In #Haimendorf’s obituary for #DNMajumdar He discussed the negative popular perception of anthropology as a ‘colonial discipline’ that associated Indian anthropological studies to ‘colonial’ attitudes to ‘Australian aborigines and primitive Africans’.

#Haimendorf attributes Majumdar and his colleagues with the success of ‘independent Indian anthropology’ and for making it ‘respectable’ enough for the Indian gov to seek anthropological advise on problems regarding the ‘development of backward areas’.

#TNMadan writes that Majumdar’s early interest in cultural change made him one of the forerunners of #rural studies in india. In this capacity he initiated application of ‘anthropological research findings to the task of national development’.

As a member of the Research Programmes Committee of the Planning Commision (GOI) he contributed to administrative issues in backward areas in the country. See ‘Rural Profiles’(1955) and ‘Rural analysis’ (1956)

As #Majumdar’s primary contribution lay in non-specialised ‘general anthropology’ that focused on rigorous fieldwork it seems suitable to end with Robert Redfield’s review of Majumdar and TNMadan’s ‘An introduction to social anthropology’

#Redfield mentions that the ethnography off India discussed by Majumdar and Madan is not ‘merely reported’ in the book but ‘ becomes the basis for argument and intellectual organisation’ that energises the aridity of western theory that it applies.