Kumar, M. (2006) ‘Rethinking Psychology in India: Debating Pasts and Futures’, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 5, pp. 236-256 www.discourseunit.com/arcp/5

Manasi Kumar1

Rethinking Psychology in India: Debating Pasts and Futures

Revisitations

Is there a practice of ‘critical psychology’ in India? If there exists a critical psychology tradition that attends to concerns of Indian society, its cultural history, politics and their interpenetration in both individual and social lives, then why are such discourses not so easily visible? How does this critical thinking manifest itself (assuming that such a thing exists) in the work of psychologists in the country and what are its key features? The paper tries to pursue some of these questions. I rest my observations on a review of recent psychological literature where the prevalent psychological discourse in the country can be summarized by a simple visualization of two parallel lines running past each other. The parallel lines signify a disjunction between Indian mainstream psychological works on the one hand and existence of those alternative, or at times, radical and dissenting voices and perspectives on the other hand. I reckon in some ways the emergence of the bigger picture depends on which direction we fix our gaze. However, the trouble begins right there. Awareness of one direction without any awareness of the other has restricted psychology from exploring its full potential at least in this country.

The bulwark of mainstream psychological and alternative viewpoints run parallel to each other (in fact run amok at times), therefore neither approach have been able to inform, influence or interrogate the other in a real or an enduring manner. As a result, very few psychological writings in India tend to be aware of the presence of varied epistemic apertures through which human psychological and its attendant problematics associated with theory, subjectivity and culture, can be engaged with. It leaves by and large, a considerable numbers of writings and modes of practising psychology where these sensitivities are conspicuous by their absence. This is not a new grievance being made here; others have also pointed to similar concerns (Bhatia, 2002; Kakar, 1989, 2000; Misra & Gergen, 1993; Nandy, 1974, 1995; Seshadri-Crooks, 1997; and Sinha, 1984, 1998).

In this paper I attempt to look at these questions from a position which some readers might deem as a disadvantaged or less-generalizable one; few others may agree or welcome that this is a commentary based on my own experience of studying psychology in India and later with a brief teaching experience in an undergraduate department of psychology. The intention is not to build-up a (repetitive) bibliography of ideas and researches but to search critically, and explicate the reasons behind discontentment with psychology in India (that the author distinctly feels). The paper points to certain problematic areas such as: beginnings of the discipline as embedded in a colonial project, its history and reception in the academia in India and attendant politics and dynamics that have maintained this discipline in its ‘absent’ presence2. Certain institutional factors are also discussed which have escalated political and

1 Contact: manni_3in@hotmail.com2 For more scholarly reflections other sources such as the 2000-04 Sage publications’ trilogy on Psychology in India Revisited edited by Janak Pandey (and now another set in progress under the direction of Girishwar

236

often un-reflexive decisions with preponderance of selfish motivations over choosing excellence as a criteria for teaching and research. This has only added more woes to an already dwindling rigour and vitality of the discipline in the country. Some other questions about the organization and general contribution of the discipline also crop-up in the context of India. Has the enterprise of psychology been useful to (the future of) the common man in India or whether it is needed and used to intervene, address or ameliorate some of the burning socio-economic problems in India3, is one big question (see, Kleinman et al, 1997 & Vahali, 2002). Whether some of these questions trouble the fraternity of psychologists today and how psychologists in India respond (if they respond at all) to these issues is another domain that needs to be explored (see, Kakar, 1985; Misra & Gergen, 1993). My intention is not to simplify some of these questions by setting out to resolving these dilemmas and dichotomies but to point to problematics that need to be actively engaged-in by psychologists in the country so that some of these questions become intelligible and more compelling.

Opening ground for Critical Psychology

One of the more familiar ways of reviewing the state of any discipline in academic research is by gauging the quality of literature that circulates in its academic journals and books. Publications in the ordinary parlance are like academic currencies which decide the fate of academicians by rating their performance. However publication rate may not always be desirable or wisest of procedures to ascertain disciplinary development, but it continues to be the most commonly used yardstick of progress (for details on the previous ICSSR Indian psychology reviews, see Pandey, 2004: 342-370) . There are then some other mediums of reviewing the state, progress, and chief concerns of a discipline that entail conducting surveys with practitioners and researchers from the concerned discipline, inviting experts or wise-men/women for reflections and critical appraisal. Besides undertaking process-outcome analysis, meta- analysis of research findings, models or theories based on leading concepts and appraisals of goals set, achieved and other similar mechanics, are commonly employed to map and ‘measure’ the growth of a discipline.

In the case of a mammoth country like India, such detailed analysis of institutions and people within these can prove to be a very daunting exercise4. It is daunting not only because there are far too many Universities and people to be considered. But its difficult on account of sheer impoverishment and abject condition of the discipline in the country5, a despairing condition that is simultaneously marked by unequal spread and differential progress of departments of

Mishra) would enable sampling a broad sweep of researches in different areas of psychology in the country. However in later sections I have tried to critically examine some of the review chapters from 2001and 2004 Psychology in India review series.3 Problems such as high illiteracy rates in rural India, rather prevalence of culpable practices such as female infanticide, low girl-child education rates, violence against women, rampant dowry harassment, child labour, discriminatory caste politics, poor coverage & impact of rural education & development programmes, marginalization and exploitation of backward castes, tribes, minority groups etc are just the first ones that strike my mind. The list is endless though. One of the reviewers rightly pointed to me that these practices are also embedded with a socio-cultural matrix where mere condemnation of these practices may not suffice. One needs to review what individual –societal needs these practices serve. 4 I am sure even the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), Indian Council of Social Sciences Research (ICSSR), and related initiatives from the Ministry of Education, or even various Indian Psychology Associations have not been able to perform consistent and coherent review exercises including revamping UG and PG course-curricula, setting clear guidelines for practice, ethics and research, satisfactorily. It is only recently that Data Protection and (Right to) Information Acts are been taken note of seriously. With new and functional websites (I am sure many would now chuckle at the sight of telephones in working state in these otherwise dilapidated non-functional government departments!), these institutions have only now begun to modify their old feudal mannerism and character.

237

psychology in the region, all these make a review exercise extremely problematic. I have decided to focus on a limited set of published literature that I could have access to and have examined it at some length. I have surveyed a review series called ‘Psychology in India Revisited’ (IV ICSSR survey available in three volumes, see the bibliography) published by Sage India in years 2000, 2001 & 2004. These three review volumes comprise of various Indian research findings and engage in a discussion of the plausibility and validity of these researches by invited subject experts. This is the prism through which existent literature has been surveyed in this paper. The paper thus attempts a review of review. In some ways, this might seem an inchoate process of locating research activities and output without accessing primary sources directly. However, such revisitations might allow one to grasp various positions and attitudes adopted by the researchers as well as ‘subject experts’ of a discipline at the same time. Two interrogations remain central in my mind in reviewing this literature: how have psychologists ‘used’ psychological methods and theories and what ‘use’ have they put their findings, research enterprises or methods in contributing to the larger knowledge pool.

The State of the Art?

Reading psychological literature in the popular Indian psychological journals does not make a pleasant or tremendously illuminating reading most of the times. I have identified some reasons behind the uncreative, repetitive appearance of the literature which at times seems to lack sound or engaging methodology and at other instance seem to present findings built on rather flawed arguments and methodology. Most of the published literature can be classified into two broad categories: mainstream-validational research and oppositional-indigenous research (or reactionary and nativist, as Crooks (1994:180) defines the second category). In the first category are researches which attempt to replicate or validate popular Western theories and researches without much emphasis or rigour shown in picking up context-relevant methodology or clear theoretical-ideological considerations which guide their research questions in the first instance. There are instances of numerous inchoate researches found in abundance in Indian psychological journals, in projects and theses supervised in varied departments at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels; the decay in the quality of research in the country is at once displayed in the rigmarole of regional conferences and the thematics chosen in such forums. Indian mainstream researches focus on domains of social, cognitive, developmental and experimental psychology (in other words specialities that can cover the entire rubric of psychology otherwise!) where such lacunae (i.e. gaps between theory and methodology) can easily be spotted. The peculiarity of this literature is that it speaks to no-one, attempts to replicate without clear logic or method, eschews subjectivity or any engagement with researcher’s position, and fails to acknowledge how results are a direct outcome of the process and values the researcher chooses to adopt. In such researches local conditions and cultural-social factors are extraneous variables and any deviations from the standard are regarded as errors. Most of the reviewers of the Psychology in India series also pointed these problems (see, particularly chapters by Dalal: 356-411, & Naidu: 228-299, cited in Pandey, 2001; Hutnik: 216-260, Pandey: 342-370, cited in Pandey, 2004) also others such as Sinha (1998), Sinha & Kumar (2004), have pointed out the problematic ways in which psychological research in India has organized itself.

5 Impoverishment and abjection are used here in the context of slow pace of activity and output, as well as limited contribution psychology in India has made to the overall discipline. This is sharply different from disciplines such as social anthropology, sociology, political science, cultural studies or literature where India’s contribution is enormous and well-distinguished. Some amount of impoverishment hence comes from lack of intellectual spark while other comes from sheer lack of resources that are required for a well-functioning psychology department.

238

The second category comprises of writings that have essentially propagated indigenous or Indian cultural viewpoints by virtue of arguing against the Western (Euro-American) psychological viewpoints. This viewpoint argues that are the Western theories are mainly ethnocentric and dismiss psychological variations without much articulation for ‘local’ realities or cultural sensitivities and psychological testing and methodology becomes a tool to denigrate and deny presence of culture within psychic life of the individual (Hartnack, 2001; Kakar, 1989; Misra & Gergen, 1993; Nandy, 1974; Roland, 1996; Saraswathi, 1998; & Segall et al 1998). However sensitive this viewpoint is to culture, this extreme ‘nativist’ approach creates barriers in transferability and expansion of knowledge as it assumes that there are no universals6. The problem with this viewpoint comes not from its critique of Euro-American ideas, this critique indeed offers a good diagnostics; but the trouble is inherent in the nature and kinds of the alternatives it suggests as remedial measures (such as their call to ‘go back to Ancient scriptures and texts’ for spiritual and intellectual enlightenment)7. In the work of indigenous psychologists, this ‘going back to origins’ is marked with a concurrent blurring of history, political developments and history of development of ideas. At such junctures the characteristics displayed by this set of researches are its disregard for consistency, negation of its ideological loadings8, and absence of adoption of convincing methodologies or procedures in order to use these paradigms to study more complex problems and issues (See, Rao:19-162: cited in Pandey 2001). This set of literature shows a tendency to sound too esoteric and carries essentially an ethnocentric bias (by which I mean an absolute denial of universals), and wages a Quixotic battle of sorts to the question of situating or generalizing its findings, as a result of which few lessons or conclusions could be drawn from it. In character this is tritely-written, pedantic literature that is difficult to follow because while these begin from a position of non-conformity with mainstream epistemologies and notions, these writings ends up with poor quality literature which at best is philosophical reflection and at its worst religious discourse of (mainly Hindu) dogmatic preconceptions. I am aware that these are sweeping generalizations and that there are exceptions to it.

However ingenious writings on cultural and cross-cultural psychology such as Berry & others (1992/2002), Marsella (1985), Shweder (1991) and Triandis (1994 & 1995) have not only strengthened the locus of indigenous movement but also succeeded in adding to the mainstream psychological frame, intense debates and psycho-politics of cultural and cross-cultural comparisons. One of the significant contributions made by these efforts is its highlighting of the difference between ‘emic’ and ‘etic’ and the importance of considering these conceptualizations in psychological research across cultures. As a result, many cross-cultural psychologists used the terms ‘etic’ and ‘emic’ to refer, respectively, to (a) comparative, across-cultures studies, and to (b) careful, internal exploration of psychological phenomena in local cultural terms. Whenever such ‘emic’ research succeeds, it would be expected to provide indigenous, culturally based meanings that were most probably missed when making the initial imposed ‘etic’ approach to psychological phenomena in various cultures. As a result of doing these comparisons, one could emerge with what has been termed a "derived etic" (Berry, 1969 cited in Segall et al, 1998), which is clearly to be preferred over

6 A second reviewer drew my attention to somewhat of a neglect in this paper of Indian psychological orientation. He pointed out that “the "Nativism" is more than mere orientation towards the native. It also has components of theoretical and symbolic innovation.” I agree with his remarks. This paper has not been able to delve into vicissitudes of Indian psychology and its theorizations on human subjectivity. In this sense this paper has a restricted focus and coverage of issues within psychology.7 In case of a multicultural society such as India, call for such ‘going-back to the origins’ mean not only revisiting past historical and cultural-religious traditions, but it leads to ‘going-astray’ marked by communal strife and psychological unrest in different pockets of society over questions of origins and beginnings.8 Mainly based on Hindu philosophy or its variants but claiming to encompass the entire Indian reality.

239

an "imposed etic." (ibid: 1103). Derived ‘etic’ approach works on the assumption that there are universals but also keeps the space to incorporate cultural differences and similarities.

In order to highlight, some epistemic discords between mainstream psychology, critical psychology and indigenous psychology approaches, I have maintained throughout this paper a distinction between cultural and indigenous psychology which is referred to as Indian psychology whereas psychology in India is used to denote practice of psychology in general in the country. This is to differentiate Indian psychological viewpoints (culturally-rooted/ indigenous viewpoints) from the broader scan of psychological research in India in general. The problematic credentials of indigenous psychology movement and practice with regards to cultural representative-ness and cultural pluralism are another reason why this distinction is maintained. It is between these two approaches that I have tried to find traces of a critical approach.

Boundaries and Dislocations

My main apprehension with regard to these exceptional writings remains thus: whether the large chunk of researchers working in the field of psychology in this country have incorporated these viewpoints or even given these any consideration. Sadly though but many researchers continue to be oblivious of the presence of these important writings and debates in the country. Let us now look into why this may be the case. Several reasons can be presented for this sloppy, un-even moratorium psychology and its professionals have lived with and even continue to endure in reclusive settings.

The most important feature of psychology in the case of India is that its birthday can be traced to the heyday of the colonial rule under the majestic British Empire. Like all things British in India9, the empiricist psychology tradition was a gift to India by the colonial masters. Again, like all British endowments to India (am aware that people might react to this issue differently), Indians have not been able to ‘metabolize’ these fully even after 60 years of their departure. Borrowing the words of the well-known French psychoanalysts, Nicholas Abraham & Maria Torok (1994)10 we are living with many-a-‘phantoms’ of the past that are the result of our colonial history, the cultural trauma that emanated as a result, its psychic encryption and subsequent (psychic-social-political) concealment of this trauma from collective memory. Said’s Orientalism, Fanon’s work on the psychology of the oppressed and oppressor and later Derrida’s ingenious work on cultural mourning, and back at home writings of Das (1989, 1996, & 1997), Nandy (1995), G. Pandey (1988), Spivak (1993) are some examples of the post-colonial writings which have touched the heart of the culture-psyche debate. The fact that colonial psychology/ psychiatry was devised to tame the ‘natives’, curtail their madness to its ‘boundaried’ limits, while at the same time built with a mission to ‘provide restful haven’ (like resplendent herbal saunas and spas) to tired, melancholic British officers, set the double- standards which continue till today (Basu, 2005). Caste and class hierarchies pervade and continue to be preserved and maintained in mental institutions (or for that matter in most public institutions). As a result, the first rendition of psychology in India was mainly a colonial one which eschewed local practices and beliefs in a bid to introduce and familiarize civilized conduct and modern well-being methods to the 9 Few other gifts given to us are the transport system particularly the railways, cricket, powerful influence and privileged position of English language in the country. Besides the judiciary, educational and bureaucratic systems in India which thrive as per British format; all continue to provide vital anchorage as much as each of these continue to cause commotions of sorts in our lives. 10 Abraham, Nicolas and Maria Torok 1994. The Shell and the Kernel: Renewals of Psychoanalysis, Volume 1. Edited by Nicholas T. Rand. The University of Chicago Press: US.

240

Indians. There are several other instructive writings on this issue, chiefly, Bhatia (2002), Hartnack (2001), Nandy (1974, 1995) and an excellent piece devoted to the issue by Ernst (1997) for an intensive sojourn on the colonial impact on the native self.

