In other words, there is much implicit comparison both in data gathering and data processing the second justification for anthropology being a comparative discipline is for work in the library rather than in the field.
From the days of unilinear evolution anthropologists have utilized the available ethnographic materials to serve many different ends. There are marked differences in the ways these ends have been attained.
The common feature of all these ventures is the fact that with very few exceptions they all involve inter-cultural or cross- cultural explicit comparison.
Whatever Gopalasarana observes boils down to three things:
(1) Social anthropology accepts unquestionably comparison while generating data. This assumption relies entirely on comparison as the main purpose of fieldwork. He calls it implicit design of comparative process.
(2) In the analysis which is made on the desk and not in the field, comparison is very clearly or distinctly accepted as a mode of interpretation. This is obviously explicit comparison.
(3) In the method of comparison two things are done: within a society inter-cultural approach is taken and outside the society cross-cultural access is adopted.
Thus, social anthropology in India generates and analyzes data implicitly, and finally, makes both intra-cultural and inter-cultural analyses.