Sarkar’s Theory of Social Change: Structure and Transcendence

By Sohail Inayatullah, PhD

Personal History

Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar was born in May of 1921 in Bihar of an old and respected family that had its roots in regional leadership and in ancient spiritual traditions. Sarkar’s early life was dominated by fantastic events, spiritual miracles and brushes with death. He was nearly killed in his early years by a religious sect who believed that Sarkar was destined to destroy their religion (as astrologers had predicted about Sarkar). Surviving this event and many other similar ones, by the 1950’s he had become a spiritualist with many followers. In 1955, he founded the socio-spiritual organization Ananda Marga. Soon after, he articulated a new political-economic theory and social movement called the Progressive Utilization Theory or PROUT.

Ananda Marga and PROUT grew quickly in the 1960’s and managed to attract opposition from numerous Hindu groups, they believing Sarkar to be an iconoclast because of his opposition to caste (jhat) and his criticism of orthodox schools of Indian philosophy. By the late 1960’s his followers were in key positions in the Indian civil service. The government argued that it was a politically subversive revolutionary organization and banned civil servants from joining it. Ananda Marga asserted that it was being harassed because of its opposition to governmental corruption.

In 1971, Sarkar was accused of murdering his disciples and jailed. Before Sarkar’s eyes his movement was decimated and publically labelled as a terrorist organization. In 1975 with the onset of the Indian Emergency his organizations were banned and his trial conducted in an atmosphere where defense witnesses were jailed if they spoke for Sarkar. Notwithstanding reports by the International Commission of Jurists and other associations of the partial judicial conditions making it impossible for Sarkar to receive a fair trial, Sarkar was convicted.1 When the Gandhi government was removed, his case was appealed and reversed. During those difficult years, Sarkar fasted in protest of the trial and the numerous tortures committed by the police and intelligence agencies on his workers and himself. By the 1980’s his movement grew again expanding to nearly 120 nations.

Until his death on October 21, 1990 Sarkar remained active in Calcutta composing nearly 5000 songs called Prabhat Samgiit (songs of the new dawn), giving spiritual talks, giving discourses on languages, managing his organizations, and teaching meditation to his numerous disciples, especially his senior monks and nuns, avadhutas and avadhutikas. His most recent project was Ananda Nagar or the City of Bliss and other alternative communities throughout the world. These communities have been designed with PROUT principles in mind: ecologically conscious, spiritually aware, socially progressive and embedded in the culture of the area.

The Personal and Social

Sarkar places the rise, fall and rise of his movement in the same language that he uses to explain aspects of history. For him, whenever truth is stated in spiritual or material areas of life, there is resistance. This resistance eventually is destroyed by the very forces it uses to destroy truth. “Remember, by an unalterable decree of history, the evil forces are destined to meet their doomsday.”2

For Sarkar movements follow a dialectical path: thesis, antithesis and synthesis. A movement is born, it is suppressed and oppressed (if it truly challenges the distribution of meanings of power), and if it survives these challenges it will be victorious. The strength of the movement can be measured by its ability to withstand these challenges.

Sarkar’s own life and the life of his organizations follow this pattern, although at this point the success of the PROUT movement has yet to be determined. In our interpretation, it is this mythic language that is also perhaps the best way to understand his theory of history, for it is myth that gives meaning to reality, that makes understandable the moments and monuments of our daily lives and that gives a call to sacrifice the moment so as to create a better tomorrow.

Sarkar’s universe is the habitat of grand struggles between vidya and avidya: introversion and extroversion, contraction and expansion, compassion and passion. This duality is an eternal part of the very metaphysic of the physical and social universe. Unlike the Western model where social history can end with the perfect marketplace or the conflict-free communist state, for the Indian, for Sarkar, social history will always continue. Only for the individual through spiritual enlightenment can time cease and the “mind” itself (and thus duality) be transcended.

Sarkar’s Larger Civilizational Project

Sarkar’s intent was and is (his organizations continue his work) to create a global spiritual socialist revolution, a renaissance in thought, language, music, art, and culture. His goal is to infuse individuals with a spiritual presence, the necessary first step in changing the way that we know and order our world. Unlike the socialists of the past who merely sought to capture state power–forgetting that the economy was global and thus in the long run strengthening the world capitalist system–or the utopian idealists who merely wished for perfect places that could not practically exist or spiritualists who only sought individual transformation at the expense of structural change, Sarkar has a far more comprehensive view of transformation of which his social cycle provides the key structure.

