The long and rocky road to self-extermination: The inevitable decline, fall and demise of Academic Marxism

 

The long and rocky road to self-extermination: The inevitable decline, fall and demise of Academic Marxism

 

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

 

Published in SSRN in July 2025, blogs, and youtube channels

 

Abstract

The core objective of this paper is to show why academic Marxism, the intellectual arm of Marxism and Marxist thought has hit an intellectual road block, and is staring at a dead end. Our prognosis is that it is barely likely to survive in its present form for another decade or two. We begin this paper by defining what Marxism is and tracing its thought over the past one and a half centuries or so including varieties and regional variants of Marxism and its common criticisms. The success and failures of Marxism and communism are also likewise probed and investigated. The sphere of influence of Marxism is also probed on fields such as art, architecture, archeology, historiography, religious studies, and cultural studies.  We also go on to show why Marxist thought is greatly fossilized and steeped in a mid-nineteenth century mindset, and is unlikely to work in different contexts and situations as it has limited validity and applicability. Many of the failures of mainstream Marxism and Marxist thought also overflow and cascade into academic Marxism too, and it is time to reassess all facets and aspects of Marxism from their bootstraps. We also propose and examine alternative approaches to replace various concepts and components of academic Marxism, and link all our concepts with our previously published papers in a seamless, integrated chain. As such we expect this paper to be an integral component of our globalization movement, and it would not be difficult to understand or figure out why.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

The core objective of this paper is to show why academic Marxism, the intellectual arm of Marxism and Marxist thought has hit an intellectual road block, and is staring at a dead end. Our prognosis is that it is barely likely to survive in its present form for another decade or two, regardless of whichever way it is defined. We begin this paper by defining what Marxism is and tracing its thought over the past one and a half centuries or so including varieties and regional variants of Marxism and its common attendant criticisms. The success and failures of Marxism and communism are also likewise thoroughly probed and investigated, all things considered and put in place. The sphere of influence of Marxism is also probed on fields such as art, architecture, archeology, historiography, religious studies, and cultural studies.  We also go on to show why Marxist thought is greatly fossilized and steeped in a mid-nineteenth century mindset, and is unlikely to work in different contexts and situations as it has limited validity and applicability. Many of the failures of mainstream Marxism and Marxist thought also overflow and cascade into academic Marxism too, and it is time to reassess all facets and aspects of Marxism from their bootstraps. We also propose and examine alternative approaches to replace various concepts and components of academic Marxism, and link all our concepts with our previously published papers in a seamless, integrated chain. As such we expect this paper to be an integral component of our globalization movement, and it would not be difficult to understand or figure out why. This is indeed because all our papers are integrated in a seamless chain.

What is Marxism?

Let us begin this paper by attempting to define what Marxism is. Simply defined and crudely explained, Marxism is an important, overarching and highly influential social, political, and economic philosophy developed by the mid nineteenth century German thinker Karl Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels, that was primarily focused on analyzing the supposed negative impact and ill-effects of capitalism on society and advocating for a transformation of capitalist societies to communist ones. In sum, it promised and prophesized a utopian communist future across societies. Communist philosophy and communist doctrine state that historical events are largely driven and shaped by class struggle, with capitalism creating inherent and perpetuating inequalities between the bourgeoisie (who are the owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (who represent workers who produce goods by their own blood, sweat and toil). We also then have the petit bourgeoisie who are the slaves of the bourgeoisie, and the lumpen proletariat who are represented by farmers and agricultural workers besides other non mainstream and non-industrial workers.  Marxism prophesizes that this conflict will become so untenable that it will ultimately lead to a revolution and the establishment of a classless, utopian, communist society where the means of production are owned jointly by all the people. The term “Marxism” was first widely adopted and popularized by the Marxist theorist Karl Kautsky, who considered himself an orthodox Marxist during the then ongoing dispute between Marx's orthodox. and revisionist followers. Kautsky's revisionist rival the German politician Eduard Bernstein who challenged many core concepts of Marxism, also later adopted the term, and so did many others. Others such as Engels and Paul Lafargue also adopted Marxist theories to varying degrees, though not completely. Marxism is also associated with sloganeering such as “Workers of the world, unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains”, and many of these were introduced and popularized by Karl Marx[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Core concepts of Marxism

Let us now review and evaluate the core concepts of Marxism. One of the more important concepts of Marxism is historical Materialism.  Marxism views history as a series of stages characterized by different modes of production and class structures. It emphasizes the role of economic factors in shaping society and driving historical change. According to Karl Marx, all societies inevitably progress through several distinct stages, with communism representing the final, and the most ideal stage. These stages are as follows: primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, communism. Communism, as envisioned by Marx, is a stateless and classless society where the means of production are owned communally, and distributed according to the individual’s need. Therefore, the axiom, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, applies. Marxism must also be distinguished from communism as the latter is a relatively more practical doctrine based on the principles of Marxism.

