Revision summary
Risley used seven racial types and nasal index, tied to caste rank, in the 1901 census tradition. Sarkar used fewer types, an Australoid tribal base, and more caution about language equals race. Sarkar is better as a critique of colonial ranking, not as a final biology. Guha’s 1931 types are another typology. Law now counts social backwardness, not racial census boxes.
Model answer
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
Introduction
Herbert Hope Risley classified Indian peoples for the colonial census by anthropometry and caste rank. S. S. Sarkar classified them later as an Indian human biologist with more weight on tribes, language, and a simpler set of types. Both are racial typologies. Comparison is about method and politics, not about which race map is true forever.
Body
Risley’s approach
- Risley, in the 1901 census and The People of India, offered seven types: Turko-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Scytho-Dravidian, Aryo-Dravidian, Mongolo-Dravidian, Mongoloid, and Dravidian.
- The nasal index was his favourite measurement. He linked finer noses to higher caste rank.
- The scheme served empire: inequality looked like biology. Tribe and caste were placed on one racial ladder.
Sarkar’s approach
- S. S. Sarkar proposed fewer types, commonly taught as Australoid, Indo-Aryan, Irano-Scythian, Mundari (or Mundari-Malayan), and Mongolian, with notes on possible Negrito traces in southern hills.
- He treated many South and central Indian populations as having an Australoid base with later overlays, rather than one “Dravidian race” matched to a language family.
- He used morphology, some blood-group data as it appeared, prehistoric archaeology, and tribal ethnography. He rejected Risley’s nose-to-varna ladder as the main story.
Comparison
- Criteria: Risley centred nasal index and caste; Sarkar centred broader morphology, tribes, and language as a separate map.
- Number of types: seven mixed labels versus a shorter list. Neither matches later genetics.
- Politics: Risley naturalised colonial hierarchy. Sarkar is post-colonial in mood and less useful for ranking jatis, but still boxes living people.
- B. S. Guha’s 1931 types are a third typology often taught beside both. People of India (Anthropological Survey) later described communities as cultural units.
Critical judgement
- Sarkar is better than Risley because he weakens caste-as-race and takes Munda and other tribes seriously.
- Both fail as modern biology. Clines, mixture, and endogamy (later population genetics) replace types.
- Administration should use ST, SC, and OBC as legal-social lists, not Risley or Sarkar types. Indra Sawhney treats backwardness as social and educational.
Flow diagram
Conclusion
Risley measured noses and mapped them onto caste for the census. Sarkar reduced types and separated language from a single Dravidian race. Sarkar is the less colonial of the two. Neither is a living scientific map of the peoples of India.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Scheduled areas
Next question on this syllabus topic (2023 · Q5(a)). View answer →
-
Should Sarkar’s types issue caste certificates?
No. ST, SC, and OBC are legal lists. Biology does not certify a jati.
-
Did Sarkar prove a living Negrito race in India?
He discussed traces. Later genetics has not established a separate mainland Negrito race in the popular census sense.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
-
2024 · Q3(b) · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks
Compare and contrast the approaches of M.N. Srinivas and L.P. Vidyarthi to social change in village India.
More from this topic
Q6(a) · UPSC Mains 2026 · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks · Solution
Make a critical appraisal of the mesolithic culture of Ganga basin with reference to artifacts, faunal and human skeletal remains excavated from different sites
Evolution of the Indian Culture and Civilization
• Ganga basin Mesolithic sites like Sarai Nahar Rai, Mahadaha, and Damd
Q5(e) · UPSC Mains 2026 · Anthropology GS 2 · 10 marks · Solution
Contribution of L. K. Ananthakrishna Iyer in Anthropology.
Evolution of the Indian Culture and Civilization
L. K. Ananthakrishna Iyer is a pioneering figure in Indian anthropology, known for his monumental ethnographic surveys like The Cochin Tribes and Castes and The Mysore Tribes and Castes. Working during the colonial era, he bridged western anthropological methods with indigenous scholarship. His documentation of social stratification, material culture, and folklore laid the empirical foundation for Indian sociology and anthropology. Iyer also established the first department of anthropology in India at the University of Calcutta, shaping institutional teaching and research.
Q5(c) · UPSC Mains 2026 · Anthropology GS 2 · 10 marks · Solution
Article 371A of the Indian Constitution.
Evolution of the Indian Culture and Civilization
Article 371A of the Indian Constitution grants special autonomous status to Nagaland, protecting its traditional socio-religious practices, customary laws, and land ownership rights. Enacted via the 13th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1962, following the 16-point Agreement, it reflects the asymmetrical federal framework of India. The article places a special responsibility on the Governor regarding law and order and regional financial allocations. It balances tribal autonomy with national integration, though it faces implementation challenges in modern governance.