Growth of Indian Anthropology (4 Historical Phases)
Growth of Indian Anthropology (4 Historical Phases)
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Anthropology is a young discipline in India. By the term ‘Indian Anthropology’, Andre Beteille (1996) wanted to mean the study of Society and Culture in India, by the anthropologists, irrespective of their nationality. There were many anthropologists inside or outside of India who took interest in the study of Indian society and culture. However, anthropology owes its origin in the latter half of the nineteenth century with the ethnographic compilation of tradition, custom and belief of different tribes and caste in various provinces of India.
Prof D.N. Majumdar found the beginning of Indian Anthropology in the establishment of Asiatic Society of Bengal that was inaugurated by Sir William Jones in 1774. But there is no convincing evidence for an emergence of anthropology in India during eighteenth century. It is true that the Asiatic Society began to publish essays of anthropological and antiquarian interest in its journal and proceedings, but all those were written by government Officials and missionaries who had no academic interest.
British administrators undertook such studies in order to know the people of India whom they wanted to bring under their control. Therefore, the contributors were all foreigners who were trying to understand alien cultures.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Genuine cultural work started in India around the middle of nineteenth century when Asiatic Society served as a forum for organizing ethnographic and ethnological studies as well as started publishing the results of those studies. In the world scenario, anthropological work in true sense, except Tylor’s pioneering work, started with twentieth century. Tylor in his book ‘Anthropology’ (1881) considered language, race, physical features, customs and practices of primitive people as well as the old remains of people as parts of anthropology.
His idea was derived chiefly from the reports furnished by the administrators and missionaries who penetrated into different parts of the world at the wake of trade and commerce, and subsequent colonization. The objectives of missionaries were different from the trading people or administrators; they wanted to covert the natives to their own religion, Christianity. However, both the administrators and missionaries wondered when they came across various types of people having entirely different kinds of life.
So they tried to communicate their strange experience through writing, by describing the people and their facts. Not only Tylor, around the mid-nineteenth century, some notable persons of England—lawyers, doctors, businessmen, men of letters and scholars became interested in non-European customs and practices.
They wanted to explain the variegated life-style of the peoples in perspective of their own societal model. Most of the thinkers of this period came to the conclusion that the social institutions essentially underwent a gradual development i.e. they had evolved from a lower stage to a higher stage with time which can otherwise be called a development from simple to complex form.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Since die thinkers themselves were not the data-collectors, they did not meet the primitive people in reality and their perceptions were built only upon the available accounts. Accounts also came from some navigators and casual visitors who traveled from place to place in fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. But those early records were carefully abandoned for their ethnocentric and prejudiced nature.
However, at the end of nineteenth century, the administrators and missionaries in India, like other parts of the world, wrote a lot of about the Indian people and their way of life. After colonialization, the administrators took more interest in the issues of colonial people for the sake of good administration in newly acquired territories.
Trained British personnel namely Risley, Dalton, Thurston, O’Malley, Russel, Crooke, Blunt, Mills and others who were posted in different parts of India, wrote compendia on tribes and castes on India. Later, some scholars of Indian national joined them. At the same time some British anthropologists like Rivers, Seligman, Radcliffe-Brown, Hutton came in India with a view to work on the native people. They influenced a few missionaries like Bodding and Hoffman. All those works provided the basic information about the life and culture of the peoples of India.
Throughout a whole Century after this, anthropology in India proceeded successfully. Indian anthropologists borrowed the ideas, framework and procedures of work from western anthropologists and practiced ‘self-study’ instead of studying ‘other culture’. But their pattern of work became unique with regard to assumptions, choice of data, criteria of relevance and some other matters.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Different scholars at different times were interested in finding out the genesis and development of anthropology in India. In this context we can put the names of seven eminent Indian scholars— S.C. Roy, D.N. Majumdar, G.S. Ghurye, S.C. Dube, N.K. Bose L.R. Vidyarthi and S. Sinha. Earliest attempt was made by S.C. Roy who in his paper ‘Anthropological Researches in India’ (1921) furnished a bibliographical account of the publications on tribal and caste studies as published before 1921. He counted all materials published in magazines, all compilations in handbooks of different regions and all monographs on tribes.
This work of S.C. Roy appeared as a testimony where the dominance of British administrators, foreign missionaries and travelers has been noted in conducting anthropological researches in India. D.N. Majumdar made the second attempt after a gap of twenty- five years. He reviewed the development of anthropology in a Memorial lecture at Nagpur University and showed a poor progress of Indian anthropology under continual efforts of British administrator and anthropologists.
None of the two scholars mentioned the influence of Americans. But in another review Majumdar tried to relate the developing discipline anthropology with the theories of culture that originated in England and America. This view was published in the journal of Anthropological Society of Bombay with the title ‘Anthropology under glass’ (1950).
Next to them was G.S. Ghurye. In his article ‘The Teaching of Sociology, Social psychology and Social anthropology’ (1956) he wrote, “Social anthropology in India has not kept pace with the development in England, in the European continent or in America. Although social anthropologists in India are to some extent familiar with the work of important British anthropologists, or some continental scholars, their knowledge of American Social anthropology is not inadequate”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is known that G.S. Ghurye with K.R. Chattopadhaya took research guidance under W.H.R. Rivers in 1923 and afterward they became the head of the departments of Indian Universities. Naturally it is expected that the initial stimuli for the development of Sociology and Anthropology in India came from Cambridge.
S.C. Dube in 1952 discussed the same issue in IVth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (ICAES) held in Vienna. He criticized the unfortunate prejudice and distrust of Social workers and popular political leaders towards anthropologists and suggested an active cooperation among the Government, the Universities and individual scholars to form a central organization at National level for solving the disadvantageous situations of social anthropological research in India. After ten years, in another paper Dube highlighted the weakness of the contemporary Indian Social anthropology and recommended for more refined techniques of research and methodology.
N.K. Bose (1963) published a booklet entitled “Fifty years of Sciences in India, Progress of Anthropology and Archaeology” which was prepared under the auspices of the Indian Science Congress Association from Calcutta. He discussed the progress of anthropology in India under headings—Prehistoric archaeology Physical anthropology and Cultural anthropology.
Next to Bose, came L.P. Vidyarthi who tried to focus the major trend in Anthropology in course of its growth in India. His paper was presented in the Vllth ICAES at Moscow in 1964. In another paper published in the same year, Vidyarthi specifically referred a few recent trends like village studies, caste studies, study of leadership and power structure, religion, kinship and social organization of tribal village, even the applied anthropology.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
He felt the need of an integrated effort from various disciplines for a proper understanding of man and society. His main stress was laid on ‘Indianness’ which appeared as a distinct cultural milieu as well as an attitude oriented value system of the Indians.
According to him, ideas of Indian thinkers as reflected in ancient scriptures were full of social facts and so those could be explored in understanding of cultural process and civilization history of India. Surajit Sinha (1968) in a conference organized by Wenner Gren Foundation for anthropological research at New York supported the view of L. P. Vidyarthi.
He happily announced that the Indian anthropologists readily responded to the latest developments of the west but they had given logical priority to the Indian situation. Because, they did not want to imitate the west blindly; rather they went on a search to establish Indian tradition in anthropology.
In addition to these valuable thoughts, we get some fall-length articles and introductory observations that delineate the development of anthropology in India. Some western scholars also took interest in the study of the development of Indian anthropology.
Louis Dumont and D. Pocock in a series of publication have attempted to highlight the significant research areas in Indian social anthropology. Thus, the growth of anthropology in Indian context has been monitored time to time by both the Indian and foreign scholars.
However, in the light of Vidyarthi and Sinha, we can divide the growth of Indian anthropology into the following historical phases:
I. The Formative Phase (1774-1919):
The establishment of Asiatic society of Bengal in 1774 is considered as beginning of scientific study of ‘nature and man’ in India. A number of anthropological studies were initiated by the efforts of Asiatic society under the leadership of the founder—President Sir William Zones.
