We all know the proverb ‘Fact is
stranger than fiction.’ The Nobel Laureate economist Amartya Sen once made a
very interesting comment, and I quote him below.
“The frustrating thing
about India”, I was told by one of my teachers, the great Cambridge economist
Joan Robinson, “is that whatever you can rightly say about India, the opposite
is also true.” [i]
Neither Joan Robinson nor
his student Amartya Sen did apply their hypothesis to the English proverb with
which I started. Fiction sometime can be
stranger than facts. Who else than anthropologists know this better? Being
humans we study ourselves and while studying others we often forget to look at
our own words and deeds. Yes, words and deeds! Anthropologists know how human
beings say one thing and do just the opposite and then justify (of course with
symbols) what we have done and that is how fictions are created and become
facts. With this understanding, when I looked at the whole controversy around
holding or not holding the World Congress of Anthropology at KISS, I found
stranger fictions, which often betrayed the facts. Thus, the venue of the
Congress became more important than the factuality of the discipline, opinion
of the few masqueraded as many, the
same individual abstaining from voting indulged in wanton verbose and took a
committed position on a particular side while writing letters and memoranda.
Since everything will become history just on the next day, it is important to
record what happened in history. The fact sheet, therefore, seemed to me like
writing ethnography of the present for looking at ourselves, here in this case,
anthropologists in India, the country about which the argumentative Indian got
frustrated.
In the
following section I have narrated the events around the World Congress 2023 in
a chronological fashion along with the views and opinions of the various actors
and stakeholders, which finally led to a crisis situation. My presence in this
narrative was like an interlocutor who not only participated in the dialogues
but also tried to understand the events from an ethnographic standpoint with
the aim of writing an interpretative account of the crisis.
Fact sheet or the ethnography
of the World Congress of Anthropology 2023
International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences
(IUAES) decided to hold its 19th World Congress of Anthropology 2023
during 15-19 January 2023 in India in collaboration with (i)Indian
Anthropological Association, (ii)Sambalpur University, (iii)Utkal University
and (iv)Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (KISS), Bhubaneswar, Odisha. The
decision was taken in the 18th World Congress of Anthropology held
during 16-20 July 2018 at the Federal University
of Santa Catarina (UFSC) in Florianópolis, Brazil. (ii)
The IUAES further decided that the role of KISS in organizing
the World Congress of Anthropology 2023 would be to provide infrastructure,
logistics and other necessary resources, while the remaining three institutions
would be responsible for the academic and anthropological dimensions.[iii]
On 29 July 2020 Professor Vijay S. Sahay, Emeritus Professor at
the Department of Anthropology, Ranchi University, India wrote an open letter
to Professor Junji Koizumi President, IUAES in which Professor Sahay
drew the attention of the President of the Union on the “protest raised by
certain vested interest groups, that are chiefly non-anthropologists” against
the holding of the World Congress of Anthropology 2023 at the KISS in
Bhubaneswar. Professor Sahay urged upon the President IUAES to hold the aforesaid
World Congress at KISS.[iv]
On 2 August 2020 Professor Deepak Kumar Behera, the
Vice-Chancellor and former Professor of
Anthropology, Sambalpur University wrote
a letter to the President IUAES in which he sought to know whether the
President had received any letter of protest from Indian anthropologists
regarding the holding of the World Congress of Anthropology 2023 at KISS or
not? Professor Behera categorically mentioned in his letter that if IUAES
withdraws its collaboration with KISS, then it should be known that the other
three collaborators have “neither the
infrastructure nor the resources to organize the event”. [v]
On 6 August 2020 Professor Deepak Kumar Behera wrote a letter to the
Chairman and Member Secretary of the Indian National Confederation and Academy
of Anthropologists(INCAA)[vi]
informing them that the “IUAES Executive
is seriously contemplating to dissociate itself from KISS in order to
avoid controversies. No Indian anthropological organization is ready to
shoulder up such a huge responsibility especially during the pandemic COVID-19”.