His theoretical offerings include a range of new approaches to understanding social reality. His theory of neo-humanism aims to relocate the self from ego (and the pursuit of individual maximization), from family (and the pride of genealogy), from geo-sentiments (attachments to land and nation), from socio-sentiments (attachments to class, race and community) from humanism (man as the center of the universe) to neo-humanism (love and devotion for all, inanimate and animate, beings of the universe). Paramount here is the construction of self in an ecology of reverence for life, not a modern/secular politics of cynicism. Spiritual devotion to the universe is ultimately the greatest treasure that humans have; it is this treasure that must be excavated and shared by all living beings.

Only from this basis can a new universalism emerge which can challenge the national, religious, class sentiments of history. The first step, then, is liberating the intellect from its own boundaries and placing it in an alternative discourse. Sarkar then seeks to make accessible an alternative way of knowing the world that includes yet steps beyond traditional knowledge points; reason, sense-inference, authority, and intuition.

The central framework for his neo-humanistic perspective is his Progressive Utilization Theory. PROUT encompasses Sarkar’s theory of history and change, his theory of leadership and the vanguard of the new world he envisions, as well as his alternative political economy.

Theory of History

His theory of history constructs four classes: workers, warriors, intellectuals, and accumulators of capital. Each class can be perceived not merely as a power configuration, but as a way of knowing the world, as a paradigm, episteme or deep structure, if you will. In Sarkar’s language this is collective psychology or varna (here, dramatically reinterpreting caste). At the individuals level there is varna mobility, one can change the influence of history and social environment! At the macro level, each varna comes into power bringing in positive necessary changes, but over time exploits and then dialectically creates the conditions for the next varna. This cycle continues through history and for Sarkar is indeed an iron law of history, true irrespective of space/time and observer conditions. It is a law because it has developed historically through evolution and because the cycle represents a universal social structure. For Sarkar, there have been four historical ways humans have dealt with their physical and social environment: either by being dominated by it, by dominating it through the body, dominating it through the mind, or dominating it through the environment itself.

While the parallel to caste is there (shudra, ksattriya, brahmin and vaeshya), Sarkar redefines them locating the four as broader social categories that have historically evolved through interaction with the environment. Moreover, varna for individuals is fluid, one can change one’s varna through education, for example. Caste, on the other hand, developed with the conquest of the local Indians by the Aryans and was later reinscribed by the Vedic priestly classes.3

Sarkar believes that while the social cycle must always move through these four classes, it is possible to accelerate the stages of history and remove the periods of exploitation. Thus Sarkar would place the sadvipra, the compassionate servant leader, at the center of the cycle, at the center of society (not necessarily at the center of government). In his life, Sarkar’s efforts were to create this type of leadership instead of building large bureaucratic organizations. He sought to create a new type of leadership that was humble and could serve, that was courageous and could protect, that was insightful and could learn and teach, and that was innovative and could use wealth–in a word, the sadvipra.

These leaders would, in effect, attempt to create a permanent revolution of sorts, creating a workers’ revolution when the capitalists begin to move from innovation to commodification, a warriors’ revolution when the workers’ era moves from societal transformation to political anarchy, an intellectual revolution when the warrior era expands too far–becomes overly centralized and stagnates culturally–and an economic revolution when the intellectuals use their normative power to create a universe where knowledge is only available to the select few, favoring non-material production at the expense of material production. Through the intervention of the sadvipra, Sarkar’s social cycle becomes a spiral: the cycles of the stages remains but one era is transformed into its antithesis when exploitation increases. This leads to the new synthesis and the possibility of social progress within the structural confines of the four basic classes. Sarkar’s theory allows for a future that while patterned can still dramatically change. For Sarkar, there are long periods of rest and then periods of dramatic social and biological revolution. Future events such as the coming polar shift, the possible ice age, increased spiritual developments in humans due to various spiritual practices, and the social-economic revolution he envisions may create the possibility for a jump in human consciousness.4

Sarkar’s theoretical framework is not only spiritual or only concerned with the material world, rather his perspective argues that the real is physical, mental and spiritual. Concomitantly, the motives for historical change are struggle with the environment (the move from the worker era to the warrior era), struggle with ideas (the move from the warrior to the intellectual), struggle with the environment and ideas (the move from the intellectual era to the capitalist eras) and the spiritual attraction of the Great, the call of the infinite. Thus physical, mental and spiritual challenges create change.

Table: Sarkar’s Stages

The key to Sarkar’s theory of history, thus, is that there are four structures and four epochs in history. Each epoch exhibits a certain mentality, a varna. This varna is similar to the concept of episteme, to paradigm, to ideal type, to class, to stage, to era and a host of other words that have been used to describe stage theory. Sarkar, himself, alternatively uses varna and collective psychology to describe his basic concept. Collective psychology reflects group desire, social desire. There are four basic desire systems. The four varnas are historically developed. First the shudra, then the ksattriya, then the vipra, then the vaeshya. The last era is followed either by a revolution by the shudras or an evolution into the shudra era.

The order is cyclical, but there are reversals. A counter evolutionary movement or a more dramatic counter revolution which may throw an era backwards, such as a military ksattriyan leaders wresting power from a vipran-led government. Both are short-lived in terms of the natural cycle since both move counter to the natural developmental flow. But in the long run, the order must be followed.

Significantly–and this is important in terms of developing an exemplary theory of macrohistory–Sarkar does not resort to external variables to explain the transition into the next era. It is not new technologies that create a new wealthy elite that can control the vipras, rather it is a fault within the viprans themselves. Moreover, it is not that they did not meet a new challenge, or respond appropriately, as Toynbee would argue. Rather, Sarkar’s reasoning is closer to Ibn Khaldun’s and other classical philosophers. They create a privileged ideological world or conquer a material world, use this expansion to take care of their needs, but when changes come, they are unprepared for they themselves have degenerated. While changes are often technological (new inventions and discoveries of new resources) it is not the significant variable, rather it is the mindset of the vipran, individually and as a class, that leads to their downfall.

Alternative Political Economy

Embedded in his social theory is Sarkar’s alternative political economy. In this project he designs his ideal theory of value. For Sarkar there are physical, intellectual and spiritual resources. Most economic theory privileges the material forgetting the intellectual and especially the infinite spiritual resources available to us. Secondly, his theory uses as its axial principle the notion of social justice, the notion of actions not for selfish pleasure but for the social good.

Society is perceived not as an aggregate of self-contained individuals nor as a mass collectivity designed for the commune, but rather as a family moving together on a journey through social time and space. Within the family model there is hierarchy and there is unity. Newly created wealth is used to give incentives to those who are actualizing their self, either through physical, intellectual or spiritual labor, and is used to maintain and increase basic needs–food, clothing, housing, education and medical care. Employment, while guaranteed, still requires effort, since central to Sarkar’s metaphysics is that struggle is the essence of life. It is challenge that propels humans, collectively and individually, towards new levels of physical wealth, intellectual understanding and spiritual realization. Sarkar speaks of incentives not in terms of cash, but in terms of resources that can lead to more wealth.

Finally, Sarkar would place limits on personal income and land holdings for the world physical resources are limited and the universe cannot be owned by any individual since it is nested in a higher consciousness, the Supreme Consciousness.

The Indian Episteme and the Indian Construction of History

Following the classic Indian episteme, reality has many levels; most ideologies only have accentuated the spiritual (Vedanta) or the material (liberalism), or the individual (capitalism) or the collective (communism), the community (Gandhism), or race (Hitlerism) or the nation (fascism). Sarkar seeks an alternative balance of self, community, ecology, and globe. Yet the spiritual is his base. In his view Consciousness from pure existence transforms to awareness then to succeeding material factors (the Big Bang onwards) until it becomes matter. From matter, there is dialectical evolution to humans. Humans, finally, can devolve back to the inanimate or evolve as co-creators with consciousness. For humans, there is structure and choice, nature and will. There is both creation and there is evolution. With this epistemic background, we should then not be surprised at his dual interests in the material and spiritual worlds and their dynamic balance.

Placing Sarkar in an alternative construction of the real is central to understanding his social theory. Every macrohistorian and thinker who creates a new discourse evokes the universal and the transcendental, but their grand efforts also spring from the dust and the mud of the mundane. They are born in particular places and they die in locatable sites as well. Sarkar writes from India, writes from the poverty that is Calcutta. The centrality of the cycle then can partially be understood by its physical location. The cycle promises a better future ahead; it promises that the powerful will be made weak and the weak powerful, the rich will be humbled and the poor enabled. The cycle also comes directly from the classic Indian episteme. In this ordering of knowledge, the real has many levels and is thus pluralistic; the inner mental world is isomorphic with the external material world, there are numerous ways of knowing the real, and time is grand. According to Romila Thapar, “Hindu thinkers had evolved a cyclic theory of time. The cycle was called the kalpa and was equivalent to 4320 million earthly years. The kalpa is divided into 14 periods and at the end of each of these the universe is recreated and once again Manu (primeval man) gives birth to the human race.”5

In this classical model (ascribed to the Gita) the universe is created, it degenerates, and then is recreated. The pattern is eternal. This pattern has clear phases; the golden era of Krta or Satya, the silver era of Treta, the copper era of Dvapara and the iron age of Kali. At the end of Kali, however, the great redeemer whether Vishnu or Shiva or Krishna, is reborn, the universe is realigned, dharma or truth is restored, and the cycle begins again.

Now is there a way out? An escape from the cycle? Classically it has been through an alchemical ontological transformation of the self: the self realizing its real nature and thus achieving timelessness–the archetype of the yogi. Concretely, in social reality this has meant the transformation of a person engrossed in fear to a mental state where nothing is feared, neither king nor priest; all are embraced, lust and greed are transcended and individual inner peace is achieved. To this archetype, Sarkar has added a collective level asserting that individual liberation must exist in parallel and in the context of social liberation. Spirituality is impossible in the context of the social body suffering in pain. For him the world has a 6 defective social order…. this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. This structure of inequality and injustice must be destroyed and powdered down for the collective interest of the human beings. Then and then alone, humans may be able to lead the society on the past of virtue. Without that only a handful of persons can possibly attain the Supreme Perfection.

But Sarkar too uses the redeemer concept to provide the way out of cyclical history. This is his taraka brahma. The first was Shiva who transformed the chaos of primitive life to the orderliness of humanity. Next was Krishna who restored the notion of national community. And, for Sarkar, another redeemer is needed to transform the fragmented nation-states into a world community. However, paradoxically the concept of the redeemer for Sarkar is also metaphorical: it is meant to elicit devotion by making the impersonal nature of Consciousness touchable in the form of a personal guru.

Sarkar thus develops ways out of the cycle: individual and social. In contrast Orientalist interpreters like Mircea Eliade believe that the theory of eternal cycles is “invigorating and consoling for man under the terror of history,”7 as now man knows under which eras he must suffer and he knows that the only escape is spiritual salvation. Sarkar finds this view repugnant, for people suffer differently and differentially in each era, those at the center of power do better than those at the outskirts, laborers always do poorly. Indeed throughout history different classes do better than other classes, but the elite manage quite well.8

Oftentimes, some people have lagged behind, exhausted and collapsed on the ground, their hands and knees bruised and their clothes stained with mud. Such people have been thrown aside with hatred and have become the outcastes of society. They have been forced to remain isolated from the mainstream of social life. This is the kind of treatment they have received. Few have cared enough to lift up those who lagged behind, to help them forward.

Hope lies not in resignation to but transformation of the cycle–it is here that Sarkar moves away from the classic Hindu model of the real–of caste, fatalism, and mentalism–most likely influenced by fraternal Islamic concepts, liberal notions of individual will, and by Marxist notions of class struggle.

For Sarkar there are different types of time. There is cosmic time –the degeneration and regeneration of dharma; there is individual liberation from time through entrance into infinite time; and there is the social level of time wherein the times of exploitation are reduced through social transformation, thus creating a time of dynamic balance–a balance between the physical, social and spiritual.

This differs significantly from other views of Indian history. In the Idealistic view history is but the play or sport of Consciousness.9 In this view the individual has no agency and suffering is an illusion. In the dynastic view history is but the succeeding rise and falls of dynasties and kings and queens; it is only the grand that have agency. In contrast is Aurobindo’s10 interpretation, influenced by Hegel, in which instrumentality is assigned to historical world leaders and to nations. For Sarkar, making nationalism into a spiritual necessity is an unnecessary reading. God does not prefer any particular structure over another.

