Anthropology: Future Issues and Challenges
During the first half of the century, Indian anthropology has witnessed the gradual disappearance of tribal societies. In the recent decades, it has also become obvious that village communities are no longer isolates. WE have talked about the tribal-rural-urban continuum. However, even this continuum is slowly and surely disappearing, it is being replaced by a complex network of people, places, classes, and categories. People living at one place may have more in common with others geographical away.
The Indian anthropologists worried in the past about the disappearance of traditional societies. Not long ago, anthropology was concerned about the fragmentation and diversification of the discipline. As a study of man in totality, its sub-disciplines social anthropology, physical anthropology, prehistoric archaeology (but not Linguistics) have grown on their own momentum. Social anthropology has more in common with Sociology than human biology and prehistory; pre-historians have found more meaning in their interaction with ecologists, geologists and historiographers than with physical anthropology, and physical anthropology has found its interest converging with biochemistry, genetics and health sciences than the with social anthropology.
These are real issues, which must be addressed squarely. Indian anthropology is not a monolithic phenomenon. It has never been put together as a single event. Looking to the past of India to its scriptures for an identity does not give it a pan-Indian focus. There does seem to be, in spite of it all, an Indian anthropology that distinguishes it from other anthropologies. This
is seen in the way most anthropology texts from India focus on uniquely Indian contexts, mostly because anthropologists here have focused on it more due to lack of funds to conduct researches abroad.
The idea of ‘indigenizing’ this anthropology has often been discussed earlier by many authors. They have claimed that this should be done to include local models which do not come from the West. However, the problem that arises here is whether such a project is possible within a subject that is itself borrowed from a colonial West. There seems to have been a trend of looking at a version of the concept of India that involves the thinking of it as a ‘caste’, ‘tribe’, ‘hierarchy’, ‘Hindu’, ‘villages’ and other such labels, which is perhaps why anthropology in India is still involved in studying such issues (like Mathur’s ‘foundational categories’). One focus has always been for anthropologists to not only class themselves as Indian and the subject as useful to Indian society in the practical sense, but also to ensure that others know of this relevance of Indian anthropology. Sinha sees this happening because: “The patronage accorded to anthropological organizations in India by
governments (as early as 1880s), have created a dependence upon the state. The bulk of anthropological research is funded by the Central for various State governments… Funding from private organizations or philanthropists is practically non-existent. Resources are scarce. What little is available provokes intense competition from other social sciences. In such a context, it makes sense that Indian anthropologists feel the need to demonstrate the relevance of their research to administrators and policy-makers. In order to legitimate their cause, Indian anthropologists have to present themselves as committed to planning,
development and nation -building… They must demonstrate the usefulness of their craft in the real world to be seen as relevant and legitimate.”
Anthropology is the future will have to search for a fresh frame of reference and new parameters to deal with its universe.