Other than the colonial rendition of the subject of psychology, the educated Indians during the Raj were slow to react to some of the impositions and racist attitudes of the British. Seeped in their ambivalence between remaining closer to the native ‘self’ or to the educated, enlightened white man, the educated Indians subverted the role of culture, self and subjectivity in their practice of psychology (indeed as also seen in other disciplines such as medicine, psychiatry etc). Nandy’s work illuminates this dynamics in more details (see, Nandy, 1995). This attitude impeded work on uniquely Indian-oriented cultural- psychological theories and praxes. Most Indian ‘babus’ chose to reject Indian practices out-rightly and joined the British in denigrating the Indian value system and social customs in order to seek membership in the British–White civilized club. Until today remnants of colonial enterprise can be seen in the way psychology has grown in the academia. It presents itself in form of a discipline cut-off from social reality where the researcher presents his/her own subjectivity/ objectivity as superior to the subject of the study. Walter Ernst (1997) has sketched a revealing psychohistory of the ‘idioms of madness’ of the native and European mentally ill in the early nineteenth century British India. As Foucault showed in his writings that power and a certain sociality decided the fate of madness, and appropriated the mad, his madness and idioms associated with it to cover in its rubric all sorts of mismatched, disadvantaged and dysfunctional men and women. Colonial psychiatry in India was an undertaking of a similar kind which is later reinvigorated in the form of increasing ostracization of women, lower castes, tribes and any one who dared to disconform. Ernst refers to Foucault’s work on history of madness as special attempt towards writing the history of both concepts and institutions in a way that blurred the distinction between the two. History of psychiatric institutions in India would be an enterprise worth engaging in to look at how ‘madness’ was conceptualized, how it was transformed with colonial rule and what were the ramifications of the colonial import and the current state in which Indian psychiatry and academic psychology finds itself11. A beautiful Merchant-Ivory film, ‘Heat and Dust’ (1983) looked at similar attitudes and was an exemplary piece of work that compared the British attitude to healing practices predominant in India during the days of the Raj.

The third factor which affected psychology in India was its large scale intellectual denigration carried out by social scientists from allied disciplines, particularly influences from anthropology, political science and sociology that deemed psychology to be too individualistic and narrow a pursuit for delving into the Indian social reality. The social science criticism of psychology as a deterministic, mechanistic and logico-positivist enterprise has a grain of truth in it, however the multifarious ways in which psychology has undergone change and evolved many of its epistemic practices are not fully known to many of its Indian (social sciences) critics (see, Kakar, 2000, in Sharma 2003). The irony here is that serious and sustained exchanges and debates about the place of psychology in the academia never took place and have not even begun today.

11 Two recent projects of relevance to critical psychology are worth mentioning here: Amita Dhanda’s book ‘Legal Order and Mental Disorder’ by Sage India, 2000 and an Action Aid India project ‘Maitri’ (meaning friendship) devoted to mental health and women in institutionalized care which has assessed the condition of mental hospitals in India and provided guidelines and instances of serious violations in psychosocial rehabilitation and care of mentally ill patients to the National Human Rights Commission (see, http://actionaidindia.org/download/AAInewsletter.pdf: pp. 13-15).

241

The subsequent ostracism psychology faced in the academia worsened due to the inertia and lackadaisical stance of many psychologists towards attending to relevant social problems, and their rigidities in exploring new epistemologies and cross-fertilizations within and outside the discipline as they chose mere replication of outdated and a-contextual Western psychological researches. Sitting rather too comfortably in the pigeon holes of the University departments, which do not mirror socio-cultural realities of common man in India, psychologists have increasingly chosen to remain insular and un-necessarily self-absorbed. Even during the times when social sciences were revamping and scrutinizing their colonial baggage, essentially during seventies and early eighties psychology remained far from this self-reflexive, deconstructive enterprise that was in many ways deeply political in character and calling. As a result both in terms of ideological and epistemological shifts, psychology in India has chosen to live behind veils.

I have on purpose tried to stay away from delving into critical social theory or post-colonial writings which have otherwise informed, embraced and interpenetrated the critical psychology movement. There remains a disjunct between radical social sciences approach and the approach taken by psychologists in India. This split in episteme and praxis becomes blurred when discourse of the former (radical social thought) is used to explicate happenings in the latter (within the field of psychology). I fear that any comparison between social science discourse(s) in India and Indian psychological discourse would amount to recreating a ‘muller-lyer illusion’ of little relevance. There are writings by Gayatri C. Spivak, Veena Das, Ranajit Guha, Homi Bhabha, Dipesh Chakravarty and many others who have been sympathetic to critical psychological and psychoanalytic formulations12. But their engagement is restricted only with the use of psychological/ psychoanalytic tropes to elaborate and unravel cultural-political thematics. While their formulations are profound and very relevant to understanding post-coloniality, contemporary Indian social reality and its relation to human subjectivity; most psychologists in India have remained untouched by their call for a ‘paradigm shift’. Forthcoming sections point to certain problematic areas that have increasingly made psychology an inhibited and limited enterprise and point to recent openings and alternatives for introducing critical thinking into psychology.

Innovations and Aporias

Can the god, being used to Calcutta, not stand the climate in Vienna?Freud’s note in his diary about Bose, (Cited in Christiane Hartnack, 2005:10)

This section is devoted to two statesmen who worked diligently within the discipline, developing and furthering the cause of the psychology through their incisive thinking and writings. The sheer length and breadth of their writings in spite of the ethnocultural bias with which they worked on ideas, gives a picture of active individuals who engaged with critical questions associated with the discipline (in whatever their times and resources could permit).

The quote above is Freud’s note about the Bengali psychologist/ psychoanalyst, Girindrasekhar Bose. The comment could easily be deemed Eurocentric or even worst, Freud’s lack of understanding of what Bose was struggling with in his hesitance to meet the God-in-Question (Freud himself) and the psychoanalytic fraternity in the West. Said’s (2003) discussion of Freud’s fraught relationship to the non-European (even worst when it happens to be a non-European analyst) is worth attending to in which he suggests what Freud struggled most was with the idea of ‘identity’ itself (and his own primarily) (p.79) today this

12 Indian psychoanalytic history and developments associated with it would be briefly discussed later.

242

idea extends unquestionably to the identity and politics of lives in diasporas, the manifestation of which is now more common in the non-Western parts of the world which Freud did not visualize. Hartnack (2001) has shown in her work the patho-analysis of Indians which caught attention of Freud, and Indo-British analysts such Daly and Berkeley-Hill. In this context, Parker succinctly argues ‘how psychoanalysis itself became part of the disease it claims to cure and that ‘psychoanalytic research’ becomes an analysis of contradictory pathological experience as itself already interpreted by psychoanalysis (2003:2, my italics).

There are at least two distinct personalities in the Indian history of psychology that I regard as having served the discipline as great innovators: G.S. Bose and D. Sinha. There are few commonalities between the two scholars. A few of the attributes common to both are: Both of these strong-headed men belonged to the upper class; their personalities were marked with traditional-domineering attitudes and lifestyles13 but at the same time, they both shared a presence of courage, foresight and creativity in the launching of new ideas; they had encouraging attitude towards similar-minded individuals and groups which allowed the institutions (that they created & belonged to) to thrive with their good administrative skills; and they nurtured talents. Girindrashekhar Bose (1887-1953) was the product of the first Psychology Department in the country, which was established in Calcutta in year 1905. He soon became a Professor and Head of the Department of psychology at the age of 23 and remained active for more than five decades. Interestingly, like Freud who was the first self-analysed psychoanalyst14, Bose too was India’s first ‘self-styled’ analyst who founded the Indian Psychoanalytic Society15, after corresponding with Freud and Ernst Jones in early 1920’s. The bustling stories of initial psychoanalytic activities in colonial India that we hear today are entirely to his credit. Bose’s varied psychoanalytically oriented writings on Indian cultural psyche, particularly his doctoral thesis on the concept of repression, and interpretation of many religious texts, are examples of exemplary efforts16. Many commentators discovered later on that in the Bose-Freud correspondence, there was much to be read between the lines: implications for non-western psychoanalysis, identity of Indian (non-western) psychoanalyst in the Western psychoanalysis, and incorporation of more relational strand of psychoanalysis (the kind now seen in Inter-subjective, Object-relational and Kohutian brands that have revolutionized the practice of psychoanalysis today). There are at least three well-informed and elaborated writings on Bose which the reader is recommended to read -Sudhir Kakar’s work on Stories from Indian Psychoanalysis (1985, 1989, & 1990), Ashis Nandy’s work on The Savage Freud (1995)17, and the scholarly project on psychoanalysis in colonial India by Hartnack (2001, 2005) and more recently in Akhtar (2005). My concern here is not to sketch a psychobiography of Bose but to point to the nature of his innovations and ideas and suggestions to invigorate some of his efforts. The second figure more predominant in the

13 Caricatures of the Babus from the days of the Raj (they were indeed working as ‘babus’ during the British rule!).14 These days when many new stories are coming out about his life and relationships this is no longer such an amusing fact about Freud. However it is the first truism to remember about Freud when encountering any rebuttal or fancy appreciation of Freudianism today. See, Adam Phillips’s (2000) Promises, Promises. Faber & Faber: UK, for further elaboration on this theme.15 Four years back, I visited the Society’s office in a ram shackled Parsibagan Lane building of Calcutta out of my sheer curiosity and naïve enthusiasm. I was shocked to see the dilapidated and archaic condition in which the Society’s office ran and the plight of its journal Samiksa which publishes old, unannotated articles of little relevance to current developments within psychoanalysis or Indian society for that manner. 16 Sadly many of his unpublished and even published books and papers have either disappeared or are unavailable or out of print today (see, Nandy (1995) particularly chpt.4 titled-‘The savage Freud’, pp.81-144).17 A compendium of Nandy’s recent writings can be found in Exiled at Home [Omnibus Volume], 1998, Delhi: Oxford University Press and Dissenting Knowledges, Open Futures: The Multiple Selves and Strange Destinations of Ashis Nandy2000, edited by Vinay Lal, Delhi: OUP.

