68 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal was established in 1784, and fora hundred years remained the only such journal in India. But between 1872 and 1921, we get three major ventures, Indian Antiquary, Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society and Man in India (p 37). Also it was during the second phase that the indigenous base for such studies was established with their inclusion in the curricula of two universities, Bombay (Sociology in 1919) and Calcutta (Anthropology in 1921). The second phase commenced after the second world war and particularly after Independence, when "there was a positive increase in contacts with American social anthropologists" who created an atmosphere first, for a systematic study of Indian villages with a view to testing certain hypotheses, second, for refining some of the methodological framework developed elsewhere and third, to assist the Community Development Programmes in the Indian villages (p 39). Thus we find that not only do anthropology and sociology in India follow in the footsteps of the models provided by the imperialist world, but also that the development of the official branches of these sciences reflect the changing pattern of dominance of world imperialism over the years. However, to see the official brands of Indian sociology and anthropology as a mechanical reflexion of the imperialist brand would be oversimplifying the complex reality. These 'sciences9 at the hands of the Indian ruling class, exhibit an eclecticism of their own. Vidyarthi, for example, notes that, the coexistence of all the three phases with different emphasis of compilation of glossary about tribes and castes of the formative period, monographic and descriptive studies of the constructive period—is also evident in the contemporary tribal research conducted in different parts of India (p 37). On the other hand, D N Majumdar points out that, "social anthropology in India has not kept pace with the development in England, in the European continent or in America" (p 34). G V Plekhanov points out that while every society has a general social and historical environment which influences its development, every society lives in its own particular historical environment, which may be, and very often is, in reality veiy similar to the historical environment surrounding other nations and peoples, but can never be, and never is, identical with it,1 Thus, while the Indian bourgeoisie relies for its theoretical framework on world imperialism, its ideology also reflects its late emergence resulting in modification of pre-capitalist forms rather than their overthrow, as in the case of the ^coexistence5 of phases Vidyarthi speaks of. The continued existence of historically obsolete with the most ^modern^sub-ects ot research is a result of precisely this process in the ideological field.' Yet, from the early years of the century, it no longer relied on direct borro-