Tanmoy Bhattacharya
I am a Professor in the Department of Linguistics and currently the Head of the Department. I have a PhD each from University of London (UCL) and Hyderabad (HCU), both focusing on the syntax of Bangla. In the UCL PhD, I developed an antisymmetric account of the noun phrase in Bangla and in my postdoctoral work in Leipzig, I further developed the head-medial property of a so-called head-final language in various syntactic domains. I've since worked on Hindi-Urdu, Sanskrit, Manipuri, Maithili, Bundeli, Tangkhul, Assamese, Angika, Rajbanshi, Indian Sign Language, Sindhi, Magahi, Mara, Liangmai, Malayalam, Gujarati and Arabic, Polish, Vietnamese. Outside syntax, I've worked on Psycholinguistic parsing, Gender, Language Rights, Ethics, and Orientalism. My current research is in areas of Syntax and Disability Studies.
Supervisors: Neil Smith and Rita Manzini
Address: Centre for Advanced Studies in Linguistics
Arts Faculty Extension
University of Delhi
Delhi 110007
INDIA
Supervisors: Neil Smith and Rita Manzini
Address: Centre for Advanced Studies in Linguistics
Arts Faculty Extension
University of Delhi
Delhi 110007
INDIA
less
InterestsView All (12)
Uploads
Books by Tanmoy Bhattacharya
Papers by Tanmoy Bhattacharya
the norm is socio-politically suppressed by brandishing the weapon of
homogeneity. We are made to think that we are all alike. I start this
paper by questioning our incessant celebration of homogeneity and show
further that normativity is the unifying and underlying force working for
homogeneity. This overwhelming presence of the normative demands an
examination of the system of knowledge, since, in spite of its oppressive
presence, normativity is rarely questioned, more so, in the sphere of
education. I will take up the case of education for marginalised groups
in order to demonstrate the above. In the field of education, whether
it is through the curriculum, the delivery, or the material, normativity
conspires to construe a bias in the mind of the learner. Within a strategy
based on reforms, the question of whether or not to address such an issue
as a ‘special’ case arises, in turn, compelling us to reopen the discussion on
the much-abused issue of inclusion. I will suggest three ways of achieving
inclusion: through empathy, as a right, and through a Dalit/disabilitycentric
knowledge system. I will show that both the empathy and the
right perspectives fail, primarily because the first leads to compassion
and charity and the second to merely structural changes due to its lack
of connection with development and life-value criteria. I will elaborate a
third way, based on the philosophy of Integrative Difference—Integrative-
Difference Based Inclusive Education—which requires us to shift our
ontologies from the disability/Dalit model to that of the ‘normate’,
to shift our gaze to the production, operation and maintenance of
normateism and to study the ‘pathologies of the normate’.
the norm is socio-politically suppressed by brandishing the weapon of
homogeneity. We are made to think that we are all alike. I start this
paper by questioning our incessant celebration of homogeneity and show
further that normativity is the unifying and underlying force working for
homogeneity. This overwhelming presence of the normative demands an
examination of the system of knowledge, since, in spite of its oppressive
presence, normativity is rarely questioned, more so, in the sphere of
education. I will take up the case of education for marginalised groups
in order to demonstrate the above. In the field of education, whether
it is through the curriculum, the delivery, or the material, normativity
conspires to construe a bias in the mind of the learner. Within a strategy
based on reforms, the question of whether or not to address such an issue
as a ‘special’ case arises, in turn, compelling us to reopen the discussion on
the much-abused issue of inclusion. I will suggest three ways of achieving
inclusion: through empathy, as a right, and through a Dalit/disabilitycentric
knowledge system. I will show that both the empathy and the
right perspectives fail, primarily because the first leads to compassion
and charity and the second to merely structural changes due to its lack
of connection with development and life-value criteria. I will elaborate a
third way, based on the philosophy of Integrative Difference—Integrative-
Difference Based Inclusive Education—which requires us to shift our
ontologies from the disability/Dalit model to that of the ‘normate’,
to shift our gaze to the production, operation and maintenance of
normateism and to study the ‘pathologies of the normate’.
In earlier work, following on the tradition of sounding the alert of leaving activism behind and of reasonable advice on embracing the mutually inter-flowing character of activism and theory-building, I have advocated the necessity of the two-way traffic between the two. However, I now believe that for a specific context like India, the time has come to objectively re-take the shot. Disability related activities in India, with its overemphasis on services, is alarmingly close to creating a hegemonic discourse that shrinks the space for the emergence of a DS discourse, even further.
In fact, I am quite certain now to state that what feeds each other within the Indian context is not DS and activism but activism and service, the former accentuating the latter; this is evident from mission statements of various agencies and their policies. In fact, I believe that this association is showing signs of crystallizing into a nexus that will steadfastly keep DS out forever. All the signs are in place and the lesson from other aspects of life around us, will reinforce and maintain this exclusionary character of the nexus as a matter of strategy. Therefore, it is time, in fact, to sound a caution from the other end – it is time now to move away for a while from the excitement of sloganeering, and to build a tradition of true scholarship in DS. A diplomatic compromise is the easy way out, it is difficult to engage in true scholarship. It is futile to pretend an activists’ posturing in an academic discourse – often by ever too willingly stretching the notion of activism at the cost of the necessary politics associated with it – and completely unnecessary.
Having said this, it is necessary to also point out that DS cannot be built on the ashes of activism, and I am certainly not suggesting an either/or existential frame. My words ‘move away for a while’ clearly construct an imagery that keeps activism at bay but also in view. The formality of this estrangement is best attempted, I suggest, by looking at existing practices through the lens of ableism and by engaging in a disability-centric understanding of various themes within the academia.