Introduction:

The study of Indian society and culture by anthropologists has never been a singular, unified intellectual endeavor. Spanning more than a century and a half, this scholarly engagement reflects profound shifts in political power, academic paradigms, and ethical responsibility. Beginning as an auxiliary function of colonial administration, anthropology in India transitioned into a foundational pillar of national development after independence, only to undergo a rigorous process of self-critique marked by questions of intellectual autonomy and the politics of voice. This report traces the evolution of these anthropological studies, dividing the analysis into two distinct yet interdependent eras—the colonial period (pre-independence) dominated by classification and statecraft, and the post-colonial period (post-independence) characterized by developmental goals, theoretical dependence, and the critical turn. This analysis focuses specifically on the development of core theoretical concepts, the selection of crucial fieldwork sites, and specific illustrative examples that define each period.

The history of Indian anthropology demonstrates a dynamic interplay between exogenous conceptual frameworks, often derived from Western academic traditions, and indigenous empirical realities. While foreign scholars initially sought to define India as the ‘antithetical other’ of modern Europe, Indian scholars, both early pioneers and contemporary critics, have consistently challenged these imported models, working to develop paradigms that adequately address the complex linkages between caste, class, gender, and power embedded within the structure of Indian modernity.

Part I: Foundations of Inquiry: Anthropology in Colonial India (Pre-Independence)

The emergence of anthropology during the British Raj was inextricably linked to the mechanisms of imperial governance. Far from being a neutral academic pursuit, early ethnographic inquiry was fundamentally an exercise in statecraft, aimed at systematizing a vast and diverse population to facilitate effective administrative control. This foundational context dictates the character and lasting legacy of colonial anthropology.

1.1 The Administrative Imperative and Ethnographic Statecraft

During the British colonial era, ethnographic work was not merely descriptive; it was an officially sanctioned activity. Early inquiry was backed by "official authority and prestige" , often carried out by civil servants occupied simultaneously with heavy administrative responsibilities . The primary goal was to classify the population based on religion, occupation, and purported race, creating manageable categories for taxation, resource allocation, and maintaining social order.

The Census Operations as Ethnographic Survey

The decennial Census of India became the single most crucial mechanism for large-scale ethnographic data collection between 1881 and 1931. These operations were instrumental in fixing fluid social identities into rigid, legally defined categories. The British perspective, often reinforced through these reports, defined ‘traditional’ Indian society as being primarily constituted by "separate religious communities and separate castes," alongside a distinct "tribal periphery" . This worldview was essential for imperial rule, as it presented Indian society as inherently divided and incapable of modern political unity, thereby justifying external control.

Foundational Texts and Sites: The 1881 Census report for the Punjab, overseen by Ibbetson, stands as a foundational text for this official, administrative brand of anthropology . It set the precedent for classifying and fixing social boundaries based on administrative and political criteria rather than complex, localized social history.
The Nature of Classification: The administrative reports reflected a strong bias towards generalization and typology. The need for efficient governance dictated a top-down approach where social complexity was simplified into quantifiable, state-manageable units. This institutional bias was critical, transforming fluid, local customs into universal, immutable, all-India facts.

1.2 Sir Herbert Hope Risley and the Racial Theory of Caste

Sir Herbert Hope Risley, a British civil servant and anthropologist who arrived in Bengal in 1873, became the most influential architect of colonial classification and theory . His work, particularly through his role as the architect of the 1901 Census of India, left an indelible and enduring mark on Indian social structure .

Core Concept: Racial Hierarchy and Social Precedence

Risley’s central thesis argued that the Indian caste system was fundamentally a racial hierarchy . This theory was based on anthropometric measurements, seeking to correlate nasal index and other physical features with social status.

Methodological Flaws: Critiques have highlighted the significant methodological weaknesses in Risley's approach. His conclusions about the racial origins of castes and tribes were often based on extremely small and potentially unrepresentative sample sizes, sometimes involving as few as 30 to 100 individuals . This has led analysts to suggest that Risley may have approached the data with a "preconceived notion of the conclusions he wanted to reach," working to reshape a complex typology to fit his desired narrative .
The Concept of Social Precedence: Risley argued that social precedence derived directly from presumed racial purity and origin . The administrative adoption of this theory resulted in the official restructuring of Indian society around fixed caste and race classifications, driven by colonial motives to create structural divisions .
Fieldwork Sites and Publications: Risley initially developed his anthropological interest while working as an Assistant Magistrate in the tribal area of western Bengal, Chota Nagpur (now Jharkhand), where he studied the inhabitants of Midnapur, whom he viewed as representatives of "primitiveness" .

