Desai’s principal purpose was to understand Indian society from a Marxist point of view and to apply the Marxian method in studying the various contradictions of Indian society with the aim of transforming the society. Contradictions does not mean merely conflict or tensions but refers to the structural and systemic conflicts that shape the basic structure of the society, like, for example, that between working class and the bourgeoisie or that between the peasantry and landlordism. In his world view the Marxian method was not only significant and necessary for an understanding of Indian society but also that the Marxist method and viewpoint was an integral part of the discipline of sociology and social anthropology.   A.R. Desai rejects any interpretations of tradition with reference to religion, rituals and festivities. Desai framed an interdisciplinary sociology and used the method of participant observation and fieldwork to understand Indian social structure and capture the processes of change.

Salient Features of Dialectical Perspective of A R Desai

• Nature of society: A.R. DESAI says Indian society went from feudal economy to capitalist economy due to the British conquest of India. The introduction of economic reforms of the British government disrupted the old economic systems. The village commune was replaced by modern peasants proprietors or zamindars, as private owners of land.
• Agrarian class structure : According to DESAI Indian agrarian class structure changed to capitalist form , where multiple classes existed due to commercialization of agriculture , fragmentation of land  resulted in growing polarization of classes in agrarian areas, poverty in rural areas and exploitation by the owner of land.
• Tradition: Desai rejected any interpretation of tradition with reference to religion, rituals and festivities. It is essentially a secular phenomenon. Its nature is economic and it originates and develops in economics.
• Transformation of Indian Society:  Desai does not deny the necessity of understanding the institution like caste, religion, linguistic or tribal groups or even specific cultural traditions which are characteristics of Indian society. He however supports the endeavors to understand their role in and the nature of their transformation in the larger context of the type of society , which is being evolved , understand them in the matrix of underlying overall property relations and norms implicit therein, which pervasively influence the entire social economic formation.
• Peasant struggle: He examines peasant struggle in two volumes entitled “Peasant Struggles In India” and “Peasant Struggles In India After Independence”. He analyze the struggle before independence and post-independence by highlighting the difference in character of struggle by saying that agrarian struggle in present is war wage by the newly emerged propertied class as well as agrarian poor , especially agrarain proletariat.
• The propertied class fight for greater share in the fruits of development. The poor comprising pauperized peasants and laborers belonging to low caste and tribal communities struggle for survival and for better life for themselves. Thus Desai maintained that progress can be achieved only by radically transforming the exploitative capitalist system in India.
• State and society: in “STATE AND SOCIETY IN INDIA” Desai provided a critique of the theories of modernisation accepted by large number of academic establishments. He says modernisation serves as a valuable ideological vehicle to ruling class pursuing the capitalistic path. In an essay “THE MYTH OF THE WELFARE STATE” Desai provided a detailed picture critique of notion. According to him an ideal welfare state has three core features:
  • It is democratic
  • It is mixed economy
  • It is positive state rather then being lazzie faire state

But according to him state has failed to remove poverty, reduce income gaps eliminate social discrimination check the capitalistic greed and provide employment to all.

• Village: according to Desai village was historically evolved much before pre British era and the village as a social unit was a relatively self-sufficient unit in economic dimension. It never had considerable exchange reaction with outside world and relation within village was feudal in nature. He saw JAJAMANI system as exploitative one. However introduction of land revenue system introduced by Britishers led to capitalist mode of production in village.
• Urban society: in urban society there is also capitalist industrial working class, petty traders, and professional class like doctors, lawyers and engineers.
• Caste: Desai thinks that when tradition is linked with economic relations, the change in economy would eventually change the traditions. According to him caste inherits an underdeveloped but potential class character.  It is in this context that he thinks that caste will disintegrate with the creation of new social and material conditions, such as industries, economic growth, education etc. He even sees reservation as deliberate attempt of state to glorify the segmentation of society.
• Contradictions in Indian Society and Social Unrest:Emerging contradictions in India’s social transformation stem primarily from the growing nexus among capitalists, rural petty bourgeoisie, and the state apparatus, all originating from similar roots. This nexus hinders the aspirations of rural and industrial working classes through its power and strategic maneuvers. These contradictions persist, evolving into new cumulative forms and reemerging as protests and social movements. Social unrest finds its roots in India’s adoption of a capitalist path, inheriting this legacy from the national movement.

Limitations of ‘Dialectical Perspective’ to study Indian society

• Desai’s approach for understanding Indian Society from the economic dimension is not always the best way to understand the society.
• Desai’s approach of understanding Indian Society is not empirical based. According to YOGENDRA SINGH the important limitation of dialectical perspective applied by Desai for studies of social change in India is lack of substantial empirical data in support of his major assertions, which are often historiographical and can easily be challenged.
• In a bid to give importance to material aspects, it ignored the importance of religion and culture in the lives of people of India. Religion occupies an important place in Indian society and world view of people is influenced by it. This perspective is not capable of portraying a total view of social reality in India and takes only a materialistic view.
• Another deficiency is ignoring caste as the basis of traditional Hindu social organization. Caste was often equated with class which generated an over-simplistic view of the pattern of social inequalities.
• Over emphasis upon conflict led them to overlook aspects of integration and solidarity of Indian society. For example, institutions like Jajmani system and panchayats were also seen as exploitative.

In theoretical terms however , dialectical approach can be more visible for analysis of the processes of change and conflict in India provided it is founded upon sound tradition of scientific research. Despite this limitation some studies conducted on this model offer useful hypothesis, which can be further tested in course of the studies on social change.