the other hand, there are sustained efforts to reinforce the case for 'tribe,' stressing the uniqueness and distinctiveness of 'tribal' customs (such as: Singh 2002; Peffer and Behera 2005). Most of the matterincluded in this collection are
based on new field research. The authors go beyond discrediting 'tribal' essentialism, to enquire into present day cultural
practices of building and upholding indigeneity in India. Proceeding from contemporary academic perspectives on culture as something that is continuously reconstituted, essentialising imaginations of Indian 'tribes' cannot hold ground
(such as: Bourdieu 1992; Das and Poole 2004). More specifically, essentialising ideas on Indian 'tribes' aresimilar to
hybrid claims of identitycontested in political discourses and as such common Indian people and government bureaucrats themselves are critical of notions such as 'ancient tribes'. The question then is not whether or not Indian 'tribes' are
authentic, but rather why and how members of 'tribes', political leaders as well as government officers construct 'tribal'
authenticity in a politicised arena, and how this relates to the social and cultural realities 'on the ground'.
Q. 5. What do you undestand by golbalization Examine its impact of Indian society.
Ans. Broadly speaking, the term 'globalization' means integration of economies and societies through cross country
flows of information, ideas, technologies, goods, services, capital, finance and people. Cross border integration can have
several dimensions - cultural, social, political and economic. In fact, some people fear cultural and social integration
even more than economic integration. The fear of "cultural hegemony" haunts many. Limiting ourselves to economic
integration, one can see this happen through the three channels of (a) trade in goods and services, (b) movement of capital
and (c) flow of finance. Besides, there is also the channel through movement of people.
Globalization and Social change in India: Broadly speaking, the term 'globalization' means integration of economies and societies through cross country flows of information, ideas, technologies, goods, services, capital, finance and
people. Cross border integration can have several dimensions - cultural, social, political and economic. In fact, some
people fear cultural and social integration even more than economic integration. The fear of "cultural hegemony" haunts
many. Limiting ourselves to economic integration, one can see this happen through the three channels of (a) trade in
goods and services, (b) movement of capital and (c) flow of finance. Besides, there is also the channel through movement
of people.
On the impact of globalization, there are two major concerns. These may be described as even fears. Under each
major concern there are many related anxieties. The first major concern is that globalization leads to a more iniquitous
distribution of income among countries and within countries. The second fear is that globalization leads to loss of national
sovereignty and those countries are finding it increasingly difficult to follow independent domestic policies. These two
issues have to be addressed both theoretically and empirically.
The argument that globalization leads to inequality is based on the premise that since globalization emphasizes
efficiency, gains will accrue to countries which are favourably endowed with natural and human resources. Advanced
countries have had a head start over the other countries by at least three centuries. The technological base of these
countries is not only wide but highly sophisticated. While trade benefits all countries, greater gains accrue to the industrially
advanced countries. This is the reason why even in the present trade agreements, a case has been built up for special and
differential treatment in relation to developing countries. By and large, this treatment provides for longer transition
periods in relation to adjustment. However, there are two changes with respect to international trade which may work to
the advantage of the developing countries. First, for a variety of reasons, the industrially advanced countries are vacating
certain areas of production. These can be filled in by developing countries. A good example of this is what the East Asian
countries did in the 1970s and 1980s?
Second, international trade is no longer determined by the distribution of natural resources. With the advent of
information technology, the role of human resources has emerged as more important. Specialized human skills will

N
6

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in6

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

become the determining factor in the coming decades. Productive activities are becoming "knowledge intensive" rather
than "resource intensive". While there is a divide between developing and the advanced countries even in this areasome
people call it the digital divideit is a gap which can be bridged. A globalized economy with increased specialization can
lead to improved productivity and faster growth. What will be required is a balancing mechanism to ensure that the
handicaps of the developing countries are overcome.
Apart from the possible iniquitous distribution of income among countries, it has also been argued that globalization
leads to widening income gaps within the countries as well. This can happen both in the developed and developing
economies. The argument is the same as was advanced in relation to iniquitous distribution among countries. Globalization
may benefit even within a country those who have the skills and the technology. The higher growth rate achieved by an
economy can be at the expense of declining incomes of people who may be rendered redundant. In this context, it has to
be noted that while globalization may accelerate the process of technology substitution in developing economies, these
countries even without globalization will face the problem associated with moving from lower to higher technology. If
the growth rate of the economy accelerates sufficiently, then part of the resources can be diverted by the state to modernize
and re-equip people who may be affected by the process of technology up gradation.
The second concern relates to the loss of autonomy in the pursuit of economic policies. In a highly integrated world
economy, it is true that one country cannot pursue policies which are not in consonance with the worldwide trends.
Capital and technology are fluid and they will move where the benefits are greater. As the nations come together whether
it be in the political, social or economic arena, some sacrifice of sovereignty is inevitable. The constraints of a globalised
economic system on the pursuit of domestic policies have to be recognised. However, it need not result in the abdication
of domestic objectives.
Another fear associated with globalization is insecurity and volatility. When countries are inter-related strongly, a
small spark can start a large conflagration. Panic and fear spread fast. The downside to globalization essentially emphasizes
the need to create countervailing forces in the form of institutions and policies at the international level. Global governance
cannot be pushed to the periphery, as integration gathers speed.
Empirical evidence on the impact of globalization on inequality is not very clear. The share in aggregate world
exports and in world output of the developing countries has been increasing. In aggregate world exports, the share of
developing countries increased from 20.6 per cent in 1988-90 to 29.9 per cent in 2000. Similarly the share in aggregate
world output of developing countries has increased from 17.9 per cent in 1988-90 to 40.4 per cent in 2000. The growth
rate of the developing countries both in terms of GDP and per capita GDP has been higher than those of the industrial
countries. These growth rates have been in fact higher in the 1990s than in the 1980s. All these data do not indicate that
the developing countries as a group have suffered in the process of globalization. In fact, there have been substantial
gains. But within developing countries, Africa has not done well and some of the South Asian countries have done better
only in the 1990s. While the growth rate in per capita income of the developing countries in the 1990s is nearly two times
higher than that of industrialized countries, in absolute terms the gap in per capita income has widened. As for income
distribution within the countries, it is difficult to judge whether globalization is the primary factor responsible for any
deterioration in the distribution of income. We have had considerable controversies in our country on what happened to
the poverty ratio in the second half of 1990s. Most analysts even for India would agree that the poverty ratio has declined
in the 1990s. Differences may exist as to what rate at which this has fallen. Nevertheless, whether it is in India or any
other country, it is very difficult to trace the changes in the distribution of income within the countries directly to
globalization.

N
7

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in7

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

N
8
www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in

www.ignou-ac.in8