Specific Example: His major published work, The Tribes and Castes of Bengal (1891), was recognized by contemporaries like Anderson as "classical," even though the work was officially sanctioned and backed by administrative authority .

Enduring Legacy: The imposition of this rigidly defined, racially justified caste framework aimed at establishing structural separation . These "frozen hierarchies" persist today, profoundly shaping political affiliations, social interactions, and the contemporary competition for affirmative action benefits, demonstrating a direct causal relationship between colonial ethnographic theory and modern sociopolitical realities .

1.3 The Emergence of Indigenous Ethnography: Sarat Chandra Roy

While official, administrative anthropology dominated the colonial discourse, a parallel indigenous tradition of intensive ethnography emerged, exemplified by Sarat Chandra Roy. Roy’s work provided a non-administrative focus, often shifting the attention from the classification of massive populations to the deep, holistic documentation of single indigenous communities.

Case Study and Publication: Roy's seminal work, The Mundas and Their Country (1912), provided an exhaustive study of the Munda tribe in the Chota Nagpur region . His research focused on the detailed documentation of their history, land systems, kinship structure, and customs .
Significance: Roy established a methodological counterpoint to the colonial survey tradition. By prioritizing detailed, monographic studies, he moved away from sweeping, classification-driven generalizations. This early indigenous scholarship focused on understanding the internal logic and historical trajectory of specific groups, setting a precedent for rigorous Indian scholarship that valued contextualized indigenous life systems over generalized administrative utility.

Table 1: Colonial Anthropology (Pre-1947) – Objectives, Scholars, and Sites

Scholar/Institution	Key Objective/Focus	Core Concepts Introduced	Primary Fieldwork Sites/Data Sources
H. H. Risley	Administrative Classification; Racial Theory	Racial Hierarchy, Social Precedence, Fixed Caste Taxonomies	Bengal, Chota Nagpur, All-India Census Reports
Administrative Ethnography	Surveying for political control and social mapping	Separate Religious Communities, Tribal Periphery, Caste as Immutable Structure	Census Reports (1881 report by Ibbetson), Administration Reports
Sarat Chandra Roy	Detailed Monographic Documentation of Indigenous Life	Ethnography of Kinship, Land Systems, Mundari History	Mundari Country (Chota Nagpur region)

Part II: The Post-Colonial Transition and the Village Studies Era (1947–1970)

Indian Independence fundamentally redefined the practical objectives of anthropological research. The discipline shifted away from its colonial function of control and classification towards the national mandate of planned development and social upliftment. This era was characterized by the establishment of the village as the primary site of inquiry and marked by strong collaboration between Indian and Western scholars, albeit one steeped in potential intellectual dependency.

2.1 Redefining Anthropology: From Administration to National Development

Following 1947, anthropology transitioned into a "practical project" aimed at achieving national integration and planned economic improvement. The focus was directed towards "social emancipation of the subalterns" affected by famine, resettlement, and displacement caused by large development projects .

The Shift in Practical Objectives: The post-colonial state required ethnographic data for effective governance, but the motivation changed from imperial management to developmental planning .
Institutional and Financial Support: This shift was financially supported by two major, often converging, sources. Domestically, institutions like the Planning Commission encouraged research . Internationally, organizations like the Ford Foundation provided significant impetus .

Specific Example: The Community Development Programme, launched in 1952, provided a direct application framework for rural social research, greatly accelerating the momentum of village studies .

Institutional Continuity: Despite the new objectives, the Anthropological Survey of India (ASI), the largest governmental organization for anthropologists, continued institutional traditions inherited from the colonial era, often following the British pedagogy regarding census data and surveys . This continuity later became a key point of critique regarding the discipline's inability to fully shed its colonial origins .

2.2 Fieldwork and the Indian Village as a Laboratory

The most distinctive methodological feature of this period was the intense focus on the single village, viewed as the microcosm of Indian civilization and social structure. This represented a major thematic shift from the colonial focus on the large-scale classification of tribes and castes to the detailed, interactive dynamics of local communities.

The Momentum of Village Studies

Village studies gained considerable momentum following independence, driven by influential American anthropologists—such as David G. Mandelbaum, McKim Marriot, Morris Opler, and Oscar Lewis—working alongside pioneering Indian scholars, including Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas, Shyama Charan Dube, and Dhirendra Nath Majumdar .

Key Collaborative Publications: A seminal moment was the publication of India's Villages (compiled by M. N. Srinivas), which consisted of critical essays initially published in The Economic Weekly between 1951 and 1954 . This collection formalized the ethnographic study of the village. The contributors represented a collaboration across national lines, including American, British, and Indian anthropologists .
Illustrative Fieldwork Sites:

Rampura: The site associated with M. N. Srinivas’s research on social structure and change in Mysore (now Karnataka), which was instrumental in articulating the concept of Dominant Caste.
Kishan Garhi: Associated with the work of McKim Marriot, forming the basis for interactional analysis of cultural transmission.
Shamirpet/Moorhup: Sites where S. C. Dube conducted detailed ethnographies, often linking his findings directly to the government’s community development and rural planning efforts .

The simultaneous patronage from the Indian Planning Commission and the Ford Foundation reveals a structural tension: the research was intended for national upliftment, yet it relied heavily on Western conceptual frameworks and financial backing . This dual impetus established the intellectual conditions for later debates concerning conceptual autonomy and theoretical dependency.

2.3 Conceptual Frameworks of Indian Scholars: Srinivas and Majumdar

Indian scholars in this period were deeply involved in developing concepts that could explain the processes of stability and change observed in village life.

M. N. Srinivas and the Dynamics of Mobility

Srinivas introduced analytical tools that moved beyond the static, purely ritual definitions of caste. His concepts provided a dynamic perspective on social mobility and the distribution of power at the village level.

Concept: Sanskritization: This concept describes the process of cultural mobility whereby a lower caste, tribal group, or other community changes its customs, rituals, ideology, and lifestyle in imitation of a high, often ‘twice-born,’ caste. This provided an internal, cultural explanation for status mobility that did not require a structural change in the caste system itself.
Concept: Dominant Caste: This tool recognized that actual local power was often dictated not purely by ritual rank but by the convergence of numerical strength, land ownership, political influence, and modern education. The dominant caste wielded decisive economic, political, and ritual power in a specific locality.

D. N. Majumdar and Empirical Critique

Dhirendra Nath Majumdar’s work, such as Caste and Communication in an Indian Village, demonstrated the rigorous application of Western conceptual models while simultaneously highlighting their limitations .

Borrowed Frameworks: Majumdar utilized concepts developed by contemporary social anthropologists, including structural-functionalism, the rural-urban continuum, and Robert Redfield’s idea of the little community .
Conceptual Inadequacy: Majumdar’s perceptive ethnography demonstrated that these imported conceptual orientations frequently "prove inadequate" when applied to the complexities of Indian social interaction . His empirical discomfort with borrowed theory represents an early, grounded basis for the subsequent full-scale theoretical reckoning concerning intellectual autonomy that characterized the critical period of Indian anthropology. His work emphasized the need for developing indigenous concepts better suited to explaining phenomena like caste and communication in rural settings .

Part III: The Structuralist Paradigm and its Critiques (1960s–1980s)

The 1960s and 1970s witnessed an intense theoretical debate, largely driven by the work of the French structuralist Louis Dumont, which forced Indian anthropology to confront the ideological foundations of the caste system and rethink the relationship between ritual status and secular power.

3.1 Louis Dumont and the Indological Structuralist Approach

Louis Dumont’s seminal work, Homo Hierarchicus (first published in French in 1967), remains the most discussed and debated text in the sociology and anthropology of India . Dumont advocated for an Indological and structuralist methodology focused primarily on the ideology of the caste system, rather than its empirical manifestations in daily life .

Core Concept: Hierarchy over Stratification

Dumont’s central conceptual move was to separate caste from Western concepts of social stratification (like class). He argued that caste is not a system based on economic interest or competition, but rather a system of Hierarchy based on religious values—specifically, the fundamental opposition between the Pure and the Impure .

