1.

LEELA DUBE
Leela Dube (27 March 1923 – 20 May 2012) was a renowned Anthropologist and feminist scholar.
Prof. Leela Dube (fondly called Leeladee) was one of the renowned Anthropologists and pioneers of feminist
scholarship in India along with Irawati Karve, Vina Majumdar, and Lotika Sarkar. She taught at Sagar
University from 1960-75, and held several fellowships at the ICSSR, Teen Murti, the Centre for Women's
Development Studies among others. As a mover and shaker within the Indian Sociological Society and The
Indian Anthropology Association in the 1970s, she was responsible for introducing women’s studies as a
discipline into mainstream sociology and anthropology.
Leela Dube's Ph.D. (1953, Anthropology) was on women in three Adivasi groups, comparing their lives to
upper caste women, but she is best known for her work on Muslim matriliny in Lakshwadeep, Matriliny and
Islam: Religion and society in the Laccadives (1969) and marriage and kinship relations more broadly. She also
collaborated with S.C. Dube (her spouse) on research among rural communities in Uttar Pradesh and
Maharashtra. However, it was her work as a member of the National Committee on the Status of Women
between 1971 and 1974 which transformed her into an established and internationally recognized feminist
scholar. She served on several boards, including as chairperson of the Commission on Women of the
International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, from 1976-1993, and as series editor of the
women and household volumes published by Sage.
Leela Dube is survived by two sons.

Books and articles of Prof. Leela Dube

Her work on Lakshadweep island’s matrilineal Muslim community- Matriliny and Islam: Religion and society in
the Laccadives(1969)- was an eye-opener so was her deconstruction of polyandry in Himalayan tribes in the
context of women’s workload of collection of fuel, fodder, water, looking after livestock and kitchen gardening
in mountainous terrain, resulting into high maternal mortality and adverse sex ratio. She showed
interconnections between factors responsible for social construction of women’s sexuality, fertility and labour,
rooted in the political economy.
Her highly celebrated book Anthropological Explorations in Gender: Intersecting Fields (2001) is a landmark
contribution in feminist anthropology in India. It examines gender, kinship and culture by sourcing a variety of
distinct and unconventional materials such as folk tales, folk songs, proverbs, legends, myths to construct
ethnographic profile of feminist thoughts. She provides a nuanced understanding on socialization of girl child in
a patriarchal family, “seed and soil” theory propagated by Hindu scriptures and epics symbolizing domination-
subordination power relationship between men and women.
Her meticulously researched piece On the Construction of Gender: Hindu Girls in Patrilineal India in the
Economic and Political Weekly (1988), was used by women’s groups for study circles and training programmes.
The volume Women, Work, and Family(1990) in the series on Women and Households, Structures and
Strategies, co-edited by Leela Dube and Rajni Palriwala was extremely useful in teaching women’s studies in
Economics, Sociology, Geography, Social Work and Governance courses. Her book, Women and Kinship:
Comparative Perspectives on Gender in South and South-East Asia (1997) argued that kinship systems provide
an important context in which gender relations are located in personal and public arena.
The co-edited volume Visibility and Power: Essays on Women in Society and Development by Leela Dube,
Eleanor Leacock and Shirley Ardener (OUP 1986) provided international perspective on the anthropology of
women in the context of socio-political setting of India, Iran, Malaysia, Brazil, and Yugoslavia.
After Prof. Iravati Karve, Prof. Leela Dube was the only scholar who made a path-breaking contribution in
anthropology with gender sensitivity in India. Leeladee made a mammoth contribution in bringing academic
credibility to women’s studies through her scholarly endeavours.
Her last publication, a Marathi translation of her last book in English, was Manavashastratil Lingbhavachi
Shodhamohim, which appeared in 2009.
Awards won by Leela Dube
In 2009 she was given the UGC's Swami Pranavananda Saraswati Award for 2005.
In 2007 she received the Lifetime Achievement Award of the Indian Sociological Society.
In 2007, Leela Dube was given the Lifetime Achievement Award of the Indian Sociological Society, and was
awarded the UGC National Swami Pranavananda Saraswati Award for 2005. She remained active and engaged
with scholarship till almost the very end. Her book, Anthropological Explorations in Gender: Intersecting fields,
was published by Sage in 2001. Of a generation of multilingual scholars that is now sadly passing away, her very
last publication was the Marathi Manavashastratil lingbhavachi shodhamohim (2009).
2. Irawati Karve
Irawati Karve was an Indian Educationist, Anthropologist, Sociologist and a writer from Maharashtra, India. She
was born to G.H. Karmarkar, an engineer in Myingyan, Burma, on December 15, 1905 and died on August 11,
1970. She was named Irawati after the great and sacred Burmese river, Irrawaddy. She grew up in Pune.
Education and Career:
Irawati did her schooling from Huzurpaga, Pune and completed her matriculation in 1922. She received a
Bachelor of Arts (Honours) degree in Philosophy in 1926 from Fergusson College, majoring in Sociology. Under
the guidance of a senior social scientist, Dr. G.S. Ghurye, she researched and submitted two essays, ‘Folklore of
Parshuram’ and ‘Chitpavan Brahman’.
Before proceeding to Germany for advanced studies, she received her Master’s in Arts in Sociology from
Mumbai University in 1928. She did doctoral work in anthropology from the University of Berlin, Germany in
1928-30 under the guidance of Eugene Fischer on the Normal Asymmetry of the Human Skull and Bones. For
her researches in anthropology, Berlin University conferred on her the D. Phil, degree in 1930.
Karve served as the head of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Deccan College Post-Graduate
and Research Institute, Pune (University of Pune) for forty years till her retirement. She presided over the
Anthropology Division of the National Science Congress held in New Delhi in 1947. She was also head of the
Sociology Department at Pune University for a while.
Methodological Perspective:
Irawati Karve was India’s first woman anthropologist at a time when anthropology and sociology were still
developing as university disciplines. She was also the founder of Anthropology Department at Poona (now Pune)
University. Ghurye’s influence is apparent in much of Karve’s work. They shared common belief in the
importance of family, kinship, caste and religion as the basis of Indian society, and also a broad equation of
Indian society with Hindu society (Sundar, 2007).
Works/Writings of Irawati Karve:
Karve wrote in both Marathi and English on topics pertaining to sociology and anthropology as well as on non-
scientific topics.
The following are some of her books:
1. Kinship Organization in India (1953)
2. The Bhils of West Khandesh (1958)
3. Hindu Society: An Interpretation (1961; 1968)
4. Group Relations in Village Community (1963)
5. The Social Dynamics of a Growing Town and Its Surrounding Area (1965)
6. Maharashtra: Land and People (1968)
7. Yuganta: The End of an Epoch (1968)
8. Paripurti (in Marathi) (1949)
9. Bhovara (in Marathi)
10. Amachi Samskruti (in Marathi)
11. Samskruti (in Marathi)
12. Gangajal (in Marathi) (1972)
Irawati is known in Maharashtra for her work in Marathi literature. But, at the international level, she is known
for her study of various social institutions in India, and through her book on Kinship Organization in India
(1953).
Kinship Organization in India (1953) (it is a study of various social institutions in India), Maharashtra: Land and
People (1968) (it describes various social institutions and rituals in Maharashtra), and Bhils of West Khandesh
(1955), are some of her important contributions.
Kinship Organization in India, first published in 1953, has become the standard work on family structure in
India.
The book consists of nine chapters as follows:
1. Introduction
2. Kinship Usages in Ancient and Historical Periods: Data from the Vedas and Brahmanas
3. The Kinship Organization of Northern Zone
4. The Kinship Organization of the Central Zone
5. The Kinship Organization of the Southern Zone: General
6. The Kinship Organization of the Southern Zone: The Regions
7. The Kinship Organization of the Eastern Zone
8. Ownership of Property, Succession and Inheritance
9. Conclusion followed by Appendix I, II, III
Karve has presented the material on Indian kinship dividing the country into four different cultural zones in
accordance with the marriage practices followed in each, i.e.,
(1) The northern,
(2) The central,
(3) The southern, and
(4) The eastern.
According to Karve, three things are absolutely necessary for the understanding of any cultural phenomenon in
India.
These are configuration of the linguistic regions, institution of caste and family organization. Each of these three
factors is intimately bound up with the other two and the three together give meaning and supply basis to all the
other aspects of Indian culture.
(i) Configuration of the linguistic regions:
A language area is one in which several languages belonging to one language family are spoken. For example,
zones (1) and (2) comprise the language area of the Sanskritic or Indo-European languages; zone (3) is made up
of the Dravidian language area while the zone (4) includes the scattered area wherein Austric or Mundari
languages are spoken.
Each of these language areas is further divided into different linguistic regions. In each of such regions, one
language and its dialects are spoken. The linguistic regions possess certain homogeneity of culture, traits and
kinship organization. The common language makes communication easy, sets the limits of marital connections
and confines kinship mostly within the language region.
Common folk songs and common literature characterize such an area. The kinship organization follows the
linguistic pattern, but in some aspects, language and kinship pattern do not go hand in hand. Thus, though the
Maharashtra region belongs to the area of Sanskritic languages but its kinship organization is to a large extent
modeled on that of the Dravidian south – its southern neighbour.
(ii) Institution of caste:
The second thing one must know if he/she wishes to understand any phase of the culture of any group of people
in India is the caste system. The structure of the caste system has been well described by many Indian and
foreign anthropologists and sociologists. Some important features about caste, however, need to be borne in
mind to understand many features of kinship organization described by Karve.
A caste is, with very few exceptions, an endogamous group, confined to one linguistic region (Karve, 1968).
Endogamy and distribution over a definite area make caste members related to one another either by ties of blood
or by marriage. Therefore, caste can be defined as an extended kin group (Karve, 1958-59).
In Indian literature, both old and new, the various words for caste are jati, jata or kulum. Many castes having
similar status and performing similar functions have names, one part of which may be common. Thus, the castes,
engaged in the work of goldsmith, have Sonar (worker in gold) as the common part of their names.
In Maharashtra, for example, there are following distinct castes doing work in gold: Daivadnya Sonar, Ahir
Sonar, Lad Sonar, etc. Each of them is fully endogamous and occupies hereditary occupation within Maharashtra
– a region slightly different from the others. Thus, endogamy, distribution over a definite region and a hereditary
occupation are the characteristics of a caste. In addition, castes are also ranked in a certain order.
(iii) Family organization:
The third important factor in Indian culture is the family and by family here is meant the joint family. In India,
the joint family has endured for as long as the records exist. Even around 1000 B.C., at the time of the
Mahabharata war, the joint family existed more or less as it exists today.
Karve states: A joint family is a group of people who generally live under one roof, who eat food cooked in one
kitchen, who hold property in common, participate in common family worship and are related to one another as
some particular type of kindred.
The joint family has a seat, a locus, and is made up of a certain type of kin. In the book, Karve states the
composition of joint family as there are three or four generations of males related to a male ego as grandfather
and his brothers, father and his brothers, brothers and cousins, sons and nephews and wives of all these male
relatives plus the ego’s own unmarried sisters and daughters.
Karve has followed the classical three or four generation formula but she does not include the generation of the
common ancestor, the great grandfather, in the number of generations and does not mention unmarried males at
all. This means that formula of the genealogical depth of the joint family is deeper than the classical formula.
She mentions for the joint family of the formula almost all the functional characteristics generally mentioned in
the description of the joint family household of the maximum depth and she also makes remarks about the
general nature of life in such a household. She further mentions that every joint family has an ancestral seat or
locus which some members may leave for an indefinite period.
Karve also refers to ten or twelve houses, each sheltering a joint family, altogether acknowledging common
descent and capable of showing relationship through one line, i.e., lineage. She uses the term ‘family’ for many
different kinds of kinship groups including lineage and clan.
She states that when joint families of the two types split, they split into smaller joint families made up of a man,
his wife, sons and daughters or a man, his sons and daughters and a couple of younger brothers. According to her
method of counting generations, joint families of both these types would be two-generation units, whereas
according to others, they would be three-generation units.
Thus, the linguistic region, the caste and the family are the three most important aspects of the culture of any
group in India. This applies also to what are called the primitive tribes of India. These tribes have lived with the
others for thousands of years. According to the Vedas, the difference between the cultural level of the
conquering Aryans and the conquered Dasyus (forest dwellers) could not have been very great. Both were
illiterate and polytheistic.
The present-day cultural problems before India largely revolve round these three entities – language, caste and
family – as the following examples will show:
1. The tendency is to minimize the differences and establish uniformities. Some people would much rather have
unitary states with one language than a federation with many linguistic states.
2. The new Indian State has abolished in law all privileges and discriminations connected with the caste system.
3. The establishment of a uniform civil code for all citizens is a directive principle of the Indian Constitution. So
far a number of laws have been passed which, however, apply only to Hindus and not to others. The action is
contrary to the professions about a secular state, which has the task of governing a multicultural, multi-religious
society.
4. A state has a right to shape the lives of the individuals it governs. Welding of the Indian subcontinent into a
nation is a great cultural task, but very often the urge for uniformity destroys much that from an ethical and
cultural point of view can be allowed to remain. The need for uniformity is an administrative need, not a cultural
one (Karve, 1961).

3. Susan Visvanathan:- Susan Visvanathan (born 1957) is an Indian sociologist, social anthropologist and a
fiction writer. She is well known for her writings on religious dialogue and sociology of religion. Her first
book Christians of Kerala: History, Belief and Ritual among the Yakoba (Oxford University Press) is a path
breaking work in the field of sociology of religion. This book gives an examination of the practice of Christianity
in the small Indian neighbourhood of Kerala. The study focuses on the Yakoba people - who are divided into two
groups, the Orthodox Syrians and the Jacobite Syrians - and their quarrel over ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It also
seeks to understand the relationship between Christianity and Hinduism in Kerala by examining the ways in
which Hindu, Christian and Syrian cultures have been bound together.
Susan Visvanathan studied at Delhi University and Jawaharlal Nehru University. After her completion of M.A in
Sociology from Jawaharlal Nehru University, she did her M.Phil and PhD in Sociology at the Department of
Sociology, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi. Susan completed her PhD under the supervision of
the eminent Sociologist and Social Anthropologist, Veena Das.
Susan started her career as Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Hindu College, University of Delhi in 1983. She was
Head of the Department of Sociology from 1989 to 1997. She joined the Centre for the Study of Social Systems,
Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in 1997, where she is now a Professor. She teaches Sociology of
Religion, Historical Anthropology, Classical Social Theory and gender studies. She was Chairperson of the
Centre for the Study of Social Systems, School of Social Sciences, and Jawaharlal Nehru University from 2010
to 2012.
She was Honorary Fellow, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla 1990–1995, and Fellow, Nehru Memorial
Museum and Library, New Delhi 1989–92. She was a Charles Wallace Fellow to Queens University
Belfast 1997. She has been a visiting professor to Maison des Sciences de L'Hommes, Paris (2004), Paris 13
University(2011) and Guest Professor to the Free University of Berlin (2011). She has been an honorary
consultant to the World Council of Churches, Geneva 1987–89, Consultant to the Oxford University Press, New
Delhi 1994 to 1999 and from 2009 onwards and Consultant to Free University, Berlin,2011.
She also writes fiction during winter and summer breaks from the university, extending sociological and
theoretical concerns in the more vivid prose of literary fiction including short stories and novels.

