Revision summary
Majumdar built Lucknow tribal ethnography and teaching. Vidyarthi built Ranchi’s nature–man–spirit and sacred-complex models. Majumdar’s accent is contact, measurement, and the textbook. Vidyarthi’s accent is civilisation and eastern tribal cosmos. Both fed applied tribal study without being Elwin’s isolation pole.
Model answer
Introduction
D. N. Majumdar and L. P. Vidyarthi both made Indian tribes a university subject. One built Lucknow’s tribal sociology; the other built Ranchi’s sacred and nature models.
Body
D. N. Majumdar
- Fieldwork among Khasa, Ho, and others joined anthropometry, village, and change.
- He trained a generation at Lucknow and wrote textbooks that put tribe beside caste in Indian anthropology.
- The accent is culture contact, race questions of his day, and applied notes for administration.
L. P. Vidyarthi
- Ranchi school: nature–man–spirit complex for Maler and other eastern tribes, and sacred complex for Gaya as civilisation.
- He tied tribe to Indian civilisation, not only to a hill isolate, closer to Bose than to a zoo.
- Applied tribal development and Bihar fieldwork made Ranchi a policy address.
Comparison
- Majumdar is the earlier all-India teacher-ethnographer. Vidyarthi is the conceptual modeller of tribe and tirtha.
- Both accepted contact. Vidyarthi’s complexes are more portable exam tools.
- Neither is Elwin the protectionist pole, but both fed planning files.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD M[Majumdar Lucknow] --> T[Tribe contact textbooks] V[Vidyarthi Ranchi] --> N[Nature-man-spirit] V --> S[Sacred complex]
Conclusion
Majumdar institutionalised tribal study in north Indian anthropology. Vidyarthi gave it the nature–man–spirit and sacred-complex frames still used to read eastern tribes and Hindu centres together.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Explain Indian village as a social system with suitable examples
Next question on this syllabus topic (2016 · Q6(a)). View answer →
-
Who is more theoretical?
Vidyarthi’s named complexes travel farther in exams. Majumdar’s gift is the institutional field school.
-
Did they study the same tribes?
Overlap is limited. Majumdar’s Himalayan and Ho files differ from Vidyarthi’s Chotanagpur–Gaya axis.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2021 · Q1(d) · Anthropology GS 2 · 10 marks
Caste and social capital -
2021 · Q4(b) · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the role of Panchayati Raj Institutions in transforming traditional power hierarchy in rural India -
2021 · Q8(a) · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks
Examine how structural transformation in economy is affecting traditional social relationships in agrarian society -
2016 · Q3(c) · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks
Describe the traditional patterns of settlement of Indian villages -
2016 · Q6(a) · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks
Explain Indian village as a social system with suitable examples -
2015 · Q6(a) · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks
Examine the contribution of village studies towards the understanding of Indian social system -
2015 · Q6(b) · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the impact of globalization on village economy in India -
2015 · Q7(c) · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the contribution of M. N. Srinivas to the study of Indian society. Examine the influence of British social anthropologists on his ideas
More from this topic
Q8(a) · UPSC Mains 2024 · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks
Describe the important Paleolithic sites from South India with suitable examples. What is the significance of South Indian Paleolithic cultures?
Indian Village
Key sites: Attirampakkam (early dated Acheulian), Hunsgi–Baichbal and Isampur (limestone workshops), Pallavaram (Foote), Kurnool caves and Jwalapuram (later Pleistocene). South India is Acheulian country, distinct from classic Soanian cobble tools. Isampur shows organised quarrying; Attirampakkam shows great antiquity. Middle and Upper Palaeolithic appear in caves and river valleys without copying Europe’s labels. Significance is early occupation and behaviour; makers’ fossils are still scarce.
Q3(b) · UPSC Mains 2024 · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks
Compare and contrast the approaches of M.N. Srinivas and L.P. Vidyarthi to social change in village India.
Indian Village
Srinivas explained village change through field view, sanskritisation, westernisation and dominant caste. Vidyarthi explained organisation and change through the sacred complex and the nature–man–spirit complex. Srinivas’s motor is internal rank-climbing plus Western and state resources. Vidyarthi’s motor is contact with development, mine, market and mission. Use both: caste plains and tribal-sacred landscapes are not one model.
Q4(a) · UPSC Mains 2022 · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks
"Globalisation, on one hand has provided opportunities and on the other hand thrown challenges to Indian villages." Elucidate
Indian Village
Globalisation links villages to distant labour, media, and crop markets. Remittances and phones are real openings. Land, artisan work, and farm risk are the main threats. Chipko and Niyamgiri show local defence against outside extraction. PESA and FRA are legal tools, not automatic shields.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.