The Attributional View: Dumont focused on the attributes of caste, placing him firmly in the attributional approach . This methodology emphasizes the normative textual structure (the varna scheme and associated ritual ideology) over the empirical interactional dynamics (local caste behavior and political power).
Concept: Homo Hierarchicus: Dumont contrasted the underlying value of hierarchy in Indian civilization with the Western ideology of equality, encapsulated in his concept of Homo Aequalis . For Dumont, hierarchy was the essential value, supported by Hinduism, making the Indian system fundamentally non-competitive and ritualistic .
Theoretical Impact: Dumont’s rigorous focus on ideology forced scholars to address the normative dimensions of caste, preventing the discipline from reducing caste solely to a political or economic variable.

3.2 Challenges to the Structuralist Consensus

Dumont's oeuvre generated substantial discussion and debate among anthropologists globally, particularly among scholars in Europe and India . The major criticism leveled against the structuralist model was its perceived inability to adequately account for the material and political realities of Indian society.

Critique of Ideological Primacy: Critics argued that by prioritizing the ideal separation of status (ritual rank) and power (secular sanctions), Dumont effectively marginalized the palpable facts of economic exploitation, political conflict, and class relations. Ethnographers, relying on fieldwork, provided substantial counter-evidence showing that local secular power—often derived from land ownership and political office—frequently dictated social interaction, overriding the pure/impure hierarchy in practice.
The Materiality Gap: The theoretical separation between ideology (hierarchy) and material interest (stratification) proved difficult to sustain when confronting empirical facts. Scholars noted that the early finding of conceptual inadequacy (as articulated by Majumdar ) provided a strong empirical justification for resisting highly abstract, text-based, ideological models that often overlooked observable power dynamics and socio-economic realities.
Dumont’s Conclusion: After the intense publication and debate surrounding Homo Hierarchicus, Dumont chose to distance himself from the sociology of India, believing he had achieved his objective in outlining the fundamental ideology of the caste system .

Table 2: Post-Independence Anthropology – Paradigm Shifts and Core Concepts (1947-1980)

Scholar/School	Dominant Paradigm/Approach	Key Concepts Developed or Debated	Exemplary Publication/Site
M. N. Srinivas	Structural-Functionalism/Empirical Fieldwork	Sanskritization, Dominant Caste, Westernization	India's Villages, Rampura
Louis Dumont	Structuralist/Indological Approach	Hierarchy (Purity/Pollution), Homo Hierarchicus, Attributional View of Caste	Homo Hierarchicus
D. N. Majumdar	Empirical Ethnography/Functionalism	Rural-urban continuum, Critical discussion of 'little community' concept	Caste and Communication in an Indian Village
S. C. Dube, O. Lewis	Applied Anthropology/Developmental Studies	Community Development, Rural Life Profiles	Shamirpet, linking research to national planning

Part IV: The Critical Turn and Post-Structural Interrogations (1970s–Present)

The period beginning in the 1970s represents the most significant intellectual shift in Indian anthropology—the transition from describing structure and function to critically interrogating power, history, and the discipline’s own ethical position. This movement was driven by institutional self-reflection and the emergence of marginalized voices (Dalit, feminist, tribal movements) demanding a focus on structural violence and material exploitation.

4.1 Critique of Dependency and Intellectual Colonialism

By the 1970s, Indian anthropology faced a reckoning regarding its theoretical allegiance and institutional role. Critics argued that the discipline had inherited and prolonged a tradition of intellectual dependence.

The Western Apprentice Syndrome

The most influential argument concerning theoretical dependency came from Indian anthropologist Surajit Sinha in 1971. Sinha articulated the criticism that Indian anthropologists had, for various reasons, largely remained dependent on the intellectual power structures and theoretical frameworks established by "colonial traditions" and Western academic institutions . Despite a century of practice, the discipline remained, in effect, a "Western Apprentice" . This dependence constrained Indian scholars, preventing them from developing truly autonomous, contextually appropriate concepts to analyze Indian society.

Critique of Applied Development Anthropology

The institutional links to state planning and foreign foundations, initially seen as beneficial for national development, came under intense ethical scrutiny. Jaganath Pathy, in 1981, critiqued third-world development anthropology, arguing that these practical projects often ended up serving "colonial and imperial powers" by masking or facilitating exploitative capitalist processes .

The Ethical Mandate: Pathy argued that to achieve genuine social change, anthropologists needed to engage radically with power structures. This required researchers to "shed their value-neutrality" and actively support large-scale structural changes necessary for social emancipation .
Marxist Perspectives: The critique of capitalist exploitation was rigorously elaborated by Marxist historical sociologists like A. R. Desai . Desai focused on the material conditions that led to working-class and peasant revolts. However, the analysis of Desai's era often overlooked the crucial non-economic dimensions of Indian social organization—specifically, the specific dynamics required to fully "unravel the caste-class linkages" embedded within contemporary nationalism and developmentalism . The effective synthesis of caste and class required pressure from subsequent social movements.

4.2 The Subaltern Intervention and the Politics of Voice

The advent of the Subaltern Studies project, while originating primarily in historical scholarship (led by Ranajit Guha), profoundly shaped anthropological methodology by centering the agency and voice of the oppressed. This approach addressed the ethical failure inherent in anthropology’s colonial origins and its subsequent institutional ties.

The Tragedy of Anthropology

The nature of the anthropological task required recording the "world-of-everyday-life of the subalterns"—including tribes, low-ranked castes, and other socially underprivileged groups, especially in rural India . This put anthropologists in direct contact with marginalized lives. However, Guha noted the "tragedy" that the discipline, unlike the purely intellectual pursuit of history, was always a "practical project." During the colonial period, data collection served the Empire, and this administrative tradition continued institutionally through the Anthropological Survey of India . This persistent link meant that anthropology’s objective was often compromised by institutional needs, leading to a critical pessimism regarding its ability to effect genuine emancipation for the disadvantaged .

Conceptual Shift: From Class Structure to Individual Experience

The Subaltern project initially sought to reorient the historical narrative by focusing on "subaltern classes" . This was a critical engagement with orthodox Marxism, utilizing Gramscian theory to incorporate the experiences of agrarian formations and peasants rather than focusing solely on the industrial proletariat .

Expanding Subalternity: The concept underwent a crucial transformation later, particularly through the intervention of scholars like Gayatri Spivak. The idea shifted from a structural analysis of class relations to a recognition that "subalternity" could adhere to an individual, thereby incorporating critical factors like gender, race, and personal experience into the analysis of power dynamics .
Significance: This evolution moved the scholarly focus from studying the marginalized as a static classification (as in colonial taxonomies) or as objects of development planning (as in early post-colonial village studies) to acknowledging their capacity for critical, self-articulated historical and social agency.

4.3 Contemporary Trajectories: Critical Events and Social Stratification

Contemporary anthropology has moved beyond macro-structural debates (Dumont’s ideology vs. Marxist materiality) toward a deeper interrogation of lived experience, political violence, and the enduring complexities of inequality in modern India.

Anthropology of Crisis: Veena Das

Veena Das’s work represents a pivotal methodological shift toward the anthropology of crisis. Instead of describing normal social structures, she analyzes moments of rupture and disorder as lenses through which hidden power dynamics and subjective experiences are revealed.

Key Publication and Focus: Her book, Critical Events: An Anthropological Perspective on Contemporary India (1995) , examines episodes of large-scale social violence and historical trauma. By focusing on critical events, Das provides a framework for understanding how structural inequalities manifest through violence and how subjects engage with trauma and recovery, moving the discipline toward a more phenomenological and ethically engaged position .

Analyzing Enduring Inequality: André Beteille

André Beteille has provided a consistent and nuanced contribution to the study of social stratification, particularly the interaction between caste and class in post-independence India. His work bridges the theoretical gap left by the earlier structuralist/Marxist dichotomy by empirically analyzing how these two systems intersect in various social spheres.

Policy Relevance: Beteille’s insights offer "valuable guidance and inspiration" for scholars and policymakers grappling with the persistent issues of "social inequality, poverty, and social stratification" . His research actively contributes to charting a more inclusive path forward for Indian society.

The Emergence of Modernity

A definitive understanding of Indian modernity, according to historical analysis, did not solidify until the late 1970s. This period coincides precisely with the rise of vocal social movements—feminist, Dalit, and tribal—which systematically interrogated the material basis of contemporary India’s development paradigm, highlighting its embedded capitalist and exploitative character . These movements provided the empirical and political force necessary for scholars to rigorously analyze and synthesize the complex "caste-class linkages" that earlier, ideologically restricted sociological models had failed to fully grasp .

