Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology.Volume 15, No. 1. January 2018 11 11 Indian Anthropology: A Plea for Pragmatic Appraisal N.K.Das 1 Abstract: Anthropology in India is divided into various phases and located at various levels. Despite a long ethnographic tradition, there is hardly any notion reflecting ‘Indianness’. This is not to undermine however, numerous laudable works of Indian scholars. Sadly, some works, despite their contemporary theoretical relevance, remained unnoticed. Included among these are numerous noteworthy ethnographic monographs produced by Indian universities and anthropological survey of India (ASI), which are not assessed appropriately. This article briefly elucidates some such works, which have both theoretical bearing and applied relevance. It is argued that there is need for a holistic appraisal of anthropological works including works of applied nature. This is specially so because, in the absence of knowledge about numerous admirable works, critiques seem to be too unkind towards entire Indian anthropology. In Indian anthropology the growth of ethnography itself is a fascinating subject. This article discusses relevance of ethnography in India, historically. It also discusses the ‘ethnographic’ uniqueness of people of India study in postcolonial era which suffers from misinformation campaigns. Lastly it is argued that anthropologists need to ensure best utility of their research. There are limits and they have to decide how far to advocate politically, balancing wisely between ethnographic pragmatism and political activism. Introduction This article describes some trends in Indian anthropology and highlights the modest growth of ethnographic tradition. It also discusses lack of pertinent research output, especially in the arena of applied/development anthropology and need for appropriate appraisal of existing works. Taking clue from various critiques of Indian anthropology (Debnath, 1999, Das 2002, Rao, 2012, Berger, 2012 and Guha, 2017) this article picks up a few issues and tries to locate them in relevant perspectives. It deals with comparative analysis of ‘ethnographies’ conducted over decades, including works of anthropological survey of India (ASI). Indian scholars have variously contributed in various sub- fields of anthropology, rather admirably, although some commentaries remain little too downcast. Long ago Debnath (1999) had shown concerns for anthropology and discussed crisis within Indian anthropology. Guha (2017) has argued that anthropologists have ignored research on issues of land alienation/acquisition and dispossession. He has argued that Indian anthropologists have especially failed to produce scientific data on the biocultural impact of land acquisitions and particularly on food insecurity and its subsequent impact on health and nutrition. He critiques lack of appropriate social impact study vis-à-vis land acquisition issues. This article, which briefly addresses such apprehensions, elucidates works of Indian anthropologists and argues that on account of lack of due publicity many a significant works have remained unrecognised, which have both theoretical and applied bearing. While pleading for pragmatic assessment of works of 1 Social Anthropologist and Former Deputy Director, Anthropological Survey of India, Kolkata. Email: nkdas49@gmail.com