Dear Dr Tyler Williams,Your post below has many expressions that deserve response.You accuse AAIS as an organisation that divides scholars studying Indic Civilization into "we Indians" and "they the Western". The very fact that the CFP is shared on this forum where a very big number of western scholars are members and it is inviting all the members to contribute to the conference, shows that no such attitude of only Indian no western participation in the study of Indic Civilization exists in the CFP or in the organization that shared it here.While the CFP is being posted by a scholar dedicated to the study of the discipline of History , you say that the CFP and the organization sharing it are opposed to the discipline of History. " Religious Studies" is a discipline that does not exist in any Indian university and exists only in the west. The person sharing the CFP has a PhD degree in that discipline. You say that the CFP and the organization sharing it are opposed to 'western' disciplines. You say that the organisation represented by the scholar sharing the CFP calls "History", a western discipline and is opposed to it while the fact is that she is a professor of that very discipline History.Your post characterizes and caricatures the Indology list as a forum of left leaning intellectuals who consider only the left leaning/ Marxist Indian scholars as "our Indian colleagues" . I don't think Indology list is such, though, there is a possibility of scholars with such a leaning being in good numbers here.More agonizing is the repeated use of words such as "harassment" and "violence" in your post. You say that this harassment and violence happens to " our" non-Maoist " Indian colleagues" because of conflating them with the " Maoist rebels ". You mention the word " Urban Naxals" which is the title of a recent book by Sri Vivek Agnihotri. That book starts with the description of an incident of violence against him. It is not clear whether the violence against him described there was the act of Maoist rebels are the Marxists who are not Maoist rebels but allowed they getting conflated with the Maoist rebels. That apart, such incidents prove who, in Indian academic institutions, for all the past decades after independence, have been in a position of committing "harassment" and "violence" against those who disagree with them.In any case, singling out the "harassment" and "violence" against only scholars of a certain political leaning and ignoring harassment and violence against scholars of other kind of thinking is blatently visible in your post. Baselessly linking the "harassment" and "violence" against only scholars of that political leaning with the organization sending the CFP is what is objectionable in that approach.You bring back the last WSC discussion saying , "in order to suggest that the conflict was between Indians and westerners took on the quite literal form of not allowing the marginalized women to speak." after the organisers clarified that violence and not allowing were not facts and the discussion in that regard was closed here after that clarification.Your words"In other words, in making the argument out to be between "we Indians" versus "non-Indians," the organizers elide the fact that South Asian knowledge systems, by and large as they come to us, were produced by elites that were oftentimes involved in marginalizing other groups."while putting into the mouth of the organizers the non-existing attitude of "the argument to be between "we Indians" versus "non-Indians," ",makes the perception"that South Asian knowledge systems, by and large as they come to us, were produced by elites that were oftentimes involved in marginalizing other groups"to be a fact.What is the purpose of academic forums and conferences if it is not to discuss such fact-perception differences and such claims which are contestable and debatable.You list one kind of post-colonial studieswhich has theorizations such as1. colonialism (and its epistemological violence) were carried out by European together with members of elite South Asian communities,2) due to that epistemic rupture it is no longer possible to access some kind of "pure" indigenous knowledge or understanding,as THE (only) post-colonial studies paradigmand don't show the diligence that other approaches to post-colonial studies are possible.It does not reflect nuanced understanding and intricate understanding of issues such as Orality and Literacy, history of accessibility of certain kinds of texts in comparison to the other kinds of texts due to the history of European scholarly attention to certain texts in comparison to the other kind of texts and the projection of that colonial and European lack of accessing and lesser prioritization as "silencing" by the authors of the texts accessed by the Europeans.Yes, "academics have a responsibility to listen to marginalized and formerly silenced voices of history (and the present)"Paradigms alternative to those of the post-colonial studies listed by you under your # 1 & 2 above,and countering views to theviews such as"that South Asian knowledge systems, by and large as they come to us, were produced by elites that were oftentimes involved in marginalizing other groups"that have been made into the global academic mainstream using the global political powerare the ones currently globally marginalized and global academics have responsibility to listen to these alternative views.On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:12 AM Tyler Williams via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:Dear colleagues,
With all due respect to the colleague who posted this announcement, I must express serious misgivings about the nature of the proposed "conference," so serious that I am uncomfortable with the Indology listserve being used to promote this event.
There is no delicate way to put it: the AAIS is a Hindutva ideological project with specious intellectual foundations that is not only hostile to the disciplines and work of many of the scholars on this list but that also aligns itself with a politics that encourages harassment and even violence against our colleagues in India.
The AAIS, per its website, states the reason for its existence thus: until now, "Western" disciplines like history, philology, philosophy, etcetera have been used to understand Indic material and are not sufficient for the task; therefore a new academic program is necessary that uses "Indic" knowledge systems to understand Indian material. This well-worn nativist argument ignores two important things: first, systems of knowledge like history, philology, philosophy, etcetera were practiced in South Asia during the precolonial period-- a fact that many scholars of this list demonstrate in their research-- and second, the fact that many scholars working in so-called "Western" disciplines (because whether we work in South Asian or other universities, we all have to work in existing departments) actually use South Asian knowledge systems in their study of texts, history, social phenomenon, and the like. The fact that many of us were trained in South Asian institutions by traditionally-trained scholars--or by non-Indian scholars well -steeped in things like nyaya, kavyasastra, itihasa, etc.--should tell one that we do, in fact, take South Asian knowledge systems seriously.