Part V: Conclusion: Synthesis of Theoretical Shifts and Methodological Evolution

The historical trajectory of anthropological studies on Indian society and culture reveals a consistent process of critical evolution, driven by shifts in political context and a perennial struggle to achieve conceptual independence and ethical accountability. The discipline has moved through distinct phases, each defined by unique methodological choices and conceptual debates.

5.1 The Evolution of Concepts and Methods

The three major phases of anthropological inquiry reflect a progression from descriptive classification to critical engagement with power:

Phase I: Classification (Pre-1947): Dominated by foreign scholars and administrative goals. Methodology focused on large-scale surveys and anthropometry (Census) . Concepts were structural and racial, aimed at classification (e.g., Racial Hierarchy, Social Precedence) . The goal was imperial statecraft.
Phase II: Structure and Function (1947–1970): Marked by national developmental goals and American-Indian collaboration. Methodology shifted to intensive, micro-level village studies . Concepts focused on empirical mobility and ideal structure (e.g., Sanskritization, Dominant Caste, Hierarchy) . The goal was national planning and understanding social change.
Phase III: Critique and Interrogation (1970s–Present): Defined by intellectual self-reflection and the influence of marginalized social movements. Methodology includes critical history, event-based ethnography, and discourse analysis . Concepts focus on power, agency, and intersectionality (e.g., Subalternity, Caste-Class Linkages, Critical Events) . The goal is social justice and conceptual autonomy.

5.2 Enduring Challenges: Autonomy and Ethics

The central and most enduring challenge for Indian anthropology lies in resolving the structural contradiction between its administrative, classificatory origins and its post-colonial mandate for social justice . The internal critique, encapsulated in the "Western Apprentice" debate , underscores the necessity for sustained methodological innovation to break free from borrowed frameworks and develop truly indigenous conceptual tools.

Moving forward, the research agenda requires a continued commitment to addressing the material basis of inequality. This involves deepening the critical analysis of structural violence and economic exploitation , shifting the discourse permanently beyond purely ideational or ritualistic definitions of social structure, toward a more comprehensive and politically responsible charting of the path toward greater social equity . The discipline’s future relevance is contingent upon its ability to actively engage with the ongoing political and ethical struggles of the most marginalized populations in India.

References

Anderson, J. 1912. Quoted in Fuller, C. J. 2017. Ethnographic Inquiry and the Making of Modern India. London School of Economics (LSE).
Fuller, C. J. 2017. Ethnographic Inquiry and the Making of Modern India. London School of Economics (LSE), detailing the 1881 census and Ibbetson's report.
Saksena, H. S. 2006. Review of D.N. Majumdar's Caste and Communication in an Indian Village. MAN Vol. 60 (Jun 1960) and subsequent discussions on conceptual orientation.
Mandelbaum, D. G., Srinivas, M. N., Marriot, M., et al. 1951-1954. Essays compiled in India’s Villages. Discussion of Community Development Programme and Ford Foundation role.
Discussion of Andre Beteille’s contributions to Indian sociology on caste, class, and social justice.
Guha, A. 2022. Ranajit Guha, Subaltern School and Anthropology in India. Frontier Weekly, referencing Pathy (1981) on anthropology serving power.
Guha, A. Indian Anthropology and its Critics. Referencing Sinha (1971) on the "Western Apprentice" and A. R. Desai's critique.
Analysis of Risley's theories, sample size, and lasting influence on caste divisions and politics.
Carlan, H. Sir H. H. Risley: Colonial Anthropologist and the 1901 Census. UCLA South Asia.
Roy, Sarat Chandra. 1912. The Mundas and Their Country. Digital Library of India.
Book Review: Louis Dumont’s Homo Hierarchicus, focusing on the core concept of hierarchy based on inequality and the move away from exogenous class concepts.
Critical Analysis of Louis Dumont’s Homo Hierarchicus, detailing the Indological, structuralist, and attributional approach, and the contrast between Homo Hierarchicus and Home equal.
Das, Veena. 1995. Critical Events: An Anthropological Perspective on Contemporary India. Oxford University Press.
Partha Chatterjee on Subaltern Studies and the conceptual shift from "subaltern classes" to the individual inflection of subalternity (referencing Spivak).