Professor Behera requested the Chairman and Member Secretary of INCAA to appeal
to the President IUAES for giving “a month long time to INCAA for suggesting
“some long drawn solutions to this issue.”[vii]
On 11 August 2020 Professor Subho Roy, Member Secretary of INCAA
issued an email letter to the Life Members of INCAA attaching the two
aforementioned letters of Professor Deepak Kumar Behera dated 6August 2020 and
2 August 2020 and inform him their “considered view clearly” and “especially
with regard to the venue of the 2023 Congress” after going through the letters
of Professor Behera “on or before 18.08.2020.”[viii]
On 16 August 2020 the President and the Secretary-General of
IUAES jointly sent a letter to Professor Deepak Kumar Behera in which they
stated: “… there is mounting national and
international controversy regarding the involvement of KISS” and “….the IUAES Executive
Committee deliberated and decided to withdraw its collaboration with KISS
regarding the organization of the 2023 World Anthropology Congress.” The
President and the Secretary-General of IUAES finally requested Professor
Behera: “The IUAES, together with the remaining
three Indian congress organizers – the Indian Anthropological Association,
Utkal University and Sambalpur University – request your continued support and
help for a successful World Anthropology Congress in 2023 in India.”[ix]
On 17 August 2020 Professor Abhijit Guha, Life Member INCAA(author
of this article) wanted to know by an email from the Secretary-General of IUAES
“whether the three Indian
members of the IUAES Executive Committee
namely, (i) Professor Subhadra Channa, Senior Vice-President,(ii) Professor
Sumita Chaudhuri, Vice-President and (iii)Professor Soumendra Mohan Patnaik,
Vice-President(ex-officio) have agreed to
the decision of the Executive Committee of IUAES to withdraw its collaboration with KISS regarding the
organization of 2023 World Anthropology Congress or not”?[x]
On 18 August 2020 Professor Noel Salazar Secretary-General of
IUAES in his email to Professor Abhijit Guha wrote: “The official letter states clearly that the decision was taken by
the IUAES Executive Committee. Ex officio member Prof. Soumendra M. Patnaik
recused himself because of a conflict of interest.”[xi] In an email communication to Professor
Abhijit Guha on 27 August 2020 Professor Kaushik Bose succinctly pointed out
the following.
Apparently,
the Indian members of the IUAES Executive Committee namely, (i) Professor
Subhadra Channa, Senior Vice-President, (ii) Professor Sumita Chaudhuri,
Vice-President, did NOT raise any specific objection to the
resolution of IUAES. Thus, it can be concluded that their views were
concordant! [xii]
On 19 August 2020 the Member Secretary of INCAA circulated the
resolutions of its Governing Council (GC) under the agenda: “Mandate received
from the Life Members of INCAA with regard to the venue of the ICAES 2023”. It
was resolved by the GC that the “… the decision of the General Body of the
International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) taken
during the XVIII International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological
Sciences (ICAES) held in Brazil in 2018 with regard to the venue of the XIX
International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences 2023 (i.e.
at KISS, Bhubaneswar, India) be respected.” The GC of INCAA further urged upon
the “Executive Committee of the IUAES not to resort to anything superseding the
decision of the General Body of IUAES taken in Brazil in 2018”.The decision of
the GC was communicated by a strongly worded letter signed by the Chairman and
Member Secretary of INCAA to Professor Junji Koizumi President, IUAES. In the
aforesaid letter of INCAA it is stated: “My limited knowledge of anthropology
has taught me that posing to be neutral and avoiding controversy in the name of
uniting anthropologists is no less a political act. Besides, in the name of
avoiding a controversy, a new controversy has been created by the Executive of
IUAES jeopardizing the hosting of the Congress in India. I sincerely hope that
the ICAES 2023 be held in India. But if, by any chance, it is taken out of this
country, some of us would be compelled to infer that the Executive Committee of
IUAES has a sinister hand in it”.[xiii]
On 21 August 2020 Professor Abhijit Guha submitted his opinion
and suggestion regarding the controversy around the IUAES Congress 2023 in
India. In an email letter to the Member Secretary, INCAA Professor Guha stated
the following.
“I have the reason to believe that the current decision of IUAES was taken through a democratic process in consultation with the elected
members from India.
Therefore,
in my opinion, the anthropologists in India should now try to unite themselves
to hold the World Congress successfully through academic debates by organizing
a panel on “Revisiting the Hindu Method of Tribal Absorption and
Sanskritization in the present context of Adivasi Education” along with other
panels. I do not think that we should now waste our time and energy on whether
the current decision of IUAES is right or wrong. That debate can very well be
undertaken in the panel suggested above.
A
positive and constructive letter may immediately be sent to IUAES from INCAA to
collaborate with the international union of anthropologists in holding the Congress
successfully in India by honoring the latest decision arrived at by the elected
Executive Committee having members from our country.”11
Professor Guha circulated
his aforementioned letter to many Life Members of INCAA.
On 23 August 2020 Professor Ravindra Jain former Chairman of
INCAA and Life Member expressed his complete agreement with the opinion of
Professor Abhijit Guha. Professor Jain in his email letter dated 23/08/2020
stated.
“I am writing to convey my complete
agreement with the latest letter you wrote to Prof, Subho Roy,
Member-Secretary, INCAA.
I share your view, so forcefully and
clearly expressed, that the decision taken by the IUAES to revoke collaboration
with KISS as the venue in India of the next World Congress, should be honoured.
You have
the liberty to convey the contents of my letter to Professor Roy or whoever
else concerned”.[xiv]
On 24 August 2020 the Member Secretary of INCAA in response to
an email dated 21 August 2020 from Professor Abhijit Guha informed him about
the statistics of the opinion poll conducted among the Life Members of the
association. The figures given by the Member Secretary disclosed the following
facts.
I.
There are 921 life
members of INCAA as on 30 September 2019.
II.
Seventy five (75) of the
members voted for KISS as the venue and/or the decision of the General Body of
IUAES in 2018 regarding the venue.
III.
Five (05) of the Life
Members voted against and 4 did not give any clear verdict.
IV.
Around 70 emails
bounced back, since some of the members have not informed INCAA of their latest
email id.
V.
The Chairman and the
Member Secretary of INCAA and Professor Deepak K Behera abstained from voting.[xv]
Ø On
24 August 2020 Professor Kaushik Bose of the Department of Anthropology,
Vidyasagar University pointed out in his email letter to the Member Secretary: “It seems that less than 10% of Life Members of INCAA voted! Thus,
it seems extremely strange that INCAA took a decision and sent the resolution
to IUEAS based on a mandate of less than 10 %”. [xvi]
Ø On 26 August 2020 a “JOINT STATEMENT BY
INDIAN ANTHROPOLOGISTS AND ANTHROPOLOGY ASSOCIATIONS TO REINSTATE THE IUAES GENERAL BODY DECISION
TO HOLD ICAES 2023 AT KISS, BHUBANESHWAR INDIA” was posted in a What’s App
group named “Aspire for Anthropologist”. Names of 113 senior Indian anthropologists
(the name of Professor Rajat Kanti Das, President Indian Anthropological
Association appeared twice) including the names of Professor Deepak Kumar
Behera and Professor Kishore Kumar Basa who abstained from voting in the INCAA
opinion poll were found in Annexure I and names of 100 young Indian
anthropologists appeared in Annexure II.
The aforementioned statement addressed to the President, Secretary
General and the members of the IUAES Executive Committee literally castigated
the IUAES Executive Committee decision which withdrew collaboration with KISS
in organizing the World Congress of Anthropology 2023. In the fourth paragraph
the signatories stated.
“In a hurry to take a decision, the Executive Committee of IUAES
has either ignored or did not bother to consider the views of one of the major
stakeholders of the Congress, that is, the Indian anthropologists as
individuals or professional anthropological bodies in India, possibly
forgetting that it is dealing with a 21st century India and not a colony of 19th century.[xvii] The unilateral decision of the EC is fraught with misdemeanor”. [xviii]
Finally, the signatories appealed to the IUAES Executive Committee
to revoke its “unfortunate and undemocratic decision to block KISS as the
organizer for the ICAES 2023 and allow the Indian anthropologists to organize
the Congress the way it had been presented in the Brazil Congress and which was
overwhelmingly accepted by the General Body.”[xix]
Ergo
I. The foregoing narrative revealed the chronology and succession of
events leading to a crisis around the organization of the World Congress 2023
in India. At the same time the narrative also exposed the attitude of the
Indian anthropologists towards the discipline as well as in handling a crisis
situation. The crisis began with a petition signed by a number of Adivasi activists and some sociologists
and social anthropologists who allegedly appealed to the IUAES to withdraw
collaboration with KISS in holding the World Congress of Anthropology. One of
the allegations of the aforesaid petitioners was KISS
used funds from private and public-sector mining and extractive industrial
corporations like the Adani Group and NALCO, while also partnering with Vedanta
which caused large-scale displacement of the adivasis from their land and
homes.[xx]
The other allegation was KISS has delinked
Adivasi children from their spiritual identities and connections to land,
forests and spirits and thereby helped the corporates to plunder the wealth of
nature in the name of development.20
No anthropologist in India have yet come out in the public to question these
allegations in their academic forums or media, let alone start a debate on this
issue.
II. From the very beginning, the leaders of the Indian
anthropologists viewed the petitioners as belonging to “vested interest groups”
and “non-anthropologists” instead of trying to understand the veracity and the
content of the allegations raised in the petition, let alone start an academic
dialogue with the petitioners as well as IUAES. By one stroke of pen these
leaders of Indian anthropology in their open letters and communications
categorized the petitioners as a kind of “cultural other” having “vested
interest”! No factual explanation was given regarding the reasons behind the
“vested interest” of the petitioners.