Karl Marx also identifies class struggle as the engine of history, and the primary driver of social and  cultural change, with the bourgeoisie and proletariat constantly in conflict with each other, and the former oppressing the latter. Karl Marx was also highly critical of capitalism, believing that it invariably and inevitably led to exploitation and alienation of the masses and inequality in society. Workers are alienated from their own labor and hard toil and the products they produce as they are paid very little by the capitalists, and the surplus value known as the profit is extracted by the capitalists, and retained by them. Karl Marx predicted that the inherent contradictions intrinsic to the capitalistic mode of production would lead to a revolution of the proletariat, who would overthrow the capitalist system and establishing an idealistic communist society. In such a society, Karl Marx envisaged, all class division would ultimately disappear, and the state would become less powerful too as workers ran corporations for mutual benefit and the greater common good. Karl Marx viewed communism not just as an abstract theory, but a vital call to action that brought about a revolution and a classless society which also abolished inheritance and private property. Marxism also claims to provide a seamless framework for understanding society, its deep and teleological history, and its potential future, with a particular focus and emphasis on economic systems, economic interactions, and class relations understood through the mechanism of class struggle. [6] [7] [8]

Marxism also assumes that the form of economic organization, or mode of production, influences all other social phenomena, including broader social relations, political institutions, legal systems, cultural systems, aesthetics and ideologies. These social relations and the economic system form a base and superstructure, with the base constantly determining the composition of the superstructure. Marx therefore spoke about the relationship between the means of production, relations of production, forces of production, and the mode of production, which happens in many ways. Marxism also interprets history as a series of class struggles driven by economic factors and the relationship between the means of production and the relations of production (how people organize to produce goods), as also the constant friction between the toiling masses, the elitist bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Therefore, Karl Marx saw class relations and class struggles as the key and the defining feature of all of human history. Marxist theory argues that capitalists extract surplus value from the labor of workers, essentially profiting from the unpaid labor of the proletariat. Marxism predicts that the inherent contradictions within capitalism will eventually lead to a proletarian revolution that overthrows the capitalist system. Following the revolution, Marxism envisions a transitional phase called the "dictatorship of the proletariat," where the working class holds political power to dismantle the remnants of capitalism. Ultimately, Marxism aims for a communist society, characterized by a classless, stateless, and egalitarian social order where the means of production are communally owned and resources are distributed based on need. Profit would become a dirty word along with private property, and the interests of the workers shall prevail; Thus, Marxism viewed capitalism as a deficient system which only amplified and magnified corporate greed at the expense of all other factors plaguing and bedeviling society.

As a comprehensive school of thought and body of knowledge, Marxism has had a profound and a deep-rooted impact on society and academia. It has deeply and profoundly influenced many fields, including those as far apart and far removed as anthropology, archaeology, art theory, criminology, cultural and social anthropology and cultural studies, economics, education, ethics, film theory, geography, historiography and historical method, literary studies and criticism, media studies, philosophy, political science, political economy, psychology and psychoanalysis, science studies including scientific method and epistemology, sociology, social studies, theatre, and urban architecture, development and planning.

Karl Marx who was the chief architect of Marxism and communism, was a German philosopher, thinker, intellectual, author, economist, sociologist, and revolutionary socialist. He is best known for his theories about capitalism and communism, and his noteworthy works such as “The Communist Manifesto” (published as a political pamphlet in 1848) and “Das Kapital” which have shaped intellectual thought profoundly and deeply over the past one and a half centuries. Marx was born in Trier, Prussia (now in Germany), on the fifth of May 1818.  His father was a lawyer who converted from Judaism to Christianity. Therefore, Marx was known for his Jewish heritage, though he sometimes despised Jews. Marx studied law, philosophy and history at the University of Bonn and the University of Berlin, and was also involved with the Young Hegelians, a group of intellectuals who critiqued German society. Marx was also known for his radical activism, and wrote extensively in newspapers and journals. He later began his lifelong and deep-rooted collaboration with Friedrich Engels, another affluent and wealthy German philosopher and revolutionary, whom he first met in Paris in 1844, and continued to engage in political activism, participating in the International Working Men's Association as well. Engels also supported Marx financially, when the latter had financial difficulties, and  could barely even make both ends meet. [9] [10]

History of Marxism

While imperialist powers continued to dominate in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, not having been snuffed out until early in the twentieth century, the industrial revolution changed many things, including the way people lived, worked and played. The Industrial Revolution, comprising the First Industrial Revolution and Second Industrial Revolution, was a period of global industry and economy transitioning towards more efficient and rapid manufacturing processes. The industrial revolution first began in Great Britain around the year 1760, and rapidly spread to continental Europe and later on to the United States in the ensuing decades.  The expansion of automation and the capitalist industrial enterprise brought with it the growth of the working class and magnification and amplification of class struggle between the industrial management and the newly emerging large working class wherever automation spread. Karl Marx was naturally struck by these anomalies, inconsistencies and deficiencies, and wanted to improve the lot of the working class as he wrote the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. However, Marx’s ideas did not immediately gain widespread popularity or acceptance, and it took many years before they took hold or root, and he was still bitterly opposed till the end of his life by many sections of society.

The International Workingmen's Association also sometimes referred to as the First International, was a political international which aimed to unite different left-wing socialist, social democratic, communist groups and trade unions that were based on the working class and class struggle. It was founded in 1864 in London, and its first congress was held in 1866 in Geneva. This organization was subsequently dissolved a decade later in 1876. The formation of the Second International in 1889 was yet another important milestone in the struggle for the unity of the working class and took the accomplishments of the first congress to an altogether new level. In 1891, the Social Democratic Party of Germany adopted the Erfurt program, replacing the Gotha program of 1875. The former adopted a more socialist view, and laid the ground for socialism. The rapid rise of technology between 1880 and 1900 and its percolation into all walks of daily life, with the attendant rise of the number of factories, brought with it a heightened awareness of the dangers of the capitalist mode of production.  1899 was another turning point in socialism as the socialist leader Millerand became a minister in a bourgeois government in France. The main breakthrough came in Russia in 1917, as it abolished its monarchy and adopted communism as its form of government. [11] [12]

Types of Marxism

While traditional strands of Marxism as referred to as classical Marxism, several Marxist concepts have been incorporated into a bewildering array of social theories, leading to profound diversity of intellectual thought well within the legitimate ambit, scope and purview of Marxist thought. This sometimes led to widely varying set of mutually independent and mutually exclusive conclusions. Alongside Marx's rabid and trenchant critique of capitalism, the defining characteristics of Marxism have been stated to be "dialectical materialism" and "historical materialism", though these terms were coined much later, and well after Karl Marx's death in 1881, and their tenets have also been additionally challenged by some other self-described Marxists in the decades that ensued. Key variations of Marxism have included Classical Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Western Marxism, Libertarian Marxism, and Marxist Feminism. These branches tend to differ somewhat in their interpretations of Karl Marx's theories and their varying approaches to bringing about revolutionary and social change. The following paragraph provides a basic and an elementary explanation and overview of some key types of Marxism: [13] [14]

Classical Marxism refers to the core ideas developed by Marx and Engels, focusing on historical materialism, class struggle, the end of capitalism and the eventual transition of capitalist societies to a communist society. Marxism-Leninism is a political ideology developed by Lenin, and preeminent in the USSR, building upon the core tenets of Marxism. It emphasizes the role of a vanguard party (which in his view had to be a disciplined, centralized party) in leading the proletariat to a communist revolution, and overthrowing the bourgeoisie. A specific interpretation of Marxism-Leninism associated with the nasty and authoritarian Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, characterized by strong state control and centralized planning. He killed millions at least indirectly, and was notorious for his purges and gulags. Some such strands of thought were seen in the beliefs of several Indian thinkers such as PN Haksar who molded, at least in part, the late Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian streak. Of course, proponents of centralization and authoritarianism almost always led nations and societies to disastrous consequences and results regardless of the form in which they were applied. This is something many ageing communists have yet to come to grips with.

Maoism was a variant of Marxism developed by the Chinese leader Mao Zedong, emphasizing the role of the peasantry in revolution and protracted people's war. In sum and in essence, it was an attempt to develop Marxism with Chinese characteristics, to suit Chinese agrarian conditions. Trotskyism was a peripheral and less influential theory developed by Leon Trotsky, advocating for international revolution and opposing Stalin's policies. The idea behind Trotsky's approach was that in Russia the bourgeoisie would not carry out a comprehensive revolution, and therefore, a different approach would be required. This approach appears to have been supported by the Indian Marxist historian Romila Thapar at some point. The French educated tyrant Pol Pot or Saloth Sar wanted to punish the Cambodian middle class, and sent them to work in the countryside, effectively evacuating the capital in the process – His brand of Communism unleashed a wave of terror that lasted several years. This killed, maimed or wounded millions and destroyed the economy as well. Even people with spectacles were persecuted just like uniforms were made mandatory for a while in Communist China, and people in North Korea required government approved haircuts – The led to Biologist E.O. Wilson remarking that communism was better suited to ants and bees, not humans. Most versions or variations of Marxism and Communism eventually led to disastrous consequences, succeeding neither economically or politically. 

Western Marxism with thinkers of the likes of Karl Korsch, Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, emphasized the class struggle more, while underplaying the more economic ramifications of Marxism. Libertarian Marxism emphasized the anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism, and was vocally critical of state socialism, advocating for worker self-management through measures such as council communism, and autonomism. Marxist Feminism applied Marxist analysis to the study of gender inequality, arguing that capitalism is a key source of women's oppression. This was more of a fringe and peripheral approach as mainstream Marxism ignored feminist rights and issues central to developing nations, often ignoring them, or brushing them under the carpet. Other schools of thought allied with Marxism have included Marxist Humanism, Orthodox Marxism, Austro-Marxism, and Analytical Marxism, each of which sought to offer different interpretations and applications of Marxist theory. We have covered the major types of Marxism above, although there are indeed some more. The ongoing development and interpretation of Marxist ideas continue to shape political and intellectual discourse around the world, thought it is no longer a force to reckon with, and has entered a deep and terminal phase of decline. Fabian socialism represents a form of democratic socialism that advocates for social change through gradual reform rather than revolutionary upheaval, and was first developed by the Fabian Society, a British socialist organization founded in 1884. This approach was however associated with economic stagnation, and eventually failed. Democratic socialism is a political and economic philosophy that combines democracy with social ownership of the means of production, emphasizing economic democracy and social justice while rejecting authoritarian socialism and totalitarian communism.  This approach was recommended by the Indian thinker N Ram and others; it however came to be associated with economic stagnation and failure. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

In India, Nehruvian socialism which was based on the Fabian socialist model with Indian characteristics, also largely failed and was associated with what came to be known as the Hindu rate of growth – more or less equal to the rate of population growth which stood at between two and three per cent. It came to be associated with shoddy products and the stagnation of technology as evidence by the Hindusthan Ambassador and the Premier Padmini due to a lack of competition in the products and services market. The rise of globalization, and the rise of internet has eroded the sheen of socialism even further, and India had no other option but to liberalize and open up its markets in 1991.

While there have been some successes of Marxism such as the Russian revolution of 1917, the Chinese revolution of 1949, also known as the Chinese communist revolution, many of which abolished monarchies and imperialism, there have been many criticisms of Marxism most notably its tendency to perpetuate state power, and engender chronic economic and technological stagnation. These allegations were also made by the novelist George Orwell- noted for his literary works and masterpieces 1984, and the Animal farm. Intellectuals and academicians Stephane Courtois, Andrzej Paczkowski,  Jean-Louis Margolin, Nicolas Werth, and others have made a scathing indictment of communism in a book entitled “The black book of communism: Crimes, terror and repression” citing a long litany of political repression by communist governments, including, but not limited to, genocides, summary extrajudicial executions, deportations, deaths in labor camps and famines created through economic mismanagement. We also have had the excesses of Stalinism, the excesses of Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot, the evils of Chinese communism under Mao, the failure of the Chinese great leap forward, and the Chinese Cultural revolution. The opening up of the Chinese economy in 1978 under Deng Xiaoping of course led to miraculous results, and did the opening up of the Indian economy under Manmohan Singh and PV Narasimha Rao in 1991. We also had the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, and the collapse of communism throughout Eastern Europe. The collapse of communism in Romania was particularly violent as it led to the execution of the then communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. The collapse of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev came a year later, in 1990, leaving Cuba and North Korea as the only communist or strongly socialist holdouts, until the reemergence of socialism in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez and parts of Latin America later. We have had the pink tide or a return to the left in many parts of Latin America, though Venezuela by all or most accounts, has been a veritable economic catastrophe or disaster. [21] [22]

What is Academic Marxism?

Academic Marxism is an important branch, arm and leg of mainstream Marxist thought. Academic Marxism refers to research, investigation and analysis of Marxist ideas within the context of universities and scholarly research that seeks to boost and advance Marxist ideas, ideals, and principles both directly and indirectly. Academic Marxism involves studying Marxist concepts and ideas such as class struggle, capitalism, and historical materialism within the context of academic disciplines such as sociology, cultural anthropology, philosophy, political science, and economics. Academic Marxism therefore encompasses a critique of society through the lens of core Marxist concepts such as class struggle and historical materialism, and analyses ways and means to bring about meaningful changes in society either through peaceful or violent revolutions. While some traditional and conventional Marxists view academic Marxism as a valuable method for understanding and critiquing society, others criticize it for being too detached and far apart (also, overly idealistic) from the practical world or for failing to account for actual real-world complexities and intricacies. 

Key aspects of Academic Marxism include a methodological approach, i.e. Academic Marxists often use the underpinnings of Marxist theory as a framework for analyzing social phenomena, examining power structures, power hierarchies, power distribution patterns, and critiquing capitalist systems. There is also an underlying focus on class struggle (between the elitist bourgeoisie, the toiling masses and the proletariat) which appears as a recurrent theme throughout. Another central theme is historical materialism which emphasizes the role of material conditions and economic forces in shaping social and political structures. Academic Marxism frequently critiques capitalism as a system that perpetuates inequality and exploitation by the ruling class and the bourgeoisie. Marxist ideas have significantly and foundationally influenced many different academic fields, such as sociology, political science, social and cultural anthropology, literary theory, and cultural studies. Academic Marxism has also rested heavily on pithy aphorisms such as "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it", and “The real education of the masses can never be separated from their independent political, and especially revolutionary, struggle." These provided steam and ammunition to the discipline as a whole.

Some common criticisms of academic Marxism include allegations of detachment from real-world concerns and considerations Some notable critics of academic Marxism argue that academic Marxism has become overly theoretical and disconnected in due course from real-world complexities and does not seek out practical solutions. We also have the idealism vs. materialism debate. There are ongoing debates in academic as to whether Marxism should be treated as a method of analysis or as a comprehensive theory of history and society. Some critics suggest that academic Marxism overemphasizes class conflict while neglecting other factors contributing to social inequality such as gender equality and racism. In sum, it is rooted in mid-nineteenth century concerns and considerations. There has also always been a concern that academic Marxism had the tendency to morph into a rigid ideology, resistant to alternative perspectives or empirical evidence. Examples of academic Marxist thinkers have included Louis Althusser (who worked on ideology and state apparatuses), David Harvey (who worked on urban geography and economic issues), Antonio Gramsci, Raymond Williams, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse,  Jurgen Habermas,  and Immanuel Wallerstein. 

 

There are also – dime a dozen - internal theoretical problems associated with academic Marxism. For example, the core Marxist concept of the labor theory of value, (Developed by Karl Marx based on earlier work carried out by the likes of Adam Smith and David Ricardo) which posits that the value of a commodity is determined solely and chiefly by the labor time involved in its production to the exclusion of all other factors, has been by and large rejected by most mainstream economists. Some critics also additionally argue that academic Marxism has become overly and primarily focused on textual analysis and historical interpretations of Marx's work, akin to some sort of a cult following, and devoid and bereft of original thought or contributions, rather than grappling with contemporary social and economic issues, the nature and tenor of which have changed with the passage of time. Marxist thinkers and scholars are also at times accused of reification. Reification is the process of treating an abstract concept, idea, or relationship as if it were a concrete, tangible or physical entity. Critics of Marxism also point out to a overly simplistic and deterministic view of class formation in Marxist theory, as Marxists talk about unproven and non-tangible concepts such as the bourgeoisie, elitist bourgeoisie, toiling masses and the proletariat. The class of lumpenproiteriat was added later to represent agrarian and agricultural workers.