Following Aurobindo, Buddha Prakash has taken the classic Hindu stages of gold, silver, copper and iron and applied them concretely to modern history. India, for Prakash, with nation-hood and industrialism has now wakened to a golden age that “reveals the jazz and buzz of a new age of activity.”11 But for Sarkar, the present is not an age of awakening, but an age “where on the basis of various arguments a handful of parasites have gorged themselves on the blood of millions of people, while countless people have been reduced to living skeletons.”12

Sarkar also rejects the modern linear view of history in which history is divided into ancient (Hindu), medieval (Muslim), and modern (British-nationalistic). In this view, England is modern and India is backward. If only India can adopt rational, secular and capitalist or socialist perspectives and institutions, that is, modern policies, it too can join the western world. India then has to move from prehistorical society–people lost in spiritual fantasy and caste but without state–to modern society.13 Sarkar’s views are closer to Jawaharlal Nehru14 who thought that history is about how humanity overcame challenges and struggled against the elements and inequity. Sarkar’s views are also similar to the recent “Subaltern”15 project in which the aim is to write history from the view of the dominated classes, not the elite or the colonial. However, unlike the Subaltern project which eschews meta-narratives, Sarkar’s social cycle provides a new grand theory.

Sarkar’s Historiography

Sarkar’s stages can be used to contextualize Indian history.16 Just as there are four types of mentalities, structures or types, we can construct four types of history. There is the shudra history, the project of the Subaltern group. However, their history is not written by the workers themselves but clearly by intellectuals. There is then ksattriyan history; the history of kings and empires, of nations and conquests, of politics and economics. This is the history of the State, of great men and women. Most history is vipran history, for most history is written and told by intellectuals, whatever their claims for the groups they represent. Vipran history is also the philosophy of history: the development of typologies, of categories of thought, of the recital of genealogies, of the search for evidence, of the development of the field of history itself. This is the attempt to undo the intellectual constructions of others and create one’s own, of asking is there one construction or can there be many constructions? Finally, there is vaeshyan history. This is the history of wealth, of economic cycles, of the development of the world capitalist system, of the rise of Europe and the fall of India. Marxist history is unique in that it is written by intellectuals for workers but used by warriors to gain power over merchants. Sarkar attempts to write a history that includes all four types of power: people’s, military, intellectual and economic.

For Sarkar, most history is written to validate a particular mentality. Each varna writes a history to glorify its conquests, its philosophical realizations, or its technological breakthroughs, but rarely is history written around the common woman or man. For Sarkar, history should be written about how humans solved challenges. How prosperity was gained. “History… should maintain special records of the trials and tribulations which confronted human beings, how those trials and tribulations were overcome, how human beings tackled the numerous obstacles to effect great social development.”17 History then needs to aid in mobilizing people, personally and collectively toward internal exploration and external transformation. Thus history should be a “resplendent reflection of collective life whose study will be of immense inspiration for future generations.”18 History then is a political asset. Here Sarkar moves to a poststructural understanding of the true. Truth is interpretive, not rta (the facts) but satya (that truth which leads to human welfare). History then should not be placed solely within the empiricist view, but within an interpretive political perspective.

Sarkar’s own history is meant to show the challenges humans faced: the defeats and the victories. His history shows how humans were dominated by particular eras, how they struggled and developed new technologies, ideas, and how they realized the atman, the, the eternal self. It is an attempt to write a history that is true to the victims but does not oppress them again by providing no escape from history, no vision of the future. His history then is clearly ideological, not in the sense of supporting a particular class, but rather a history that gives weight to all classes yet attempts to move them outside of class, outside of ego and toward neo-humanism.


History then is the natural evolutionary flow of this cycle. At every point there are a range of choices; once made the choice becomes a habit, a structure of the collective or group mind. Each mentality, with an associated leadership class comes into power, makes changes, and administers government but eventually pursues its own class ends and exploits the other groups. This has continued throughout history. Sarkar’s unit of analysis begins with all of humanity, it is a history of humanity, but he often refers to countries and nations. The relationship to the previous era is a dialectical one; an era emerges out of the old era. History moves not because of external reasons, although the environment certainly is a factor, but because of internal organic reasons. Each era gains power–military, normative, economic or chaotic–and then accumulates power until the next group dislodges the previous elite. The metaphysic behind this movement is, for Sarkar, the wave motion. There is a rise and then a fall. In addition, this wave motion is pulsative, that is, the speed of change fluctuates over time. The driving force for this change is first the dialectical interaction with the environment, second the dialectical interaction in the mind and in ideologies, and third the dialectical interaction between both, ideas and the environment. But there is also another motivation: this is the attraction toward the Great. The individual attraction toward the Supreme. This is the ultimate desire that frees humans of all desires.

