Dear colleagues,

I think that Dominik and Andrew have effectively made the case that this insider/outsider distinction does no useful analytical work in our disciplines; I furthermore realize that few if any will be persuaded by polemics on this thread.

Nevertheless, this insider/outsider rhetoric not only vitiates the productive atmosphere of collegial exchange that should characterize our profession (and that has thankfully characterized the Indology list in the past); it prevents us from doing rigorous historical as well as philological work, including into histories of racism in our fields. As such, the sooner we put it to rest the better.

One colleague has opined: "Human products of culture having a culture-insider's perspective and culture outsider's perspective is an established professional understanding in the contemporary studies of culture world over. " This is patently false. Current understandings among anthropologists and cultural theorists, not to mention historians, consistently challenge this crude binary, arguing that in fact the notions of 'insider' and 'outsider' are constantly being made and remade through processes that are distinctly contingent, historical, and political. These scholars also point out that appeals to notions of 'insider' and 'outsider' necessarily mask internal heterogeneity, most often in the interest of consolidating the hegemony of those that seek to represent a supposedly 'authentic' 'insider' perspective.

Consequently, such vulgar interpretations of the serious work of anti-colonial scholars like Said and Fanon only serve to carve out a domain of dubious authority for an imagined insider—and those pushing this idea these days invariably cast themselves as such an insider: a convenient assignment of authority to oneself. As Andrew pointed out, we are only too familiar with how this has been pursued over the past several years: individuals and organizations conferring on themselves the authority to decide which Indologist or scholar is an insider and which is an outsider.

Apologies for the prolixity but having seen the intellectual damage that this crude binary does in our fields, I truly hope we can put it to rest and move on. As always, I am happy to point interested colleagues to relevant sources in anthropology, history, critical race theory, etcetera.

Regards,

Tyler Williams

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:14 AM Nagaraj Paturi via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

I already made it clear that the basis of division is not the location or place of origin of the scholar. All vasudhaa during that categorization is a single kutumba .

Human products of culture having a culture-insider's perspective and culture outsider's perspective is an established professional understanding in the contemporary studies of culture world over.

Labels like Euro-centric , Orientalist etc. to refer to biases in observing , analysing , interpreting and representing cultures were all part of professional contemporary international academics only. All these categories of biases have inherent basis of culture-outsider's perspective only. They were not specifically created for the context of Indology.

Studies of culture in disciplines like Cultural Anthropology had to move towards Cultural Relativism etc., methodologies had to move towards pParticipant-Observation etc., to avoid these realized biases only. That is what helped researchers and scholars in these fields to move from calling the cultural practices of their focus 'superstitions' to a stage of making sense of the culture-insider's sense.

In all these endeavours of identifying and overcoming biases , nija of the studied culture and para of the studied culture , nija-perspective of the studied culture and para-perspective of the studied culture were required to be recognized and analysed for a more and more tatastha , nirmama understanding of the adhyeyya.

In Vaada nijapaksha and parapaksha do not get effected by udaaracharita and vice versa.

We can work for our national universities, national bodies and national interests in a way very much compatible with our udaaracharita and viewing vasudhaa as ekakutumba only.

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 7:31 AM McComas Taylor via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

ayaṃ nijaḥ paro veti gaṇanā laghucetasām |

udāracaritānāṃ tu vasudhaiva kuṭumbakam ||

'Who is an insider and who an outside?' ask small-minded men.
The whole world is one family for the noble-minded ones.

No offence.

McC

McComas Taylor
Associate Professor
Reader in Sanskrit
College of Asia and the Pacific
The Australian National University
WSC Website| McC Website

Zoom: https://tinyurl.com/p01tig8k

From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> on behalf of Dominik Wujastyk via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 11:24 AM
To: Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi@gmail.com>
Cc: Indology <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Rgveda complete study material and reverse word index

and 3. from inside and unsympathetic and 4. from outside and sympathetic.

This is what I mean. Getting these categories to do useful intellectual work is nearly impossible.

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology

--
Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Director, Indic Academy
BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra
BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala
BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.
Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru
BoS Rashtram School of Public Leadership
Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public Leadership
Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies,
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of Liberal Education,
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology