Anthropology 1 Post Script: Dr. Hari Gautam, Chairman of the UGC desired the draft report to be referred to Prof. Gopala Sarana, an eminent Anthropologist from Lucknow, for his review and comments. Accordingly, a discussion was held with him on August 17, 2001, at UGC, New Delhi, Prof. Gopala Sarana has made very useful suggestions and has also framed syllabi of some courses which have been given in full at Appendix I. We are grateful to Prof. Gopala Sarana for sparing his time and for his constructive suggestions at short notice. 2 October, 2001 R K Mutatkar Anthropology 2 Preface Anthropology as an academic discipline has a culture of its own. This culture of the discipline has to be transmitted to the students to increase the number of anthropologists who would spread the knowledge of human evolution, human creations, human variability and spirit of tolerance and coexistence to the humanity. Curriculum has to reflect the resolve of the departments about the combination of knowledge and skills in order to integrate the holistic approach with practical applications, for addressing to the peoples’ concerns. Curriculum has to accommodate the universalities of a discipline leaving enough space for regional specialisations according to regional history and aspirations, and space for scholars to develop the body of knowledge according to their own choice and expertise. Every University and every Department of Anthropology has been established or has evolved in a particular frame of reference, taking into account the needs and aspirations of the region. Some departments are placed with the natural sciences, others with the social sciences. There have been British and American influences in using the terms like Social and Cultural Anthropology which connote a different relationship with cognate disciplines. Similar is the situation with the use of terms, Physical or Biological Anthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology, Paleoanthropology or Archaeological Anthropology. Linguistic Anthropology has developed into Linguistics, which encompasses much more than of immediate interest in Semantics or Sociolinguistics. Since language is the vehicle of culture, Anthropology curriculum cannot do without Linguistics. The University Grants Commission had established Curriculum Development Centres (CDC) for developing curricula in different disciplines. Accordingly such a Centre for Anthropology and Sociology was established at the Department of Anthropology, Ranchi University towards the end of 1985. In about two years time, the report of the Centre was prepared giving the details of the courses at undergraduate and postgraduate levels in Anthropology and Sociology. The same was discussed at a Seminar held at NCERT Campus, New Delhi on 11 September 1989. The report Anthropology 3 was first published in February 1990 and reprinted in January 1992 as a UGC publication. The report acknowledged the variability in the syllabi at undergraduate and postgraduate at all India level. A recommendation was also made to permit flexibility by allowing the students to opt courses from the Electives, irrespective of the branches of specialisation in Anthropology. Thus, a model curriculum was presented to serve as a guideline to the departments while designing their syllabi. It however, appears from our interactions with the faculty throughout the country that the CDC report was not properly disseminated and did not reach the faculty and students across the country. The Department of Anthropology, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, hosted a meeting of the UGC Panel on Anthropology whereby the curriculum developed by the faculty members of the Department was discussed. Other departments also undertook such rigorous exercises which however were not shared. A Panel on Anthropology was reconstituted at the UGC in February 1998. At the first meeting of the Panel at UGC office, New Delhi, on 24-25 March 1998 it was suggested by the then UGC Chairperson, Dr. Ms. Armaity Desai, that the Panel could have a personal interaction with the Chairpersons of the Boards of Studies (BOS) in Anthropology towards curriculum development by convening regional meetings. The Panel decided to discuss the issue of teaching, research and other relevant issues like teacher-student ratio, unit costs of the department, curriculum at the UPSC etc with the Chairpersons of the BOS in Anthropology and/or Heads of Anthropology Departments. Accordingly, three regional meetings were convened, at Pune during 5-7 October 1998, at Patiala during 15-16 December 1998 and at Shantiniketan during 19-20 March 1999 covering all 34 departments of Anthropology in India. Anthropology curriculum was the main topic at discussions. A subcommittee of four members of the Panel scanned through the recommendations generated at three regional meetings and at its meeting at Pune during 17-22 May 1999 finalised the recommendations. A draft report on the curriculum was made for further consideration of the Panel to be discussed later at the national workshop, as with the previous CDC. Anthropology 4 At the Science Congress in January, 2000 at Pune University, the matter of curriculum development was discussed in the Anthropology section of the Congress, which helped in the preparation of the report. The following points emerged at the regional workshops and at Science Congress: 1. There appears to be some despondency among the younger faculty members and students about the identity of Anthropology. This basically stems from the confusion of understanding Anthropology as an academic discipline and as is pursued in the Universities not fully projecting the holistic, interdisciplinary character of Anthropology. 2. A large number of candidates offered Anthropology at Civil Services examination signifying that it was a soft discipline. Now the syllabus has been revised. 3. The international and national NGO’s sought the services of the Anthropologists, for training and research, in view of the experience of anthropologists of living with the people during the research process. A large number of NGO personnel obtain short duration training in anthropological data collection methods and thereby profess as practicing anthropologists. However, they lack capacity to conceptualize research results in the absence of knowledge of theory. 4. Anthropology is being rediscovered in the area of health, rural and tribal development and voluntary activities. Medical Anthropology is one of the fastest growing branch of anthropology, others being ecological, educational, communication, forensic, nutrition and visual anthropology. 5. There is resurgence of interest in qualitative research methods and process documentation of ethnography of change 6. There is lack of computer training in Anthropology. Anthropology curriculum is weak in quantitative research methods. 7. Linguistic anthropology need to be introduced in anthropology curriculum. 8. Area studies and regional studies need to be promoted. Anthropology 5 9. Need for more rigorous training in research methodology was stressed by those who practised anthropology outside the University system. 10. Dr. K.S. Singh, erstwhile Director General, Anthropological Survey of India and a renowned history scholar observed that humanism and profound concern for the people were strong points of anthropology. The concept of holism, field work and understanding of the interrelatedness of subjects were other strong points of Anthropology. He said, anthropology was trying to meet the challenge of globalisation which was trying to obliterate the cultural diversities of humanity. As a result, the countervailing forces were developing by way of indigenous movements to establish self identity and demand autonomy and self rule. The taxonomic classifications like scheduled caste and scheduled tribe were concealing the heterogenieties and identities. Anthropology teaches respect for all cultures and autonomous identities. He thought that the 21st century would see anthropology studying heterogeneity and diversity, including biological and linguistic diversity. The genome project was therefore important. One of the crucial concepts about communities was, how they looked at themselves. It was also brought out that Anthropology had been studying the tribals, who were the poorest downtrodden people and this experience could contribute in development related research, training and interventions. There has been unanimity about reinforcing the holistic image of Anthropology in the curriculum. For career prospects, some courses of applied nature have to be incorporated depending upon the needs of the region and available expertise in the departments. For example, Orissa departments could be interested in disaster management while Kerala might give priority to migration and gender studies, in view of its success about health indicators. Maharashtra might bring out contributions of Saint poets in synthesising culture. On the other hand, the impact of megapolis on destroying the tribal cultures and dehumanising them due to migration, need to be studied. Various development projects including river dams leading to displacement of tribals is of significance. Chandigarh may be interested in fossil studies while forensic anthropology may be opted by some departments. Tirupati is the proper place for anthropology of religion and, art and music at Vishwabharati. There Anthropology 6 are several issues like pseudo tribals grabbing the benefits of Scheduled Tribes. HIV / AIDS has given spurt to studies in sexuality and sexual behaviour, particularly of adolescents. Poverty and nutrition linked with growth are of perennial importance. These are stray examples. The departments will have to decide for themselves as to the areas in which they would excel. Anthropology of gender, DNA analysis, reproductive health including reproductive biology, medical genetics are some of the new areas with applicability and future prospects. Heritage of India and Indian diaspora are equally important issues for study. Care is to be taken to project the two integrated holistic entities in the curriculum.1) Anthropology itself as a holistic discipline 2) Indian civilization encompassing all branches of Anthropology. In the days of super specialization, a discipline like Anthropology has an important place which studies man as a single piece in his body, mind senses, spirit and intellect. Mankind has to be understood in relation to other species of flora and fauna, and to own the responsibility of protecting the environment by not destroying the equillibrium of nature. Curriculum development is a continuous process since it has to respond to the needs and aspirations of the people, which are dynamic in nature. No attempt has been made to universalize the curriculum, although the basic framework and training has to be uniform. Enough space is available to develop the frontiers of knowledge and its applicability in different Universities. The identity of Anthropology lies in holistic unity incorporating variations and space for creativity and responsiveness. Preparing a list of reading material for the courses is quite a stupendous task to be accomplished by few scholars in meetings lasting couple of days. The reading list has been provided which is far from satisfactory. Besides, availability of books and journals to faculty and students would depend upon the budgetary provisions for the libraries. The internet facilities may help the students in this respect. Several books in vernacular languages followed particularly at the undergraduate level are not listed due to constraint of time and space. What the Panel has been able to crystallise through the discussions with all Departments of Anthropology in the country is the keenness to project and promote the holistic nature of Anthropology. Anthropology as is practised by professionally trained anthropologists outside the university system in the government and voluntary sectors of development, research laboratories, Anthropology 7 including the Anthropological Survey of India have provided clues to reorient the curriculum to the needs of the Society. The UGC nominated eight member Curriculum Development Committee in Anthropology on 25 September 2000 with the convener of the subject panel continuing as convener of the CDC. The CDC in Anthropology met in three meetings, during 14-15 November, 13-14 December 2000 and during 23-25 January 2001 at the UGC office New Delhi, whereby the curriculum for anthropology and syllabi for the courses were finalised. The CDC has made certain welcome departures from the earlier efforts in this regard. Each course has been provided with an approach which spells out the objectives of the course. The expectations from the learners at the end of the teaching of the course have been given for focussed teaching. Every course has been conceptually organised for 100 hours of teaching, and the units have been given the weightage accordingly, which would be useful in teaching and assessment. The departments could use the guidelines provided by weightage while designing the respective courses according to the patterns in semester, yearly or credit systems. In due consideration of the scenario of higher education aspiring to become self supporting, job oriented or skill oriented postgraduate diploma courses have been provided. The presentation of diploma courses is illustrative in nature. The respective departments could develop more courses as per the requirements and facilities available. The requirements of civil services competitive examinations and NET examination of the UGC which provides uniformity at national level, have been duly met in the syllabi of the undergraduate and postgraduate courses and the diploma courses. Anthropology 8 The diversities in the pattern of higher education, particularly at the undergraduate level has compelled CDC to provide for the core courses and specialised courses, as guidelines for designing the courses in respective universities. An attempt has also been made to spell out the requirements of M.Phil. courses particularly to meet the needs of scholars from other disciplines joining the Ph.D. programme in Anthropology. Obviously, such an exercise could not have been completed in just three meetings. Interpersonal communication among the members contributed a great deal, as also the discussions on the details of syllabi among the sub-groups within the CDC. It is not unlikely that some mistakes and omissions may have crept in the curriculum which could be rectified by the respective departments, while designing the syllabi. In short, the curriculum presented in this report has been based on the study of following documents, and exercises: 1. Report of Curriculum Development Centre in Anthropology, 1988,. Ranchi 2. Meeting of the UGC panel on anthropology at Andhra University, Visakhapatnam 3. Regional meetings convened by the UGC Subject Panel on Anthropology held during 1998-99 at Pune, Patiala and Shantiniketan 4. Meetings of Curriculum Development Committee during November 2000 - January 2001 at UGC office, New Delhi The departments of Anthropology are advised to reflect on the curriculum being presented in this report and make sincere efforts to implement the courses in order to sustain and strengthen the holistic nature of the discipline of Anthropology. The skills gained in Anthropology have to be put to use in the spirit of humanism, which would also provide professional work to the students, teachers and researchers in Anthropology. Anthropology 9 Acknowledgements We express our profound gratitude to Dr. Hari Gautam, Chairman, University Grants Commission, for taking personal interest in constituting a Curriculum Development Committee (CDC) in Anthropology which has helped to complete the task of providing a curriculum at the national level. Dr. O.P. Gupta, Library and Information Officer at the UGC and secretary of the CDC not only helped the committee on behalf of UGC administration but as a scholar in his own right made useful academic suggestions in our deliberations. Their support has brought this report to its final conclusion. Academics have a stereotypical image of not agreeing with each other and getting involved in endless arguments. Our experience has belied this image. It is surprising how much unanimity of views and commitment for the promotion of discipline has been displayed in the meetings of the CDC. All the members of the CDC worked on the syllabi in their departments and at their residence with a commitment to the discipline. They attended all the meetings, braving the winter in Delhi and inconvenience in accommodation. It has been a pleasant experience to work together in a very congenial atmosphere. The brainstorming discussions have been a learning experience for everybody. The CDC in Anthropology pursued the work done by the Subject Panel in Anthropology which was nominated by Dr. Ms. Armaity Desai, the earlier UGC Chairperson. We are grateful to her for encouraging us for interpersonal dialogue amongst all the 34 departments of Anthropology in India in three regional workshops. The Universities and Departments at Pune, Patiala and Shantiniketan hosted the workshops at short notice and provided wonderful hospitality and intellectual atmosphere for meaningful discussions. We are grateful to these University authorities and our colleagues at these departments. We are grateful to the members of the Subject Panel on Anthropology, namely Dr. P.N. Sahu, Prof. K. Thimma Reddy, Prof. I.J.S. Bansal, Prof. Raghuvir Singh, Prof. D.V. Raghav Rao, Dr. T. Ramchandraih, Dr. Mrs. Shalina Mehta, Late Prof. Makhan Jha who made significant contributions Anthropology 10 in the deliberations. We were fortunate in having the benefit of senior scholars like Dr. K.S. Singh, Dr. Mrs. Leela Dube and Dr. B.C. Agrawal who gave us a sense of direction as members of the Panel. Renomination of some Panel members such as Prof. K. Thimma Reddy, Prof. I.J.S. Bansal, Prof. D.V. Raghav Rao and Dr. Mrs. Shalina Mehta as members of the CDC and induction of the new members such as Dr. B.V. Bhanu, Dr. B.R.K. Shukla and Dr. C.G. Hussain Khan helped to widen the base of CDC and ensured continuity. Their experience, commitment, sense of responsibility and concern for the discipline as is practised in the universities has gone into the making of the curriculum. All the members promptly sent the revised syllabi by mail, soon after the meetings, making the task of completion of the report smooth. I am personally grateful to my colleagues, Dr. K.S. Nair, Dr. Ram Gambhir, Dr. V.S. Kulkarni, Dr. Shaunak Kulkarni, Mr. Sumedh Gurjar at the Department of Anthropology, University of Pune, and Ms. Aarti Kaulagekar and Dr. Mrs. Apoorvaa Pandit at the School of Health Sciences, Pune University, for help in completing this manuscript. Dr. B.V. Bhanu deserves special gratitude for sharing responsibility every day at Pune. Ms. Swati Salunke at the School of Health Sciences completed DTP with laudable efficiency and understanding, tolerating the frequent changes made by us in the content and style of the report. We held brainstorming meetings at the Department of Anthropology, University of Pune, which helped to clarify our thoughts and ideas. We are aware about the shortfalls in this report. As anthropologists, we are more satisfied with the participatory process of curriculum development than the output, which will keep on changing with the changing times. We would ever remain grateful to the departments of anthropology in India for striving to project the holistic and humanistic strengths of the discipline of Anthropology in the true spirit of Science. R.K. Mutatkar Nodal person Curriculum Development Committee in Anthropology University Grants Commission New Delhi 7 February, 2001 University of Pune, Pune