Contours of South Asian Social Anthropology - Preview - PDF

‘Contours of South Asian Social Anthropology aims to invent con-
ceptual and methodological frameworks to study South Asian Social

Anthropology and Sociology (SAS) and views this attempt as aca-
demic decolonization and the construction of “epistemic South Asia”
as a framework to study South Asian SAS. This book may contribute
to shape South Asian SAS as a distinct branch of the disciplines and
encourage scholars to build up cooperation and work in collabora-
tion in order to advance South Asian SAS. Proposing a new perspective
in studying South Asian SAS, the author aims to free the disciplines
from the domination of western conceptual and methodological frame-
works. The book will be of interest to scholars working on national
SAS in the nations in South Asia and also to students and teachers at
graduate and postgraduate levels.’
Laxman Ghimire, Independent researcher; former faculty member,
Central Department of Linguistics, Tribhuvan University, Nepal; and
former independent researcher, UNESCO, Bangkok
‘Can there be a Nepali, Pakistani, Indian or South Asian Sociology and

social science? Should Sociology and social science serve nation build-
ing and legitimize indigeneity? Inasmuch as knowledge is a social and
historical product, is not “Western” Sociology today hiding its provin-
cialism and masquerading itself as “universal” Sociology? Or does a
better future for Sociology and social science lie in a search for a much
more plural, layered and woven together fabric made up of “local” and
large scale and long run social relations and structures? Swatahsiddha
Sarkar extends an invitation to social scientists to revisit and dive
deeper into these consequential issues and to come up with a better
answer than is now available.’
Chaitanya Mishra, Professor of Sociology, MPhil/PhD Program,
Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal
‘This work makes a contribution to the long-standing critique of

Eurocentric sociology and the debates around the possibility of a
uniquely South Asian discipline. Swatahsiddha Sarkar engages with
these debates from the vantage point of sociology in Nepal. Apart from
detailing the various initiatives taken by academic institutions in India
to engage in cross country research he also describes the experiences of
Nepali scholars as students of the subject in Indian universities and as
teachers and researchers in universities in Nepal. While there are sev-
eral scholars who have engaged with the project of building regional
traditions in sociology and chronicling the histories of such traditions
particularly in India the significance of Sarkar’s study lies in its wealth
of empirical detail. I am sure the book will find a place in university
curricula in South Asia.’
Roma Chatterji, former Professor of Sociology, Delhi School of
Economics, University of Delhi, India
‘This important book puts South Asia on the map of world sociology
and anthropology, not just as a geographical site but an entity with a
common episteme and common concerns that have something unique
to say to the disciplines. It prods us to think of the academic prac-
tices (conferences, texts) through how we bring (or don’t bring) spaces
like South Asia into being, and how South Asia has for too long been
the victim of a geopolitical imaginary to the exclusion of other fac-
ets like culture, ecology and habitation. Tragically, we learn about our
neighbours only through the West. Although the book is focused on
India and Nepal, its call for a revitalized and reimagined sociology and
anthropology of South Asia must become a rallying point for South
Asian academics across the region.’
Nandini Sundar, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of
Delhi, India
CONTOURS OF SOUTH ASIAN SOCIAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
This book presents a conceptual and methodological framework to under-

stand South Asia by engaging with the practices of sociology and social
anthropology in India and Nepal. It provides a new imagination of South
Asia by connecting historical, political, religious and cultural divides of the
region. Drawing from the experiences of Indian and Nepali social anthropol-
ogy, the book discusses the presence of Nepal studies in Indian social anthro-
pology and vice versa. It highlights Nepal or South Asia as a subject for
social anthropological research and stresses on pluriversal knowledge pro-
duction through regional scholarship, dialogic social anthropology, South
Asian episteme, post-Western social anthropology and the decolonisation of
disciplines. In exploring the themes and problems of doing social anthropol-
ogy in Nepal by Indian scholars, the book assesses the scope of developing
the South Asian social anthropological worldview. It explains why social
anthropological and sociological inquiry in India has failed to surpass its
focus beyond the territorial limits of the nation state. The book examines the
issues of methodological nationalism and social anthropological research
tradition in South Asia. By using the Saidian framework of travelling theory
and Bhambra’s idea of connected sociologies, it shows how social anthropol-
ogy can develop disciplinary crossroads within South Asia.
This book will be of interest to students, teachers and researchers of
South Asian studies, anthropology, sociology, social anthropology, South
Asian sociology, cultural anthropology, social psychology, area studies, cul-
tural studies, Nepal studies and Global South studies.
Swatahsiddha Sarkar is Professor and Director (2019–2021) of the Centre

for Himalayan Studies, University of North Bengal, Darjeeling, India. He
has been engaged in Nepal studies in various capacities and was the recipi-
ent of Scholars Exchange Grants (2016–2017) under the Indo-Swiss Joint
Research Programme. Besides publishing Gorkhaland Movement: Ethnic
Conflict and State Response (2013) and the co-edited volume Ethnicity in
India: Issues in Community, Culture and Conflict (2013), he is engaged in
research and teaching and has published widely.
CONTOURS OF
SOUTH ASIAN SOCIAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
Connecting India and Nepal
Swatahsiddha Sarkar
First published 2022
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa
business
© 2022 Swatahsiddha Sarkar
The right of Swatahsiddha Sarkar to be identified as author of this
work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-0-367-72388-0 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-00022-0 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-17233-8 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003172338
Typeset in Sabon
by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)
Dedicated to
Him, who groomed me to strive,
My Father
Late Sri Ajit Kumar Sarkar
and
Him, who groomed me to cerebrate,

My Mentor
Late Dr. Rabindra Ray
CONTENTS
List of Tables x
Abbreviations xi
Preface xiii
1 Introduction 1
2 Why South Asian Social Anthropology: Epistemological Concerns 13
3 Locating Nepal/India in Indian/Nepali Social Anthropology 24
4 ‘Other Culture’ Studies in Indian Anthropology 59
5 Methodological Nationalism and Social Anthropological/

Sociological Tradition in South Asia 83
6 Do Ideas Really Travel? Connecting Social Anthropology

between India and Nepal 102
7 Coda 115
Appendix
Presence of Indian Contribution in Anthropology/Sociology
Courses of Universities in Nepal 119
Index 129
ix
TABLES
3.1 Nepal Studies in Leading Indian Anthropology and

Sociology Journals 25
3.2 Nepal Studies in India (1924–2014) 27
3.3 Studies on India by Nepali Social Anthropologists/Sociologists 45
x
ABBREVIATIONS
AASSREC
Association of Asian Social Sciences Research Council
BHU Banaras Hindu University
CDSA Central Department of Sociology and Anthropology
CIS Contributions to Indian Sociology
CNAS Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies
CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scintifique
COSS Council of Social Sciences
EPW Economic and Political Weekly
FWU Far Western University
GTZ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
ICSSR Indian Council of Social Science Research
IEG Institute of Economic Growth
IIAS Indian Institute of Advanced Studies
IIDS Indian Institute of Dalit Studies
ILO International Labour Organization
IMPRESS
Impactful Policy Research in Social Sciences
INAS Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies
INGO International Non-Governmental Organization
ISA International Sociological Association
JIAS The Journal of Indian Anthropological Society
JNU Jawaharlal Nehru University
MC Martin Chautari
N.S. New Series
NBU North Bengal University
NESP New Education System Plan
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NNEPC Nepal National Education Commission
NUFU The Norwegian Programme for Development, Research and
Education
PG Postgraduate
SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SAS Social Anthropology and Sociology
SASON Sociological and Anthropological Society of Nepal
xi
A bbreviations
SIS School of International Studies

STRIDE Scheme for Trans-disciplinary Research for India’s Developing
Economy
TISS Tata Institute of Social Sciences
TU Tribhuvan University
UGC University Grants Commission
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation
UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees
VDP Village Development Programme
xii
PREFACE
This book is the outcome of the last five years of my engagement with ques-
tions of social anthropological research practices in South Asia. The pon-
dering on the issue began with a research project funded by the B. P. Koirala
India-Nepal Foundation (BPKF) and executed by Martin Chautari (MC),
Kathmandu during 2015–16, in which I had tried to examine the trends of
Nepal studies in Indian Social Anthropology and Sociology. Though initially
the journey began with the disciplinary practices in both India and Nepal,
gradually I realised that the question of South Asian Social Anthropology
and Sociology needs more careful scrutiny than I had expected. As such the
growth and maturity of my own understanding, besides my personal and
professional interests in the issue of South Asian Social Anthropology and
Sociology, in all likelihood, intends a culmination in the present monograph.
The central idea of the book is premised within the juggernauts of world
social theory. Though Western social science episteme is yet to have loos-
ened its universal grip, it has been undeniably facing serious challenges
emerging out of those regions which the West had once ruled. It is at this
conjuncture that I place the proposal of South Asian Social Anthropology/
Sociology as a project, which I deem, is still in its infancy. I have tried to deal
with limited aspects of it and was careful in selecting the fields to be uncov-
ered for articulating my arguments. I have excluded more pieces, perspec-
tives, persons than, perhaps, I have included. In most cases, however,
exclusions were also beyond my choice or preference but had resulted from
my inability to have contact, convenience and consciousness to incorporate
the large corpus of issues that were left unincorporated.
While in the global scale, particularly from the Global South, scholars
have been talking about epistemicide, abyssal thinking, epistemic freedom,
epistemic disobedience, epistemologies of south, southern theory, Asia as
method as ways of democratising the hitherto regimented world of knowl-
edge production, Indian Social Anthropology/Sociology seems to be less
responsive to these debates and engagements. The situation is far worse in
other South Asian countries, including Nepal. The proposal of South Asian
Social Anthropology/Sociology is, therefore, a result of personal angst
against the large-scale abyssal silence in this regard that has considerably
xiii
P reface
afflicted the community of scholars practising anthropology/sociology in

South Asia. It is not that this book, which otherwise appears to be a lengthy
preface, or an introduction to a canonical treatise, can fill in the void that it
unravels. Instead, it seeks to float a proposal, if not a manifesto, to the read-
ers hoping that the book may appeal convincingly enough to opening a
platform for constructive discussion. Much like travelling theory, South
Asian Social Anthropology/Sociology retains its cognitive potential as long
as it is confronted with a critical awareness or even resistance to its
expansion.
Needless to say, a lot of individuals have been instrumental in the gesta-
tion of the book. But since an acknowledgement is not enough to acknowl-
edge one and all, I take a step back even before I begin. I cannot be adequately
thankful to all the scholars and practitioners—who gave me their time and
shared views on areas of my interest, and what captivating discussions those
have been! I am indebted to all of the practitioners of the discipline from
both India and Nepal, namely, André Béteille, Chaitanya Misra, Ajit K.
Danda, Janak Rai, Rajat Kanti Das, Krishna Bhattachan, TB Subba, Laya
Uprety, Youba Raj Luintel, Anand Kumar, Pranab Kharel and Gaurab KC
for their precious time in giving detailed telephonic, online and in-person
interviews. With deep fondness and sorrow, I take this moment to remember
and pay my homage to Prof. Hetukar Jha, Dr. Rabindra Ray and Prof. Partha
N Mukherjee all of whom I had interviewed during 2015, and who unfortu-
nately left us in 2017, 2019 and 2021, respectively. It would have been my
pleasure had they been able to see this work.
My engagement with MC since 2015, and the several meetings and dis-
cussions that have been ongoing since then with scholars and colleagues,
like Yogesh Raj (Research Director, MC), Lokranjan Parajuli, Devendra
Uprety, have helped me explore my ideas. My special thanks to Aman Garu
(Library Assistant, IT, MC) for providing me with bibliographic help and
several pieces from MC library at lightning speed. SINHAS, the flagship
journal of MC, and an important platform in South Asian studies, has pub-
lished one of my articles, and I am thankful to the publisher to have kindly
permitted me to use parts of that in the present book. I am also indebted to
Mallika Shakya (South Asian University, New Delhi) for providing her criti-
cal inputs during the early phase of this study. Chudamani Basnet (South
Asian University, New Delhi) has provided me with access to his own writ-
ings and also with further contacts which were immensely helpful. I am
grateful to my colleagues at Centre for Himalayan Studies, University of
North Bengal for taking the cudgels to run the show, while relieving me
from duties at the penultimate phase of this journey. The usual tea shop
addas in the NBU Campus with friends and colleagues like Jayjit, Binayak,
Adwitya and others were unusually rewarding in calibrating many ideas for
this book and beyond. Discussions inside and outside the classroom with
MPhil and PhD students at the Centre for Himalayan Studies were
immensely gratifying.
xiv
P reface
Special mention is required for the contributions made by three persons