243

history of psychology in India is Durganand Sinha (1922-1998). Trained in Britain with Frederick Bartlett in a postgraduate course with no PhD as such, but a man of tremendous energy and foresight, Sinha focused on multifarious issues within psychology. He founded the Psychology Department of Allahabad that subsequently acquired the name of Centre for Advanced Study in Psychology. Girishwar Mishra (1998) in an obituary note on Sinha in the IACCP bulletin enumerates his significant contributions as: his continued struggle for culturally appropriate psychology, incorporation of Indian tradition within Western social science, deep emphases on problem-oriented psychology (his papers related to poverty, environmental issues and other social problems are instructive writings), decolonizing psychology by the emphasis on India-oriented lexicon also by working on relational model of man-environment transaction. In this exercise, Sinha contributed by constantly searching for alternatives to Western Academic Scientific Psychology (WASP)18.

Both these men with a rigor and penchant for writing and developing new and bold ideas had much in common. They were institution-builders who set trends, offered and practiced a science of psychology that was an amalgam of ideas informed by cultural history, practices and politics, and social issues of the times. The contributions made by them can be summarized into three distinct kinds: (a) a strong emphases towards culturally-based practice of psychology is shown in their writing, (b) the exemplary courage and fortitude both displayed in speaking against the popular (mainstream) trend (subverting the centrality of Oedipus complex in Bose’s case in his communication to Freud and articulation of clear culturally-informed research agendas in case of British educated Sinha), (c) and their organizational capabilities enabled institution-building at a time when psychology had hardly taken grips in the country (efforts of Bose are particularly exemplary in this regard)19. Today however the institutions and agendas set by these two innovators appear to be on the verge of becoming obsolete (with the Centre at Allahabad being a slight exception) and from their time to now, the vision of founding psychology imbued with Indian cultural reality seems to have blurred considerably.

Over the Edge: New and Innovative Spaces

More original, socially relevant and astute researches in the country range from critical reflections and serious interrogations in areas of cultural psychology (Misra & Gergen, 1993), indigenous social psychology (Sinha, D. 1986; 1997; Sinha, J., 1984), cultural psychoanalysis (Kakar, 1989, 1995) and the consequent development of social sciences hermeneutic enterprise (Sharma, 2000; Bhatia, 2002). Such researches have continued to interrogate and debate the existent straight-jacketed conceptualizations of psychological research and practice in India. Researches such as Nandy (1974, 1995), Vahali (1999, 2000 & 2004) have added more depth to the cultural repertoire of psychological research as well as encompassed sensitive socio-political positions in their theorization. There are a series of methodological and theoretical innovations that are due to some of these exceptional researchers from the field. Beginning with, two prominent players such as Girindrasekhar Bose (1929/1999, 1937)

18 Curiously enough, Mishra refers to this Western Academic Scientific Psychology as WASP. The term WASP can easily present an imagery of the infectious impact of Western psychology on East which Sinha has eminently highlighted. The dictionary provides two meanings of ‘Wasp’, first refers to the more commonly known: ‘any of numerous social or solitary winged insects with a slender smooth body with the abdomen attached by a narrow stalk, well-developed wings, biting mouthparts and are largely carnivorous’, a second allusion is to ‘a white Protestant of Anglo-Saxon ancestry’! I am not sure if either Sinha or Mishra were aware of these two connotations of their abbreviation WASP. 19 See, Akhtar (2005) in Freud along the Ganges & Basu’s paper (1999) devoted to Bose’s life and work context.

244

and Durganand Sinha who are known for their pioneering efforts in the field of psychology, to significant contributions of A.K. Ramanujan (1990), Girishwar Misra at the University of Delhi (1993 with Kenneth Gergen), Janak Pandey (1994 with Sinha & others, 2001, 2004), R.C. Tripathi (1994 with D. Sinha) and others in what is now also referred to as the Allahabad School20 of psychology), JBP Sinha in Patna (1984, 1993, 2001, & 2004), Dinesh Sharma (2000) have contributed towards furthering critical cultural and social constructionist research foci within psychology. Women researchers such as T. S. Saraswathi (1998, 1999a & 1999b), Bhargavi Davar (1999 & 2000), U. Vindhya (2001 & 2003), Jyoti Verma (1999, with others) and Nandita Chaudhary (2003) have attempted to engage with questions of suffering; identity-politics and self-processes in situations of massive trauma; and the attendant existential concerns of women’s lives. Furthermore, they popularizing ethnographies based on women’s struggles, mental health issues and psychosexuality in the Indian context. Apart from, researchers such as Sudhir Kakar who is perhaps the first Indian psychoanalyst to have extensively written and deliberated so poignantly and thoughtfully on wide socio-psychological forays, Ashis Nandy who continues to offer a distinctive albeit subversive flavour to the enterprise of political psychology, informed by postcolonial theory, cultural & literary theory and psychoanalysis. There are several others who have contributed similarly.

Psychology within Indian Academia: Still debating old or new?

The colonized state of mind marked by a refusal to own up one’s cultural and historical past is the hallmark of psychology in the academia today. There are two prisms through which I interrogate their presence. One is through a brief (it may seem like a cursory view) review of the 2001 & 2004 ICSSR Review Series titled ‘Psychology in India Revisited’. The other lens is academic psychology’s working and functioning style that has not only informed their writing but also seems to have inter-generationally transmitted a work culture of ‘apositionality’ seeped in a certain refusal to mentate on the ‘psychology’ and ‘identity’ of the academic psychologist as such. Such a work culture yields most notably in dead-pan theorizations, narrow conceptualization of practice and psychological skills with discriminatory ways in which these skills are disseminated across generations of students. In all of this, the most problematic part is the authoritarian and hegemonic relationship that is formed between learner-learned, or practitioner-patient, researcher-participant, professor-student, or a senior colleague-junior colleague, thus the loop of vicious hierarchies continues unrelentingly. This loop as I argue in the first section is a continuation of our colonial past as well as maintenance of hierarchical social stratifications such as caste and religious discrimination which pervades our academic lives.

Curse of Medusa’s Hair: Dead-Pan Psychological theorization. There have been several reviews of psychological literature in the last four decades. The more recently done review namely Psychology in India revisited published in 2001-2004, suffers from a major fallacy. The compendium works with the assumption that the origins and practices of particular psychological traditions guiding and informing Indian research studies are sufficiently known or elaborated upon. Often this assumption creates problems in understanding the locus of the research and the assessment yardstick of the reviewer. For instance, to begin with the broad thematics under which the review organizes itself seems problematic. The thematic chapters appeared to have been straight out of Euro-American textbooks and consequently the review comprised of several categories in which scattered Indian researches were later jotted down. Even while authors differentiated between ‘forerunners’ and the rest, as ‘bulk’ (Naidu: 270-

20 Allahabad University is amongst the oldest and prestigious of the Universities in India and the academic psychology department has had the privilege of hosting original thinking and sensitive minds.

245

271 cited in Pandey, 2004), there was no engagement with meta-psychology or usefulness of the constructs widely studied (irrespective of who undertook it- the forerunners or the bulk). It was amusing to see a simple and discriminatory generalization that ‘forerunners’ were doing good work, and the ‘bulk’ were not (Naidu even says somewhere in his chapter that the bulk are mainly the college teachers and University teachers! (p.270)) and offers this as a high-point in his review-findings. However, whether psychological research in India was going anywhere (with or without forerunners) was not sufficiently deliberated upon.

On the question of the content of the review, I am not sure if experimental evidence on motivation, attitudes, social cognition, personality, life events etc were even clearly contextualized in the Indian reality by some of these reviewers. Or for that matter why did the reviewers not devote some time towards elaborating on their understanding of the thematics under which the review was organized. For example, in the chapter on Self, Personality and Life-Events, the author presents ‘soaring into the indigenous expanse’ as a flight towards culturally-congruous and sensitive medium of engagement with psychological research. In spite of presenting evidence on the utmost relevance of Indigenous theorization on personality and consciousness, the author uses constructs such as ‘self-disclosure’, ‘locus of control’, ‘individualism-collectivism’, or ‘achievement motivation’ under which he classifies various research literature found in India. Do these not become problematic Western categories that need to be deconstructed in light of the indigenous psychology findings or principles? If indigenous or cultural theorization does not give credence to self-disclosure, or achievement motivation or locus of control in the way Western theorization does, then what is the value of presenting the categories and a critique of this paradigm alongside without really any critical reflection on restructuring of some of these meta-psychological concepts.

In my reading of this trilogy ‘Psychology in India revisited’, the dead-pan quality of the narrative depicted in both what was being reviewed and many-a-times in the language in which it was reviewed, is very striking. It is no doubt that assimilating and reviewing at times fractured, out-dated, conventional, and drab pieces of work, in the name of ‘empirical research’ is not an easy mission to undertake. What appeared even more frightening was this attitude of many reviewers of taking many methodological quandaries for granted and creating more methodological or presentational errors in-turn in reporting results and in the ensuing discussion of these research findings (such as incoherent tabular analysis, unclear discussion or reporting of results, tardy usage of unknown abbreviations are some examples of glaring mistakes made). Besides the often noticed smoothening of the results along with ignorance shown in the wider ethical or epistemic implications of many research findings in light of the chosen methodology, assumptions and principles (used to study a particular phenomena or a group of participants), were again easily identifiable anomalies.

Another observation, an equally compelling one, I hope would make my point clearer. The attempt in some of the review chapters was restricted to collation (not even detailed examination) of large pool of researches taking place in different parts of the country in different conditions and state of progress. It is in this aspect that the Review Series achieves an impossible feat and does a commendable job. But whether the authors of different review chapters had well-deliberated guidelines, pointed methodological and theoretical questions, or concerns directed towards the reception, state, or even suggestions for more comprehensive research practices within the sub-specialties or broad thematics under which they surveyed various literature, is not very clearly evident. It is a cluttered state of affairs especially in areas such as child development; psychological research in adolescence and youth: psychology of

246

gender; indigenous social psychology; research methods; and most importantly, areas such as psychology of self, self-growth and personality particularly in, studies on consciousness21.

In contrast to some chapters that appeared stylistically shallow and drab; and inconclusive in terms of the implications drawn, few chapters of this Review series were extraordinary, in their attempts to highlight rather compelling issues also in the sheer range of material sensitively knitted together. The chapters on ‘Psychological dimensions on human poverty and deprivation’ (Mishra & Tripathi: 118-215 cited in Pandey, 2004) and ‘An intergroup perspective on Ethnic Minority Identity’ (Hutnik: 216-260 cited in Pandey, 2004) were interesting exercises in cross-disciplinary analysis at the same time. While the first review paper attempted to bring together pertinent findings from well-researched areas of development economics in which the definition of poverty remains a crucial debate until today (such as detailed explication of work of Dreze & Sen 1989 & work on human capability approach), Indian sociology, social anthropology (and its deliberations on who decides who is poor, how ‘poor’ is poor and whether ‘poor’ think that they are ‘poor’ remain critical questions), and social policy issues into psychological ‘construction’ and engagement with poverty and deprivation. The other paper attempted to elaborate on socio-political events such as the Mandal Commission Report22 and student agitation in the aftermath of it, Ayodhaya Ram Janmabhoomi23 issue and ensuing violence, without any fear or apparent anxiety of violation of set-psychological thinking or writing. The two papers were exemplary because of (a) an active engagement with deconstructing ‘conceptual’ aspects of the thematic they were looking into (This engagement made the topics more comprehensive and less definitive in its psychological dimension, and therefore more effective, in effect makes the paper on poverty a model paper on ‘conceptual research’ in psychology in India), (b) this theoretical pluralism allowed the authors to venture into interdisciplinary forays for ‘second opinions’, 21 The issues covered in the chapter on ‘consciousness studies’ (p. 19-162 in Pandey, 2001) has the potential to confuse the reader immensely. It begins with an explication of Indian psychological tradition and philosophy, highlights the importance of consciousness in Indian philosophy with details on how consciousness is theorized and used within this paradigm. Later, in the chapter in a bid to connect this with Western conceptualizations, the author digresses (in my view gets confused as well) about the specificity of the issue at hand. Here allusions are made to quite old and outdated studies on sleep, dreaming, extra-sensory perception, neuro-psychology of states of consciousness, poltergeists, and many other topics which add to more bewilderment, and displacement of the original idea (i.e. place of consciousness in Indian system and the state of research in India in this area) with which the author began. The lack of new research findings and developments, presented a rather grim picture of both Western experimentation into states of consciousness (which is a thriving field today) as well as complicated, unclear tenor of Indian philosophical psychology. It is unclear to me as to why the author entered into a comparison of Western and Indian (or Eastern) philosophical-psychological research endeavours as these cannot be reconciled easily (one exception might be Western psychoanalysis even though comparisons with psychoanalysis are not without usual problems, see, Roland, 1996; Kakar, 2003). At the end, what is presented to us is a forced marriage of uneasy bed-fellows!22 The Mandal Commission in India was established in 1979 by the Janata Party government under Prime Minister Morarji Desai with a mandate to identify the socially or educationally backward. It was headed by Indian parliamentarian BP Mandal. The report released in 1980, was the source of great controversy, and its implementation in 1990 was the ultimate cause of India's Prime Minister Vishwanath Pratap Singh's resignation. There was large scale protests of upper-caste students in various Universities and self-immolation by the protesting students were a common sight then. Incidentally, the current Government has taken affirmative action by regularizing some of the Commission’s recommendations to encourage backward caste and tribes and it was met with large scale unrest and protest again. (See, Hutnik, 2004: 216-260 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandal_commission for more information). 23 Ayodhya is an ancient city of India. Ayodhya Debate concerns two historical monuments- the Ram Janmabhoomi temple and the Babri Mosque. The mosque was destroyed in 1992 by Kar Sevaks (Hindu volunteers) and rioters due to the belief that the Ram Janmabhoomi existed prior to the mosque's construction and that the temple was the birthplace of Rama. The debate and consequent violence has contributed a lot to recent political unrest amongst Hindus and Muslims (See, Hutnik, 2004: 216-260 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayodhya for more information).

247

clarifications and in-depth analysis of issues, practices and methodologies, and (c) the resultant open-ness in inviting ideas, also loosened ‘un-necessary narrative tightness’ (almost anal-retentive in character!) and allowed for a relatively free and engaging exploration of the concerned topic.

Uncritical Pedagogy: Thoughts without a Thinker? Unfortunately amongst the psychology courses offered in India today no paper or course work is devoted specifically to reading, thinking, critically engaging with the historical past and future directions of the discipline in India. As a consequence, one does not get to know the founding members of discipline, where, when it was introduced and why and how its need was felt, and how past developments and innovations shaped or mis-shaped the destiny of the discipline in the country. There is no time-line drawn to demarcate the evolution of the discipline (and it is no linear best-fit line that one is talking of – it is a history of progression and movement that one has to painstakingly evolve). It is here that explorations within the fields of cultural history, pedagogy, philosophy, post-coloniality and sociology that are much needed today to fill in gaps; similarly explorations within medical sciences such as epidemiology, public health and psychiatry are required to trace antecedents of the paradigms and practices prevalent within psychology in India. And it is no surprise today that there is as such no dominant critical psychology discourse in the country24 as the shunning of the disciplinary history entails a corresponding disregard and engagement with current practices.

The lackadaisical attitude towards professional work and feudal style of functioning in many of the psychology professionals might be responsible for resisting processes of change. This applies as such to teaching and research as much as it is seen in the way several professional organizations and NGO’s look at psychological interventions or the use of psychology in Indian society.

Also commonly seen are flippant and flirtatious back-and-forth between American and English (British) philosophical viewpoints, un-thoughtful usage of textbooks and reference books by and large at undergraduate as well as postgraduate25, research orientations which are practiced disorganize teaching and thinking about psychology. Often, our use of psychological tests and theoretical underpinnings of testing or experimentation also reflect this shift in moving between different constructs, use of contesting theories underlying these to uncritical and un-annotated explication of a single psychological process. However in the high school-level psychology studies, text books are becoming more receptive and open to accounting for culturally-rooted issues and psychological theorization more recently26. But at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels the textbooks continue to be mainly foreign books with bits and pieces of Indian or indigenous material thrown in the curricula. Associated with

24 Recent revivification of ideas within the Department of Psychology at the University of Delhi amongst few other centers in India (such as NIIMHANS, JNU amongst others), seek to address some of the concerns of critical psychology discourse. However, lack of a congruous dialogue, absence of an intellectual culture of thinking that feeds into consistent, creative and sophisticated writing about problematics inherent in the methodology and assumptions of psychology, makes some of the (potential) arguments made by scholars in the field (at the University), relatively unexplored and untested so far.25 Very naturally based on calculations of accessibility and price as well as the ease with which one first two conditions can be met.26 In the previous BJP-led coalition government, a raucous play with Senior Secondary school History textbooks was seen. These were attempts at tampering with historical facts associated with Partition (of India-Pakistan), or attempt at meddling with historical dates and glorification and saffronizing (Hindu Nationalist movement) of many Hindu historical figures. The present government took it upon itself to correct and restore the textbook back into its original shape. There have been interesting debates consequently between left and right-wing ideologues and historians on dissemination of knowledge.

248

the issue of proper curriculum is the general paucity of grants and requisite resources to carry out quality teaching and research work27. This is seen even in governmental policies on mental health and its psychological needs and well-being advocacy (See, Davar, 1999 & Dhanda, 2000 for detailed exposition on this issue).

The place of youth and young researchers in a country such as India continues to be quite problematic. The conservative wisdom holds that knowledge, brilliance and shrewdness only comes at a good-old ripe age (perhaps this is true or perhaps it is bunkum or a claptrap, I am not sure!) and this makes academics more impervious for the younger lot (as one has to come of an age to acquire the wisdom or an academic position). The issue is not to fuss over the preference shown for seasoned academicians in University departments or to age-old wisdom28 but the fuss here is over the unchecked and flourishing caste system like discrimination of young people in academics. Psychology in India is no different and suffers from this tendency to drive away people as it uses a jaundiced attitude which constantly eschews equal participation, rights and recognition of young entrants to the academic ladder. The problem is this fossilized mindset which at the end neither cares for wisdom nor experience sufficiently. I have no deeper sociological knowledge of the roots of this prejudice or how culturally-entrenched such discrimination is; or if it is meant to prepare youth to more untoward situations but that it works on exploitation and negation of a young person’s identity and on inequitable power relations is clearly visible.

Matter of a genuine Identity Crisis? Or, merely Psychologist’s non-Positionality

Do psychologists in India seem more symptomatic in this regard or is the a-positionality vis-à-vis the object (and by implication the subject) of their research merely offset of an attitude adopted by the profession by and large? This is a problematic question for me to understand whether psychologists in India have increasingly isolated themselves as a result of the ‘more empathic- non-extremist’ stance of identifying with varied subject positions and voices. Is this sense of ‘isolation’ from active participation in larger social or political life/ movements/events, commonly encountered or as such a feature of psychologist’s general professional identity? In which case it would be a common experience or commonly held stance of psychologists living across the globe. I do not know if this resistance and at times shying away from active engagement and interrogation with present practices, discourses, set-knowledge forms, structures, and institutions comes from this non-positionality inherent in the sanitized empathic, distant but vaguely in-tuned identification with subject-object stance that psychology boasts of and considers unique to itself. Does this sanitized stance somehow delude psychologists from making more moral, ethical or at times informed political choices, decisions or for them to express incumbent dilemmas as the object of their attention remains the enigmatic human subject, its agency and subjectivity?

Dissident Voices and New Cataclysms Exposed

The dissident voices are characteristic ones as these involve individuals who have drifted away from the field towards clearer engagement with ‘relationality’ or ‘positionality’ as primary to the work of a psychological researcher. I put Sudhir Kakar as one who been increasingly preoccupied with expressions and nuances of ‘relationality’ and its peculiarities from the psychoanalytic aperture and Ashis Nandy as another who has increasingly moved further away from his interest in psychology to pastures where particularities of postures

27 This is a larger issue which is not dealt with directly in this paper.28 Aged, aging and at times ailing!

249

adopted by human subject are debated more openly and vehemently. Both the scholars have strayed away from discourses within academic psychology29 and somewhat purged contact and participation within academic psychology. This has only widened the gap between theory and practice in a discipline where epistemic aporias exceed our estimation. It is in this sense that I refer to them as dissidents.

However there is much to learn from their respective departures and particular exegeses but it only makes me acutely aware of the dilemma of developing a necessary stance of ‘positionality’, required in order to sustain an involvement in meaningful discourse (in otherwords in order to do meaningful academics, the researcher has to present her position more clearly). If it is incumbent for psychologists to traverse outside of their discipline to gather strength in order to ‘position’ their selves closer to their subject (or object), that is, away from their narcissistic preoccupation with this ‘a-positional’ (or one oppositional to understanding processes of) objectification and subjectivity in their engagement with psychological research, then perhaps many-a-psychologists (in our country) are needed to step-out to embrace positions not easily found or located within the ambit of the psychology. One can see a similar movement in the work of Veena Das’s (1996) work on violence and social trauma, Gyanendra Pandey’s (1988) articulation of communal history and its otherness, Arthur Kleinman’s (1988 & 1997) work on pain and suffering, Amartya Sen’s (with Dreze, 198930) work on poverty and its inversely proportional relationship to identity, freedom and entitlement, are indicative of a movement in which something of the basic skin-ego (of the disciplinary identity) was shed-off in order to embrace humanism and make social interventions.

Two pertinent interrogations connected with dissidents and their exits often come up. Seshadri-Crooks (1997) in a rebuttal of Kakar’s work (mainly his 1978 work titled the Inner World), problematizes identity of a researcher who uses intersubjectivity (by implication psychoanalysis as a tool in investigation) to elaborate on sociological, ethical and historical discourses. Crooks raises the dual concerns of representation of postcolonial discourse within psychoanalysis and the explication of power-relations between sexes in India (she mainly picks on earlier criticisms of Kakar and Naipaul voiced by Spivak). In her estimation, Kakar presents in his psychoanalytic work a self-consciousness that is not readily available to his subjects (1994: 205) and as a result his theorization suffers from the good-old phallocentric bias as well as uneasiness shown in engaging with a dethronement of the essentializing discourse of psychoanalysis31. I think both comments deserve attention and are relevant criticism. However, my second reference to Rajan’s work attempts to deconstruct s and problematize Crooks’s position (and in many ways Spivak’s work as well). Rajeshwari Rajan (1997) in a paper on the third world academic focuses on the flourishing market of subaltern studies and postcolonial feminism which thrives mostly in the North-American and European ambience. She suggests that somehow it is only amidst ‘global capitalism’ that ‘the third world academic in the first world academe’ becomes ‘the pacesetters in cultural criticism’(p. 597), she offers a contraposition to Spivak’s postcolonial feminism. Rajan points out that postcolonial intellectuals in the two places of residence (those in India and in Euro-American settings) are constituted differently. Her paper points to compelling cultural frames such as ‘poverty, resource distribution, state violence, human rights violations, urban sanitation, development’ which how remain outside the explanatory frameworks of academic discourse 29 I will not be surprised if both these people react by saying that they were infact never psychologists by training or leanings or for that matter, not only psychologists in the first instance!30 Dreze’s recent effort on evaluation the rural schools mid-day meals scheme is exemplary.31 Crooks presents detailed analogy of Freud and Kakar in their (mis-)treatment of symbol for symptom and offers a rereading of Obeyesekere as historicizing and contextualizing gender, politics and culture more clearly.

250

or that postcolonial intellectuals in the first world, are relatively less perturbed by or not directly exposed to such concerns (p. 615)32. In Rajan’s words: “it is also my point that in the international division of labour, making sense of this world is not a task that must necessarily fall to the share of only of some (those who are proximate to this reality) while others are exempt from its pressures” (p. 616)33. It is in this regard that Nandy’s oeuvre is striking34. His writings have allowed this engagement with these frames that are otherwise relegated to ‘the realm of unmentionable’ (as Rajan calls these, p. 615) by many postcolonial academics situated away from their respective intellectual ‘archaeological’ sites.

To connect it with the questions raised earlier, not only do we need to begin looking at postcoloniality and critical social-historical discourses that have remained outside of the purview of psychology. It is equally important and imperative to bring into focus ‘how dominant accounts of `psychology` (or knowledge per sae as Foucault showed us) operate ideologically and in the service of power’ (whether it is power-wielding logico-positivist discourse in mainstream psychology or ‘third world intellectuals’ churning far too elegant theorizations in ‘the first world academe’). Also critical psychology needs give way to explorations of the way everyday `ordinary psychology` structures academic and professional work in psychology and how everyday activities might provide the basis for resistance to contemporary disciplinary practices (Parker, 1999: 12-17) (as seen in the penetrating criticism Rajan has made of some of the critical postcolonial positions).

New Interventions

Home is where we start from. Recent researches informed by psychoanalysis and qualitative methods have tried to redress some of these issues alluded to in the above sections. The main focus of this new genre of research is to involve contextual, thick descriptions which bolster a theoretical and methodological pluralist stance of the researcher. These psycho-social studies do not contest over qualitative or quantitative methodology instead these spread out their wings to theorize about ‘psychological subject’ and its embeddedness in the social matrix and shows interest in critique informed by ideological concerns in psychology (Frosh, 2003:1551). In past few years, the resurgence of this psychosocial perspective has brought into its fold many prolific even vanguard research trends. The chief highlights are papers of Veena Das’s (1987) mentation on the anthropology of violence and speech of the victims of communal riots; later work with Kleinman (1997) on the theme of social suffering, Amit Basu’s (2005) interception of the relationship between colonial history, psychiatry in its current formation; Dinesh Sharma’s (2000) work on Childhood in India and crosscuts between social constructionist and psychoanalytic viewpoints; Honey Oberoi’s exploration into refugee trauma, cultural resilience and research on marginalized voices (2002, 2003); Nagpal (2000); Sunil Bhatia’s (2002) work on cross-cultural psychology and representation of the ‘other’ in Euro-American psychology are some examples of these renewed efforts.

32 I am aware that I might also be implicated in such an accusation.33 With not an intention of defending Kakar and with an acknowledgement of some of the apparent gaps in his psychoanalytic theorization, I feel that some of his crucial writings have allowed an engagement with the commonplace and mundane aspects of psychic life in India than generating burgeoning complex cultural and metapsychological theorization. In some senses, his writings offer an example of engaging ethnographies on Indian cultural psyche.34 A little disclaimer though about Nandy’s work which runs through several intellectual by lanes and defies singular identification with any one episteme. There may well be use-and-abuse of these by lanes implicated in his case. Suffice it to say however Nandy has remained outside of the ambit of some of these postcolonial/ feminist rebuttals in comparison to Kakar.

251

Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Education: It the future of psychology is to be planned with a vision that comes from revisitations of our colonial past, then psychology of the oppressed has to be pursued with more rigor and commitment. It is important in this sense to invite those who are thrown off to the margins because of politics of elitism and exclusion that the discipline of psychology plays in its entrenchment in Euro-American cultural-psychic structures and explanations. Efforts at teaching psychology in native languages have been made and in fact Indian regional languages particularly Bengali, Kannada, and Tamil (partly due to ostracism from the North-Indian Hindi speaking belt) have developed culturally-congruous ways of teaching psychology (see, Raina & Srivastava, 1997). Universities have to look at translation and adaptation as well as project of rewriting of basic textbooks and supplementary books in regional as well as English language35. Inclusion of the voices of women, children, dalits, marginalized communities and alternative paradigms that survive on the edge of the psychological discourse have to be actively pursued. There are many psychological writings covering some of these issues which have not been mapped in this paper due to paucity of space.

Research, Advocacy and Activism: Renovations: Inside and Outside the Academia. Certain academic and research institutions have offered interdisciplinary platform for psychologists join and intervene in several social debates. Amongst the most notable efforts are those of Ashis Nandy’s project titled ‘Memories of a Genocide’ based on the trauma of partition of India and Pakistan. It is an ongoing project carried out at Centre for Study of Developing Societies (CSDS)36, New Delhi; SARAI37 (South Asia Resource Access on the Internet) working in co-ordination with CSDS looks various aspects of research on the city has initiated interesting stipendiary programmes for young researchers from diverse fields and their journal SARAI Reader is well-known for its interdisciplinary presentation; pioneering efforts at outreach and research can also be seen in development of the Centre for Psychoanalytic Studies (CPS), University of Delhi, at evolving course-curricula and interactive modalities to disseminate psychoanalytic training. Similar attempts have been made by popular semi-academic journals such as Seminar38 which have devoted their editions to issues such as drug abuse, rewriting history, reclaiming childhood, revitalizing science, dalit39 perspective, education and livelihood and many other relevant thematics. Other attempts at introducing critical discourses in Indian psychological journals include Psychological Studies edited by Girishwar Mishra (University of Delhi), and The Journal (Journal of the Indian Psychological Foundation) edited by Vimala Lal and others in Delhi and the well-known journal Psychology and the Developing Societies that is edited by AK Dalal (Allahabad University) published by Sage.

Women’s movement in India has led to resurgence in mental health, women’s rights and justice related issues. Psychologically nuanced and gender sensitive writings by Bhargavi 35 Inspite of a nationalist fervour, Indians find it difficult to take positions against wide acceptance and preference shown for English language. Part of it comes from a colonial hangover and the other impact comes the unifying role English language has played in drawing a clear pathway amidst the massive cultural and regional diversity representative of this country.36 More on CSDS can be found at: www.csdsdelhi.org. Although a word of caution, this website has perhaps never been updated since it was constructed. However for more interesting survey of Ashis Nandy’s work see, Vinay Lal’s website (an associate Professor of History at UCLA) called Manas at http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/37 See, www.sarai.net for more information.38 See, www.india-seminar.com/ published by well-known woman journalist Malvika Singh.39In India dalit refers to people who belong to backward caste or tribe.

252

Davar (1999, 2001) and Amita Dhanda’s incisive book on ‘Legal Order and Mental Disorder’ (2000) and Anita Ghai’s work on psychological vicissitudes of disability (2002, 2003) have set trends in the arenas of advocacy and psychological well being in a culture which eschews gender and disability rights. Advocacy and awareness programmes have gained tremendous momentum due to several initiatives of non-governmental organizations such as: in the arena of child mental health, NGOs such as Samadhan, New Delhi; Sangath, Goa; Research Society, Mumbai; Antarnad, Ahmedabad; in the area of women's mental health, IFSHA, New Delhi; RAHI (recovering and healing from incest), Bapu Trust, Pune; in NGO’s working with people with severe mental disorders, there is Schizophrenia Research Foundation, (SCARF), Chennai; Swanchetan (victims of trauma) in New Delhi Medico-Pastoral Association, Bangalore; Richmond Fellowship Society, Bangalore; Paripurnata, Calcutta; Ashagram, Barwani, Madhya Pradesh; in the area of suicide prevention, there is Sneha, Chennai; Prerna, Mumbai. For advocacy in prevention and intervention in substance abuse, there are NGO’s such as TTK, Chennai; National Addiction Research Centre - NARC, Mumbai; devoted carers of the mentally ill are organizations such as the Banyan (offers psychiatric help and rehabilitation for homeless mentally ill), AMEND, Bangalore; Alzheimer's & Related Disorders Society of India - ARDSI, Cochin). These are the prominently known NGO’s that have provided a lot of thrust to mental health issues in the country along with some known international organizations such as Action Aid (UK), SIDA (Sweden), and UN bodies such as UNICEF, UNESCO, UNIFEM and WHO. Some of these are efforts that have allowed psychology to be reconstructed and have opened spaces where the disciplinary boundaries can be challenged further.

Coda

Critical social research flourished in India with incisive and thought-provoking writings in the post-colonial context both inside and outside the academia. However, the emergence of critical psychology approaches have been held back due to an isolationist stance adopted by psychologists in the country. Various reasons for this isolation (forced or chosen?) and disengagement with socio-political issues of Indian culture have been discussed. It is important to seriously review if there is some thing inherent in the discipline which prevents active interrogation of the social or subjective in the social domain or whether psychology in India presented a collective repression that emanated from various structural and institutional impositions on psychologists’ socialization as such. There is a possibility that certain circumscription of human agency emanates from the idiosyncratic way psychology as a discipline functions. But the non-responsiveness along with uncritical explorations and reflections of psychological researches in India point out why bulwark of psychology in the country appears so soulless in comparison to its adjoining social sciences in India which seem to work with missionary zeal. My plea at the end is very simple and short: in the context of India, it is (perhaps even) more important to think and act loudly while responding to socio-political realities and these realities should in-turn inform, interrogate and be able to transform the methodological and epistemological fabric of the discipline of psychology. An insular rendezvous or ‘controlled’ experimentation with the human subject has not taken psychology very far. And, it is time to reconsider our bearings and allegiances to the cause of human well-being.

References

Akhtar, S. (ed). 2005. Freud along the Ganges: Psychoanalytic reflections on the people and culture of India. WW Norton & Co.

253

Basu AR. (1999). Girindrasekhar Bose and the coming of psychology in colonial India. Theoretical Perspective, 6:29–55.

Basu, AR. (2005). Historicizing Indian psychiatry. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 47(2): 126-129.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H. & Dasen, P. R. (1992/2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bhatia, S. (2002). Orientalism in Euro-American and Indian psychology: Historical representation of ‘natives’ in colonial and postcolonial contexts. History of Psychology, 5 (4): 376-398.

Bose, G.S. (1937). The duration of coitus. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 18: 235-55.Bose, G.S. (1929/1999). The genesis and adjustment of the oedipus wish. In T.G. Vaidyanathan and J.J. Kripal (eds.) Vishnu on Freud’s desk, New Delhi : Oxford University Press, pp 21-38.