III. Press releases and articles were already available in the internet
containing information on the petition, which revealed that noted sociologists
and social anthropologists like Virginius Xaxa (former Director of the Tata
Institute of Social Sciences at Guwahati Campus) and Nandini Sundar (Professor of Sociology, Delhi School
of Economics) were among the signatories of the aforesaid petition, which
objected to the collaboration of IUAES with KISS.[xxi]
The captains of Indian anthropology did
not show any interest to start a dialogue with these two eminent social
scientists of India who regularly contributed research articles and books in
anthropology and sociology and were also members of important governmental
committees which looked into the interest of the Adivasis of India.[xxii]
The mainstream anthropologists of India have simply ignored these distinguished
social scientists of the country just because they held contrary opinion
regarding the venue of the forthcoming World Congress of Anthropology in India.
IV. Full-length articles published in peer-reviewed journals based on
intensive research by anthropologists and social scientists (e.g. Christine Finnan and Felix Padel) were also available in the public domain.[xxiii]
No anthropologist of India seemed to be interested in reading these valuable
texts and start a public discourse by
taking into account the findings of the independent researchers on KISS and
KISS like factory schools[xxiv]
in India and other parts of the world. A nice contrast is the discourse
initiated by an academic Bhabani Sankar Nayak(senior lecturer in Business
Strategy, Coventry University, UK), who placed the factory school of KISS in a
wider historical and politico-economic context and critiqued the model of
factory school, and at the same time also viewed the IUAES World Congress as a
kind of opportunity for the anthropologists to use the venue of KISS for a critical and engaged debate in
anthropology.[xxv]
The anthropologists of India, on the other hand unlike academics began to
organize opinion poll and started speech talks in the manner of the politicians,
which sometime even lacked factual precision. Take for example, the ‘Joint
Statement’ signed by more than two hundred senior and young anthropologists who
blamed the IUAES Executive Committee by saying that the said committee have
possibly forgotten that “it is dealing with a 21st century India and not a colony of 19th century.”
It seemed to me that the signatories did not look carefully into the
nationalities of the IUAES Executive Committee members. Incidentally, the three
Asian countries, namely, India, Japan and China constituted 50% (6) of the
total number of Executive Committee members of the IUAES (see endnote 17). Furthermore,
two of the three Indian members voted in favour of withdrawal of collaboration
with KISS and one member abstained from voting on the ground of conflict of
interest. While castigating the IUAES, the Indian anthropologists have also
alienated themselves from their own elected members as well as members from
Japan and China.
V.
On the home front too the Indian anthropologists could not perform well. The
case of opinion poll by INCAA is a glaring instance, in which a mandate
supporting the KISS venue was submitted to IUAES based on the opinion of less
than 10 percent of the total Life Members of this largest organization of the
Indian anthropologists just within 7 days! Last but not the least the important
members of INCAA who were signatories of strongly worded letters and memoranda
abstained from voting in the aforesaid opinion poll for the mandate for reasons
best known to them. By and large, the Indian anthropologists have failed to
generate real academic debate in the public domain around the anthropology and
sociology of factory schools and their relationship with the large-scale economic
deprivation of the Adivasis caused by
mining, deforestation and industrialisation in the context of Hinduaisation of
the Adivasis in India. This is a
tragic outcome of public anthropology in the country.
[i] Accessed on
28/08/2020 https://www.economist.com/news/2005/11/18/contrary-india.
[ii]
IUAES Newsletter, March 2020, p.4. It was announced: “In
2023 the World Congress is coming up in Bhubaneshwar in Odisha, India, on
15-19th January 2023. Preparations are on and Secretary-General Noel Salazar
had paid a visit in February to assess the ongoing activities and
infra-structure.
[iii]IUAES
letter dated 17.08.2020 (accessed on 27/08/2020
https://twitter.com/IUAES_EC/status/1295263858785955845/photo/1).
[iv] Open letter dated 29
July 2020 from Professor Vijay S. Sahay received by me through email.
[v] Letter dated 2
August 2020 from Professor Deepak Kumar Behera, to the President IUAES.
[vi]
The Indian National Confederation and Academy of Anthropologists (INCAA) is the
apex organization of the profession which owes its emergence to an initiative
of the Council of the Indian Anthropological Society in 2001(accessed on 27/08/2020
https://www.incaa.net/docs/about/BriefBackground.pdf).
[vii]
Letter dated 6 August 2020 from Professor Deepak
Kumar Behera to the Chairman and Member Secretary of INCAA.
[viii]
Letter dated 11
August 2020 from Professor Subho Roy, Member Secretary of INCAA issued to the
Life Members.
[ix]Letter
dated 16 August 2020 from the President and the
Secretary-General of IUAES to Professor Deepak Kumar Behera.
[x] Letter dated 17
August 2020 from Professor Abhijit Guha to the Secretary-General of IUAES.
[xi] Letter dated18 August 2020 from Professor Noel Salazar
Secretary-General of IUAES to Professor Abhijit Guha.
[xii] Letter dated 27
August 2020 from Professor Kaushik Bose to Professor Abhijit Guha.
[xiii]Letter
dated 19 August 2020 from the Member Secretary of
INCAA containing resolutions of the Governing Council of INCAA & Letter
dated 19 August 2020 from the Chairman & Member Secretary INCAA to the
President IUAES.
[xiv]
Letter dated 23 August 2023 from Professor Ravindra Jain to Professor Abhijit
Guha.
[xv] Letter dated 24 August 2020 from the Member Secretary of INCAA to
Professor Abhijit Guha & Letter dated 21 August 2020 from Professor Abhijit
Guha to the Member Secretary of INCAA.
[xvi] Letter dated 24
August 2020 from Professor Kaushik Bose to the Member Secretary of INCAA.
[xvii]
In this connection it may be noted that India, Japan and China constituted 50%
(6) of the total number of Executive Committee members of the IUAES. USA and
Europe has 2 members each and Mexico and South Africa have one member each from
their countries (accessed on 28/08/2020
https://www.waunet.org/iuaes/about/leadership).
[xviii] Joint Statement
by the Indian anthropologists and Anthropology associations dated 26/08/2020.
[xix] In the final
sentence joint statement the signatories stated: “We
look forward to your response latest by 5 September, 2020’.
[xx]
Interested readers may see the 2010 report of the four member committee (having
one member who is a sociologist and social anthropologist) chaired by Dr.N.C.Saxena,
which strongly rejected the mining lease
given by the Odisha government within the forest areas of Nyamgiri hills
to Vedanta Alumina Ltd. Company. This
area is inhabited by the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group named Dongaria
Kondh(http://www.odisha.com/2010/saxena_report_Vedanta.PDF accessed on
01/09/2020).
[xxii]
Please visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandini_Sundar &
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Tribal%20Committee%20Report,%20May-June%202014.pdf
accessed on 01/09/2020).
[xxiii]
Finnan, C.,Sahoo, S., Pramanik, R.(2016).
Living in the
present while imagining the future: How school
and its promises shape conceptions of childhood for indigenous tribal
students in India. Global Studies
of Childhood. DOI:
10.1177/2043610616671070 & Gupta, M. and Padel, F. (2019) Confronting a
pedagogy of assimilation: the evolution of large-scale schools for tribal children
in India.(Accessed on 29/08/2020 https://www.anthro.ox.ac.uk/files/jaso10120182247pdf.)
[xxiv] ‘Factory
schools’ are residential schools which first appeared in North America in the
1600s with the arrival of Christian missionaries. By the late 1800s, it had
become government policy to remove children from their families for schooling
in Canada, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand. In the U.S. and Canada, demand
for cheap labor was a driving force behind “civilizing” and “educating”
“Indians,” as was “pacifying” them to decrease resistance to colonialization.
In India, British colonists also used schooling as a tool to control and
“pacify” tribal peoples (accessed on
29/08/2020https://assets.survivalinternational.org/documents/1810/factory-schools-full-report.pdf.
KISS
is one of the largest residential schools in India for tribal children, which was granted Deemed
to be University status by the Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India, in 2017 making
it the first university exclusively for tribal students in the world. KISS
provides free education, accommodation, food and healthcare to over 30, 000
indigenous students currently studying at its main campus in Bhubaneswar
(accessed on 29/08/2020 https://kiss.ac.in/).
Acknowledgements
I
am greatly indebted to Professor Kaushik Bose, one of the founding Life Members
of INCAA and Professor Ravindra Jain, former Chairman and Life Member INCAA for
their support and valuable suggestions in writing this article. I also
acknowledge Professor Subho Roy Member Secretary of IUAES and Professor Noel Salazar Secretary-General of IUAES for
providing me with useful information regarding the opinion poll of INCAA and
the decision of the IUAES Executive Committee. I am also grateful to the
editorial board of Frontier for reviewing the article before publication. The
shortcomings of this article, which still remain however lie with me.
Courtesy: This article has been published in Frontier and any one can find larger version of the article in the Frontier. 
