Indian Anthropology Against the Backdrop of World Anthropology

Abstract

With regard to the status of Indian anthropology against the backdrop of world anthropology, I have mixed feelings of both pessimism and optimism. I feel pessimistic because, to the best of my knowledge, barring one exception in Professor Kewal Krishan in the field of forensic anthropology (who has been recently appointed as one of the editors of the prestigious journal The Science of Nature), I would only be enlightened to learn if any Indian anthropologist has contributed to any theoretical and/or fundamental research in any branch of the discipline! Unless new theories, concepts, and hypotheses are added to a scientific discipline through fundamental research, the discipline would cease to grow; rather, would become stagnant or sterile. Very regretfully, I think that Indian anthropology has been passing through such a phase and, therefore, has failed to evolve its own distinct identity in world anthropology. At the same time, however, I am also very much optimistic in that India (read the Indian subcontinent) is the best anthropological laboratory in the world for research in all the branches of the discipline. It is my very firm belief that, in terms of variety of cultures, India stands next only to the continent of Africa, perhaps, and in terms of antiquity, she is next to none. Other than the variety and antiquity of human cultures and civilizations, what else is needed for research in any branch of anthropology? I have also discussed in this article some of the questions that have always plagued my mind with regard to the discipline itself, such as Who is an anthropologist? Are only those who possess any degree or certificate in the discipline be called anthropologists? If so, then why did not any of the founding fathers of the discipline, who wrote monumental treatises, possess any degree or training in anthropology? In addition, after all, what is anthropology itself? Is there any limit to its scope of study? What is the most essential “prerequisite” that makes one an anthropologist—whether with or without any degree or training in the discipline? I have attempted to answer these questions as far as plausibly in the article. Lastly, I have very humbly forewarned my fellow Indian anthropologists not to delimit the scope of anthropology to the study of “tribes and tribes” alone, despite the fact that the genesis of the discipline rests in the so-called “savage literature” piled up in Europe during the exploration-cum-colonial period. The scope of anthropological study and research is unfathomable!