The Society gave birth of a Journal in which scholarly interests on the diversity of Indian customs were reflected. British administrators, missionaries, travelers and other write is used to get a scope to publish their collected information on tribal culture and rural life. Not only a single journal of Asiatic Society had made its appearance in 1784, a number of journals came one by one like Indian Antiquary in 1872, journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society in 1915 and Man in India in 1921. Also a series of district gazetteers and handbooks appeared containing ethnographic notes on tribes and castes.
Some monographs were especially designed with the tribes of Assam. The purpose of these publications was to acquaint the Government Officials and private personnel with the nature of regional tribes and castes in order to ensure effective Colonial Administration.
The ground stones of anthropology were thus laid in an orderly way in the form of ethnographical mapping. Hence the phase is considered as the formative phase in the history of Indian anthropology. The administrators like Campbell, Latham and Risley published a few general books on ethnology while they were on duty.
Several missionaries including Hoffman and Bodding undertook linguistic studies along with ethnographic search. The inspiration was drawn from British anthropologists who came to work in India. For example, W.H.R. Riverse put his attention on the Todas of Nilgiri Hills (present day Tamil Nadu); A.R. Radcliffe-Brown dealt with the Andaman Islanders, G.H- Seligman and B.G. Seligman concentrated on the Vedas of Ceylon, etc.
Extensive monographs were prepared on Lushai kukis by J. Shakespeare. P.R.T. Gurdon wrote a monograph on Khasis, J.R. Mills on Lotha Nagas, N.E. Perry on Lakhers and T. V. Grigson on Maria Gonds of Easter. Among the Indian scholars, Hiralal and L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer though did some independent work, first credit crowned on Rai Bahadur Sarat Chandra Roy who was basically a lawyer. He used to live in Ranchi and there tribal people were his clients.
Coming in contact with several tribes S.C. Roy became interested in knowing them. He was the first Indian who was able to put Indian anthropology on the world map. He wrote exhaustive monographs on different tribes of Chotonagpur like Munda, Oraon, Ho, Birhor, Hill Bhuiya and Kharia.
British anthropologists of his time appreciated his work. Hutton in 1938 designated him as the Father of Indian Ethnology S.C. Roy maintained contacts with many leading western anthropologists namely J.G. Frazer, R.R. Marett and R.B. Dixon.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Next to S.C. Roy we can recall the name of R.P. Chanda who published a book on Indo-Aryan race in 1916. The book provides invaluable information on the cultural history of India. British Governor of Bihar, Sir Edward Gait also deserves mention for his outstanding works in Bihar.
II. The Constructive Phase (1920-1949):
The ‘Formative phase’ predominated by ethnographic studies took a new turn when social anthropology was included in the Post-graduate curriculum of the University of Calcutta in 1920. No discipline is supposed to be established unless it is recognized as a subject of study and research at the University level.
Although anthropology found a berth in the University of Calcutta in 1918 as a subsidiary subject, it required two more years to get proper recognition. An independent Anthropology department came out in 1920 which was a great achievement for the subject itself Except a few Universities in the world (Cambridge, Oxford, London Universities in the U.K. and a few other Universities in the U.S.A.) nowhere anthropology got such recognition at that time.
However, K.P. Chattopadhaya was the first Professor in Anthropology at Calcutta who was trained at Cambridge by W.H.R, Rivers and A.C. Haddon. R.P. Chanda became the first lecturer there. He was famous for his hypothesis, Brachycephalizatilon in Eastern India. L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer also came more or less at the same time.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Sir Asutosh Mukhopadhaya, the then vice-chancellor of Calcutta University invited L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer and R.P. Chanda to take the charge of the newly opened department of anthropology. As an academic discipline anthropology got its foothold in India.
Iyer had in his credit the ethnography of Travancore and Cochin (Kerala). He became the first Head in the Department of Anthropology, Calcutta University. There were also other professional anthropologists who received their academic training in the discipline from abroad. Among the first generation of the anthropologists in the University of Calcutta we find N.K. Bose, D.N. Majumdar, B.S. Guha, P.C. Biswas, T.C. Das, S.S. Sarkar, Dharani Sen and Andre Beteille who made their names in the anthropological world.
Department of anthropology in the Universities of Delhi, Lucknow and Guwahati were built up in 1947, 1950 and 1952 respectively Thereafter, a series of Universities namely Saugarh, Madras, Pune, Ranchi, Dibmgarh, Utkal, Ravi Shankar, Karnataka, North Bengal, North-East Hills, etc. started to include the wing of anthropology in their academic setup. But it is a matter of disgrace that although India advanced highly in the researches of anthropology, the academic circle did not flourish with the same pace. The number of Universities that teach this subject is relatively insignificant in comparison to the number of the total universities in India.
The year 1938 stood as a landmark because a joint session of the Indian Science Congress Association and the British Association was held where eminent anthropologists from abroad discussed their plans for future anthropological researches in India.
Moreover, this was the period when some Indian anthropologists presented very remarkable outstanding work. D.N. Majumdar conducted a number of racial or ethnic surveys in Bengal, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh. He made notable contribution both in physical and social anthropology K.P. Chattopadhay’s attention was on kinship. T C Das’s work on Purum Kukis was internationally appreciated. Srinivas’s publication on marriage and family in Mysore also achieved a great fame.
N.K. Bose was interested in the temple-art and architecture. So he had conducted some excavations on prehistoric sites in Orissa. Besides, his ideas on caste dynamics as that reflected in the article ‘Hindu Methods of Tribal Absorption’ stood un-parallel in Indian anthropological literature. Iravati Karve contributed both in socio-cultural anthropology and prehistory. Writings of these scholars brought anthropology to the attention of public, extending beyond the circle of professional anthropology.
In 1945, a full-fledged research institution, the ‘Anthropological Survey of India’ was established by the effort of B S Guha. Dr. Guha was an Indian anthropologist who received his professional training from the University of Harvard. In 1924 he joined the Zoological Survey of India as an anthropologist but felt the need of a separate department for anthropology under the Government of India He conducted anthropometric studies in different parts of India and worked out a racial classification basing on ethnic differences.
Dr. Guha’s monumental work during the Census operation of 1931 strengthened his position as a Government anthropologist. In 1946 when Government of India started a separate Department of anthropology in Indian Museum, he was appointed as its director. Anthropological survey of India became the biggest anthropological research body of its kind in the world where hundreds of professional anthropologists got their employment.
Beside this important achievement, the period was further marked by the entrance of Vemer Elwin, a missionary who came to India with the intention of converting the Indians, particularly tribals to Christianity. But with time Elwin was entangled with anthropological work and his motive changed. He became totally involved among the tribes of Central India. Although he was not a professional anthropologist like Majumdar, Chattopadhaya or Guha, he wrote some excellent problem-oriented ethnographic accounts of the tribal people of M.P., Orissa and Arunachal Pradesh.
His books entitled, “The Baiga (1939), The Agaria (1943), Maria Murder and Suicide (1943), The Muria and their Ghotul (1947), Religion of the Indian Tribe (1955)” are regarded as classics in anthropological literature. He was also appointed as a Governor of Assam, especially on tribal affairs. C. Von. Furer-Haimendorf also provided some unique publications on the tribes of Hyderabad. His two books, “The Chenchus (1943) and The Reddis of the Bison Hills (1945)” deserve special mention as models for future work in India.
In reference, to the general trend of work, we can quote the words of L.P. Vidyarthi and conclude that Indian anthropology was born and brought up under the predominant influence of British and matured during the constructive phase on the line of British anthropology. Indian anthropologists, like the anthropologists at Cambridge, Oxford and London made themselves involved in ethnological and monographic studies with a special emphasis on researches in kinship and social organization.
III. Analytical Period (1950-1990):
Contact of Indian anthropologists with American anthropologists occurred after the World War II and especially after India’s independence. A shift in approach was noted with the intervention of the American scholars. The influence of British anthropology with its emphasis on preliterate isolate society was gradually replaced by the analytical study of the complex societies. Study of Indian Village became very fashionable.
The American anthropologist’s viz. Morris Opler of Cornell University, Oscar Lewis of the University of Illinois, David Mandelbaum of the University of California and a lot of their students came in India with research team. Their objective was three fold Firstly they wanted to make a systematic study of Indian villages for testing some of their own hypotheses. Secondly, they tried to refine their already established methodological framework and thirdly, they urged to assist the community development programmes in Indian villages.
The modem Bengal has been the principal centre of anthropological investigation from the very inception of anthropology in India. Calcutta is said to be the cradle of Indian anthropologists as different anthropological ideas and talents have always been diffused from his spot by enhancing its glory.
Later, when the fields of anthropology was extended to include the complex society, Indian anthropologists also made them involved in the studies like acculturation, culture-contacts, technological change, sociopolitical organization, economic activities etc. Gradually the study of civilization, applied and action research also gained a ground in India.
In this phase of anthropological development, apart from the impact of British and American anthropologists, influence of French Structural anthropologists were also found. Approach of Levi-Strauss was followed in this field of kinship and folklore studies. Dumont and Leach influenced considerably in the study of Caste system.
Among the Indian anthropologists D.N. Majumdar, M.N. Srinivas and S.C. Dube made notable contributions to community and village studies. American anthropologists namely, R. Redfield, M. Singer, M. Marriott and Bernard S. Cohn devoted themselves in the study of the dimensions of Indian civilization.
Redfield’s ‘Great traditions and little traditions’ as well as ‘Folk-urban Continuum’ were the universal propositions. K. Gaugh, E. Leach, N.K. Bose and A. Beteille were busy for unveiling the socio-economic basis of Indian society. Beteille conducted his studies on caste and stratification in Tamil Nadu.
Srinivas’s concept of sanskritization and westernization are the important tools to understand the caste dynamics. American anthropologist G.P. Steed and British anthropologist G.M. Carstairs had spent huge time to relate anthropology with psychology. Uma Chowdhury and R.C. Roy fried to relate personality structure with the cultural tradition. Thus horizon of Indian anthropology gradually expanded with time.
Indian scholars felt that the application of western model would be totally unwise, as those seemed to be inadequate to explain the complexities of Indian society and civilization. Moreover, the spirit of nationalism was very prominent among the anthropologists of this generation.
Therefore many of them devised their own approach to study their own society. For example, N.K. Bose developed his indigenous ‘Swaraj model’ which was an in-depth approach on tribe and caste to know the process of modernization. A.K. Danda developed a composite culture model. He conceived civilization as an amalgamation of number of Traditions—both great and small. S.C. Dube looked at the Indian civilization with a six-fold classification of Traditions—classical, national, regional, local, western and local sub-cultural traditions of social groups. G.S. Ghurye explained Indian social system on the basis of classical writings. I. Karve tried to understand Indian civilization with four distinct variables historical, linguistic, cultural and structural. B.K. Roy Burman introduced a concept of nation and sub-nation; he wanted to understand the social system of India in terms of socio-political process.
S. Sinha projected the tribe and caste at two extreme poles of a lineal continuum to identify the social structure of Indian society. M.N. Srinivas provided a mobility model for the analysis and interpretation of social and cultural change in Indian context. L.P. Vidyarthi leaned on India’s ancient scriptures and epics for social facts and he perceived Indian civilization in terms of sacred centres and their networks.
Folklore studies have been the other interesting arena in modem anthropology in India. It is believed that huge social elements remain hidden in folk songs and folk-tales, which need to be unearthed. Significant contributions to this field came from the anthropologists like Durga Bhagat, L.P. Vidyarthi, K.V. Upadhaya, P.D. Goswami, Sankar Sengupta, Dulal Chowdhury, R.M. Sarkarj Pasupati Mahato and others.
Anthropological interest in the study of primitive religion did not come to an end with the concept of Bongaism as forwarded by Prof D.N. Majumdar (1950) or Srinivas’s work in South India, ‘Religion and Society among the Coorgs’ (1952). Rather it became clothed with the idea of civilization and reflected in the works of L.P. Vidyarthi, Baidyanath Saraswati, Makhan Jha and others.
Vidyarthi himself developed the concept of sacred complex for studying the places of pilgrimage as a dimension of Indian civilization. Studies in power structure and leadership as stimulated by the ideas of Oscar Lewis and H.S. Dhillon influenced a number of Indian scholars. As a result, a study on tribal and rural leadership was undertaken in different parts of India. In this respect we can utter the names of R. Kothari, K.S. Singh, B.K. Roy Burman and others.
Most of the anthropologists of the present day have been conscious with the applied field. They want to direct their knowledge in the welfare and development of the society. Tribal as well as rural community development programmes have been benefited a lot by the advice of eminent anthropologists like S.C. Dube, L.P. Vidyarthi, Prof. Sachchidananda, T.B. Nayek, T.N. Madan and others. In many cases anthropologists themselves have chosen the path of action anthropology being guided by the idea of American anthropologist Sol. Tax.
In this context, the Lodha project of P. K. Bhowmick deserves special mention. Lodha is an ex-criminal tribe in the district of Midnapore, West Bengal. Prof Bhowmick had combined his research with the action programmes and earnestly tried to ameliorate the conditions of Lodhas. As an action anthropologist he also devised some ways to rehabilitate a section of Lodhas, economically as well as psychologically in the midst of their advanced neighbours.
At the end of the twentieth century, after hundred years from Risley, we again found an all India study on the Tribes and Caste to assess the aspect of change. The study was conducted by Anthropological Survey of India.
Apart from this, a lot of in-depth and analytical studies on various communities were encouraged which were absolutely free from the bias of western theoretical model. Here we can cite the examples of B.K. Roy Burman’s study on Totos (1967), A.K. Das’s study on Lepchas (1969) and so on.
Thus, fresh efforts to undertake researches on the unexplored areas and communities, publication of new bulletins and journals, establishment of more and more research centres characterize the ‘analytic phase’ in the growth and development of Indian anthropology.
IV. Evaluative Phase (1990 onwards):
Recently we have entered silently into a phase of evaluation. Since western anthropology under the influence of British and American failed to explain the complexity of Indian society, a critical appraisal and reorientation of the discipline was needed for Indian situation.
Indian scholars had developed indigenous models intending to apprehend the cultural matrix of India. The alternative methodological framework did not merely helped in establishing a refined concept; it also aimed at ‘Indianness’ for maintaining the quality of national life. In fact, Indian anthropology demands for an active, humanistic and critical outlook towards the subject matter in order to overcome the barrier of intellectual colonialism and neo-colonialism.
It has been understood that the Indian society on account of its vastness has to be dealt from three different perspectives:
(1) Examining of isolable wholes such as the village, the tribe, etc.
(2) To note the change in those units following the intrusion of various factors from outside.
(3) Minute study within the complex societies itself.
Indian anthropology from 1990’s has been much concerned with problems of own society, both empirical and normative. New types of data are encountered; the concepts, methods and theories are continually shaped and reshaped. New ways of looking at new types of data have made Indian anthropology much more distinctive ever before.
Unlike western countries, in India, a close relationship between sociology and social anthropology prevails from the very beginning. The great size and density of Indian population have facilitated such closeness between the two disciplines.
The present phase of anthropology in India has brought sociology much closer; both the disciplines go on investigating the tribal, agrarian and industrial socio-cultural systems. Many renowned anthropologists namely M.N. Srinivas, S.C. Dube and others were found to penetrate into the field of sociologists to combine the two disciplines successfully, for yielding better result.
Comments
Post a Comment