Books of Susan Visvanathan

 The Christians of Kerala: History, Belief and Ritual among the Yakoba. Oxford University Press, 1993
Reprinted 7th time as paperback from OUP Delhi in 2010
 Missionary Styles and the Problem of Dialogue, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla, 1993

 Ethnography of Mysticism: The journeys of a French Monk in India. Indian Institute of Advanced Study,
Shimla 1998
 Structure and Transformation: Theory and Society in India. Oxford University Press. Delhi, 2000.
 Friendship, Interiority and Mysticism: Essays in Dialogue, Orient Longman, (Black Orient Swan) 2007.
 Children of Nature: The Life and Legacy of Ramana Maharshi, (Roli Books, 2010)
 Reading Marx, Weber and Durkheim Today, ( Palm Leaf Publications,2012)
 Culture and Society ( Readings in Indian sociology,Vol.IX), (Sage, 2014)
 Wisdom of Community: Essays on Sociology, History and Social Transformation (forthcoming)
Fiction by Susan Visvanathan
 Something Barely Remembered (Flamingo 2000 and Roli IndiaInk, 2000)
 The Visiting Moon (Roli IndiaInk 2002)
 Phosphorus and Stone (Penguin and Zubaan,2007)
 The Seine at Noon (Roli IndiaInk,2007)
 Nelycinda and Other Stories (Roli Books,2012)
 Adi Sankara and Other Stories ( Papyrus Scrolls, 2017)

Journal Articles
 Reconstructions of the Past Among the Syrian Christians of Kerala, Contributions to Indian Sociology (Sage),
July 1986
 Marriage, Birth and Death: Property Rights and Domestic Relationships of the Orthodox/Jacobite Syrian
Christians of Kerala, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol-XXIV No. 24, 17 June 1989
 Women and Work – From Housewifization to Androgyny, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XXXI Nos 45
and 46 November 9–16, 1996.
 The Homogeneity of Fundamentalism: British Colonialism and Mission in India in the 19th Century, Studies in
History(Sage),16 (2)2000
 S.K. Rudra, C.F Andrews and M.K. Gandhi: Friendship, Dialogue and Interiority in the Question of Indian
Nationalism, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XXXVII, No. 34, 24 August 2002
 Medieval Music and Shakespeare's Sonnets,Think India Quarterly,12(2),2009

 Visvanathan, Susan (April 2001). "Hannah Arendt and the Problem of Our Age". Economic and Political
Weekly. 36 (16): 1307–1309.

Articles in Edited Books

 "Interpretations of the City",in 'Structure and Transformation: Theory and Society in India',edited by
Susan Visvanathan,New Delhi: Oxford University Press,2001 ( This book examines the key debates, both
theoretical and empirical, in the fields of urbanization, industrialization and stratification in India. The essays in
the volume engage with the problems of typologies--tribal, peasant and industrial--in order to rethink the issues
of modernity and tradition. The authors problematize a vast array of literature on tribal, peasant and industrial
sociology, grappling with conceptual problems caused by the uncritical application of theories germinated in the
West to the Indian context. The primary assumption of all the essays is that the conventional binary opposition
between primitive and modern, and the evolutionary schema of viewing the world in terms of First, Second and
Third Worlds is redundant to our times. Keeping this in mind, the book provides an essential framework for
understanding globalization.)
 "The Eucharist in a Syrian Christian Church",in 'India's Religions:Perspectives from Sociology and
History',edited by T.N Madan, New Delhi: Oxford University Press,2004
 "Ringeltaube in the Midst of the Natives-1813 and the Narratives of Distress",in 'Halle and the beginning of
Protestant Christianity in India : Vol 2- Christian mission in the Indian context',edited by Andreas Gross et
al.,Halle: Franckesche Stiftungen,2006
 "Reconstructions of the Past",in 'Historical Anthropology',edited by Saurabh Dube, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press,2007
 "The Status of Christian Women in Kerala",in 'World Christianity:Critical Concepts in Religious
Studies',edited by Elizabeth Koepping,London:Routledge,2010
 “A Cast of Characters,” in 'Remembered Childhood:Essays in Honour of Andre Beteille',edited by Malvika
Karlekar,New Delhi: Oxford University Press,2010
4. Veena Das

Veena Das is Krieger-Eisenhower Professor of Anthropology at the Johns Hopkins University.

Das completed her Ph.D. in 1970 under the supervision of M. N. Srinivas. She was professor of anthropology at
the New School for Social Research from 1997-2000, before moving to Johns Hopkins University, where she
served as chair of the Department of Anthropology between 2001 and 2008. [9] Before joining Johns Hopkins
University in 2000, she taught at the Delhi School of Economics for more than thirty years and also held a joint
appointment at the New School for Social Research from 1997- 2000. She is a Fellow of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences and of the Academy of Scientists from Developing Countries. She was awarded the John
Simon Guggenheim Fellowship in 2009 and the Anders Retzius Award of the Swedish Society of Anthropology
and Geography in 1995 and the Ghurye Award in 1977. She received an honorary doctorate from the University
of Chicago in 2000 and from the University of Edinburgh in 2014. Most recently she was awarded the Nessim
Habif Prize by the University of Geneva. She is an established figure in Indian Anthropology, and one of the
most frequently cited anthropologists. Her areas of theoretical specialization include the anthropology of
violence, social suffering, and the state. Das has received multiple international awards including the Ander
Retzius Gold Medal, delivered the prestigious Lewis Henry Morgan Lecture and was named a foreign honorary
member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Books by Veena Das

Her first book Structure and Cognition: Aspects of Hindu Caste and Ritual (Oxford University Press, Delhi,
1977) brought the textual practices of 13th to 17th century in relation to self representation of caste groups in
focus. Her identification of the structure of Hindu thought in terms of the tripartite division between priesthood,
kinship and renunciation proved to be an extremely important structuralist interpretation of the important poles
within which innovations and claims to new status by caste groups took place.
Veena Das's most recent book is Life and Words: Violence and the Descent into the Ordinary, California
University Press, 2006. As the title implies, Das sees violence not as an interruption of ordinary life but as
something that is implicated in the ordinary. One of the chapters in the book deals with the state of abducted
women in the post-independence time period and has been the interest of various legal historians.
Two moments are addressed in this book:
(i)The Partition of India in 1947 (she worked with urban Punjabi families who survived and migrated after the
riots in 1947)
(ii)The assassination of Indira Gandhi 1984 (she worked with survivors of riots against Sikhs)
Her Research Area: Since the eighties she became engrossed in the study of violence and social suffering. Her
edited book, Mirrors of Violence: Communities, Riots and Survivors in South Asia published by Oxford
University Press in 1990 was one of the first to bring issues of violence within anthropology of South Asia. A
trilogy on these subjects that she edited with Arthur Kleinman and others in the late nineties and early twenties
gave a new direction to these fields. The volumes are titled Social Suffering; Violence and
Subjectivity; and Remaking a World.
Awards won by Veena Das
She received the Anders Retzius Gold Medal from the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography in
1995 In 2007, Das delivered the Lewis Henry Morgan Lecture at the University of Rochester, considered by
many to be the most important annual lecture series in the field of Anthropology.
 5. B.S Guha
Biraja Sankar Guha (15 August 1894 – 20 October 1961) was an Indian physical anthropologist, who
classified Indian people into races around the early part of the 20th century. He was the first Director of the
Anthropological Survey of India (ASI) (1945–1954).
Education and Career
B. S. Guha did his graduation in Philosophy from the Scottish Church College and earned his post-graduate
degree (also in Philosophy) from the University of Calcutta. He worked as a research scholar in Anthropology in
the Government of Bengal in 1917. During 1922–1924 he worked as a research scholar at the Harvard Museum
of Natural History (Boston), American Museum of Natural History (New York), and the Bureau of Ethnicity of
the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.. In 1924, he was awarded a Ph.D. degree in Anthropology
from Harvard University, for his thesis on "The Racial basis of the Caste System in India" (which he defended
before Roland Dixon and Earnest Hooton). In the process he became one of the earliest recipients of the
doctorate in that discipline in the world and certainly, the first Indian citizen to do so.
In 1927, he joined the anthropological section of the Zoological Survey of India. [2]
In 1934, Guha became a Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, and member
of the Permanent Council of the International Congress of Anthropology. In 1936, he founded the Indian
Anthropological Institute in Calcutta (now Kolkata). In 1938, he became the President of the Anthropology
Section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
In 1944, he submitted a new proposal for a separate Anthropological Survey of India. In 1955, Guha became the
Director of Social Education Training Centre in Ranchi. During 1956–1959, he served as the Director of Bihar
Tribal Research Institute, Ranchi. In 1961, Guha died in a railway accident at Ghatshila, Bihar.

Works of B.S Guha

Guha is best known for his work on classification of the Indian people into racial groups although the concept of
race has been rejected by the evolutionary scientists, Guha's theories are of historical interest.
As anthropologist Kelli M. Kobor of the George Mason University observed in The Transfer of Anthropological
Power in India: The Life and Work of Biraja Sankar Guha (1894–1961):
“Although he is largely forgotten today, B. S. Guha ranks among the most prominent South Asian
anthropologists of this century and served as the founder-Director of the Anthropological Survey of India.
...First, Guha’s diverse training and professional experience—his undergraduate degree was from the University
of Calcutta, his Ph.D. from Harvard, with fieldwork in both South Asia and the U.S.—belies the stereotype of
colonial-era anthropologists as intellectually dependent on European models. The ease with which he shifted his
focus from Indian tribals to North American "Indian tribes" highlights the integral links already extant between
European, North American, and Asian intellectual communities early in this century. Second, Guha’s work
demonstrates the global dimensions of race theory, which is generally viewed as a local or regional
phenomenon. Not only was India integral to the international project of identifying and classifying the numerous
"races" of humankind, but Indian anthropologists like Guha were enthusiastic participants in it (even after that
project’s association with political repression and mass murder made it unpopular elsewhere). Finally, [Guha's
work may be examined] in light of its contribution to a specifically South Asian dialogue about race and
nationality.”
Most important contributions of B.S. Guha
 Racial elements in the population (1944), published by Oxford University Press (a digitised version is
available from University of Oklahoma)
 The racial affinities of the people of India in Census of India, 1931 (1935), Government of India Press, Shimla
 A biometric study on the tribes of north-western Himalayan region (with S. K. Mazumdar)
 A report on the human relics recovered by the Naga Hills (Burma) Expedition for the abolition of human
sacrifice during 1926-1927 (Anthropological bulletins, the Zoological Survey of India ; bulletin)
 Moshup legape doying agom lunen; or, the Mythological origin of the Abor dormitory system
 Studies in social tensions among the refugees from Eastern Pakistan
 An archaeological tour in Gedrosia
 The anthropological basis of P.W. Schmidt's Austrisch theory
6. Elwin Ghurye Debate on Tribes

Elwin and Ghurye’s Perspectives on Tribes

After studying this Unit, you will be able to understand:
• The framework of tribal question;
• Historical background of tribal voice;
• Nationalist freedom struggle and tribals; and
• Constituent Assembly debate on tribal affairs.
The Framing of the Tribal Question: Elwin and Ghurye
The autonomy and independence of tribal people in India is circumscribed by the legal regime laid out in the
fifth and the sixth schedules of the Constitution of India. Their population is distributed over all states, except
Chandigarh, Delhi, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Laccadive, and Pondichery. The tribal population is socially,
culturally, economically and politically differentiated on account of the different histories of interaction between
them and the non-tribal people. Presently, there are only a few places where tribal people dwell in deep-forest,
and continue to practice shifting cultivation for instance, in Abujhmarh in Bastar (Madhya Pradesh) and in
Koraput and Phulbani (in Odisha). A majority of them however, live on wastelands, in settled agriculture
regions, in towns and cities. Economically, a large number are poor because either
they are landless labour or they are cultivators with small unproductive land holdings. Some are rich and some
belong to the middle class. Culturally, the tribal languages of India can be grouped into four major families: the
Austric, the Tibeto-Chinese, the Dravidian, and the Indo-Aryan. Over years of interaction with the nontribal
people a large majority has converted either to Hinduism or Christianity or Buddhism or Islam and has also
moved away from their tradition of work. This has influenced not only their linguistic ability but also their
thought patterns. Presently, only those, who live in deep-forest, continue to practice their own religion.
The legal regime laid out in the 5th and 6th schedules has its origins in the Act of 1935, which created, excluded
and partially excluded areas where a different set of laws will govern the life of tribal people. Elwin pointed out:
“Section 52 and 92 of the Act provided for the reservation of certain predominantly aboriginal areas (to be
known as Excluded or Partially excluded areas) from operation of Provincial legislature. The governor is given
the power to control the application of legislation whether of the Federal or Provincial
Legislature, and make regulations in both these areas.” After making an assessment to this Act, Ghurye
formulated the tribal question. There are three views on the tribal situation: no change and revivalism; isolation
and preservation; and finally assimilation. This was a reflection of how he saw the tribal situation in 1943. He
saw them divided into three classes: “First, such as the Raj Gonds and others who have successfully fought the
battle, and are recognized as members of a fairly high status within Hindu society; second the large mass that
has been partially Hinduised and has come into closer contact with Hindus; and third the Hill sections, which
“have exhibited the greatest power of resistance to alien cultures that have pressed upon their border.” In this
classification he missed out on Christian influence.
In 1944 Elwin wrote: “Missionaries should be withdrawn from the Partially Excluded areas; we insist that all
education in these areas should be taken over by the Government. We demand that the Government should do
twice as much as the missionaries have achieved. We have no interest in keeping these people backward.”
Likewise Elwin, Ghurye also said:
“To enable the tribals to live their lives according to their traditions and customs without active interference
from non-aborigines is certainly a desirable end as natural as the grant of responsibility in their administration to
other people.”
In 1950 after debate in the constituent assembly the partially excluded and the excluded areas became the fifth
and the sixth scheduled areas. Tribal development programs were initiated and the Ghurye-Elwin position
remained unquestioned. On the ground, tribal people has no choice other than to become part of the mainstream
and get assimilated into the Hindu fold or become part of Christianity. Today for NGOs and political activists
primarily in the fifth schedule areas the, Bhuria Committee Report and the subsequent Act of 1996 is an
important step towards the realization of self-rule for tribal people in India. These concerns reason the demand
for Tribal autonomy in the sixth schedule areas in the Northeastern frontier regions of India. The Act of 1996
emphasized that “Traditional tribal conventions and laws should continue to hold validity. The committee felt
that while shaping the new Panchayati Raj structure in tribal areas it is desirable to blend the traditional with the
modern by treating the traditional institutions as the foundation on which the modern superstructure should be
built.”
To what extent does this legal regime equip the tribal people to move towards self-rule? What does self-rule
mean when there are only few tribal people who have not adopted non-tribal religions and cultures? What part
of their tradition remains that can harmonize with modern systems?
Tribal societies were pastoral and nomadic in their movement. The sedentary and pastoral people were
distributed over three different kinds of human settlements: the plains, the cities and towns, and the forests. In
the plains and in the cities dwelt the Muslims and the Hindus, and in the forests lived the tribal people. There
was no notion of the center and the frontiers. There was no notion either of the dominant and the mainstream,
nor the marginal and the peripheral. This latter notion developed on account of colonialism.
Ghurye’s class differentiation can be read to understand the different responses to the nontribal world and the
State evolved its instruments of governance. The first class of tribals like the Raj Gonds and others joined
mainstream and were assimilated. They got recognized as members of a fairly high status within mainstream
society and have had a tendency towards revivalism and preservation. They over time became the tribal elite. In
contrast the third class the Hill sections according to Ghurye exhibited the greatest power of resistance to alien
cultures that have pressed upon their border and were marginalized. Today they dwell in deep-forest, and
continue to practice shifting cultivation for instance, in Abujhmarh in Bastar, Madhya Pradesh, in Koraput and
Phulbani in Orissa. The large mass of second-class tribal peoples, some Hindu and some Christians suffered
from development. A majority of them are the middle class with the little or no land. A larger number became
poor.
A brief history of the development of State instruments of governance begins when the East India Company
established its first factory in 1650. A flourishing trade soon developed. Until 1757, the year of the battle of
Plassey “India went on receiving silver supplies on an increasing scale (the East India Company’s treasure
exports in 1750 amounted to £1.10 million). In 1765 they acquired from the Mughals the right of diwani
(revenue collection) in Bengal. Four years later the Bengal famine of 1769-70 destroyed one third of the
population including artisans and cultivators and one third of land was rendered waste. This hurried on the
financial crisis of 1772, which led to state interference in the Company’s affairs.” Warren Hastings came to
India (for the second time) in 1772 as Governor General. In 1773, parliament passed Regulating Acts. During
the colonial rule, number of disturbance took place in the form of the Koli disturbance (1784-1785), the revolt
in Tamar of Chotanagpur (1789-; 1794-1795) the Great Santhal rebellion in 1855-56 and the Sepoy Mutiny,
1857.
In the mode of colonial governance illegal extortions and the oppressiveness of corrupt police were the
immediate cause of Rampa Rebellion, which started in March 1922 in the East Godavari district. The most
significant ones were the Birsa Munda (1874-901) and the Tana Bhagat Movement (1914-1919). “The
amendments made by the government consequent upon the Santhal Rebellion in 1856 were not extended to the
Mundas, although they were facing similar problems. The consequent alienation of land dealt a cruel blow to all
that the tribals cherished in their life. They sought to rid the tribal people of vices and weaknesses. As a
consequence of these movements came into being tribal improvement societies, institutions designed to
introduce reform and stimulate development. The Simon Commission and the government sought solution to the
tribal problem within the existing political structure but the policies framed were unrealistic. Most funds meant
for tribals were cornered by the non-tribals. Thus the government failed to assuage the feelings of the tribals. In
view of this situation, the government responded with the Government of India Act of 1935, which prepared
the legal foundation of the coming to being of the modern State in India and its structure of Governance.
The character of the tribal movement changed under the Government of India Act of 1935. Pan-tribal
organizations emerged to make their voice heard. For instance, the Chotanagpur Catholic Sabha, Chotanagpur
Adivasi Mahasabha. In 1949 this Mahasabha was wound up and the (Jharkhand Party) new regional party was
created.

Nationalist freedom struggle and tribals

The Indian National Congress did not reject the way tribals were being thought of and talked about, as backward
and primitive people. Tribal protest was considered as an indication of their inability to adjust, adapt and
change. Those who argued for their assimilation subscribed to the norms of mainstream development under the
British regime.
What Jawaharlal Nehru thought on the tribal position? He said at the opening of the first session of the
‘Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Areas’ Conference in 1952: “For half a century or more we have struggled for
freedom and achieved it. That struggle, apart from anything else, was a great liberating force. It raised us above
ourselves. We must remember that this experience of hundreds of
Millions of Indians was not shared by the tribal folk.”
It is clear that they struggled and protested against British domination but there was no pathway to exchange
their experience with other Indians, because on one hand, they were politically marginalized in excluded areas
and on the other, they were social outcasts of the so-called dominant societies. They were thus outsiders.
Constituent Assembly Debates and Tribal people
Bring out the salient features of the constituent assembly debates on tribal affairs.
The Constituent Assembly debates too did not question the validity of both ‘excluded’ and ‘partially excluded
areas’, or the view that tribals were backward.
In view of this situation, it was argued that the principles of political and economic democracy would create
appropriate conditions for justice. These were incorporated in the Directive Principles of State Policy. One-man
one vote is the principle underlying political and economic democracy. A vote, therefore, is an instrument to
assert and define the political right to economic equality. Together they determine the economic and the political
infrastructure of the industrial production process and the productive capacities for modern industrial work and
enterprise. Productive capacity is not just the capability to do a job and be employed. It is the preparedness to
cope with the traumas of alienation, anomie in the social sphere and with the uncertainties of living in the
modern world of free liberal markets, without either subjugating anybody or being subjugated. Such
preparedness is the most essential requirement of self-rule.
Debates: Debates on Article 335 focused on whether or not there should be job reservations for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Some excerpts are reproduced here:
Shri Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: The safeguard given by law to members of the Scheduled Castes And
Scheduled Tribes is contained in article 335 which says: “The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of
administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union
or of a State.” I am, therefore, anxious that so far as the Scheduled Castes and Tribes are concerned, their claims
must be considered with regard to all appointments and not only with regard to reserved appointments. Because,
if they are reserved, it means that their claim will be considered. The livelihood is that their claims will be
confined only to the reserved posts and in regard to other posts, their claims will not be considered.
Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Will the honourable member please say how article 335 could be implemented? Shri
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Can it only be implemented by reservation? If that is so, why don’t we decide it?
Shri R .K. Sidhva: Mr President, I have had the view that if anybody deserves protection or special rights or
privileges, it is the Scheduled Castes only for the reason that I frequently stated that we have done certain
injustice to that class and for the purpose of undoing that injustice, we specially gave them this protection. I do
not approve of my friend Deshmukh’s proposal to introduce the words ‘backward class’, I strongly oppose to
it... Although the words ‘backward class’ are there, I am obliged to reluctantly accept it, and if I had my way, I
would have said that there shall be no such thing as “backward classes.
Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Why introduce the communal virus into another article (Article 320)?That representation of
the Scheduled Castes shall be so and so, the manner of giving it shall be such and such, all this, I say is
absolutely unnecessary, and surely it does not benefit the Scheduled Caste people at all. Some of us felt that the
special reservation was forced against their wishes. But then we were told that it was only a directive article, and
that it directs the policy of future governments. In these debates, the question of protection was addressed
without reference to the larger question of the nature of the economy and the place of the marginalized people in
it. For this reason it was not possible to discuss the path of self-reliant development and progress India was to
follow. The welfare that the directive principles seek to promote defines individual and collective well being
without considering its relation to the work culture and productive capacities of people. For instance, laws that
prevent the alienation of land amongst tribals are not sufficient for economic and political democracy. In
addition , what is required is the freedom to define land and other means of production in accordance with their
tradition of work and in the context of the industrial production
System. Accordingly, tribal protest can be seen as an assertion of their right not only to land but also to the
universe of the forest as their living space, to their work culture, an important component of which is shifting
cultivation, and to their world-view.
In pursuance of the ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ Article 300A says that the State can acquire land to
promote public interest. No Person shall be deprived of his property saved by law. In the discussion around this
Article, the justification and implications of this Article were spelt out: Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: If property is
required for public use it is a well established law that it should be acquired by the State, by compulsion if
necessary and compensation is paid and the law has laid down methods of judging that compensation..
Difficulties arise on the question of time. Obviously you cannot leave that piece of legislation too long,
widespread and continuous litigation in the courts of law. Otherwise the future of millions may be affected.
Shri Damodar Swarup Seth: It is not clear whether the words “acquisition of property for the public purpose”
includes socialization of land and Industries or compulsory transfer of property from one set of persons to the
other. It may well be argued that these words mean acquisition of property only for the general use of
Government, local self-governing bodies and other charitable and public institutions. The subject therefore
needs clarification. Property is a social institution and like all other social institutions, it is subject to regulations
and claim of common interests. The property of the entire people is the mainstay of the State in the
development of national economy. The State must have the full right to regulate, limit and expropriate property
by means of law in the common interests of the people.
It is almost universally recognized that full compensation to the owners of properties will make impossible any
large project of social and economic amelioration to be materialized. It is impossible for the State to pay owners
of property in all classes and at market value for the property requisitioned.
Prof. T.K.Shah: Acquisition of lands for public purpose, acquisition of any form of property, movable or
immovable for any public purpose including the working of that enterprise for the benefit of the public is, I
think, an inherent right of the sovereign community which should not be subject to any exception. I have
therefore, suggested that any such property to be acquired can be acquired for public purpose without defining
what is exactly meant by ‘public purpose’ subject to such compensation if any. Not all property is deserving of
compensation nor should the Constitution recognize categorically without qualification or modification the right
to compensation as appears to be the case.
Conclusion
The congress did not question the way tribals were being talked about, as backward and primitive, neither was
any question asked as to whether regulative state control was absolutely necessary and whether ‘excluded’ areas
was the way to do so? The debate got involved with justifying or criticizing exclusion. ‘Exclusion’ was an
expression of a social and cultural attitude towards people who lived in a forest. Those who argued for
assimilation either upheld the norms of mainstream development under colonial regime and they were unaware
of the forest-dwellers contribution to the struggle for freedom and independence. Today all tribal people are not
forest dwellers. DD Kosambi has described the larger social context in which the tribal people are located in
India. “Cultural differences between Indians even in the same province, district or city are as wide as the
physical differences between various parts of the country. Some of them are hardly out of the food-gathering
stage.
Historical experiences in India has shown that the above list of activities, in fact have done more harm than good
to people at large.