Chaudhary, N. (2003). Speaking the self into becoming? Culture and Psychology, 9: 471 - 486.

Crooks, K.S. (1994). The primitive as analyst: Postcolonial feminism’s acess to psychoanalysis. Cultural Critique, 28:175-218.

Das, V.(1989). Subaltern as perspective. In ‘Subaltern Studies VI: Writings on South Asian History and Society’. Ed. Ranajit Guha. Oxford and London: Oxford University Press, pp. 310-324.

Das, V.(1996). The spacialization of violence: Case study of a ‘communal riot’. In Unravelling the Nation, ed. Kaushik Basu and Sanjay Subrahmanyam (1996), Penguin India Books, pp. 157-203.

Davar, B.V. (1995). Mental Illness in Indian women. Economic and Political Weekly. 30 (45):2879-86.

Dreze, J. and Sen, A (1989). Hunger and Public Action. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Ernst, W. (1997). Idioms of madness and colonial boundaries: The case of the European and

‘native’ mentally ill in early nineteenth-century British India. Comparative Studies in Society and History,39 (1): 153-181.

Frosh, S. (2003). Psychosocial Studies and Psychology: Is a Critical Approach Emerging? Human Relations, 56, 1547-1567.

Ghai, A. (2002). Disabled Women: An Excluded Agenda of Indian Feminism. Hypatia, 17(3):49-66.

Ghai, A. (2003). (Dis)embodied Form. New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications.Hartnack C. (2001). Psychoanalysis in colonial India, Delhi: Oxford University Press. Hartnack, C. (2003). Freud on garuda’s wings. IIAS Newsletter. Vol. 30:10.Kakar, S. (1985). Psychoanalysis and non-Western cultures. Int. Review Psychoanal., 12:441-

448.Kakar, S. (1989). Stories from Indian psychoanalysis: text and context. In Cultural

Psychology, ed. J. G. Stigler, R. A. Shweder & G. S. Herdt. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 427-445.

Kakar, S. (1995). Clinical work and cultural imagination. Psychoanal. Q., 64:265-281.Kakar, S. (2000). In the defence of The Inner World. Int. J. Group Tensions, 29(3/4):371-378.Kakar, S. (2003). Psychoanalysis and Eastern spiritual healing traditions. J Anal Psychol.

Nov; 48(5):659-78.Khanna, R. (2003). Dark Continents: Psychoanalysis and postcolonialism. Duke University

Press.Kleinman, A. (1988). The illness narratives: suffering, healing, and the human condition.

Basic Books.Kleinman, A., Das, V., & M, Lock (Eds). (1997). Social Suffering. Oxford University Press.

254

Marsella, A. J. (1985). Culture, self and mental disorder. In A.J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F.L.K. Hsu. (Eds), Culture and self: Asian and western perspectives London: Tavistock, pp 207-281.,

Mishra, G. (1998). Professor Durganand Sinha. Bulletin of the International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology. http://www.iaccp.org/bulletin/V32.3_1998/sinha.html

Misra, G. & Gergen, K. (1993). On the place of culture in psychological science. International Journal of Psychology, 28: 225-243.

Nagpal, Ashok (2000).Change and continuity in the works of Sudhir Kakar. International Journal of Group Tensions, 29 (3/4):285-321.

Nandy, A. (1992). Traditions, tyranny and utopias. Essays in the politics of awareness. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Nandy, A. (1995). The savage Freud and other essays on possible and retrievable selves. Princeton : Princeton University Press.

Nandy, A.(1974). The non-paradigmatic crisis of Indian psychology: Reflections on a recipient culure of science. Indian Journal of Psychology, 49, 1-20.

Pandey, G. (1988). The Prose of Otherness. In ‘Subaltern Studies VIII: Essays in Honor of Ranajit Guha’. Ed. David Arnold and David Hardiman, Oxford and London: Oxford University Press, pp. 189-221.

Pandey, J. (ed.) (2000). Psychology in India Revisited : Developments in the Discipline, Vol.1:. Physiological Foundation and Human Cognition. New Delhi, Sage Publication.

Pandey. J. (ed). (2001). Psychology in India Revisited: Developments in the Discipline, Vol. 2: Personality and Health Psychology, Sage Publications, New Delhi.

Pandey. J. (ed). (2004). Psychology in India Revisited: Developments in the Discipline, Vol. 3: Applied Social and Organizational Psychology. Sage Publishers: New Delhi.

Parker, I. (1999) ‘Critical Psychology: Critical Links’, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 1: http://www.academyanalyticarts.org/parker1.html and http://www.radpsynet.org/journal/vol1-1/Parker.htm

Parker, I. (2003) ‘Psychoanalytic research: How to locate subjectivity in contemporary culture’, Interações: Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 8, pp. 13-35.

Raina, M.K & Srivastava, A.K. (1997). Educational psychology in India: Its present status and future directions. International Journal of Group Tensions, 27 (4): 309-340.

Rajan, R.S. (1997). The third world academic in other places: Or, the postcolonial intellectual revisited. Critical Inquiry, 23 (3): 596-616.

Ramanujan, A.K. (1990). "Is there an Indian way of thinking?" In India Through Hindu Categories. McKim Marriott, (ed.) New Delhi/London: Sage publications.

Roland, A. (1996). Cultural Pluralism and Psychoanalysis: The Asian and North American Experience. New York: Rutledge.

Said, E. (2003). Freud and the non-Europeans. Verso Books: London.Saraswathi, T.S. (1998). Many Deities, One God: Towards Convergence in Cultural and

Cross-cultural Psychology. Culture Psychology, Jun 1998; 4: 147 - 160.Saraswathi, T.S. (1999a). Culture, Socialization and Human Development: Theory, Research

and Applications in India. Sage Publications: New Delhi. Saraswathi, T.S., Khatter, A., Oke, M, & P. Pant.(1999b). A Profile of Children's Play in

Urban India. Childhood, 6: 207 - 219.Segal, M. H., Lonner, W. J. & Berry, J. W. (1998). Cross cultural psychology as a scholarly

discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioral research. American Psychologist, 53, 1101-1110.

Sen, A. (1996). Secularism and its discontents. In ‘Unravelling the Nation’, ed. Kaushik Basu and Sanjay Subrahmanyam (1996), Penguin India Books, pp.11-43.

255

Sharma, D. (ed.)(2003). Childhood, Family, and Sociocultural Change in India: Reinterpreting the Inner World. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Shweder, R.A. 1991. Thinking through Cultures: Expeditions in Cultural Psychology. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Sinha, D. (1984). Psychology in the context of third world development. International Journal of Psychology, 19, 17-29.

Sinha, D. (1986). Psychology in a third world country: The Indian experience. Delhi: Sage.Sinha, D. (1997). Indigenizing psychology. In J. W. Berry, Y. H., Poortinga & J. Pandey

(Eds.). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed.), Vol. I. Theory and Method (pp. 129-169). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sinha, D. (1998). Changing perspectives in social psychology in India: A journey towards indigenization. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 17-31.

Sinha, J.B.P. 1984. Towards partnership for relevant research on the third world. Indian Journal of Psychology, 19:17-29.

Sinha, JBP & Kumar, R. 2004. Methodology for understanding culture. The Copenhagen journal of Asian Studies, 19: 89-104.

Spivak, G.C. 1993. Echo. New Literary History, 24 (1): 17-43.Triandis, H.C. 1994. Culture and Social Behavior. McGraw Hill.Triandis, H.C.1995. Individualism and Collectivism (New directions in Social Psychology).

Westview Press.Vahali, H.O. (2000). The spiritual potential in the psychoanalytic terrain. The Journal, 4,1,

22-29.Vahali, H.O. (2002). From affirming silence to finding voice: Psychology and the circle of

Human Protest, Psychological Studies, 1(2):5-10.Vahali, H.O (2003). From A Researcher's Notebook: Scattered Thoughts on Research and

Researching. Psychological Studies, 48 (3), p.28-37.Verma, J., Wagner,W., Duveen, G., & M. Themel.(1999). The Modernization of Tradition:

Thinking about Madness in Patna, India. Culture & Psychology, 5: 413 - 445.Vindhya, U. (ed.). (2003). Psychology in India: Intersecting Crossroads. Concept

Publications: New Delhi.Vindhya, U., Kiranmayi, A. & V. Vijaylakshmi. (2001). Women in psychological distress:

Evidence from a hospital-based study. Economic and Political Weekly. 36 (43): 4081-87.

Wasp. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved July 15, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wasp&x=31&y=19

256