While clash, conflict and cohesion with the natural and social environment drives the cycle, it is the attraction to the Great, the infinite, that is the solution or the answer to the problem of history. It results in progress. For Sarkar, the cycle must continue, for it is a basic structure in mind, but exploitation is not a necessity. Through the sadvipra, exploitation can be minimized.

To conclude, Sarkar’s theory uses the metaphor of the human life cycle and the ancient wheel, that is, technology. There is the natural and there is human intervention. There is a structure and there is choice. It is Sarkar’s theory that provides this intervention; an intervention that for Sarkar will lead to humanity as a whole finally taking its first deep breath of fresh air.


1. See Vimala Schneider, The Politics of Prejudice. Denver, Ananda Marga Publications, 1983. Also see, Tim Anderson, Free Alister, Dunn and Anderson. Sidney, Wild and Wolley, 1985. And, Anandamitra Avadhutika, Tales of Torture. Hong Kong, Ananda Marga Publications, 1981.
2. Ananda Marga, Ananda Vaniis. Bangkok, Ananda Marga Publications, 1982.
3. For various interpretations of caste in Indian history and politics, see Nicholas Dirks, The Hollow Crown. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987; Rajni Kothari, Caste in Indian Politics. New Delhi, Orient Longman, 1970; Louis Dumont, Homo Hierarchicus. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1979; and, Romila Thapar, A History of India. Baltimore, Penguin Books, 1966.
4. See Richard Gauthier, “The Greenhouse Effect, Ice Ages and Evolution,” New Renaissance (Vol. 1, No. 3, 1990).
5. Romila Thapar, A History of India, 161.
6. P. R. Sarkar, Supreme Expression. Vol. II. Netherlands, Nirvikalpa Press, 1978, 16.
7. Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return. New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1971, 118.
8. P. R. Sarkar, The Liberation of Intellect–Neo Humanism. Calcutta, Ananda Marga Publications, 1983.
9. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, “History: An Idealist’s View.” K. Satchidananda Murti, ed. Readings. See K. Satchidananda Murti, “History: A Theist’s View.” K. Satchidananda Murti, ed. Readings.
10. Sri Aurobindo, “The Spirituality and Symmetric Character of Indian Culture,” and “The Triune Reality,” K. Satchidananda Murty, ed. Readings in Indian History, Philosophy and Politics. London. George Allen and Unwin, 1967, p. 361. Also see Vishwanath Prasad Varma. Studies in Hindu Political Thought and its Metaphysical Foundations. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1974.
11. See Buddha Prakash, “The Hindu Philosophy of History.” Journal of the History of Ideas (Vol. 16, No. 4, 1958).
12. Shrii Anandamurti, Namah Shivaya Shantaya. Calcutta, Ananda Marga Publications, 1982, 165.
13. See Ronald Inden, “Orientalist Constructions of India.” Modern Asian Studies (Vol. 20, No. 3, 1986). See also Edward Said, Orientalism. New York, Vintage Books, 1979. And, Ashis Nandy, Traditions, Tyranny and Utopias. New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1987.
14. Jawaharlal Nehru, “History: A Scientific Humanist’s View.” K. Satchidananda Murti, ed. Readings.
15. Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Selected Subaltern Studies. New York, Oxford University Press, 1988. See also D.D. Kosambit, “A Marxist Interpretation of Indian History.” K. Satchidananda Murty, ed. Readings, 40.
16. See also Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Romila Thapar, eds. Situating Indian History. Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1986.
17. P. R. Sarkar. A Few Problems Solved. Vol. 4. trans. Acarya Vijayananda Avadhuta. Calcutta, Ananda Marga Publications, 1987, 64.
18. ibid, 66.

Copyright The author 2012

One thought on “Sarkar’s Theory of Social Change: Structure and Transcendence”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *