A Historical and Conceptual Analysis of Anthropological Studies on Indian Society and Culture (Pre-1947 to Present)

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

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)

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

1. Anderson,
   J. 1912. Quoted in Fuller, C. J. 2017. Ethnographic Inquiry and the
   Making of Modern India. London School of Economics (LSE).
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Discussion
   of Andre Beteille’s contributions to Indian sociology on caste, class, and
   social justice.
6. Guha,
   A. 2022. Ranajit Guha, Subaltern School and Anthropology in India.
   Frontier Weekly, referencing Pathy (1981) on anthropology serving power.
7. Guha,
   A. Indian Anthropology and its Critics. Referencing Sinha (1971) on the
   “Western Apprentice” and A. R. Desai’s critique.
8. Analysis
   of Risley’s theories, sample size, and lasting influence on caste
   divisions and politics.
9. Carlan,
   H. Sir H. H. Risley: Colonial Anthropologist and the 1901 Census. UCLA
   South Asia.
10. Roy,
    Sarat Chandra. 1912. The Mundas and Their Country. Digital Library
    of India.
11. 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.
12. Critical
    Analysis of Louis Dumont’s Homo Hierarchicus, detailing the
    Indological, structuralist, and attributional approach, and the contrast
    between Homo Hierarchicus and Home equal.
13. Das,
    Veena. 1995. Critical Events: An Anthropological Perspective on
    Contemporary India. Oxford University Press.
14. Partha
    Chatterjee on Subaltern Studies and the conceptual shift from
    “subaltern classes” to the individual inflection of subalternity
    (referencing Spivak).