The AAIS's charter and mission are, in fact, anti-intellectual and built on highly dubious arguments. Like several similar organizations that have sprung up over the last several years with the rise of Hindutva politics, it appropriates the language of postcolonial studies while totally rejecting both the theoretical and ethical imperatives of postcolonial studies. Postcolonial studies argues 1) that colonialism (and its epistemological violence) were carried out by European together with members of elite South Asian communities, 2) due to that epistemic rupture it is no longer possible to access some kind of "pure" indigenous knowledge or understanding, and 3) academics have a responsibility to listen to marginalized and formerly silenced voices of history (and the present).
In contrast, the AAIS poses such vague and theoretically problematic questions as "Would the academic presentation of the Indic civilization be different if it had been the work of scholars who did not use Western theories and categories?" and makes anti-historical assertions such as "The term “Indic” is a reference, not just to India as a modern contemporary country, but to the civilization that has been known internationally and historically by the river Indus. It refers to more than 5000 years of a continuous civilization whose kernel is a unique knowledge system which is beneficial to all humankind." The anti-historical, anti-intellectual, and nationalist implications of this should be clear.
Most worryingly, the AAIS appears to ignore the most fundamental tenets of postcolonial criticism: to constantly and self-reflexively locate oneself as a scholar in institutions and dynamics of power. Groups like the AAIS imply that the only power differential is between "Western" scholars and "Indian" natives; doing so requires eliding or ignoring the massive and complicated relationships of power in South Asian societies. In other words, in making the argument out to be between "we Indians" versus "non-Indians," the organizers elide the fact that South Asian knowledge systems, by and large as they come to us, were produced by elites that were oftentimes involved in marginalizing other groups.
This dynamic came out nowhere more vividly than on this list (and others) after the last WSC: those of the nativist Hindutva persuasion complained that allowing women who had suffered marginalization in the Sanskrit-learning community to speak about that marginalization was anti-Indian and part of a global conspiracy to malign the Indian nation. In this case, suppressing dissent within the Indian community in order to suggest that the conflict was between Indians and westerners took on the quite literal form of not allowing the marginalized women to speak.
Finally-- and I realize the seriousness of this claim-- the AAIS and similar organizations ally with a politics that has encouraged the marginalization, harassment, and even violence against our colleagues in India, including colleagues on this list. The AAIS website specifically singles out "Marxism" as one of the evils of "Western" scholarship; this is (and has been) used as a dogwhistle to attack any left-leaning (or even centrist) scholars working in India. A few of the AAIS board members themselves have repeated and amplified calls for rooting out "urban Naxals," a term that conflates left-leaning academics with Maoist rebels in India. We are all only too aware of the real danger this kind of politics poses for the lives and livelihoods of Indian colleagues.
I apologize for using the space of the listserve for a polemic; I am just tired of seeing the scholarly forum which Dominik and others have worked so hard to build used for a purpose that is directly hostile to the work of so many of us. The AAIS presents itself as a serious, progressive voice; I am afraid that it is anything but.Respectfully,Tyler WilliamsUniversity of Chicago_______________________________________________On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:30 AM Lavanya Vemsani via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:_______________________________________________Hello All,Attached below is the CFP for AAIS conference. Please plan to join us for the First Annual Conference.Please circulate the CFP widely.Thank you.LavanyaCall for Papers for the Inaugural Conference of
American Academy of Indic Studies
The American Academy Of Indic Studies (AAIS) is a scholarly, non-political, non-religious, and non-profit academy for scholars and students interested in Indic civilization. We work with the objective to promote study and research of Indic Civilization in Academia. More info at www.AAIndicStudies.org
For its inaugural conference, AAIS invites proposals for scholarly presentations on the issues of ‘Indic Civilization and Postcolonialism’. We invite proposals from a broad category of academic disciplines to submit their research in the processes and endeavors of postcolonialism of Indic wisdom and traditions.
The objective of this conference is to explore the influences of the ‘Occident’ and ‘Modernity’ on the Indic intellectual culture and society at large. It will be highly valuable to evaluate those influences and investigate attempts towards drafting a long term agenda towards postcolonialism. An inquiry into the structural, procedural, or attitudinal obstacles to better incorporate postcolonialism is the prime intent under consideration. The plan is to appraise what you think would be the ideal arrangement for systematic investigation, publication, and dialogue over the coming decade, in order to involve mainstream academia in the process of postcolonialism.
The deadline for abstract submissions is Oct 15th
Conference Date: Feb 20-22, 2020
Conference Venue: Dallas, Texas in affiliation with https://www.naaas.org
Conference Proceedings: To be announced.
Lavanya VemsaniPh.D (History) Ph.D. (Religious Studies)Professor, Dept. of Social SciencesShawnee State UniversityPresident, Ohio Academy of HistoryCo-founder, American Academy of Indic StudiesEditor-in-ChiefAmerican Journal of Indic StudiesManaging EditorInternational Journal of Indic ReligionsAssociate Editor-Canadian Journal of History-Air Force Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
--Nagaraj PaturiHyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.Director, Inter-Gurukula-University Centre for Indic Knowledge Systems.BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, MaharashtraBoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, KeralaFormer Senior Professor of Cultural StudiesFLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of Liberal Education,(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )