For those living under a rock, Prof Saiba Verma had criticised the Indian government in her new book on Kashmir and used the term "occupied" Kashmir. Her book won the Edie Turner Prize of the American Anthropological Association. However, various scholars (even more ideologically left than Prof Verma) attacked her in a petition saying that her father had once worked for RAW. Prof Verma has now has been cancelled by the University of California and her book on Kashmir withdrawn from courses.
However, it now turns out that some high-profile names associated with NLUs have signed the petition against Saiba Verma (see the Wire article). They are:
- Rahul Rao, Senior Lecturer at SOAS, NLSIU alum - Swethaa S. Ballakrishnen, Assistant Prof at UC Irvine, NALSAR alum - Kalpana Kannabiran, founding faculty at NALSAR - Virginius Xaxa, NUJS Executive Committee member
She's a big time woke just reaping what she sowed. It goes on to show how messed up cancel culture is and how it eats up people who are on their own woke side too. Some questions I raise- 1. Is her identity only related to her father's former occupation? The opposition to her work seems to be so. I find that deeply problematic and patriarchal to say the least. 2. Privileges she accrued aside, does she not have the faculty to have opinions other than what her father's occupation dictated him to have? 3. And is she doomed to an identity and ideology for the rest of her life because she is born into that family? Self-determination much?
OP first read the articles that you have shared and understand why they have cancelled her. Stop making stupid comments that it was because she criticised the Indian government.
believe it or not, this is not about cancel culture or woke culture or any such nonsense. no matter how inconvenient it may be to your chosen narrative, this is about problems much more serious than culture wars. This is about someone not following research ethics and putting the population they studied in the way of extreme harm. and its about someone using their position and connections to force trauma stories out of victims so they can further their own career. the academics who have disagreed with her do so not because they disagree with her politics- many of them would agree with arguments in her book, but because they believe in research ethics. do you guys ever get bored projecting the same boring conflicts at the heart of every conflict?
The academics are only happy to see a contender for limelight trampled upon. Less competition. Professionally convenient. The outrage machine must be fed every day. She was a healthcare worker in a war zone, which is social service. Most people would not want the discomfort. To suggest that by doing this she harmed her patients is ridiculous.
This. Exactly this. This entire show of being overly virtuous is just this. No one says it out loud but they'd just be happy to eliminate competition. And ofcourse grab tremendous limelight in their respective departments for being so brave and standing up against whatever this is. Another thing I've observed is that these people who cancel others tend to gain this light of power around them. Everyone is afraid of that happening to them and so they stay submissive to the academic who cancelled others, lest they be cancelled next. It's all just politics and preservation of self-interest painted in virtuous colors.
What nonsense are you talking about? She’s not a healthcare worker in a war zone. She was an anthropologist. She has no medical degrees. How do you guys just make up shit? You’ll do anything to feel like the world agrees with your preconceived world view huh?
This is not about virtue signalling or cancel culture. Her father was a raw agent who tortured people in Kashmir, she used her fathers connections to gain access to stuff during her research, she interviewed people who were tortured in Kashmir and did not tell them who she was. They could not have consented, and we don’t even know what kind of harm she put them in, certainly RAW on the ground was more than easily able to track her and get to know what people had said in confidential interviews. She did all this for professional advancement. If she had simply disclosed to her research subjects and her publishers this whole scandal could be avoided. But she didn’t and it’s cause she knew she couldn’t finish the project if she disclosed it to people she was interviewing and that no publishing house would get past the breach of ethics and publish if she had disclosed.
This is plain and simple research ethics. That thing we should all care about because we’re human beings.
People in academia are not competitive the same way that people in law firms are. The nature of their work pushes them to be collaborative. And it’s a small community that usually sticks together. If these guys made these allegations, or supported criticism against her, it’s not because they’re in law school and trying to be the cool kids, it’s not because their career will advance somehow (how would that even work?) academia in the US, especially for brown people is not what you think- were constantly seen as the other and exoticised and sometimes even treated as inferior.these guys aren’t going to gain social status because they called out this person- they’ll probably lose some favor with their colleagues cause they got in the public eye. Or because “ Indian research is all done this way”.
Get the hell out of your own head. This is not about your life or your problems. If that’s even imaginable.
And UCSDs critical gender studies programme did not just decide to disaffiliate based on Twitter. And neither did her publishers decide to stop reprints based on Twitter. In statements they’ve made they’ve explained it’s because they investigated and found gross violation of research ethics.
This is not an issue that just “woke” people should be upset about either. She was working on sensitive stuff - going into mental health clinics- wouldnt you want full disclosure from people doing research at your mental health clinic? The fact that y’all can only view the world through this “woke”/RW lens is horrible for you both morally and intellectually. The world simply isn’t divided that way. Most people have a range of political opinions and stances based on a range of experiences.
CIS founder and NLSIU alum Pranesh Prakash has tweeted on this:
Quote:
I, for one, don't see any potential ethics violation. "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
The violation of research ethics is a serious matter. However one needs to show concrete proof other than stray comments in the book. Being the daughter of an intelligence officer is not enough to say that one should not be working on Kashmir. The public lynching is bullying-and it is even more shocking that her university has taken action against her. If for instance there was a violation of research ethics the petitioners could have filed a complaint with her employer or the university where she got her Ph.D. This shows double standards. Would any of the petitioners launch campaigns against academics accused of sexual harassment in this manner?
Do you think that a US university would have taken such action against her without having satisfied themselves that at least a strong prima facie case exists in support of such allegation? It's US, she can sue the university otherwise and bankrupt it!
However, it now turns out that some high-profile names associated with NLUs have signed the petition against Saiba Verma (see the Wire article). They are:
- Rahul Rao, Senior Lecturer at SOAS, NLSIU alum
- Swethaa S. Ballakrishnen, Assistant Prof at UC Irvine, NALSAR alum
- Kalpana Kannabiran, founding faculty at NALSAR
- Virginius Xaxa, NUJS Executive Committee member
https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/university-of-california-san-diego-drops-author-saiba-verma-from-curriculum/408530
https://thewire.in/books/debate-does-familial-proximity-to-the-security-state-compromise-academic-research-on-kashmir
Some questions I raise-
1. Is her identity only related to her father's former occupation? The opposition to her work seems to be so. I find that deeply problematic and patriarchal to say the least.
2. Privileges she accrued aside, does she not have the faculty to have opinions other than what her father's occupation dictated him to have?
3. And is she doomed to an identity and ideology for the rest of her life because she is born into that family? Self-determination much?
The Wire article lays down her reply as well. Did she make mistakes? Yes. But did she deserve to be kicked out of her workplace? ( https://mountain-ink.com/california-university-disaffiliates-from-indian-scholar-for-being-dishonest-with-kashmiri-subjects/ )
No.
Jab khud par aati hai, tab pata chalta hai real idealism, varna its very easy to preach.
This is not about virtue signalling or cancel culture. Her father was a raw agent who tortured people in Kashmir, she used her fathers connections to gain access to stuff during her research, she interviewed people who were tortured in Kashmir and did not tell them who she was. They could not have consented, and we don’t even know what kind of harm she put them in, certainly RAW on the ground was more than easily able to track her and get to know what people had said in confidential interviews. She did all this for professional advancement. If she had simply disclosed to her research subjects and her publishers this whole scandal could be avoided. But she didn’t and it’s cause she knew she couldn’t finish the project if she disclosed it to people she was interviewing and that no publishing house would get past the breach of ethics and publish if she had disclosed.
This is plain and simple research ethics. That thing we should all care about because we’re human beings.
People in academia are not competitive the same way that people in law firms are. The nature of their work pushes them to be collaborative. And it’s a small community that usually sticks together. If these guys made these allegations, or supported criticism against her, it’s not because they’re in law school and trying to be the cool kids, it’s not because their career will advance somehow (how would that even work?) academia in the US, especially for brown people is not what you think- were constantly seen as the other and exoticised and sometimes even treated as inferior.these guys aren’t going to gain social status because they called out this person- they’ll probably lose some favor with their colleagues cause they got in the public eye. Or because “ Indian research is all done this way”.
Get the hell out of your own head. This is not about your life or your problems. If that’s even imaginable.
And UCSDs critical gender studies programme did not just decide to disaffiliate based on Twitter. And neither did her publishers decide to stop reprints based on Twitter. In statements they’ve made they’ve explained it’s because they investigated and found gross violation of research ethics.
This is not an issue that just “woke” people should be upset about either. She was working on sensitive stuff - going into mental health clinics- wouldnt you want full disclosure from people doing research at your mental health clinic? The fact that y’all can only view the world through this “woke”/RW lens is horrible for you both morally and intellectually. The world simply isn’t divided that way. Most people have a range of political opinions and stances based on a range of experiences.
Quote: https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/1443087631605125129