Thanks Prof. Jan E M Houben for your words of good heart " hope that this List will remain a place where scholars, regardless of their political, philosophical, ethical ... orientation, will continue to feel welcome to announce their conferences and "conferences".   

This is all that I hoped when Prof. Lavanya Vemsani posted the Call for Papers. 

I had to respond when Dr Tyler Williams posted saying that the List should not remain a place where scholars, regardless of their political, philosophical, ethical ... orientation, will continue to feel welcome to announce their conferences and "conferences. 

---------------------------------------

Dr Tyler Williams, 

Thanks for posting a link to my writing on an other public forum and save a lot of my efforts in explaining why I consider calling posts that provide counter arguments to left-leaning or Marxist posts alone as  'political' and opposing them on that basis as wrong. Such an approach is wrong because the left-leaning or Marxist posts are blatantly political and countering them too needs to be obviously political. my writing on an that public forum was saying exactly that. When a respected professor asked the members of that forum to avoid political positions, I was telling him that there was no need for such an urge to avoid 'political' .

By saying, 

", your response avoids the question of violence and harassment of these faculty and students by suggesting that a condemnation of violence against a group must necessarily condemn violence against all groups at all times in order to be authentic. This is just another example of the fallacious "whatabout-ism" (e.g. "All lives matter" versus "Black lives matter") that is the hallmark of right-wing and fascist movements of the present day " ,

it is you who avoided the question of violence and harassment by the left leaning and Marxist faith whether of the Maoist armed struggle path or the electoral politics path . And  you saw hallmark of fascism in my showing that you were silent about (now I see that you even justify) one kind of harassment and violence. 

You pointed out from that post that I make distinction of Indian and western academics. When did I say I do not make that distinction ? 

I was saying that the CFP posted did not have the approach of western not welcome. 

In my case while I recognise the obvious distinction between Indian and western academics, I also recognise that those who project Sanskrit as toxic etc. are there on both these sides of academics. I continue to academically debate with those who take such stances  against Sanskrit, India, Indic culture including Hindu culture etc. whether they are Indian or western.

You were mentioning Indian constitution and threat to its foundations from certain groups. That the left leaning and Marxist groups aim to replace the present multiparty democratic foundations of the Indian constitution with a single party dictatorship either through an electoral or through an armed struggle based power capturing does not need any investigation because it is their avowed philosophy. Can there be a greater fascist philosophy than that? 

I was not even asking for your fruitful or otherwise engagement with AAIS.   

I was only pointing out the flaws in your post that was suggesting that "the List" should not "remain a place where scholars, regardless of their political, philosophical, ethical ... orientation, will continue to feel welcome to announce their conferences and "conferences." 

Best wishes, 

Nagaraj


 

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 3:20 PM Tyler Williams <tylerwwilliams@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. Paturi,

Thank you for your reply to my message concerning the American Academy of Indic Studies (AAIS); your reply illustrates two of the major reasons that other colleagues and I feel that a productive scholarly engagement with the AAIS and similar organizations is not possible.

The first reason is that the AAIS and its organizers are not speaking or acting "in good faith": the presence of numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in the AAIS's own statement regarding its aims, methods, and broader intellectual project and its misleading use of scholarly terms, not to mention the fact that it takes positions on politically-charged topics while declaring itself "non-political", suggests that it is not being transparent about its scholarly, intellectual, or political orientation and program. I do not believe that it is possible to have a rational, intellectual dialogue with organizations or individuals that attempt to obfuscate their own ideological and intellectual commitments and that willfully distort their interlocutors' statements and positions.

Similarly, your response to my statement does not engage substantively with any of the issues I have raised nor does it offer a nuanced reading of my statements, but rather attempts to invert their meaning through the tired and rather transparent trick of suggesting that those who point to social or ideological divisions are in fact trying to create those divisions. In the US, we are familiar with this hallmark of right-wing propaganda through examples like "Advocates of racial justice are racists because they always bring up race," while those in India will be familiar with the right-wing cliche that "Dalit activists are casteist because they see caste in everything." Such a bad-faith reading and response to my statements hardly requires any further analysis. At the same time, your writing on other public forums about supposed divisions between "Indian" and "Western" academics reflects that you do, in fact, believe in this distinction, though you demure from acknowledging it here. Again, it is difficult for me to see this as a dialogue made in good faith.

The second reason for our anxieties regarding the AAIS is the lack of respect shown by some (though, it must be said, not all) of its organizers for basic collegiality and freedom of speech and thought. These individuals have clearly stated on public forums their preference for a Hindu majoritarian state over India's current structure of a secular republic, their belief that secularism produces bad scholarship and that left-leaning Indian intellectuals are part of a Maoist-led conspiracy to destabilize India; they have accused their colleagues and their own students of sedition, and have tried to publicly justify violence against Indian university faculty and students at the hands of both the state and also non-state actors like the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad.

Similarly, your response avoids the question of violence and harassment of these faculty and students by suggesting that a condemnation of violence against a group must necessarily condemn violence against all groups at all times in order to be authentic. This is just another example of the fallacious "whatabout-ism" (e.g. "All lives matter" versus "Black lives matter") that is the hallmark of right-wing and fascist movements of the present day. This kind of equivocation reflects such a deep level of cynicism that I frankly have nothing to say about it.

In summary, until the AAIS and other such organizations demonstrate that they can act in good faith and with respect for the rights of all members of the academic community, I cannot see a possibility for fruitful intellectual engagement with them. Similarly, you and I have such vastly different notions of what constitutes intellectual honesty and basic human decency that I do not believe that we can have a productive exchange or correspondence; therefore I suggest that we end this thread here, unless anyone else has something to add.

Sincerely,

Tyler Williams

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 5:46 PM Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi@gmail.com> wrote:
Correction:

I wanted to say

Baselessly linking the  "harassment" and "violence" against  scholars of that political leaning with the organization sending the CFP is what is objectionable in that approach.  

not

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.  

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:14 PM Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi@gmail.com> wrote:
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 studies 

which has theorizations such as 

1. 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 paradigm

and 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 the 

views 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 power

are 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 Williams
University 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. 
Lavanya 


Call 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 Vemsani 
Ph.D (History) Ph.D. (Religious Studies)
Professor, Dept. of Social Sciences
Shawnee State University 
President, Ohio Academy of History 
Co-founder, American Academy of Indic Studies 
Editor-in-Chief 
American Journal of Indic Studies
Managing Editor
International Journal of Indic Religions 
Associate 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 Paturi
 
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.


Director,  Inter-Gurukula-University Centre for Indic Knowledge Systems. 
BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
 
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
 
(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )
 
 
 


--
Nagaraj Paturi
 
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.


Director,  Inter-Gurukula-University Centre for Indic Knowledge Systems. 
BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
 
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
 
(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )
 
 
 


--
Nagaraj Paturi
 
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.


Director,  Inter-Gurukula-University Centre for Indic Knowledge Systems. 
BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
 
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
 
(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )