Indigeneity, caste, tribe and the limitations of decolonial thought in South Asian socio‐legal studies: The need for a decolonial–debrahmanical approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The dominant decolonial approach in Adivasi studies and South Asian socio‐legal studies is broadly and primarily rooted in a critical study of the British colonial rule, epistemologies, laws and institutions, as they are considered to be the roots of social, cultural, religious, legal and political challenges faced by post‐colonial India. Therefore, in common vocabulary, the decolonial or decolonisation approach is synonymous with identifying and dismantling the legacies of colonial rule and epistemologies. This paper highlights the limitations of the dominant decolonial approach in relation to post‐colonial discourses vis‐à‐vis categories of caste and tribe. I argue that the classification of social groups into caste and tribe has more to do with Brahmanical epistemology than colonial epistemology. Subsequently, drawing upon Adivasi oral narratives from the field, this paper argues that there is a need to look beyond the prevailing decolonial approach and consider a decolonial–debrahmanical approach to address the decolonial challenges in post‐colonial India.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".