2021•Cross-Currents An International Peer-Reviewed Journal on Humanities and Social SciencesOpen access

Indian Anthropology: Critique of Diverse Ideas and Exploration of the Swadeshi Anthropology

N. K. Das

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

Anthropology in India is divided into various phases, such as colonial ethnology/ethnography and postcolonial anthropology. The classical evolutionism, diffusionism and Orientalism, which had dominated colonial ethnology/ethnography, had also influenced the earlier phase of anthropology in postcolonial India. In fact, postcolonial anthropology is itself an incoherent lot with diverse forms and ideas. In the long history of Indian anthropology, there appeared some works carrying theoretical bearing and applied relevance, yet many chroniclers have undervalued such works. This author has earlier appraised some evaluations of Indian anthropology provided by Debnath (1999), Berger, (2012) and Guha (2017), among others. This article takes clues from such earlier appraisal and locates within a larger historical canvas an encyclopaedia entry contributed by S. Deshpande and edited by Hilary Callan (2018), which has ignored many foundational works of Indian anthropology. Placing this critique in a larger historical context of colonial/ postcolonial anthropology, this author aims to focus attention on major signposts of social anthropology. Second objective is to dispel many myths and misconceptions about the anthropological survey of India, mainly its People of India study. Ultimately, by citing some ethnographic illustrations, this article endeavours to ascertain a trend of ‘indigenousness’ and demonstrate thereby the Swadeshi stance of Indian anthropology.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Anthropology in India is divided into various phases, such as colonial ethnology/ethnography and postcolonial anthropology. The classical evolutionism, diffusionism and Orientalism, which had dominated colonial ethnology/ethnography, had also influenced the earlier phase of anthropology in postcolonial India. In fact, postcolonial anthropology is itself an incoherent lot with diverse forms and ideas. In the long history of Indian anthropology, there appeared some works carrying theoretical bearing and applied relevance, yet many chroniclers have undervalued such works. This author has earlier appraised some evaluations of Indian anthropology provided by Debnath (1999), Berger, (2012) and Guha (2017), among others. This article takes clues from such earlier appraisal and locates within a larger historical canvas an encyclopaedia entry contributed by S. Deshpande and edited by Hilary Callan (2018), which has ignored many foundational works of Indian anthropology. Placing this critique in a larger historical context of colonial/ postcolonial anthropology, this author aims to focus attention on major signposts of social anthropology. Second objective is to dispel many myths and misconceptions about the anthropological survey of India, mainly its People of India study. Ultimately, by citing some ethnographic illustrations, this article endeavours to ascertain a trend of ‘indigenousness’ and demonstrate thereby the Swadeshi stance of Indian anthropology.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Anthropology in India is divided into various phases, such as colonial ethnology/ethnography and postcolonial anthropology. The classical evolutionism, diffusionism and Orientalism, which had dominated colonial ethnology/ethnography, had also influenced the earlier phase of anthropology in postcolonial India. In fact, postcolonial anthropology is itself an incoherent lot with diverse forms and ideas. In the long history of Indian anthropology, there appeared some works carrying theoretical bearing and applied relevance, yet many chroniclers have undervalued such works. This author has earlier appraised some evaluations of Indian anthropology provided by Debnath (1999), Berger, (2012) and Guha (2017), among others. This article takes clues from such earlier appraisal and locates within a larger historical canvas an encyclopaedia entry contributed by S. Deshpande and edited by Hilary Callan (2018), which has ignored many foundational works of Indian anthropology. Placing this critique in a larger historical context of colonial/ postcolonial anthropology, this author aims to focus attention on major signposts of social anthropology. Second objective is to dispel many myths and misconceptions about the anthropological survey of India, mainly its People of India study. Ultimately, by citing some ethnographic illustrations, this article endeavours to ascertain a trend of ‘indigenousness’ and demonstrate thereby the Swadeshi stance of Indian anthropology.

Key concepts: Anthropology, Sociocultural anthropology, Ethnography, Applied anthropology, Colonialism, Four field approach, Social anthropology, Anthropology of art

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Indian Anthropology: Critique of Diverse Ideas and Exploration of the Swadeshi Anthropology — Research Paper | ScholarLens