Over the years the various social sciences have developed distinctive approaches to clearly defined and delimited areas of concern. Each has evolved a range of underlying theories and concepts which set it apart from associated disciplines. Despite increased specialisation, it is not as if there has been no interaction between the disciplines. On the contrary, breakthroughs in one are usually quickly absorbed into the vocabulary and armoury of the others. South Asian Studies is a case in point. During the past generation there has been quite a frequent interchange and cross fertilisation between those studying the region. The historian has been quick to perceive the value of the work of the anthropologist in refining ideas inherent in the caste system or, more currently, in the concepts of kingly authority. These have been applied in the historian’s research to achieve a subtlety and richness that might otherwise not have been there. Nevertheless each discipline has maintained its own distinctiveness with its own methodology and governing concepts. In consequence, the perception of social experience has remained confined within the vision, the eyes, of one or other discipline; the totality is not encompassed in any single disciplinary approach. The limitations which are also the strengths and very raison d’être of a discipline preclude awareness of an overall picture; only facets emerge. To move from the vague to the particular, let us examine how a specific phenomenon, the Indian crowd, has been treated by the historian and the anthropologist and see how this reflects the disciplinary perspectives and limitations of each. But before doing so, let us first consider how we shall define a crowd.