who have been there since the inception of the book. Pratyoush Onta, my
friend, philosopher and guide, not only for this book, but also for all my
present and future academic projects; Pranab Kharel, a tireless listener and
an ingenious scholar, discussions with whom on different facets of the book
have been fervid stimulants, a comradeship that goes beyond expression;
and Priyanka Chatterjee, who happened to be the language and brevity doc-
tor, treating the chapters as required, and supporting this project with her
fabulous skills. I am indebted to them all!
Thanks are also due to Lubna Irfan, Associate Commissioning Editor,
Routledge, for approaching me as a potential author, following an EPW
publication, and finally believing in my ideas which do not fit into the domi-
nant discourse in the discipline. I am honoured that she gave chance to the
fruition of this ambitious project. I am grateful to the three anonymous
reviewers whose constructive comments, at different stages of the book’s
conception and writing, further enlightened my way. Rimina Mohapatra,
Publishing Manager, Routledge, deserves special mention for her tireless
engagement and important inputs which helped improve the work further.
I owe a lot to her.
My mother, my wife, Sumana, and my son, Rangeet have been the worst
sufferers during the long span of the writing this book, although their
relentless encouragement has fortified me all through. I owe them a lot!
Attributing all the lapses to myself, I place this book for the readers to
engage with.
Swatahsiddha Sarkar
Centre for Himalayan Studies
University of North Bengal
October 25, 2021
xv
1
INTRODUCTION
In a certain sense, the book falls within the large canvas of non-Western
social anthropology/sociology (Deyo 1987; Smith 1990; Spickard 1998)
and attempts to navigate within the existing debates traceable since post-
World War II epoch while finally moving in the direction of constructing
a post-Western (Roulleau-Berger & Peilin 2018; Xie 2021) disciplinary
vantage point. In this sense, the book does not promise new disciplinary
vision as such; however, it seeks to engage with the praxis of such a vision
that is already available to us and hopes to revisit the vision, by becom-
ing self-reflexive in a South Asian context. Does place really matter in the
ways knowledge is produced? Notwithstanding our passion for objectiv-
ity in social sciences, this question, I believe, has riddled the non-Western
mind intending to decolonising the disciplines from their Western (Euro-
American mainly) roots and branches. Location is in itself a positional-
ity that has encouraged scholars to advance it as a denaturalising vantage
point while practising disciplines like Social Anthropology and Sociology1
(henceforth, SAS), either in the native context, or in one’s own culture, or as
methods of indigenising, deimperialising and decolonising the disciplines in
the non-West. Due to its obvious ideological, political and intellectual pen-
chants, disciplines like anthropology often showcase place either as a ‘theo-
retical metonym’ or as ‘gatekeeping concepts’ while producing knowledge
about the non-West (Appadurai 1986: 358). In fact, the need for strategis-
ing place or location in the articulation of disciplinary vision is well under-
stood. But are we really careful as to how disciplines could be endowed
with a ‘new’ spatial imagining? How should one think of consolidating a
spatial imagination methodologically or work towards displacing and/or
disprivileging another? I have been struggling with these questions while
thinking about South Asian SAS, and this book tries to offer some answers
for further scrutiny.
In fact, we find attempts—both concerted and piecemeal—made by aca-
demic journals, associations, groups of scholars and individual intellectuals
to reflect on the diverse concerns of non-Western social sciences, in general,
and SAS, in particular. An early attempt was a one-day conference organised
by the British Sociological Association in 1961 to discuss the position of
DOI: 10.4324/9781003172338-1 1
INTRODUCTION
sociology in Asia. The papers dealing with India (by TB Bottomore), China
(by Maurice Freedman), Japan (by RP Dore), Malaysia (by HS Morris),
Thailand and Indo-China (by Charles Madge) and Burma (by M Mendelson)
were later published in the British Journal of Sociology (Vol. 13, No. 2,
1962). The conference noted the absence of Indigenous sociology and the
heavy pressures of applied research in countries like India. Furthermore, it
was noted that ‘sociology in Asia is beset with political difficulties which
make the indigenous development of sociology inside Asian countries and
their universities a matter of pressing importance’ (Madge 1962: 96).
Concerns for the non-Western world have always been at the root of anthro-
pology; however, the role of non-Western anthropologists or the notion of
Indigenous anthropology in the context of non-Western world became fash-
ionable only in the 1970s. Series of publications, symposia and stimulating
debates appeared on platforms like Current Anthropology (Fahim & Helmer
1980; Kim 1990), and Human Organisation (Fahim 1977; Jones 1970). The
churning for ‘native anthropology’—a set of theories based on non-Western
precepts and assumptions, akin to how modern anthropology is based on
and has supported Western beliefs and values—was encouraged further with
the formation of the Association of Third World Anthropologists in 1977
and the support from Wenner- Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research to organise an international conference on Indigenous anthropol-
ogy in non-Western countries.
The aim of making anthropology less prejudiced against the Third World,
by making its use of languages and paradigms less opinionated, strength-
ened the plea of Asianising anthropology under the auspices of the UNESCO.
The surveys conducted by the UNESCO on social sciences in Asia (UNESCO
1976, 1977a, 1977b) gave a pattern to the perspective of Asianising anthro-
pology in the following words:
Asianization reflects each country’s heritage and social realities as it

seeks to be responsive to ideological and practical needs and aspiration.
The perspective to Asianize anthropology and the other social sciences
was the logical consequence of the recognition of the inadequacy of
Western models, hypotheses and theories.
(Bennagen 1980: 8)
UNESCO was even instrumental in making the first-ever attempt to build

bridges between Asian countries in 1954 when a round table conference
was convened on the Teaching of the Social Sciences in South Asia. The
five-day (February 15–19, 1954) conference was held in Delhi and dele-
gates from Burma, Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Malaya, Singapore, Pakistan
and Thailand participated to discuss three themes: unity of social science,
conditions affecting the position of social science, and teaching methods
(UNESCO 1954). Conspicuously Nepal and Bhutan were absent, perhaps
due to the unavailability of a mature higher education system in these two
2
INTRODUCTION
countries then. The presentation of country-wise statements in the round

table gave an impression of differences outweighing similarities. This could
be partly due to the fact that these differences were actually the responses of
participants whose intimate knowledge of the problem of the ‘region’ was
largely confined to the conditions of their own countries. It was not at all
easy to discover what common interests could be peculiar to, or particularly
characteristic of, the region as a whole (Atal 1974: 11). The round table
conference came out with a series of hopeful recommendations gravitating
towards the development of communication, interchange, and assimilation
between countries of the East, putting Indian initiatives at the centre stage.
However, hope for a South Asian social science continued to remain a lofty
assumption and an unreachable goal. Geographically, proximate social
scientists of the region stay constricted within their academic silos. They
shared a common cultural heritage of the East but that did not lead them
towards the consolidation of a cooperative fund of reciprocal knowledge
(Atal 1974: 12).
The 1954 round table provided impetus towards the formation of the
Association of Asian Social Science Research Councils (AASSREC) under
the auspices of the UNESCO when in the 1970s the Indian Council of
Social Science Research (ICSSR) approached the UNESCO for convening
the first Asian conference on teaching and research in social sciences to be
held in Shimla (May 21–25, 1973) that the AASSREC was born.2 Indian
Institute of Advanced Studies (IIAS, Shimla) also supported the 1973 con-
ference which was attended by delegates from 14 Asian countries (India,
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Laos, Nepal,
Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka and Thailand) and included
discussions on country specific appraisal of social science research and
teaching, the role of national science research councils, issues of regional
collaboration and cooperation and the like. Compared to the 1954 South
Asian round table, the 1973 Asian Conference was more articulate in find-
ing out gaps as to why social scientists of the region had failed to develop
the art of practising social science that could enable them to respond to the
‘double call’ for considering national identities and cooperative interdepen-
dence, on the one hand, and to plan common programmes to combat pov-
erty, promote peace, self-reliance and desirable changes in their respective
societies, on the other. Serious emphasis was given on methods and tech-
niques suitable for the growth of a deparochialised social theory—one that
would call attention to interpretative rather than descriptive studies and
cross-cultural research in place of theorisation in silos.
Attempts to consider both the disciplines in the non-Western country
context has been a recurring theme that has enriched the disciplinary his-
tory of SAS in India. For example, the significant debate ‘For a Sociology of
India’ that was initiated by Dumont and Pocock (as editors) in the first issue
of Contributions to Indian Sociology (1957) continued to thrive even when
Contributions in its new avatar with the extension name—‘New Series’—started
3
INTRODUCTION
getting published from India since 1967 with TN Madan as chief editor.
Madan in his article published in the last issue of Contributions (published
under Dumont and Pocock’s editorship) set the tune of the New Series edi-
tions in the following words:
The Indian practitioner of sociology has been content to live the life of
an intellectual imitator: he has assiduously sought to apply techniques
learnt from English and American books to obtain answers to questions
mostly suggested by the content of Western sociology.
(Madan 1966: 10)
Madan, accordingly, prepared the New Series editions of Contributions as

a platform to respond to this problem and to devise remedial ways to over-
come it while doing more. However, the attempt here is neither to recount
the history of Contributions nor to reflect on the origin and evolution
of SAS in India. I would rather like to emphasise briefly on three major
responses gleaned out of this protracted rich history, which are reflective
of the encounter that brought SAS at home in post-independent India. The
attempt to consider these responses would be helpful in teasing out the
locatable concerns for South Asia in Indian SAS, if any.
Science and Swaraj

Interestingly, when vivid discussions in Contributions (both Old and NS)
pertaining to the necessity of a specific SAS for India were being debated,
a group of Indian sociologists were overwhelmed with Western theories
and ideas. This was evident in a conference organised by the University
of Rajasthan in 1965 where the participants (mostly Indians) arrived at
a conclusion that specific situation of India might of course put different
questions to an Indian sociologist than to his Western colleague, but in
both cases similar instruments to answer them should be used. The confer-
ence found Euro-American SAS as relevant—with added emphasis on the
appropriation of Sorokin, Talcott Parsons and structural functionalism—to
understand Indian social reality (Unnithan et al. 1967). There is no gainsay-
ing the truth that SAS also developed in the non-West but not necessarily
out of the orientation of the West. That the Western (mainly European and
North American) assumptions and particularities of these disciplines are to
be considered as meaningful only against the background of a particular
history of science and relevant only within a certain sociocultural context
seems to be rarely questioned. However, there is a difference between sci-
ence and scientism. There is a science of evolution that outlines how human
species or even human societies evolve; but to claim, expect or desire that
there is a single unilinear evolution is scientism, not science. JPS Uberoi
was the one who first raised these fundamental questions while reflecting
on the initial journeys of both the disciplines in India. In his now famous
4
INTRODUCTION
essay, ‘Science and Swaraj’ (1968), he shows how the scientific method for-
mulated in the West needs to be evaluated as part of Western culture, rather
than as a separate and independent entity, often presumed and represented
as ‘universal’. The decolonising ethos was vivid both in the title and the
content of the article in which Uberoi made his position clear by upholding:
‘Until we can concentrate on decolonisation, learn to nationalise our prob-
lems and take our poverty seriously, we shall continue to be both colonial
and unoriginal’ (Uberoi 1968: 123).
Concerns for Indigeneity

The pretext for indigeneity in Indian SAS was rooted in the expansion
of both the disciplines that experienced a process of what Saberwal calls
‘uncertain transplant’ of Western SAS in India. Unlike West, both the disci-
plines in India did not grow out of a nourishment of Indigenous intellectual
traditions (Saberwal 1983: 302). Free borrowing of concepts and method-
ologies and their indiscriminate use to understand Indian social reality was
so rampant that a self-reflexive stance in the style of indigeneity of anthro-
pology/sociology in India started gaining ground since the 1960s. The first
of such claim of indigeneity in Indian sociology was categorically expressed
in the monthly symposium of Seminar (issue of 1968) where setting the tone
of the problem Saberwal pointed out that academic colonialism specifically
involved two aspects: First, it emerged out of the intervention of North
American agencies in Indian academic scene and scholarship; second, the
economic, political and intellectual domination that the North American
academic exercises over Indian academics has resulted in academic colo-
nialism in Indian sociology (Saberwal 1968: 10). As such the concerns for
indigeneity have been understood and advocated variously by investing
in the realisation of an insider’s standpoint premised on self-awareness, a
rejection of borrowed consciousness and a desire for alternative perspec-
tive (Atal 2003: 103–104), or by identifying indigenisation as a method
of universalising social science (Mukherjee 2005: 311). It is interesting to
note that the debate of ‘academic colonialism’ also found its parallels in the
objections raised by Syed Fried Alatas, a South East Asian sociologist, who
rigorously criticised the growing Eurocentrism in the social sciences of the
whole of Asian region, in general and in the erstwhile colonies, in particular.
Drawing from Indian social thinkers like Rammohan Roy or BK Sarkar,
Alatas raised the need and justification of such a critique which he later
branded as ‘captive mind syndrome’ (Alatas 1974).
Krishan Kumar is of the view that ‘theoretic indigenisation’—indigenisa-
tion at the level of constructing distinctive conceptual frameworks and
meta-theories—is not indigenisation but actually about ‘transnational
cooperation’ that ought to be encouraged (Kumar 1979: 104–105). Such
proclivities appear as authentic when we see that the concerns for indigenising
sociology have yielded a space for regional imagining to ponder over the
5
INTRODUCTION
critical issues like the chronic lack of creativity and originality, growing
intellectual mimesis and the tendency of alignment with the state by her
social scientists. Social anthropologists and sociologists from India, as also
from other Asian regions, participated in the debate drawing from the his-
tory of social sciences of the respective countries. Series of works were pro-
duced by a host of scholars in different Asian contexts.3 Though Nepal or
other South Asian countries did not figure much in this debate, the debate
of indigenising sociology gives us the clue that regional imagining on issues
of academic concern is not only possible but expected as well.
Disciplinary Pluralism
While both the concerns of following swarajist path or indigenising social
anthropology/sociology seem to have been the viable decolonising responses,
these encounters lead us to the threshold of another debate: Are we talking
about one or many social anthropologies or sociologies? Instead of probing
deep into the issue, our presumed position is that, whenever discussions on
disciplines in a country context are held, we spontaneously use the name
of the country as a prefix: for example, Indian SAS, Nepali SAS, Pakistani
SAS and so on. In the non-Western context, in general, and in South Asian
context, in particular, this simple issue does not seem uncomplicated to
me. Within South Asian academic scene, we have gracefully provincialised
Euro-American sociology and anthropology. More often than not, Euro-
American canons appear to be the only register, and one has to fit his/her
anthropological/ sociological imaginations in a set canon. Even in India, in
the undergraduate and postgraduate classes, we teach students using those
cannons. In most cases, only a lone course on, say, Indian sociology allows
us to engage with thinkers at home, majority of whom have either accom-
modated—both in content and form—Western canonical protocols in their
scholarship, or indigenised Western concepts and developed an ideologi-
cal self-consciousness regarding Western modernity (Thakur 2015: 115).
Hence the use of the prefix ‘India’ in case of Indian SAS does not necessar-
ily imply an Indian school of thought—one that has displaced the Western
social sciences’ claims to analytic universality or challenged the hegemony
of metropolitan social theories. Notwithstanding the clamour for indigeni-
sation, SAS in South Asia continue to flourish within the hegemony of met-
ropolitan social theory and the practitioners see themselves as part of an
international academic milieu where the dominant conception of anthro-
pology/sociology as universal science rules the roost (Thakur 2015: 120).
This leads us to the fundamental question: How then are we to approach
non-Western culture or to construct, for example, an Indian system of
knowledge? Scholars like Dumont have already foreclosed such a possibility
for knowledge categories of non-Western cultures as he believed that with-
out resorting to an external view, or comparison, or objectivity, there could
be as many sociologies as there are cultures. Hence the question of Hindu
6
INTRODUCTION
sociology, for example, appeared to him as a ‘contradiction in terms’ or at

best as ‘fascist’, ‘provincial’ and ‘backward’ (Dumont 1966: 23). Within the
remits of social theorisation, the interrelationship between specific values
and universal theory has always ruled out the intellectual propensities of the
former, thereby parochialising the scope of non-Western knowledge to grow.
Hence to the practitioners of universal knowledge there could be only ‘one’
anthropology/sociology to which all other, particular time-space attributes,
are to be amenable. This appears to be significant while discussing South
Asian SAS. Is South Asian SAS one or many? Is it a conglomeration of social
anthropologies/sociologies of South Asian countries? Is the claim of South
Asian SAS an attempt to pluralise the discipline or to consolidate it in the
dogmatic frame of metropolitan social theories? Where is, then, the theoreti-
cal premise of South Asian SAS located? Drawing attention to the initiatives
of International Sociological Association (ISA) would not be out of place
here. ISA has been championing the cause of multiple sociological traditions
not merely through its many publications4 and conferences but concretely
through its flagship journal International Sociology. The journal was initi-
ated in 1986 with a specific purpose of internationalising sociological analy-
sis, and that was done by opening up the journal for accommodating
contributions made by sociologists from diverse cultural traditions and
national origins. In its effort to offer to the reader a more global and com-
prehensive view of contemporary sociology, the journal followed pluralistic
paths of concern in sociology rooted in different historical and cultural tra-
ditions (Cardoso 1986: 2). Thus, it is to be noted that South Asian SAS, the
way it is being conceived in the book, would be possible to pitch, more or
less as a spontaneous tendency, only when it is seen as evolving out of the
moments of disciplinary pluralism and not from the claims of universalising,
nationalising or indigenising the discipline.
As such the book intends to argue for moving beyond the universalistic
claim of metropolitan social theory and seeks to embrace the diversity
reflected in the way SAS is practised in South Asia. The central presumption
of the book that knowledge production is essentially a cultural phenome-
non has been historicised to navigate between diverse anthropological/
sociological traditions within South Asia and to think in terms of new meth-
odologies that would result into new languages of practising disciplines
within the South Asian landscape. The attempt to build South Asian SAS
from within this intellectual diversity is a challenge in itself. As diversity is
supposed to be the basis of pluralising disciplines, the question remains as
to how to develop a model—conceptual, methodological or otherwise—out
of this diversity that would be intelligible and acceptable to a region like
South Asia. The book is aimed at constructing such a framework while
remaining faithful to the principles of disciplinary pluralism.
The book begins with an interrogative poser: How should we initiate the
discussion about South Asian SAS? How SAS’s South Asian journey should
be mapped—by the composition and strength of membership in academic
7
INTRODUCTION
associations operating within South Asia, or, by arranging a number of

South Asian conferences/seminars/workshops with a handful of ‘chosen’
colleagues from across South Asia, or, by bringing out collectives with con-
tributions from social anthropologists and sociologists from within South
Asia? I do not say that these attempts are altogether unfruitful; but they are
not productive enough to germinate the cause of South Asian SAS. It needs
to be stressed that there exists a difference between South Asian SAS and
SAS in South Asia. These phrases cannot be used interchangeably although
the latter contributes to the former. Among other things South Asian SAS
should involve a transcendental turn or a renewed sociologism in the very
craft of practising SAS by the practitioners of the discipline within the limits
of South Asia. It is imperative, therefore, to think actually about an anthro-
pology/sociology of regional imagining within a world divided into nation
states while talking about South Asian SAS in the first place.
Given the framework within which SAS has to operate in each of the nation
state context within South Asia, the idea of South Asia does not have any
academic purchase. There are no systematic academic linkages amongst the
South Asian nation states that could be viable for a project like South Asian
SAS. It is a truism that our social anthropological and sociological knowledge
regarding the West is far better than our knowledge about East and our
immediate neighbours. Moreover, whatever little disciplinary knowledge we
have about our neighbouring countries are actually derived out of the contri-
butions of our Western colleagues. The South Asian conferences that are
organised at regular intervals in the region, or elsewhere, do bring anthro-
pologists and sociologists of South Asia together in a common platform but
without any synergy of regional cosmologies that could have grafted their
co-presence in methodological and conceptual terms. This implies that South
Asian SAS has to create its own standards, its own terms of analysis, catego-
ries of concepts, and cosmologies of interpretations, congeries of methods
and methodologies which, in turn, would provide us avenues to immerse in
South Asian research from a particular disciplinary vantage point.
South Asia never figured in the self-definition of Indian SAS. Rather a
Europe or even a USA is very much traceable in the way anthropology and
sociology as disciplines evolved immediately after being transplanted from
the West, by the West. Given such a pretext, the caption South Asian Social
Anthropology is used (in title of the book) both to unravel and concretise the
paths of developing social anthropological knowledge within a framework of
periphery–periphery relations. In other words, the book attempts to highlight
the relationship of power embedded in the journey of knowledge production,
and in this journey the very idea of South Asia emerges as a periphery. The
prefix South Asian used in the title of the book is less about the anthropolo-
gies/sociologies in individual country contexts, though Indian and Nepali SAS
constitute the crux of the book, but more on the questions of exclusion, oth-
erisation, hegemony and their binding presence in the way the disciplines like
SAS were practised in South Asia. I am hopeful, and as the book would
8
INTRODUCTION
eventually unfold, that we can still have the opportunity to develop our own
cross-cultural perspective as a ‘third eye’, or as a ‘mental window’, towards
non-Indian cosmologies, and correspondingly, non-Nepali cosmologies and
methodologies, to know each other anthropologically.
As such, South Asia has been conceived of, for the present purpose, as a
space of flows, connectivities and continuities—where civilisations meet,
cultures circulate, people move, relations percolate, ideas, memories, desires,
images, imagination much like goods and commodities seep into the consti-
tuting nation states, representing thereby permeable geographies. South
Asia has historically displayed gargantuan diversities, differences and varia-
tions over space and time, yet exhibiting certain central tendencies and con-
vincing recurring patterns. The book dwells upon these tendencies and
patterns and presumes South Asia as a liminal space divided but not frozen
into nation states. Cultural continuum, linguistic affinities, religious filia-
tions, familial relations, trade networks, political belongingness, diasporic
imagination, migration memories and similar seamless connections are
reflective of those patterns and central tendencies that define South Asia
beyond the limits of territorial boundaries of the constituting nation states.
Much like the contributors of a recent collective on South Asia (Perera,
Pathak & Kumar 2019) I argue that South Asia is much more than the
instrumental cooperation between constituting nation states however,
unlike them I do count nations in order to be South Asian. The consider-
ation of the entire Himalayan arc—spread through northern India, Nepal,
Bhutan, Darjeeling, Sikkim and the Northeast—for example, as part and
parcel of this South Asian imagination is rather impossible without count-
ing on the nations. Nations are permeable entities; they do saturate and
surpass political boundaries while nation states tend to territorialise them
although without much success. However, in the chapters that follow, I have
argued for a need to move away from assessing knowledge systems and
disciplines from contemporary notions of nationally defined geographies
and thus from the perspective of methodological nationalism.
The book begins by discussing the need for such conceptual repositioning,
as hinted above, in Chapter 2 where it proposes for an alternative epistemic
position that could enable one to comprehend the anthropological/socio-
logical essence of South Asia. Towards that end, this chapter problematises
the idea of South Asia and engages with the proposal of an epistemic South
Asia as the analytical key that binds rest of the chapters of the book. Chapter
3 examines the trend of Nepal studies in India and correspondingly India
studies in Nepali anthropology/sociology and attempts to show the length
and breadth of cross-country disciplinary engagements between India and
Nepal. Chapter 4 begins with a discussion of the journey of Indian anthro-
pology as carrier of the tradition of ‘other culture’ studies and shows how
the concerns for ‘studying one’s own culture’ has overshadowed Indian
anthropology over the years. Such a development has actually reduced the
scope for Indian anthropologists to look beyond India while doing
9
INTRODUCTION
anthropological research. In order to substantiate the argument, the chapter

delves into a critical engagement with the viewpoints of practitioners of dis-
ciplines. Chapter 5 develops an analytical framework to understand why
social anthropological and sociological inquiry in India has, by and large,
failed to surpass territorial limits of the nation state. Based on a brief review
of other South Asian country contexts and viewpoints of practitioners of the
discipline, the chapter shows how disciplines like social anthropology and
sociology remained heavily preoccupied with issues of national significance
and argues that nationalist tradition of doing social anthropology/sociology
is unfavourable for a South Asian imagining of the discipline to foster.
Chapter 6 situates the possibility of South Asian SAS on empirical grounds.
Dealing with two case studies, the chapter develops a roadmap of connected
sociologies as a possibility and outlines the methodological strands of what
the book proposes as South Asian SAS. The last chapter of the book (Chapter
7) may be read as a cautionary concluding statement about how the book
should not be read. Upon casual reading several issues discussed in the book
may lead readers misconstrue the intellectual position of the author. The last
chapter attempts to clarify some such possible confusions.
All said and done, the monograph intends to raise a critique, historicise
the problem, locate grey areas and finally offer a possible way out whose
validity is to be judged by its readers. It is often said that debate widens the
scope of social sciences, and in that spirit, I realise that the success of the
book largely depends on the amount of critical attention of a wider scholar-
ship, from within and outside the region, that it may fetch.
Notes
1 Throughout the book I have used Social Anthropology and Sociology rather
interchangeably. The purpose of doing so is not to dilute their disciplinary
uniqueness but to follow the existing practices—both in India and Nepal—
according to which their interchangeable use is not that awkward or unusual
especially in attempts of charting out their history and evolution.
2 For details vide the AASSREC website https://www.aassrec.org/
3 Alatas (1972, 1974, 1979, 1993), Atal (1981), Bennagen (1980), Fahim (1977),
Fahim & Helmer (1980), Hsu (1991), Lie (1996), Shin (1994) and Zghlal (1973)
among others have written extensively on the need of decolonising the social sci-
ences, in general, and sociology, in particular, and also pleaded for building up
indigenous social sciences in country specific contexts.
4 The first such publication came out in 1989 and was edited by Nikolai Genov
(1989), a second volume was edited by Albrow & King (1990) and the last but
not the least is the one edited by Patel (2009).
References
Alatas, Syed Farid. “The Captive Mind in Development Studies”. International
Social Science Journal 34.1 (1972): 9–25. Print.
——— “The Captive Mind and Creative Development.” International Social Science
Journal 36.4 (1974): 691–699. Print.
10
INTRODUCTION
——— “Towards an Asian Social Science Tradition.” New Quest 17 (1979): 265–
269. Print.
——— “On the Indigenization of Academic Discourse.” Alternatives 18.3 (1993):
307–338. Print.
Albrow, Martin, and Elizabeth King, eds. Globalization, Knowledge and Society.
London: Sage, 1990. Print.
Appadurai, Arjun. “Theory in Anthropology: Centre and Periphery”. Comparative
Studies in Society and History 28.2 (1986): 356–361. Print.
Atal, Yogesh, ed. Social Sciences in Asia. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1974. Print.
Atal, Yogesh. “The Call for Indigenization”. International Social Science Journal
33.1 (1981): 189–197. Print.
——— Indian Sociology from Where to Where: Footnotes to the History of the
Discipline. Jaipur: Rawat Publications, 2003. Print.
Bennagen, P. L. “Asianization of Anthropology”. Asian Studies 18 (1980): 1–26.
doi: https://www.asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-18-1980/bennagen.pdf,
Accessed on December 20, 2020.
Cardoso, Fernando H. “Foreword”. International Sociology 1.1 (1986): 1–2. Print.
Deyo, Frederic C. “Sociology in Singapore: A Western Social Science in a Non-
Western Environment”. International Review of Modern Sociology 17.1 (1987):
21–34. Print.
Dumont, Louis. “A Fundamental Problem in the Sociology of Caste”. Contributions
to Indian Sociology 9 (1966): 17–33. Print.
Fahim, Hussein. “Remarks on Foreign and Indigenous Anthropology: The
Perspectives of an Egyptian Anthropologist”. Human Organization 36.1 (1977):
80–85. Print.
Fahim, Hussein, and Katherine Helmer. “Indigenous Anthropology in Non-Western
Countries: A Further Elaboration”. Current Anthropology 21.5 (1980): 644–663.
Print.
Genov, Nikolai, ed. National Traditions in Sociology. London: Sage, 1989. Print.
Hsu, C. K. “The Formation and Transformation of a Research Paradigm: A Revisit
of Prof. Chen Shao-Hsing’s Article”. Chinese Journal of Sociology 15 (1991):
29–40. Print.
Jones, Delmos J. “Towards a Native Anthropology”. Human Organization 29.4
(1970): 251–259. Print.
Kim, Choong Soon. “The Role of the Non-Western Anthropologist Reconsidered:
Illusion Versus Reality”. Current Anthropology 31.2 (1990): 196–220. Print.
Kumar, Krishna. 1979. “Indigenization and Transnational Cooperation in the Social
Sciences”. Bonds Without Bondage: Explorations in Transnational Interactions.
Ed. Krishna Kumar. Honolulu: East-West Centre Book, 1979. 103–111. Print.
Lie, John. “Sociology of Contemporary Japan”. Current Sociology 44.1 (1996):
1–95. Print.
Madan, T. N. “For a Sociology of India”. Contributions to Indian Sociology 9
(1966): 9–16. Print.
Madge, Charles. “Sociology in Asia: A One-Day Conference”. British Journal of
Sociology 13.2 (1962): 95–97. Print.
Mukherjee, Partha N. “Sociology in South Asia: Indigenisation as Universalising
Social Science”. Sociological Bulletin 54.3 (2005): 311–324. Print.
Patel, Sujata, ed. The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions. London:
Sage, 2009. Print.
11
Introduction
Alatas, Syed Farid . “The Captive Mind in Development Studies”. International Social Science
Journal 34.1 (1972): 9–25. Print.
Alatas, Syed Farid . “The Captive Mind and Creative Development.” International Social
Science Journal 36.4 (1974): 691–699. Print.
Alatas, Syed Farid . “Towards an Asian Social Science Tradition.” New Quest 17 (1979):
265–269. Print.
Alatas, Syed Farid . “On the Indigenization of Academic Discourse.” Alternatives 18.3 (1993):
307–338. Print.
Albrow, Martin , and Elizabeth King , eds. Globalization, Knowledge and Society. London: Sage,
1990. Print.
Appadurai, Arjun . “Theory in Anthropology: Centre and Periphery”. Comparative Studies in
Society and History 28.2 (1986): 356–361. Print.
Atal, Yogesh , ed. Social Sciences in Asia. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1974. Print.
Atal, Yogesh . “The Call for Indigenization”. International Social Science Journal 33.1 (1981):
189–197. Print.
Atal, Yogesh . Indian Sociology from Where to Where: Footnotes to the History of the Discipline.
Jaipur: Rawat Publications, 2003. Print.
Bennagen, P. L. “Asianization of Anthropology”. Asian Studies 18 (1980): 1–26. doi:
https://www.asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-18-1980/bennagen.pdf, Accessed on
December 20, 2020 .
Cardoso, Fernando H. “Foreword”. International Sociology 1.1 (1986): 1–2. Print.
Deyo, Frederic C. “Sociology in Singapore: A Western Social Science in a Non-Western
Environment”. International Review of Modern Sociology 17.1 (1987): 21–34. Print.
Dumont, Louis . “A Fundamental Problem in the Sociology of Caste”. Contributions to Indian
Sociology 9 (1966): 17–33. Print.
Fahim, Hussein . “Remarks on Foreign and Indigenous Anthropology: The Perspectives of an
Egyptian Anthropologist”. Human Organization 36.1 (1977): 80–85. Print.
Fahim, Hussein , and Katherine Helmer . “Indigenous Anthropology in Non-Western Countries:
A Further Elaboration”. Current Anthropology 21.5 (1980): 644–663. Print.
Genov, Nikolai , ed. National Traditions in Sociology. London: Sage, 1989. Print.
Hsu, C. K. “The Formation and Transformation of a Research Paradigm: A Revisit of Prof. Chen
Shao-Hsing’s Article”. Chinese Journal of Sociology 15 (1991): 29–40. Print.
Jones, Delmos J. “Towards a Native Anthropology”. Human Organization 29.4 (1970): 251–259.
Print.
Kim, Choong Soon . “The Role of the Non-Western Anthropologist Reconsidered: Illusion
Versus Reality”. Current Anthropology 31.2 (1990): 196–220. Print.
Kumar, Krishna . 1979. “Indigenization and Transnational Cooperation in the Social Sciences”.
Bonds Without Bondage: Explorations in Transnational Interactions. Ed. Krishna Kumar .
Honolulu: East-West Centre Book, 1979. 103–111. Print.
Lie, John . “Sociology of Contemporary Japan”. Current Sociology 44.1 (1996): 1–95. Print.
Madan, T. N. “For a Sociology of India”. Contributions to Indian Sociology 9 (1966): 9–16. Print.
Madge, Charles . “Sociology in Asia: A One-Day Conference”. British Journal of Sociology 13.2
(1962): 95–97. Print.
Mukherjee, Partha N. “Sociology in South Asia: Indigenisation as Universalising Social
Science”. Sociological Bulletin 54.3 (2005): 311–324. Print.
Patel, Sujata , ed. The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions. London: Sage, 2009.
Print.
Perera, Sasanka , Dev Nath Pathak , and Ravi Kumar , eds. Against the Nation: Thinking Like
South Asians. New Delhi: Bloomsbury, 2019. Print.
Roulleau-Berger, Laurence , and Li Peilin , eds. Post-Western Sociology—From China to
Europe. London: Routledge, 2018. Print.
Saberwal, Satish . “The Problem”. Seminar 112 (1968): 10–13. Print.
Saberwal, Satish . “For a Sociology of India: Uncertain Transplants Anthropology and Sociology
in India.” Contributions to Indian Sociology 17.2 (1983): 301–315. Print.
Shin, Yong-Ha . “Suggestions for the Development of a Creative Korean Sociology”. Korean
Sociology in the 21st Century. Ed. Korean Sociological Association . Seoul: Munhak gwa
Chisongsa, 1994. 15–30. Print.
Smith, Harold E. “Sociology and the Study of Non-Western Societies”. The American
Sociologist 21.2 (1990): 150–163. Print.
Spickard, James V. “Ethnocentrism, Social Theory and Non-Western Sociologies of Religion”.
International Sociology 13.2 (1998): 173–194. Print.
Thakur, Manish . “The Politics of Indigenous Social Science: Invoking a Lucknow Sociologist”.
Society and Culture in South Asia 1.2 (2015): 109–126. Print.
Uberoi, J. P. S. “Science and Swaraj”. Contributions to Indian Sociology: New Series 2.1 (1968):
119–123. Print.
UNESCO . Round Table Conference on the Teaching of the Social Sciences in South Asia:
Papers and Proceedings of the Meeting. New Delhi: UNESCO South Asia Science Cooperation
Office, 1954. Print.
UNESCO . Social Sciences in Asia I: Bangladesh, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Thailand. Paris:
UNESCO, 1976. Print.
UNESCO . Social Sciences in Asia II: Afghanistan, Indonesia. Paris: UNESCO, 1977a. Print.
UNESCO . Social Sciences in Asia III: Burma, Mongolia, New Zealand. Paris: UNESCO, 1977b.
Print.
Unnithan, T. K. N. , Singh, Y. , Singhi, N. , and Deva, I. , eds. Sociology for India. New Delhi:
Prentice-Hall of India, 1967. Print.
Xie, Lizhong . 2021. “Post-Western Sociologies: What and Why?”. The Journal of Chinese
Sociology 8.5 (2021): 1–25. doi:10.1186/s40711-020-00141-8, Accessed on February 12, 2021
.
Zghlal, Abdelkader , and Hachmi, Karoui . “Decolonization and Social Science Research: The
Case of Tunisia”. Middle East Studies Association Bulletin 7.3 (1973): 11–27. Print.
Why South Asian Social Anthropology

Alatas, Syed Farid . Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science: Response to
Eurocentricism. New Delhi: Sage, 2006. Print.
Beck, Ulrich . “The Cosmopolitan Condition: Why Methodological Nationalism Fails”. Theory,
Culture and Society 24.7–8 (2007): 286–290. Print.
Beck, Ulrich . Pioneer in Cosmopolitan Sociology and Risk Society. Heidelberg: Springer, 2014.
Print.
Bhambra, Gurmeet K. Connected Sociologies. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014. Print.
Bose, Sugata , and Ayesha Jalal . Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.
Burawoy, Michael . “Rejoinder: For a Subaltern Global Sociology”. Current Sociology 56.3
(2008): 435–444. Print.
Chen, Kuan-Hsing . “Positioning Positions: A New Internationalist Localism of Cultural Studies”.
Positions 2.3 (1994): 680–710. Print.
Chen, Kuan-Hsing . Asia as Method: Towards De-Imperialization. Durham & London: Duke
University Press, 2010. Print.
Chhetri, Ram B. , and Om P. Gurung , eds. Anthropology and Sociology of Nepal: Cultures,
Societies, Ecology and Development. Kathmandu: Sociological and Anthropological Society of
Nepal (SASON), 1999. Print.
Connell, Raewyn . Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science.
London: Polity, 2007. Print.
de Sousa Santos, Boaventura . 2007. “Beyond Abyssal Thinking: From Global Lines to
Ecologies of Knowledges”. Review 30.1 (2007): 45–89. Print.
de Sousa Santos, Boaventura . Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide.
London: Routledge, 2014. Print.
Dixit, Kanak Mani , eds. The Southasian Sensibility: A Himal Reader. New Delhi: Sage, 2012.
Print.
Go, Julian . “For a Postcolonial Sociology”. Theory and Society 42.1 (2013): 25–55. Print.
Hall, Stuart . “The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power”. Formations of Modernity. Ed.
Stuart Hall and Bram Gieben . Cambridge: Polity, 1992. 275–332. Print.
Kaviraj, Sudipta . “A Strange Love of the Land: Identity, Poetry and Politics in the (Un)Making of
South Asia”. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal [Online] 10 (2014). doi:
10.4000/samaj.3756, accessed on June 20, 2020 .
Kumar, Ravi , Dev Nath Pathak , and Sasanka Perera , eds. Sociology and Social Anthropology
in South Asia. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan, 2018. Print.
Mignolo, Walter D. “Foreword. On Pluriversality and Multipolarity”. Constructing the Pluriverse.
Ed. Bernd Reiter . Durham: Duke University Press, 2018. 9–16. Print.
Mukherji, Partha N . 2008. “Universalising Social Science: Generalising Beyond the Context”.
Sociological Bulletin 57.2 (2008): 18–28. Print.
Mukherji, Partha Nath , and Chandan Sengupta , eds. Indigeneity and Universality in Social
Sciences: A South Asian Response. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2004. Print.
Niranjana, Tejaswini , Wang Xiaoming , and Nitya Vasudevan , eds. Genealogies of the Asian
Present: Situating Inter-Asia Cultural Studies. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan, 2015. Print.
Oommen, T. K. “The Pasts and Futures of Anthropology and Sociology: Implications of Shifting
Locations”. Sociological Bulletin 59.3 (2010): 303–322. Print.
Pathak, Dev Nath , ed. Another South Asia. Delhi: Primus Books, 2018. Print.
Pathak, Dev , and Sasanka Perera . “Mooting South Asia: Utopias and Possibilities Beyond
Geo-Political Calculus”. Sociological Bulletin 64.2 (2015): 219–226. Print.
Pollock, Sheldon . “What is South Asian Knowledge Good for?” South Asia Institute Papers.
South Asia Institute, Heidelberg University. 1 (2014). doi: 10.11588/xarep.00003183, accessed
on December 20, 2020 .
Sarkar, Swatahsiddha , and Babika Khawas . “The Influences of Indian Sociology in Nepal:
Need for Regional Imagining”. Studies in Nepali Society and History 22.1 (2017): 119–156.
Print.
Wallerstein, Immanuel . Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on
the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1996.
Print.
Xie, Lizhong . “Post-Western Sociologies: What and Why?” The Journal of Chinese Sociology
8.5 (2021): 1–25. doi. 10.1186/s40711-020-00141-8, accessed on February 12, 2021 .
Locating Nepal/India in Indian/Nepali Social Anthropology

1
Arora, Vibha , and N. Jayaram . “Introduction: Democracy in the Himalayan Region”. Routing
Democracy in the Himalayas: Experiments and Experiences. Eds. Vibha Arora and N. Jayaram
. New Delhi: Routledge, 2013. 1–26. Print.
Atal, Yogesh . ICSSR Survey of Advances in Research: Sociology and Social Anthropology in
India. New Delhi: Pearson, 2009. Print.
Banerjee, N. R. “In the Trait of Neolithic Habitations in Nepal and Sikkim”. Journal of the Indian
Anthropological Society 6.2 (1971): 145–159. Print.
Basnet, Chudamani , and A. S. Sandhya “Nepali Domestic Workers in New Delhi: Strategies
and Agency”. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 13 (2019): 49–57. Print.
Basnet, Chudamani . ‘Female Employers and Their Maids in New Delhi: “This is Our Culture”’.
South Asia Research 40.2 (2020): 282–298. Print.
Berreman, Gerald D. 1968. “Review of Gopal Sing Nepali’s Newar”. American Anthropologist
(NS) 70.5 (1968): 992. Print.
Béteille, André . Varieties of Democracy: Mahesh Chandra Regmi Lecture. Kathmandu: Social
Science Baha, 2012. Print.
Béteille, André . “The Varieties of Democracy”. Economic and Political Weekly 47.8 (2013):
33–40. Print.
Bhandari, Bishnu . “The Past and Future of Sociology in Nepal”. Occasional Papers in
Sociology and Anthropology 2 (1990): 13–23. Print.
Bharati, Agehananda . “The Himalayas as a Culture Area: A Novel Methodological Perspective”.
Contemporary India: Some Sociological Perspectives. Ed. Giri Raj Gupta . Delhi: Vikas, 1976.
99–116. Print.
Bharati, Agehananda . “Actual and Ideal Himalayas: Hindu Views of the Mountains”. Himalayan
Anthropology: The Indo-Tibetan Interface. Ed. James F. Fisher . Hague: Mouton Publishers,
1978. 77–82. Print.
Bhasin, M. K. “A Study of the Distribution of Mid-Digital Hair among Newars of Nepal”. Acta
Geneticae Medicae et Demellologiae 16.2 (1967a): 199–213. Print.
Bhasin, M. K. . “The Frequency of Colour Blindness in the Newars of Nepal Valley”. Acta
Genetica et Statistica Medica 17.5 (1967b): 454–459. Print.
Bhasin, M. K. . A Genetic Survey among the Newars of Nepal. PhD diss., Department of
Anthropology, University of Delhi, 1968. Print.
Bhasin, M. K. . “Ear Lobe Attachment Among the Newars of Nepal”. Human Heredity 19.5
(1969): 506–508. Print.
Bhasin, M. K. . “The Blood Groups of the Newars of Nepal”. Human Biology 42.3 (1970a):
369–376. Print.
Bhasin, M. K. . “Group Differences Among Newars of Nepal for Palmar Interdigital Areas”.
Human Heredity 20.6 (1970b): 604–608. Print.
Bhasin, M. K. . “Group Differences Among Newars of Nepal for Somatometry”. Zeitschrift für
Morphologie und Anthropologie 63.2 (1971a): 192–214. Print.
Bhasin, M. K. . “Group Differences Among Newars of Nepal for Palmar Dermatoglyphics”.
Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 63.1(1971b): 110–120. Print.
Bhasin, M. K. . “A Genetic Study on the Newars of Nepal Valley”. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 40.1 (1974): 67–74. Print.
Bhasin, M. K. , and G. K. Kshatriya . “Genetic Diversity Among the Newars of Nepal”. Human
Heredity 33.2 (1983): 88–92. Print.
Bhattachan, Krishna B. “Ethnopolitics and Ethnodevelopment: An Emerging Paradigm in
Nepal”. State, Leadership and politics in Nepal. Ed. Dhruba Kumar . Kirtipur, Nepal: CNAS,
Tribhuvan University, 1995. 124–147. Print.
Bhattachan, Krishna B. . “Sociological and Anthropological Research in Nepal: Western
Adaptation Versus Indigenization”. Social Sciences in Nepal: Some Thoughts and Search for
Direction. Ed. Prem K. Khatry . Kirtipur, Nepal: CNAS, Tribhuvan University, 1997. 7–30. Print.
Bhattachan, Krishna B. , and James F. Fisher . “Contemporary Sociology in Nepal”.
International Handbook of Contemporary Developments in Sociology. Eds. Raj P. Mohan and
Arthur S. Wilke . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994. 731–742. Print.
Bista, Dor Bahadur . “Nepal School of Sociology/Anthropology”. Occasional Papers in Sociology
and Anthropology. 1 (1987): 6–10. Print.
Bista, Khem Bahadur . “The State of Anthropology in Nepal”. Social Science in Nepal. Ed.
Prayag Raj Sharma . Kathmandu: Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies, Tribhuvan University,
1974. 39–44. Print.
Budhathoki, Shak Bahadur , Ramita Maharjan , and Pratyoush Onta . Bibliography of Indian
Scholarship on Nepal, 2015. Web.
www.martinchautari.org.Np/files/BibliographyOfIndianScholarshipOnNepal_15March2015.
Accessed on June 20, 2015 .
Chattopadhyay, K. P. “An Essay on the History of Newar Culture”. Journal and Proceedings of
the Asiatic Society of Bengal (N.S.) 19.10 (1924): 465–560. Print.
Chauhan, Karan Singh . Peasant Organization in Nepal. PhD diss. Chaudhury Charan Singh
University, 1982. Web. http://hdl.handle.net/10603/18050. Accessed on: March 20, 2015 .
Chhetri, Ram B. , and Om P. Gurung . “Anthropology and Sociology of Nepal: Retrospect and
Prospects”. Anthropology and Sociology of Nepal: Cultures, Societies, Ecology and
Development. Eds. Ram B. Chhetri and Om P. Gurung . Kathmandu: SASON, 1999. 1–9. Print.
Dahal, Dilli Ram . “Trends in Social Science Research in Nepal”. Nepali Journal of
Contemporary Studies 9.1 (2009): 1–20. Print.
Dahal, Dilli R. , and Chaitanya Mishra . “Nepali Emigrants in India”. CNAS Forum Current Issue
4 (1987): 1–18. Print.
Dastider, Madhusree Ghosh , and Ranjan Gupta . “Age Changes in Anthropometric Characters
Among the Sherpas of the Eastern Himalaya: Altitude Effect”. Journal of the Indian
Dastider, Mollica . “Muslim Mobilization and the State in Nepal, 1951–95”. European Bulletin of
Himalayan Research 18 (2000a): 20–35. Print.
Dastider, Mollica . “The Muslims of Nepal’s Terai”. Economic and Political Weekly 35.10
(2000b): 766–769. Print.
Dastider, Mollica . Understanding Nepal: Muslims in a Plural Society. New Delhi: Har-Anand
Publications, 2007. Print.
Deshpande, Satish . “Social Science Research Capacity in South Asia: Some Questions for
Discussion”. Economic and Political Weekly 37.35 (2002): 3628–3630. Print.
Devkota, Padam Lal . “Anthropology, Society and Development in Nepal: A Native Perspective”.
Occasional Papers in Sociology and Anthropology 7 (2001): 26–40. Print.
Fisher, James . ‘“Romanticism” and “Development” in Nepalese Anthropology’. Occasional
Papers in Sociology and Anthropology 1 (1987): 29–42. Print.
Gaborieau, Marc . “Muslims in the Hindu Kingdom of Nepal”. Muslim Communities of South
Asia. Ed. T.N. Madan . New Delhi: Vikas, 1976. 84–105. Print.
Gaurab, K. C. , and Pranab Kharel . “Locating Nepalese Mobility: A Historical Reappraisal with
Reference to North East India, Burma and Tibet”. Kathmandu School of Law Review. 6.2
(2018): 87–104. Print.
Gaurab, K. C. and Pranab Kharel . “Introduction”. Practices of Sociology in Nepal. Eds. Pranab
Kharel and K. C. Gaurab . Kathmandu: Vajra Publications Inc. Pvt. Ltd., 2021. 1-33. Print.
Gupta, Ranjan . “Physical Environmental and Cultural Determinants of Demographic
Characteristics Among the Sherpas of High Altitude Nepal”. Journal of the Indian
Gupta, Ranjan et al. “Altitude and Human Biology: A Comparative Study of Himalayan, Andean
and Ethiopian Data”. Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society 22.2–3 (1987): 101–180.
Print.
Gurung, Binit . “Negotiating Difference: Being Indian Nepali in Delhi”. SINHAS 23.1 (2018):
3–31. Print.
Gurung, Ganesh Man . “Nepalmà Samàjsàstra/Mànavsàstra Visayako Adhyayan-Anusandhàn”.
Samàj 1 (2000): 9–14. Print.
Gyawali, Dipak . “Patna, Delhi and Environmental Activism: Institutional Forces Behind Water
Conflict in Bihar”. Water Nepal 6.1 (1998): 67–115. Print.
Gyawali, Dipak and Ajaya Dixit . “Mahakali Impasse: A Futile Paradigm’s Bequested Travails”.
Domestic Conflict and Crisis of Governability in Nepal. Ed. Dhruba Kumar . Kathmandu: CNAS,
2000. 236–304. Print.
Hachhethu, Krishna . “Social Sciences in Nepal”. Contributions to Nepalese Studies 29.1
(2002a): 49–95. Print.
Hachhethu, Krishna . “Social Sciences Research in Nepal”. Economic and Political Weekly
37.35 (2002b): 3631–3643. Print.
Hamilton, Francis Buchanan . An Account of the Kingdom of Nepal: And of the Territories
Annexed to this Dominion by the House of Gorkha. Edinburgh: Archibald & Co., 1819. Print.
Hodgson, B. H. Essays on the Languages, Literature, and Religion of Nepal and Tibet: 2 Parts.
London: Trubner, 1874. Print.
Jha, Makhan . The Sacred Complex in Janakpur: Indological, Sociological, Anthropological and
Philosophical Study of Hindu Civilization. Allahabad: United Publishers, 1971. Print.
Jha, Makhan . Aspects of a Great Traditional City in Nepal. Varanasi: Kishore Vidyaniketan,
1978. Print.
Jha, Makhan . “The Sacred Complex in Himalayas: A Study in Ecological and Methodological
Perspectives of Indian Civilization”. Journal of Social Research 24.2 (1981): 61–71. Print.
Jha, Makhan . “Hindu Sects and Traditions of the Central Himalayas: An Anthropological
Perspective”. The Himalayan Heritage. Ed. Manish Kumar Raha . New Delhi: Gyan Publishing
House, 1987. 215–222. Print.
Jha, Makhan . The Sacred Complex of Kathmandu, Nepal: Religion of the Himalayan Kingdom.
New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House, 1995. Print.
Jodhka, Surinder S. , and Ghanshyam Shah . “Comparative Contexts of Discrimination: Caste
and Untouchability in South Asia”. Economic and Political Weekly 45.48 (2010): 99–106. Print.
Kapoor, A. K. , and P. K. Patra . “Selection Intensity in a High Altitude Tribe of Central
Himalayas”. Indian Anthropologist 28.2 (1998): 81–87. Print.
Kharel, Pranab , and K. C. Gaurab . “Bibliography of the Works of Prayag Raj Sharma” 1
(2016). Web.
http://www.martinchautari.org.np./files/BibliographyOfTheWorksOfPrayagRajSharma_By_Prana
bKharelAndGaurabKC_2016.pdf. Accessed on October 20, 2020 .
Kirkpatrick, William . An Account of the Kingdom of Nepaul: Being the Substance of
Observations Made During a Mission to that Country, in the Year 1793. London: W. Miller,
1811. Print.
Luintel, Youba Raj . “Why Sociology and Anthropology Department at Tribhuvan University had
to Split? An Inside Story of Political-Academic Muddling”. Practices of Sociology in Nepal. Eds.
Pranab Kharel and K. C. Gaurab . Kathmandu, Nepal: Vajra Publications Inc. Pvt. Ltd., 2021.
35–78. Print.
Macdonald, A. W. “Sociology and Anthropology in Nepal”. Social Science in Nepal. Ed. Prayag
Raj Sharma . Kathmandu: Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies, Tribhuvan University, 1974.
27–38. Print.
Malik, S. L. . “Physical Growth and Altitude: Comparison of High-Land Low-Land Bods of the
Western Himalayas”. Indian Anthropologist. 17.2 (1987): 9–48. Print.
Messerschmidt, Donald A. and Jyoti Sharma . “Hindu Pilgrimage in the Nepal Himalayas”.
Current Anthropology. 22.5 (1981): 571–572. Print.
Mishra, Chaitanya . “Social Research in Nepal: A Critique and a Proposal”. Contributions to
Nepalese Studies. 11.2 (1984): 1–10. Print.
Mishra, Chaitanya . “Towards a Theoretical Framework of Regional Cooperation in South Asia”.
Regional Cooperation and Development in South Asia: Vol-2. Ed. Bhabani Sen Gupta . New
Delhi: South Asian Publisher, 1986. 131–150. Print.
Mishra, Chaitanya . “Indo-Nepal Relations: A View from Kathmandu”. External Compulsions of
South Asian Politics. Ed. Shelton Kodikara . New Delhi: Sage, 1993. 179–193. Print.
Mishra, Chaitanya . “Sociology in Nepal: Underdevelopment Amidst Growth”. Contributions to
Nepalese Studies. 32.1 (2005): 93–128. Print.
Mishra, Chaitanya . et al. Nepalma Aantarikra Antarrastriya Basai Sarai. Kathmandu: National
Commission on Population, 1983. Print.
Mishra, Chaitanya , and Tulsi Ram Pandey . “Migration”. Population and Development in Nepal.
Eds. Raghab Dhoj Pant and Sunil Acharya . Kathmandu: National Population Commission,
1988. 87–119. Print.
Mishra, Chaitanya , Laya Upreti , and Tulsi Ram Pandey . Seasonal Agricultural Labour
Migration from India to the Nepal Tarai. Tribhuvan University: Centre for Nepal and Asian
Studies, 2000. Print.
Mishra, Mira . “Trafficking of Women in South Asia”. Contributions to Nepalese Studies. 29.1
(2002): 129–141. Print.
Mondal, Sekh Rahim . “Muslims of Nepal: Aspects of Their Economy, Society and Culture in
Relation to Their Habitat”. Islam and the Modern Age. 28.3 (1997): 198–217. Print.
Mondal, Sekh Rahim . “Muslims of Nepal: Aspects of Their Economy, Society and Culture in
Relation to Habitat”. Religious Minorities in South Asia: Selected Essays on Post-Colonial
Situation. Eds. Monirul Hussain and Lipi Ghosh . New Delhi: Manak Publications, 2002.
107–126. Print.
Mukherji, Partha N. “Class and Ethnic Movements: Democracy and Nation-Building in India”.
Science and People 3.1 (1991): 1–25. Print.
Mukherji, Partha N. . “Social Conflicts in India: Nation-Building or Nation Destroying? An
Agenda for Urgent Research.” Man and Development 14.4 (1992): 21–32. Print.
Mukherji, Partha N. . “The Indian State in Crisis? Nationalism and Nation Building”. Sociological
Bulletin 43.1 (1994): 21–49. Print.
Mukherji, Partha N. . “Nation-State Reformulated: Interrogating Received Wisdom”. Man and
Development. 21.4 (1999): 51–68. Print.
Mukherji, Partha N. . “Western Construction of Multiculturalism and Challenges to Nation-State
Building in Nepal and India”. Social Sciences in a Multicultural World: Proceedings of the
International Conference. Eds. Kailash N. Pyakuryal et al. Kathmandu: SASON and Swiss
National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South, 2008. 20–36. Print.
Nepali, Gopal Singh . “Changes in Rigidity and Flexibility of Caste in the Kathmandu Valley”.
Heritage of the Kathmandu Valley: Proceedings of an International Conference. Eds. Niels
Gutschow and Axel Michaels . Sankt Augustin: VGH-Wissenschaftsverlag, 1987. 317–332.
Print.
Nepali, Gopal Singh . “Some Sociological Aspects of Development in the Eastern Himalayas”.
Unpublished Paper for Seminar on ‘Problems and Strategies of Development in the Eastern
Himalayas’. University of North Bengal: Centre for Himalayan Studies, 1988a. Print.
Nepali, Gopal Singh . The Newars: An Ethno-Sociological Study of a Himalayan Community.
Kathmandu: Himalayan Booksellers, 1988b. Print.
Onta, Pratyoush . “Where is the ‘SAARC Process’ in Academia?”. Himal South Asian, 1 March
1998 http://old.himalmag.com/component/content/article/2443-where-is-the-qsaarc-processqin-
academia.html. Accessed March 12, 2015 .
Onta, Pratyoush . “CNAS Under Panchayat”. The Kathmandu Post 27 July 2001a. Print.
Onta, Pratyoush . “Challenges Facing CNAS”. The Kathmandu Post 10 August 2001b. Print.
Onta, Pratyoush . “Regional Area Studies in South Asia: Dark Days Ahead”. Nepali Journal of
Contemporary Studies. 1.2 (2001c): 60–89. Print.
Onta, Pratyoush . “Does Academia Matter to the Shaping of Mutual Perceptions in South
Asia?”. India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions. Ed. Vishal Chandra . New Delhi:
Pentagon Press, 2015. 3–17. Print.
Onta, Pratyoush . “Nepali Historical Amnesia”. The Kathmandu Post 10 March 2018. Print.
Oommen, T. K. “Evolving Inclusive Societies Through Constitutions: The Case of Nepal”.
Contributions to Nepalese Studies 37.1 (2010): 1–16. Print.
Parajuli, Lokranjan . “Training Sociology Graduates in Tribhuvan University: Some Reflections
and Comments”. Practices of Sociology in Nepal. Eds. Pranab Kharel and K. C. Gaurab .
Kathmandu, Nepal: Vajra Publications Inc. Pvt. Ltd., 2021. 139–164. Print.
Pathak, Dev Nath . “Public Sociology in South Asia During Lockdown”. Global Dialogue
10.3(2020). Web. https://globaldialogue.isa-sociology.org/public-sociology-in-south-asia-during-
lockdown/. Accessed on February 20, 2021 .
Geo-political Calculus”. Sociological Bulletin 64.2 (2015): 219–226. Print.
Poudel, Phanindeshwar . “The Case of Nepali Watchmen in Bombay”. Occasional Papers in
Pradhan, Prachanda . Patterns of Irrigation Organization in Nepal. Colombo: International
Irrigation Management Institute, 1989. Print.
Pradhan, Rajendra and Ujjwal Pradhan . “Staking a Claim: Law, Politics and Water Rights in
Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems in Nepal”. The Role of Law in Natural Resources
Management. Eds. Joep Spiertz and Melanie G. Wiber . Hague: VUGA, 1996. 61–76. Print.
Pradhan, Rajendra , K. A. Haq , and Ujjwal Pradhan . “Law, Rights and Equity: Implications of
State Intervention in Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems”. Water Rights, Conflict and Policy.
Eds. Rajendra Pradhan et al. Colombo: International Irrigation Management Institute, 1997a.
11–134. Print.
Pradhan, Rajendra et al. , eds. Water Rights, Conflict and Policy. Colombo: International
Irrigation Management Institute, 1997b. Print.
Pradhan, Ujjwal . Property Rights and State Intervention in Hill Irrigation Systems in Nepal. PhD
diss., Cornell University, 1990. Print.
Pradhan, Ujjwal . “Farmers’ Water Rights and Their Relation to Data Collection and
Management”. From Farmers’ Fields to Data Fields and Back. Eds. J. Sowerine , Ganesh
Shivakoti et al. Kathmandu: International Irrigation Management Institute and IAAS, 1994.
187–198. Print.
Prasad, Bimal , and Urmila Phadnis . “Area Studies in India”. A Survey of Research in Political
Science: International Studies. Eds. Rasheeduddin Khan et al. New Delhi: Allied Publishers,
1988. 71–202. Print.
Prasain, Dinesh Raj . “Subaltern Transnationalism, Citizenship and Identity: A Case Study
among Labor Migrants from Nepal in a Delhi neighbourhood”. PhD Thesis. CSSS, School of
Social Sciences, JNU, 2010. Web http://hdl.handle.net/10603/18702. Accessed on March 24,
2015 .
Pyakurel, Uddhab P. D. “Women in Armed Conflict: Lessons to be Learnt from Telangana
People’s Struggle”. Contributions to Nepalese Studies 33.2 (2006): 237–248. Print.
Pyakurel, Uddhab P. D. . “Some Reflections on Nepal-India Relations in the Context of Nepali
Nationalism.” Think India Quarterly 13.4 (2011): 305–318. Print.
Pyakurel, Uddhab P. D. . “Changing Pattern of Nepal-India Relations and Consequences”. Indo-
Nepal Relations. Ed. Monika Mandal . New Delhi: KW Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 2014. 103–114. Print.
Rai, Navin Kumar . “Critique on Sociology and Anthropology in Nepal”. Social Science in Nepal.
Ed. Prayag Raj Sharma . Kathmandu: Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies, Tribhuvan
University, 1974. 61–69. Print.
Ray, Amit . “The Pasupatinatha Temple: Nepal”. Man in India 49.1 (1969): 10–23. Print.
Roy Burman, J. J. “Formation of Nepali Caste System”. Himalaya: Man and Nature 11.4 (1987):
10–13. Print.
Sarkar, Swatahsiddha . Nepal Studies in India: A Survey of Themes and Perspectives in Indian
Sociological and Social Anthropological Literature. Kathmandu: Unpublished paper submitted to
Martin Chautari, 2016.
Sarkar, Swatahsidsdha , and B. Khawas . “The Influences of Indian Sociology in Nepal: Need
for Regional Imagining”. Studies in Nepali History and Society 22.1 (2017): 119–156. Print.
Sharma, Jeevan Raj . “Practices of Male Labour Migration from the Hills of Nepal to India in
Development Discourses: Which Pathology?”. Gender, Technology and Development 12.3
(2008): 303–323. Print.
Sharma, Jeevan Raj . “Marginal but Modern: Young Nepali Labour Migrants in India”. Young
21.4 (2013). 347–362. Print.
Sharma, Jeevan Raj . “Migration, Marginality, and Modernity: Hill Men’s Journey to Mumbai”.
Facing Globalization in the Himalayas: Belonging and the Politics of the Self. Eds. Gérard Toffin
and Joanna Pfaff Czarnecka . New Delhi: Sage, 2014. 119–133. Print.
Sharma, Jeevan Raj . Crossing the Border to India: Youth, Migration, and Masculinities in Nepal
(Global Youth). Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2018. Print.
Sharma, Jeevan Raj . “Secular India and Hindu Nepal: Convergences and Divergences”.
Nation-Building in South Asia. Eds. Ramakant and B.C. Upreti . University of Jaipur: Centre for
South Asian Study, 1991. 125–141. Print.
Shukla, Deepitma . “The Muslim Community in Nepal”. South Asian Studies 32.2 (1997): 75–87.
Print.
Shukla, Deepitma . “India-Nepal Relations: Problems and Prospects”. The Indian Journal of
Political Science 67.2 (2006): 355–374. Print.
Singh, S. P. “Variations in Adult Anthropometry, Child Growth and Development in the Western
Himalayas: A Review”. Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society. 22.2–3 (1987): 181–204.
Print.
Singh, Indera P. , A. K. Kapoor , and Satwanti Kapoor . “Morpho-Physiological and
Demographic Status of the Western Himalayan Population”. Journal of the Indian
Anthropological Society 22.2–3 (1987): 205–225. Print.
Singh, Yogendra , ed. ICSSR Research Surveys and Explorations: Indian Sociology: Vol I–III.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print.
Sinha, A. C. . “Recent Trends in the Himalayan Studies: An Appraisal of the Significant
Publications in 1975–76”. Indian Anthropologist 6.2 (1976): 46–60. Print.
Sinha, A. C. . Studies in the Himalayan Communities: Text and Context. New Delhi: Books
Today, 1979. Print.
Sinha, A. C. . “The Divided Communities on the Eastern Himalayan Frontier”. The Himalayas:
Profiles of Modernisation and Adaptation. Ed. S. K. Chaube . Delhi: Sterling, 1985. 172–184.
Print.
Sinha, A. C. . “Lhotshampa, Madhesi, Nepamul: The Deprived of Bhutan, Nepal and India”.
Himal South Asian, 1 May 2008. Web. http://old.himalmag.com/component/content/article/1023-
lhotshampa-madhesi-nepamul-the-deprived-of-bhutan-nepal-and-india.html. Accessed on
February 21, 2015 .
Sinha, A. C. . “Lhotshampa Eclipse?”. Himal South Asian 24.4 (2011): 56–57. Print.
Sinha, A. C. , and T. B. Subba , eds. The Nepalis in Northeast India: A Community in Search of
Indian Identity. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company, 2003. Print.
Sinha, A. C. et al. eds. Indian Nepalis: Issues and Perspectives. New Delhi: Concept Publishing
Company, 2009. Print.
Srinivas, M. N. , M. S. A. Rao , and A. M. Shah , eds. A Survey Research in Sociology and
Social Anthropology-Vols. I-II. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1974. Print.
Srivastava, Gouri . “Envisioning the Common Historical and Cultural Past, Gender Concerns
and Conflict Management and Social Tensions: An Analysis of Upper Primary Textbooks of
Social Studies of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal”. Social Change 36.2 (2006): 83–97. Print.
Srivastava, Vinay K. “An Interview with Alan Macfarlane.” Indian Anthropologist 21.1 (1991):
57–75. Print.
Subba, T. B. “Caste and Adaptation: The Case of the Nepalis in Darjeeling”. The Himalayas:
Profiles of Modernisation and Adaptation. Ed. S. K. Chaube . New Delhi: Sterling, 1985a.
72–90. Print.
Subba, T. B. “Caste Relations in Nepal and India”. Social Change 15.4 (1985b): 23–26. Print.
Subba, T. B. . “Limbu Ethnicity at Crossroads”. The Himalayan Miscellany 4 (1990): 40–45.
Print.
Subba, T. B. . Politics of Culture: A Study of Three Kirata Communities in the Eastern
Himalayas. Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 1999a. Print.
Subba, T. B. . “Limbu Nationalism and Integration”. Ethnicity, Nationalism and Integration. Ed.
Ajit K. Danda . Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1999b. 180–189. Print.
Subba, T. B. . “Nepal and the Indian Nepalis”. State of Nepal. Eds. Kanak Mani Dixit and Shastri
Ramachandaran . Lalitpur: Himal Books, 2002. 119–136. Print.
Subba, T. B. . “Living the Nepali Diaspora in India: An Autobiographical Essay”. Zeitschriftfür
Ethnologie 133.2 (2008): 213–232. Print.
Subba, T. B. . “‘Are You from Nepal?’ Interrogating the Monolithic Identity of Nepalis in India”.
Identity, Cultural Pluralism and State: South Asia in Perspective. Eds. N. K. Das and V. R. Rao .
New Delhi: ASI and Macmillan, 2009. 148–157. Print.
Subba, T. B. . “Clear Mountains, Blurred Horizons: Limbu Perception of Their Physical World”.
Culture and the Environment in the Himalaya. Ed. Arjun Guneratne . New York: Routledge,
2010. 114–131. Print.
Subba, Tanka B. , and A. C. Sinha , eds. Nepali Diaspora in a Globalised Era. New Delhi:
Routledge, 2016. Print.
Subedi, Madhusudan . “Caste System: Theories and Practices in Nepal”. Himalayan Journal of
Sociology & Anthropology 4 (2010): 134–159. Print.
Subedi, Madhusudan . “Some Theoretical Considerations on Caste”. Dhaulagiri Journal of
Subedi, Madhusudan . “Caste in South Asia: From Ritual Hierarchy to Politics of Difference”.
Politeja 40 (2016): 319–340. Print.
Subedi, Madhusudan , and Devendra Upreti . The State of Sociology and Anthropology:
Teaching and Research in Nepal. Kathmandu: Martin Chautari, 2014. Print.
Sundar, Aparna , and Nandini Sundar , eds. Civil Wars in South Asia. New Delhi: Sage, 2014.
Print.
Sundar, Nandini , Patricia Uberoi , and Satish Deshpande . “Indian Anthropology and Sociology:
Towards a History”. Economic and Political Weekly 35.24 (2000): 1998–2002. Print.
Toffin, Gérard . “Fifty Years of French Anthropology in Nepal”. SINHAS 14.2 (2009): 261–301.
Print.
Uberoi, Patricia , Satish Deshpande , and Nandini Sundar . “Introduction: The
Professionalisation of Indian Anthropology and Sociology – People, Places, and Institutions”.
Anthropology in the East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology. Eds. Patricia Uberoi ,
Nandini Sundar , and Satish Deshpande . Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2010. 1–63. Print.
Vansittart, E. Tribes, Clans and Castes of Nepal. Gurgaon: Vintage Books, 1894 (reprint 1992).
Print.
Vidyarthi, L. P. The Sacred Complex in Hindu Gaya. 2nd ed. Delhi: Concept Publishing, 1978.
Print.
Vir, Dharam . Social Background of College Students in Nepal. PhD diss., Chaudhary Charan
Singh University, 1979. Print.
Vir, Dharam . “Higher Education and Modernisation in Nepal”. The Eastern Anthropologist 38.4
(1981): 317–321. Print.
Vir, Dharam . “Education and Social Stratification in Nepal”. Indian Journal of Social Work 43.3
(1982): 321–326. Print.
Vir, Dharam . Education and Polity in Nepal: An Asian Experiment. New Delhi: Northern Book
Centre, 1988. Print.
Visvanathan, Shiv . “Official Hegemony and Contesting Pluralisms”. World Anthropologies:
Disciplinary Transformations within Systems of Power. Eds. Gustavo Lins Ribeiro and Arturo
Escobar . Oxford: Berg, 2006. 239–258. Print.
Walter, H. , et al. “Palmar Dermatoglyphic Creases Among Eleven Population Groups of
Himalayas”. Human Ecology 2.1 (1991): 103–106. Print.
Yadav, Sohan Ram . Sociological Study of Some Tarai Villagers of Nepal. PhD diss., Banaras
Hindu University, 1982. Web http://hdl.handle.net/10603/321366 Accessed on July 16, 2016 .
Yadav, Sohan Ram . Nepal: Feudalism and Rural Formation. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications,
1984. Print.
Yadav, Sohan Ram . “Feudal System and Rural Formation in the Villages of Nepal Tarai”.
Indian Journal of Nepalese Studies 1.1 (1987a): 65–73. Print.
Yadav, Sohan Ram . “The Cultural Life of Poor Peasant in Nepal Tarai”. The Journal of
Sociological Studies 6 (1987b): 162–172. Print.
Yadav, Sohan Ram . “Tarai: The Periphery of Nepal: A Socio-Cultural and Demographic View”.
B.H.U. Journal of Social Sciences 7.9–10 (1987–88a): 306–318. Print.
Yadav, Sohan Ram . “Poverty Alleviation Programmes in Nepal”. Rural Integration 6.11–12
(1987–88b): 31–58. Print.
Yadav, Sohan Ram . “Poverty and Rural Transformation: A Case Study of Nepal”. Rural
Integration 8.14–15 (1989–90): 28–37. Print.
Yadav, Sohan Ram . Rural and Agrarian Social Structure of Nepal. New Delhi: Commonwealth
Publishers, 1992a. Print.
Yadav, Sohan Ram . “Problems of Development in Nepal”. Democratic Nepal. Ed. M. D.
Dharmadasani . Varanasi: Shalimar Publishing House, 1992b. 144–176. Print.
Yadav, Sohan Ram . “Agrarian Society and Social Change: Problems and Prospects in the
Context of Nepal Tarai”. Indian Journal of Asian Affairs 6.1–2 (1993): 78–102. Print.
Yadav, Sohan Ram . “Migration Problem in Nepal Tarai”. Nepal in Transition. Ed. M. D.
Dharmdasani . Jaipur: Rajdhani Publications, 1997. 46–66. Print.
Yadav, Sohan Ram . “Social Structure and Change in Nepal Tarai: A Socio-Cultural
Perspective”. Indian Journal of Nepalese Studies. 10 (2000): 77–93. Print.
Yadav, Sohan Ram . “Methodological Imperatives for Problems to Tradition and Change in
Nepal Tarai”. People’s Front 2 (2012): 2–10. Print.
Yadav, Surya Narayan . Journey of Overseas Indians: Labour to Investor - Vol. I. New Delhi:
Global Vision Publishing House, 2005.
‘Other Culture’ Studies in Indian Anthropology

Abbi, B. L. Traditional Groupings and Modern Associations: A Study of Changing Local Groups
in Papua & New Guinea. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1975. Print.
Arif, Yasmeen . “Passages Out of India”. Economic and Political Weekly 39.3 (2004): 301–303.
Print.
Banerjee, Mukulika . The Pathan Unarmed: Opposition and Memory in the North-West Frontier.
Oxford: Jame Curry, 2000. Print.
Beattie, John . Other Cultures: Aims, Methods and Achievements in Social Anthropology. New
York: Free Press, 1964. Print.
Culture and Society. 24.7–8 (2007): 286–290. Print.
Béteille, André . Sociology: Essays on Approach and Method. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2002. Print.
Bhagabati, Annada Charan . Social Relations in a Northland Maori Community. New Zealand:
The University of Auckland, 1967. Print.
Bharati, Agehananda . “Actual and Ideal Himalayas: Hindu Views of the Mountains”. Himalayan
Anthropology: The Indo-Tibetan Interface. Ed. James F. Fisher . The Hague: Mouton
Publishers, 1978. 77–82. Print.
Budhathoki, Shak Bahadur , Ramita Maharjan , and Pratyoush Onta . Bibliography of Indian
Scholarship on Nepal. 2015. Web. http://www.martinchautari.org. Np/files/BibliographyOfIndian
ScholarshipOnNepal_15March2015, accessed on June 20, 2015 .
Chatterjee, Partha . Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. Print.
Chattopadhyay, K. P. “Contact of Peoples as Affecting Marriage Rules”. Presidential Address,
Section of Anthropology, Proceedings of 18th Indian Science Congress . Nagpur, 1931. Print.
Chattopadhyay, K. P. . “Culture Contact and Changes in the Vedic Age”. Proceedings of the 4th
International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences . Vienna, 1952. Print.
Chattopadhyay, K. P. . “Some Aspects to the Study of Social Change”. Kale Memorial Lecture.
Pune, 1959. Print.
Das, Veena . Critical Events: An Anthropological Perspective on Contemporary India. New
Deshpande, Satish . “Social Science Research Capacity in South Asia: Some Questions for
Discussion”. Economic and Political Weekly 37.35 (2002): 3628–3630. Print.
Deshpande, Satish . “Fashioning a Postcolonial Discipline: M. N. Srinivas and Indian
Sociology”. Anthropology in the East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology. Eds.
Patricia Uberoi , Nandini Sundar , and Satish Deshpande . Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2010.
496–536. Print.
Eggan, F. , and T. N. Pandey . 1979. “Zuni History: 1850–1970”. Handbook of North American
Indians. Ed. Alfonso Ortiz . Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, 9 (1979). 474–481. Print.
Fabian, Johannes . “Presence and Representation: The Other and Anthropological Writing”.
Critical Inquiry 16.4 (1990): 753–772. Print.
Ghurye, G. S. Caste and Race in India.11th ed. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1994. Print.
Giri, Ananta Kumar . “Social Science Research”. Economic and Political Weekly 38.34 (2003):
3605–3608. Print.
Giri, Ananta Kumar . “Sociology and Beyond: The Limits of Loyalty”. Asian Journal of Social
Science 37.3 (2009): 415–426. Print.
Guha, Ramachandra . “The Ones Who Stayed Behind”. Economic and Political Weekly
38.12–13 (2003): 1121–1124. Print.
Ishwaran, K. . Family Life in the Netherlands. The Hague: Van Keulen, 1959. Print.
Jain, R. K. South Indians on the Plantation Frontier in Malaya. Sydney: University of New
England Press, 1970. Print.
Leach, E. R. Social Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Print.
Naidu, Ratna . The Communal Edge to Plural Societies: India and Malaysia. Delhi: Vikas, 1986.
Print.
Oommen, T. K. Knowledge and Society: Situating Sociology and Social Anthropology. New
Palriwala, Rajni . “Fieldwork in a Post-Colonial Anthropology: Experience and the Comparative”.
Social Anthropology 13.2 (2005): 151–170. Print.
Pandey, T. N. “Tribal Council Elections in a Southwestern Pueblo”. Ethnology 7.1 (1968):
71–85. Print.
Patel, Sujata . “At Crossroads: Sociology in India”. The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological
Traditions. Ed. Sujata Patel . London: Sage, 2010. 280–291. Print.
Patel, Sujata . “Colonial Modernity and Methodological Nationalism: The Structuring of
Sociological Traditions of India”. Sociological Bulletin 66.2 (2017): 125–144. Print.
Reddy, G. P. Danes are like that! Perspectives of an Indian Anthropologist on the Danish
Society. Copenhagen: Grevas Forlag, 1991. Print.
Saberwal, Satish C. “Historical Notes on the Embu of Central Kenya”. Journal of African History
8.1 (1967): 29–38. Print.
Saberwal, Satish C. The Traditional Political System of the Embu of Central Kenya. Nairobi:
Makerere Institute of Social Research, East African Publishing House, 1970. Print.
Shah, A. M. “The Matter of Facts”. Economic and Political Weekly 38.42 (2003): 4491–4492.
Print.
Sinha, Surajit C. “Religion in An Affluent Society”. Current Anthropology 7.2 (1966): 189–195.
Print.
Srinivas, M. N. , A.M. Shah , and E.A. Ramaswamy , Eds. The Fieldworker and the Field:
Problems and Challenges in Sociological Investigation. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Print.
Srinivas, M. N. “Sociology in India and Its Future”. Sociological Bulletin 43.1 (1994): 9–19. Print.
Srinivas, M. N. . “Indian Anthropologists and the Study of Indian Culture.” Economic and political
Weekly 31.11 (1996): 656–657. Print.
Srinivas, M. N. . Collected Essays with a Foreword by A. M Shah. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2004. Print.
Srivastava, Vinay Kumar . “Teaching Anthropology”. Seminar. 495 (2000). Web. doi:
http://www.india-seminar.com/2000/495/495%20vinay%20kumar%20srivastava.htm. Accessed
on February 2, 2015 .
Subba, T.B. Politics of Culture: A Study of Three Kirata Communities in the Eastern Himalayas.
Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 1999. Print.
Sundar, Nandini , Patricia Uberoi , and Satish Deshpande . “Indian Anthropology and Sociology:
Towards a History”. Economic and Political Weekly 35.24 (2000): 1998–2002. Print.
Uberoi, J. P. S. Politics of the Kula Ring. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959. Print.
Uberoi, J. P. S. . “District Administration in the Northern highlands of Afghanistan I.” Sociological
Bulletin 17.1 (1968): 65–90. Print.
Uberoi, J. P. S. . The Other Mind of Europe: Goethe as a Scientist. Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 1984.
Uberoi, Patricia , Satish Deshpande , and Nandini Sundar . 2010. “Introduction: The
Professionalisation of Indian Anthropology and Sociology—People, Places, and Institutions”.
Anthropology in the East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology. Eds. Patricia Uberoi ,
Nandini Sundar , and Satish Deshpande . Ranikhet: Permanent Black. 2010. 1–63. Print.
Wimmer, Andreas and Nina Glick Schiller . “Methodological Nationalism, the Social Sciences,
and the Study of Migration: An Essay in Historical Epistemology”. International Migration
Review 37.3 (2003): 576–610. Print.
Methodological Nationalism and Social Anthropological/Sociological

Tradition in South Asia
Beck, Ulrich . “Cosmopolitan Society and Its Enemies”. Theory, Culture & Society 19.1–2
(2002): 17–45. Print.
Beck, Ulrich . “Toward a New Critical Theory with Cosmopolitan Intent”. Constellations 10.4
(2003): 453–468. Print.
Culture and Society 24.7–8 (2007): 286–290. Print.
Bista, Dor Bahadur . “Nepal School of Sociology/Anthropology”. Occasional Papers in Sociology
and Anthropology 1 (1987): 6–10. Print.
Blackton, Charles S. “The Colombo Plan”. Far Eastern Survey 20.3 (1951): 27–31. Print.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh . 2001. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical
Difference. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.
Chaudhuri, Buddhadeb . “Some Emerging Areas of Research in Anthropology in India”. Indian
Anthropologist 45.1 (2015): 1–14. Print.
Hachhethu, Krishna . 2002. “Social Sciences in Nepal”. Contributions to Nepalese Studies 29.1
(2002a): 49–95. Print.
Hettige, S. “Sociological Enterprise at the Periphery: The Case of Sri Lanka”. Facing Unequal
World: Challenges for a Global Sociology. Eds. M. Burawoy , M. Chang , and M. F. Hsieh .
Taipei: Asia, Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica & Council of National Associations of the
International Sociological Association, 2 2010. Print.
Kharel, Pranab , and Gaurab K. C. , eds. Practices of Sociology in Nepal. Kathmandu: Vajra
Publications Inc. Pvt. Ltd, 2021. Print.
Mishra, Chaitanya . “Sociology in Nepal: Underdevelopment amidst Growth”. Contributions to
Nepalese Studies 32.1 (2005): 93–128. Print.
Patel, Sujata . “Introduction: Diversities of Sociological Traditions”. The ISA Handbook of
Diverse Sociological Traditions. Ed. S. Patel . London: Sage, 2010. 1–18. Print.
Patel, Sujata . “Introduction: Ruminating on Sociological Traditions in India”. Doing Sociology in
India: Genealogies, Locations and Practices. Ed. Sujata Patel . New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2011a. 9–38. Print.
Patel, Sujata . “Sociology in India: Trajectories and Challenges”. Contributions to Indian
Sociology 45.3 (2011b): 427–435. Print.
Patel, Sujata . “Gazing Backward or Looking Forward: Colonial Modernity and Making of a
Sociology of Modern India”. Social Theory and Regional Studies in the Global Age. Ed. Said
Amir Arjomand . Albany, NY: Suny Press, 2014. 437–460. Print.
Patel, Sujata . “Colonial Modernity and Methodological Nationalism: the Structuring of
Sociological Traditions of India”. Sociological Bulletin 66.2 (2017): 125–144. Print.
Oommen, T. K. Knowledge and Society: Situating Sociology and Social Anthropology. New
Parajuli, Lokranjan . “From Controlling Access to Crafting Minds: Experiments in Education in
Late Rana Nepal”. Studies in Nepali History and Society 17.2 (2012): 297–331. Print.
Parajuli, Lokranjan . “Schools as an Arena of Struggle: Re-Examining the Panchayat Era
Politics of Education”. Studies in Nepali History and Society 24.2 (2019): 381–414. Print.
Geo-Political Calculus”. Sociological Bulletin 64.2 (2015): 219–226. Print.
Pathy, Jaganath . “Underdevelopment of Indian Sociology”. Social Scientist 4.48 (1976): 20–31.
Print.
Perera, Sasanka . “Dealing with Dinosaurs and Reclaiming Sociology: A Personal Narrative on
the (non)Existence of Critical Sociological Knowledge Production in Sri Lanka”. Sociological
Bulletin 54.3 (2005): 325–347. Print.
Rana, S. J. B. R. “Nepal”. Social Sciences in Asia and the Pacific. Ed. UNESCO . Paris:
UNESCO, 1984. 354–373. Print.
Sarkar, Swatahsidsdha , and B. Khawas .“The Influences of Indian Sociology in Nepal: Need for
Regional Imagining”. Studies in Nepali History and Society 22.1 (2017): 119–156. Print.
Srikanth, H. “The Sino-Indian Border Dispute: Overcoming Nationalist Myopia”. Economic and
Political Weekly 47.39 (2012): 38–41. Print.
Srinivas, M. N. “Indian Anthropologists and the Study of Indian Culture”. Economic and Political
Weekly 31.11 (1996): 656–657. Print.
Srinivas, M. N. . Collected Essays with a Foreword by A. M Shah. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2004. Print.
Srinivas, M. N. , and M. N. Panini . “The Development of Sociology and Social Anthropology in
India”. Sociological Bulletin 22.2 (1973): 179–215. Print.
Subedi, Madhusudan , and Devendra Uprety . The State of Sociology and Social Anthropology:
Teaching and Research in Nepal. Kathmandu: Martin Chautari, 2014. Print.
Uberoi, J. P. S. “Science and Swaraj”. Contributions to Indian Sociology: New Series 2.1 (1968):
119–123. Print.
Wimmer, Andreas , and Nina Glick Schiller . “Methodological Nationalism, the Social Sciences,
and the Study of Migration: An Essay in Historical Epistemology”. International Migration
Review 37.3 (2003): 576–610. Print.
Zaidi, Akbar S. 2009. “A Conspicuous Absence: Teaching and Research on India in Pakistan”.
Economic and Political Weekly 44.38 (2009): 57–68. Print.
Do Ideas Really Travel? Connecting Social Anthropology between India

and Nepal
Alatas, Syed Farid . Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science: Response to
Eurocentricism. New Delhi: Sage, 2006. Print.
Amar Bahadur, BK . “Sanskritization and Caste Opposition: A Case Study of Dalits in Pokhara”.
Research Report Submitted to Social Inclusion Research Fund, SNV Bhakundole, Kathmandu.
2007. Print.
Amar Bahadur, BK . “Sanskritization and Caste Opposition: A Shift from Ritual to Politico-
Economic Power”. Himalayan Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 3 (2008): 1–10. Print.
Bhambra, Gurminder K. Connected Sociologies. London: Bloomsberry, 2014. Print.
Bista, Dor Bahadur . “The Process of Nepalization”. Anthropological and Linguistic study of the
Gandaki Area in Nepal. Ed. Dor Bahadur Bista , et al. Monumenta Serindica, No. 10. Tokyo:
Institute for the Study of Language and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1982. 1–20. Print.
Bista, Dor Bahadur . Fatalism and Development: Nepal’s Struggle for Modernization. 1st ed.
1991. Kolkata: Orient Black Swan, 2011. Print.
Chen, Kuan-Hsing . “Positioning Positions: A New Internationalist Localism of Cultural Studies”.
Positions 2.3 (1994): 680–710. Print.
Chen, Kuan-Hsing . Asia as Method: Towards De-Imperialization. Durham: Duke University
Press, 2010. Print.
Fisher, William F. Fluid Boundaries: Forming and Transforming Identify in Nepal. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2001. Print.
Gurung, Ganesh M. “The Process of Identification and Sanskritization: The Duras of West
Nepal”. Kailash 14.1&2 (1988): 41–61. Print.
Gunaratne, Arjun . 2002. Many Tongues, One People: The Making of Tharu Identity in Nepal.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2002. Print.
Jha, Makhan . The Sacred Complex in Janakpur: Indological, Sociological, Anthropological and
Philosophical Study of Hindu Civilization. Allahabad: United Publishers, 1971. Print.
Jha, Makhan . Aspects of a Great Traditional City in Nepal. Varanasi: Kishore Vidyaniketan,
1978. Print.
Jha, Makhan . “The Sacred Complex in Himalayas: A Study in Ecological and Methodological
Perspectives of Indian Civilization”. Journal of Social Research 24.2 (1981): 61–71. Print.
Jha, Makhan . “Hindu Sects and Traditions of the Central Himalayas: An Anthropological
Perspective”. The Himalayan Heritage. Ed. Manish Kumar Raha . New Delhi: Gyan Publishing
House, 1987. 215–222. Print.
Jha, Makhan . The Sacred Complex of Kathmandu, Nepal: Religion of the Himalayan Kingdom.
New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House, 1995. Print.
Jha, Makhan . India and Nepal: Sacred Centres and Anthropological Researches. New Delhi:
MD Publications Pvt. Ltd, 1998. Print.
Jones, Rex L. “Sanskritization in Eastern Nepal”. Ethnology 15.1 (1976): 63–75. Print.
Kishan, Yam Bahadur . Nepalma Dalit Jatiya Mukti Andolan. Kathmandu: Jan Utthan Pratisthan,
2002. Print.
Lecomte-Tilouine, Marie . Hindu Kingship, Ethnic Revival, and Maoist Rebellion in Nepal. New
Mathur, Saloni . “History and Anthropology in South Asia: Rethinking the Archive”. Annual
Review of Anthropology 29 (2000): 89–106. Print.
Mukherjee, Ramkrishna . Why Unitary Science? Delhi: Primus Books, 2012. Print.
Nagugiwa, Thiong’o . Moving the Centre: The Struggle for Cultural Freedoms. Oxford, UK:
James Currey, 1993. Print.
Pradhan, Kumar . Gorkha Conquest: The Processes and Consequences of the Unification of
Nepal, with Particular Reference to Eastern Nepal. Calcutta: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Print.
Rakesh, R. D. “Book Review: Makhan Jha: Yhe Sacred Complex in Janakpur”. Contributions to
Nepalese Studies 8.2 (1981): 207–215. Print.
Russell, Andrew . “Traditions in Transition: Sanskritization and Yakhafication in East Nepal”.
History and Anthropology 15.3 (2004): 251–261. Print.
Said, Edward W. “Traveling Theory”. The World, the Text, and the Critic. Ed. Edward W. Said .
Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1983. 226–247. Print.
Said, Edward W. . “Traveling Theory Reconsidered”. Reflections on Exile and Other Essays.
Ed. Edward W. Said . Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1994. 436–452. Print.
Sharma, Prayag Raj . “Caste, Social Mobility and Sanskritization: A Study of Nepal’s Old Legal
Code”. Kailash 5.4 (1977): 276–299. Print.
Sharma, Prayag Raj . “Hindu-Tribal Interface”. Contributions to Nepalese Studies 6.1 (1978):
1–14. Print.
Srinivas, M. N. Social Change in Modern India. 13th ed. Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 1995.
Print.
Srinivas, M. N. . The Cohesive Role of Sanskritization and Other Essays. Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1998. Print.
Stiller, Ludwig F. S. J. The Silent Cry: The people of Nepal 1836–39. Kathmandu: Sahayogi
Prakashan, 1976. Print.
Subedi, Madhusudan . “Caste System: Theories and Practices in Nepal”. Himalayan Journal of
Vidyarthi, L. P. The Sacred Complex in Hindu Gaya. 2nd ed. Delhi: Concept Publishing
Company, 1978. Print.
Zharkevich, Ina . “When Gods Return to Their Homeland in the Himalayas: Maoism, Religion,
and Change in the Model Village of Thabang, Mid-Western Nepal”. Religion, Secularism and
Ethnicity in Contemporary Nepal. Eds. David N. Gellner , Sondra L. Hausner , and Chiara
Letizia . New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2016. 77–114. Print.
Coda
Chakrabarty, Dipesh . Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.
Patel, S. “Beyond Binaries: A Case for Self-Reflexive Sociologies”. Current Sociology 54.3
(2006): 381–395. Print.

Contours of South Asian Social Anthropology - Preview - PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contours of South Asian Social Anthropology - Preview - PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

‘Contours of South Asian Social Anthropology aims to invent con-

ceptual and methodological frameworks to study South Asian Social

‘Can there be a Nepali, Pakistani, Indian or South Asian Sociology and

‘This work makes a contribution to the long-standing critique of

This book presents a conceptual and methodological framework to under-

Swatahsiddha Sarkar is Professor and Director (2019–2021) of the Centre

Him, who groomed me to cerebrate,

2 Why South Asian Social Anthropology: Epistemological Concerns 13

3 Locating Nepal/India in Indian/Nepali Social Anthropology 24

4 ‘Other Culture’ Studies in Indian Anthropology 59

5 Methodological Nationalism and Social Anthropological/

6 Do Ideas Really Travel? Connecting Social Anthropology

3.1 Nepal Studies in Leading Indian Anthropology and

SIS School of International Studies

afflicted the community of scholars practising anthropology/sociology in

Special mention is required for the contributions made by three persons

Asianization reflects each country’s heritage and social realities as it

UNESCO was even instrumental in making the first-­ever attempt to build

countries then. The presentation of country-­wise statements in the round

Madan, accordingly, prepared the New Series editions of Contributions as

Science and Swaraj

Concerns for Indigeneity

sociology, for example, appeared to him as a ‘contradiction in terms’ or at

associations operating within South Asia, or, by arranging a number of

anthropological research. In order to substantiate the argument, the chapter

Why South Asian Social Anthropology

Locating Nepal/India in Indian/Nepali Social Anthropology

‘Other Culture’ Studies in Indian Anthropology

Methodological Nationalism and Social Anthropological/Sociological

Do Ideas Really Travel? Connecting Social Anthropology between India

You might also like

UNESCO was even instrumental in making the first-ever attempt to build

countries then. The presentation of country-wise statements in the round