Reep Pandi Lepcha,                                                                                                               

SYLFF Fellow,                                                                                                                       

Department of English,                                                                                                           

Jadavpur University.

In the wake of the suicide of a Dalit scholar, a symposium on Dalit and Indigenous Studies: Inside /Outside/On the edge was conducted by Department of English, Jadavpur University on the 25th of January 2016. This is perhaps one of the first instances where the department has tried to break the disciplinary boundaries to provide an opportunity for scholars and students alike, to engage in a dialogue where power, mediation and failure to empathize has resulted in such situations to arise. The symposium was inaugurated by the Head of the Department Dr.Santanu Biswas.

The distinguished panel comprised Professor Anne Brewster, a postcolonial scholar from University of New South Wales who has spent the majority of her research life among the Aboriginals in Australia; Dr. Debashree Dattaray, Assistant Professor from the Department of Comparative Literature, Jadavpur University who specializes in indigenous studies and oratures; Assistant Professor Kalyan Das from Presidency University and Assistant Professor Dheeman Bhattacharya from Visva-Bharati University who have respectively worked on caste-based cultural politics and indigenous studies. Each speaker brought a new dimension to the symposium.

Dr. Nilanjana Deb, from the Department of English, Jadavpur University, co-ordinator of the symposium, began by reminding us how easy it has become to forget death, drawing examples from past and present scenarios. She quoted Gopal Guru who considered Rohith Vemula’s suicide ‘an exit from social death’ and expressed the need to address the issues regarding Dalit and tribal rights especially within the folds of a university environment. Stating that caste in India has been a module on which discrimination is meted out, Dr. Deb hoped that the symposium would open up a nation-wide debate to address the issue.

Kalyan Das from Presidency University who raised a number of potent questions about acts of propitiation, emphasized on how the academia needs to understand that though ‘theorization’ is considered a privilege by ‘political scientists’ like Gopal Guru, the call for the day for any scholar is to negate agency by developing the wisdom of ‘lived experience’ to overcome the questions of ethics and that of representation of the marginalized. However, it needs to be acknowledged that theories from within such communities are indeed necessary, not because it is considered a privilege, but simply because existing theories tend to conform or over-simplify issues, which need a greater comprehension than what a lifetime of scholarship can provide.

Professor Brewster, on the other hand, talking about her ethical and epistemological position in her research experience as a non-indigenous scholar spoke of the need to provide a space where dissemination of voices of the aboriginals, dalits, adivasis or indigenous people stood independent of esoteric conformism. The key is ‘not having the last word’ and acknowledging the difference between knowledge systems. Giving the example of feminisms, she stressed on the importance of letting the aboriginal writers talk about their own agendas, rather than formulating one for them, hence avoiding assuming the position of authority. She further spoke about ‘whiteness studies’ which demanded introspective recognition of privilege and acknowledging it with the ultimate intention of abolishment. As far are theoretical concerns were voiced, Professor Brewster believed that the aboriginals were keen to set the parameters and one needed to respect that. What was heartening to observe, was how Professor Brewster lived by the principle of ethical indigenous research by defining her position at the very onset and then going on to acknowledging the aboriginal people without whose help her research would not be possible. Scholars seldom remember that their research is an exercise of dissecting and prying into lives, akin to the poem by Barbara Nicholson read out by Professor Brewster. ‘Inter-subjectivities’ as professor Brewster pointed out should be the aim in such fields of study.

Dr. Debashree Dattaray spoke on ‘death and remembrance’, recollecting various incidents in the past and creating a collage which addressed the issue of engaging with indigenous literature. Taking ‘death’ as an ambivalent vantage point, which according to Dattaray looms over the North-East of India owing to insurgencies, military occupation of tribal lands and on the other hand due to extreme racial discrimination from ‘mainland India’, which find reflections in narratives from the region. The ‘discomfort’ of addressing such presence is perhaps triggered by a reverse alienation of researchers who cannot really gain the ‘lived experience’ component at least where death due to violence is concerned.

Dheeman Bhattacharya, through the medium of a self-directed film Vimukthi on one of the de-notified tribes of India, raised the issue of relational aesthetics and how an act of research can be an activism in itself. He showcased snippets of his documentary capturing interviews, where the treatment of the ‘criminal tribe’ was the focus. As Dr. Deb pointed out, research requires one to be a facilitator of dialogue rather than assuming authority; Bhattacharya’s documentary inculcated the stance to a certain degree.

There is a need to incorporate a sensitive approach while conducting researches to avoid any ‘epistemic violence’. Dr. Deb suggested that one way of spreading awareness is ensuring that the syllabus and teaching strategies in the classroom provide representative space. The audience posed a number of questions to the panel regarding concerns of appropriation, the problem of authoritative agency, even rhetoric, and terminology.

There has always been a need for empathetic rather than sympathetic approach. The effort to organize such a symposium is commendable, but as pointed by Dr. Deb at the onset, the panel was homogenous. One cannot deny that this was a humble beginning, with a room for improvement in terms of inclusiveness for future symposia.