There has also been the rise of alternative theoretical and conceptual frameworks such as post-structuralism and postmodernism, though these are not directly in conflict with Marxism. Thinkers like Jean Jacques Derrida, Michael Foucault, and Judith Butler have offered alternative perspectives that greatly emphasize the importance of culture, discourse, and identity as opposed to the primacy of economic determinism. Post-structuralism also challenges the idea of fixed and universal meanings and emphasizes multivocality of interpretation. It also emphasizes and stresses the power dynamics resident in language and discourse. This is also known as deconstruction as proposed by Derrida. Postmodernism is an important intellectual and cultural movement that emerged in the second half of the twentieth century, and was generally highly skeptical of grand narratives, objective truths, and universal principles preferring subjectivity and the power of interpretation instead.  All these new schools of thought advanced by Michel Foucault, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Jean Baudrillard, and others, have made a dent on Marxist theory, and appear to have diminished its importance somewhat, and failures of Marxist-defined political movements such as the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, disillusionment with anti-capitalist movements, and the emergence of nationalism over class consciousness have further accelerated the process of perception of decline. While Marxism continues to be studied and debated both in academia and non-academia, it no longer holds the same preeminent position it once did in many countries and academic disciplines. In sum, it is in gradual retreat and decline. Academic Marxism will only decline gradually because unlike a political revolution, an intellectual tradition will die out only after all its practitioners die out. This, as a process, is bound to take some time. [23] [24] [25]

 

Another important, useful and interesting definition is the term zeitgeist. Crudely explained and defined, this refers to the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time. The term is thought to have originated from the same German word meaning “Ghost of the period” or “the spirit of the age” and the term was widely used in German philosophy over a century ago and Georg W. F. Hegel is commonly thought to have brought it into general use in “The phenomenology of the spirit” published in 1807, with further inputs from Goethe and Herder.  Other terms such as Volksgeist meaning "national spirit" and Weltgeist meaning "world-spirit" are also sometimes used. The Overton Window, also sometimes and less commonly known as the window of discourse, represents to the range of policies and ideas that are considered current in the public discourse at a given point in time, and are widely debated and discussed. This "window" may shift and change over time, as it inevitably and invariably does, determining ideas that are considered mainstream and ideas that are considered non-mainstream, peripheral or fringe. Marx would have naturally based his ideas on contemporary concerns and considerations and would not have been able to envision subsequent changes and happenings. We have spoken about concepts such as aeternitism and omnimodism, but of course, these are ore recent, and there is always an amount of risk or uncertainties involved with predictions. [26]

 

Eurocentrism is the misleading and restrictive practice of viewing the world from a European perspective or a European lens, generally placing European culture, values, and history at the center and marginalizing or misrepresenting other cultures which are often considered or seen to be peripheral and less important. Per this perspective, European ideas and values are perceived to be the gold standard, the universal yardstick or the measuring rod, or the even the single point of reference. This perspective often leads to the belief or assumption that European values are superior and must therefore be deemed universal and that other cultures should always strive to follow or emulate them. Key aspects of Eurocentrism therefore include the belief that Europe would always remain the central shining star in the universal scheme of things, and that all other cultures are fringe and unimportant. Eurocentrism provided an important moral, philosophical and epistemological basis for colonialist expansion, and the subjugation of “the other peoples” and was associated with pithy aphorisms such as the white man’s burden, and the mission civilisatrice. The French in particular, sought to transfer or impose French values on colonized French people, particularly the French language and French haute couture.  Even in the post-colonial era, Eurocentric perspectives have not been completely eliminated in many fields, such as education, media, popular culture, and the social sciences including anthropology, sociology, and economics. Eurocentrism is also a permanent obstacle to intercultural understanding, as it imposes artificial limits on the interpretation of cultural diversity. Karl Marx would have been an unconscious victim of Eurocentrism, though it is to his credit that he came up with concepts such as Asiatic modes of production, or the postulated scheme of affairs in Asia. He did not get it entirely right, though, and stumbled and faltered very badly.  [27] [28] [29] [30]

Racism has been a major and ongoing problem in many parts of the world, and even non-white societies are completely free from it.  Racism also refers to the belief that groups of humans possess different cognitive attributes corresponding to inherited traits and that humans can be subdivided based into neatly compartmentalized races with one race or group of people being innately or inherently superior to the other. Racism has also often taken on decidedly scientific overtones, and scientists too have not been entirely free from racist prejudice or dogma. Scientific racism, which is in large part baseless and unfounded stems mostly from nativism, xenophobia, group segregation, hierarchical ranking, and white supremacism. The idea of race itself is mostly obsolete, though it was widely prevalent in Marx’s day, and as such, he may not have been free from stereotypes and prejudices which many have in turn moulded or shaped many of his ideas.

Many Enlightenment thinkers such as Francois Bernier, Lord Kames, Robert Boyle, and Richard Bradley too were not entirely free from such beliefs, (some later thinkers even supported eugenics) and Mahatma Gandhi too once viewed blacks in derogatory terms. In addition many Marxist thinkers stand accused of Islamoleftism, a term coined by  Pierre-André Taguieff in 2002 and by some British Trotskyites of the Socialist Workers Party. This is because Islam does not have a caste system. It also may have stemmed from the fact that Marx was anti-Semitic, (He even published a pamphlet entitled “On the Jewish question”) and the Islam stood in opposition to Judaism. Many scientists of the day were empire loyalists, and some researchers were even handmaidens of colonialists. The French sociologist Lucien Levi Bruhl spoke about a primitive mentality which implied non-whites could not do science, and we would still like to talk about the “Colonial Marxist imperialist school of Indology” to this day. Many old notions have of course stood convincingly falsified in the wake of the rise of Japan, the rise of Asian tigers, and the rise of China. As far as the undisputable economic rise of India since 1991 is concerned, Marxists are not evidently comfortable with it because they see it as a rise of capitalism, and as a vindication of capitalism of. They also see it as a dissipation of Eurocentric ideas, and in this case, ideology takes precedence over everything else- Indian communists were not even comfortable with India signing the Indo US nuclear deal in 2008, even though it would have benefitted India immensely. Marxists are also not comfortable with globalization, even though it greatly aided developing nations. Marxist views are therefore riddled with obsolete contradictions.   [31] [32] [33]

We must also talk about the decline of academic Marxism at this stage. Academic Marxism, as a dominant theoretical framework, has experienced a steep and probably terminal decline in influence within most fields of academia.  This decline is commonly attributed to a combination of several factors, such as theoretical problems and contradictions, the rise of alternative theoretical perspectives, and the economic failure of Communist nations. We must also do away with abstract theorization, and adopt grounded theory instead. Theories must fit facts, and not the other way around. We don’t also need over theorization for the most part. Abstract theorization without proper collection of facts leads to bias and prejudice invariably and inevitably. Abstract theorization without proper collection of facts leads to theories with limited explanatory power. Abstract theorization without proper collection of facts leads to flawed theories and doomed theories. We need data-driven theorization. We need ethnography driven theorization and we had stressed and emphasized this clearly in our work on anthropological economics.

Abhijit Banerjee, the Indian Nobel prize laureate too says the same thing. He has even founded the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) with Esther Duflo and Sendhil Mullainathan, to further the cause of evidence-based planning. Hypotheses are different from conjectures; Hypotheses are different from hunches; Hypotheses cannot be based on gut feel alone. We say this because we accuse Marx of over-theorization. There are plenty of other economic alternatives to laissez-faire capitalism, not just Marxism. We need trickle up and bottom up development models for developing countries. Developing countries must chart their own course and their own paths, away from the rigid molds of developed nations. We need private enterprise, but we also need a semblance of job stability and security. Hire and fire systems must be replaced by more benign systems with better job training, and reasonable notice periods. We had written about this extensively previously.

Countries also go through Phugoid cycles, and we had developed this concept in our paper on Anthropological Economics in 2020.  Hubris leads to downfall. German mathematician Oswald Spengler wrote about the decline of the west in works published in the years 1918 and 1922. He may not have been right on all counts. The west is still strong in many respects. According to Oswald Spengler, all societies follow four distinct phases, birth, growth, maturity and death. There are cultural identity based interpretation of events too, and we must draw our readers attention to Samuel P Huntington’s work on the clash of civilizations, a work that made him eternally famous.  On the other hand, Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" thesis, articulated in his 1989 essay and subsequent book, states that the progression of human history, particularly the ideological struggle between different forms of government, has reached its endpoint with the triumph of western democracy with no room for regression or alternative scenarios. Good theorization, but no rocksolid evidence or data backs it up. We must state here that the future is only a set of possibilities, and predictions are fraught with risks or uncertainties. Authors also want to become famous or hog the limelight.

There are also many other strands of overlapping thought, and different authors tend to think differently. Gregory Possehl was a staunch believer in American exceptionalism, and this led to hubris and intellectual arrogance. Witzel was loyal to the mid nineteenth century school of Indology, causing him to stagnate and become blind to realities.  There is a clear and unequivocal nexus between Indian Marxist historiography – also intellectualism, and colonialism and imperialism. That is why we had called it the colonial Marxist imperialist school of Indology. We may also use the term the colonial Marxist imperialist school of historiography in this connection. Marxist historians in India catastrophically and disastrously misinformed western Indologists. Marxist historians relied heavily on obsolete historical models. This was also because it partly suited them, or was in line with their ideology.

Marxist historians did not also give Indology a proper direction in post-independent India.  They failed to develop interdisciplinary models. Ramachandra Guha even once called them silly, limited one-sided and flawed. BR Ambedkar and Kancha Ilaiah also followed obsolete historical models, and had a limited grasp of Hinduism, thereby succumbing to a reductionist view of Hinduism centered on the caste system. The highly left-leaning Indian Frontline Magazine is comprehensively outdated; it is stuck in a decades old intellectual format. It even supports Dravidian nationalism and jingoistic parochialism to some degree. It supports somewhat left-leaning writers such as Audrey Truschke. With the decline of the Dravidian Indus valley hypotheses, Dravidian nationalists- a strand the left unwittingly seems to have a penchant for supporting, come up with new hypotheses with unfailing regularity such as the “Keeladi is older than the Indus valley” hypotheses – with scant and testable evidence. Such works are also targeted at a popular audience, and not at a scholarly or an erudite audience, a disastrous recipe for pseudoscience. This is not to say that the Indian right is not dangerous. The fact that they are extremely dangerous is an altogether different matter.

We must always remember and bear in mind the fact that the right is both reactionary and non-reactionary; they have a different and a radical agenda to pursue altogether. We have well-meaning activists such as Harsh Mander fighting for the rights of Muslims in a Hindutva India; this is fine, but one must also understand issues from a broader perspective; such as colonialism and its impact on historiography and intellectualism, etc, and its snowball or domino effects on other issues. We also have other left-leaning publications such as Himal South Asia and Countercurrents; while their views as all views must be respected always, it is necessary to maintain both balance and comprehensiveness at all times. As we have always stated, one kind of bias legitimizes every other kind of bias. The ideological left tends to encourage the right even more as they led to intellectual polarization and the formation of intellectual cul-de-sacs. We need to understand human psychology always, and at all times. We need to understand culture at all times because humans live and breathe culture, and are sentient beings. Suppression and obfuscation of history is not the way. If anything, it only increases superstition and blind faith even more because people then take recourse to Amar Chitra Katha’s and other non-mainstream literature. People will assume anything, and lurch to the right. Only objectivity and balance will erase the right in the long-run. Data-driven approaches and objectives are the only way.  

Academic Marxism in the USA connotes the study and application of Marxist theory within the context of American universities and American intellectual circles. While never a dominant force in American academic in the manner it once was in European academia, Marxism has nonetheless maintained a reasonably strong presence in American social criticism for over a century, thereby influencing different academic disciplines such as sociology, social and cultural anthropology, economics, political science, and literature. While traditional or classical Marxism was strong in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the New Left movement of the 1960’s and the 1970’s transformed into an eventual resurgence and revitalization of Marxist ideas, particularly on college campuses, thereby greatly influencing student activism and intellectual discourse. The New Left differed from the "Old Left" by molding and realigning itself suitably to focus less on traditional Marxist economic concerns like unionization and more on social and cultural issues like civil rights, feminism, and anti-war movements. The New Left greatly advocated individual freedom and liberties, social justice, and challenged established power structures, though in a much more radical and decentralized manner. However, the core concepts of Marxism had already been jettisoned by the 1990’s combined with a shift in political power away from communist countries. In the USA, the Socialist Labor party was instrumental in promoting Marxist ideas along with other influential people such as Daniel De Leon, Angela Davis, C. Wright Mills, Leonard Abbott, Devere Allen and others.

Marxism in India has a long and a chequered history. The Communist Party of India is a political party in India and was founded on December 26, 1925 at Cawnpore, now known as Kanpur. Between 1946 and 1951, the Communist Party of India led militant struggles such as the peasant revolt in Telangana, formerly a part of Andhra Pradesh, organizing guerrilla warfare against feudal zamindars or landowners.  Marxism in India has been a significant intellectual and political force, evolving from its initial integration with the nationalist movement to its role in shaping various political parties and institutions. While Marxist-derived ideas were influential in the early Congress party and among socialist movements, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) emerged from a split within the Communist Party of India, initially embracing armed revolution before shifting towards parliamentary politics. Currently, Marxism in India is represented by various groups, including the CPI(M) and the CPI(Maoist), the latter advocating for a people's war to overthrow the government. Today, Marxism in India is represented by various groups, including the CPI(M), which operates within the parliamentary framework, and the CPI(Maoist), which advocates for armed revolution. Marxist perspectives have significantly impacted the study of Indian history, particularly regarding economic development, land ownership, and class conflict. Marxist thought has permeated various institutions, including universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University, where it has been a dominant paradigm. Marxist historiography was once strong, though slowly declining. DN Jha, KM Shrimali, RS Sharma, Romila Thapar, etc were stalwarts in Indian Marxist historiography. Marxist historians in India have certain set characteristics. For example, they praise the Mauryan and Mughal periods in Indian history and discount all other periods of Indian history. Thus, Indian historiography is largely seen as a ding dong battle between the left and the right.

Marxist historiography, while still influential, faces several criticisms. These include accusations of determinism, overemphasis on economic factors leading to economic reductionism, over-simplistic class structures and class relations, potential misrepresentation of history and historical events, and neglecting the agency of individuals and non-economic factors in historical development. It is teleological and deterministic and posits an origin of history at the start of the revolutions of the proletariat. It creates or induces a ripple effect, and its negative consequences metastasize. Accusations of Islamoleftism, ideologically driven discrimination between religions, and minority appeasement are rampant. Marxist historiography prohibits winnowing the past for glory, and overlooks or ignores a study of cultural factors. Additionally, its application has been critiqued for potential biases and oversimplifications. 

We have leveled a large number of criticisms against Marxist historiography over the years, in five different papers. Despite these criticisms, Marxist historiography remains a significant and influential approach to historical analysis. Its focus on social and economic structures, class conflict, and the dynamics of power has profoundly shaped historical studies. However, it is important to acknowledge and come to grips with its inherent limitations and counterbalance it with other perspectives in order to ensure a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of history. Marxists also do not understand issues from a psychological perspective. They do not understand that humans will be human. Religion cannot be wished away with a magic wand. It is tied to personal, social, cultural, economic, and political functions. Religion is tied to identity formation. All Marxist historians cannot however, be tarred with the same brush. KM Shrimali and others have made a valiant effort to change with the times, and have written extensively on religion.   We had proposed a new school of thought called twenty-first century school of historiography. The core papers in this series were historiography by objectives (which proposed a layered presentation of history and thirty-nine core objectives), core principles of twenty-first century historiography, anthropological historiography with a better integration of history with prehistory and protohistory and forty nine additional objectives, qualified historiography to deal with scenarios of unreliable historical narratives, and investigative historiography. Given that the scope of these works is too vast to be reproduced here, we request readers to read them in their entirety.  

Marxism in literary studies, sometimes also known as Marxist literary criticism, analyzes literature primarily through the prism and lens of purely social and economic factors, greatly stressing and emphasizing class struggle and revolutionary struggle. It views literary works as reflections of the material conditions and ideological forces of their time, rather than as aesthetic works, or objects of art to be cherished, appreciated and enjoyed. This approach itself is highly reductionist and over-simplified, and has been criticized many times, both from within and outside academia for tedium and monotony of patterns. Marxist theory of cultural change, though sometimes influential, faces many valid criticisms with respect to its explanation of cultural and social change. These critiques include accusations of sweeping and omnibus economic determinism, a gross oversimplification of social structures, and neglecting or brushing under the carpet many vital non-class forms of oppression like race and gender. Additionally, some argue that Marxist theory struggles to account for the complexities of contemporary culture, such as identity formation, the role played by science and technology in the determination of economic outcomes, and the impact of globalization. That is why we had proposed the symbiotic approach to sociocultural change in many of our previously published papers. Readers are requested to read them in its entirety as its scope is too vast to present here. [34] [35]

As far as views regarding religion are concerned there are allegations of subconscious communialism, accusations of Islamoleftism, accusations of Hinduphobia which refers to a wide range and gamut of negative attitudes, behaviors, and actions directed towards Hinduism or Hindus as alleged by Vamsee Juluri and others. There is also a tendency towards simplistic and naïve interpretation of religion, as religion cannot be wished away with a magic wand, or brushed under the carpet. There is also no attempt to reform religion meaningfully and comprehensively, and views towards religion among a range of scholars are utterly inconsistent, ranging from adulation to irrational hostility. Thus, there is no institutional coherentism and no epistemic coherentism.

Academic Marxism has lost its bearings, anchor, moorings, sheen. It will decline further if alternative paradigms are put in place. New contemporary theoretical frameworks are required in a wdie array of the social sciences. We have been working tirelessly and ceaselessly towards this for the past twenty years now A ten year old article ”Left out, left behind,  left in between” laments and bemoans the fact that Marxists are stuck in a time warp and a rut, and cannot change with the times. The situation is still the same today. Since they will not change, they will die a natural death. There is however a lack of alternative stream of thought in many disciplines and fields of study. A lack of alternative stream of thought is a major issue. We need to develop alternate theoretical frameworks quickly and rapidly. We also need to integrate these tightly with post-colonialism and post-colonial frameworks A large number of scholars from different parts of the world must bring this to fruition, adopting a cross-cultural and an inter-disciplinary methodology. Only they will they stand any chance of succeeding.

Approaches to religious studies

A number of divergent approaches and methodologies are used in religious studies, and we present a few of them below. These may either be co-integrated, or applied in isolation.  Phenomenology has been one of the most influential approaches to the study of religion in recent times. The approach was developed by Edmund Husserl, based on earlier work by GWF Hegel, and the former is considered to be its founding father. Ninian Smart and Gerardus van der Leeuw further extended this approach to the field of religious studies. One of the pillars of phenomenology is consciousness and the spirit, and conscious or unconscious self-interpretation too, based on previously acquired cultural or social knowledge, and interpretation mechanisms. Therefore, this approach adopts a purely neutral and a non-speculative stance, and avoids looking at issues from the point of view of the researcher. Functionalism, as it is applied to religious studies, is the analysis of religions and their practitioners by analyzing the functions of particular religious phenomena in relation to the cultural whole. The approach was introduced by British anthropologist AR Radcliffe Brown, and has been extended by many other scholars ever since. Symbolism as introduced by the American anthropologist Clifford Geertz, studies religion with respect to the communicative symbols its uses and produces. Structuralism was introduced by Claude Levi Strauss, and is also sometimes employed in studies of religion. It is used to identify patterns of thought, and the interrelationship between thought processes. [36]

Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that was developed by the nineteenth century German philosophers Karl Marx and to a somewhat lesser extent by his mentor and sponsorer Friedrich Engels. Marxism provides a critique of capitalism and talks about a constant struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. It therefore, calls of the over throw of the bourgeoisie, and the establishment of a classless society. This according to Marx, would be a utopian paradise. A major criticism of Marx’s ideas is that it is based on the situation existing in mid Nineteenth century Europe, and may not have universal validity and universal applicability. This position and this assertion is however contested by Marxists for whom the doctrine is a holy grail, and is the solution to all of mankind’s and humanity’s woes. Marx saw religion as an unnecessary evil, a sigh of an oppressed creature, an expression of suffering, and as the opium of the masses. This unidirectional and highly limited approach may have bred counter-reactions as well, as seen, witnessed and observed by the rise of the far right in recent times. We will also argue that honest and unbiased objectivity is the only way, and that this alone will eventually, and in due course, eliminate the far right from the academic scene and the academic spectrum.[37] [38]

Criticism of religious studies

Many scholars, such as Timothy Fitzgerald, Richard E. King, Jonathan Z. Smith, Tomoko Masuzawa, Talal Asad, Geoffrey A. Oddie, and Russell T. McCutcheon, have strongly criticized religious studies as it is not subject perspective-driven and seeks to impose the researchers views onto the people it aims to survey. Post-colonialists also criticize religious studies as being agenda-driven and possessing a colonial flavor and a colonial temperament that has largely not yet been got rid of. Religious studies are often seen as being Christian-centric in orientation, and often being hand in gloves with Christian missionaries and colonial expansionists. This assertion may or may not be entirely correct that religious studies have somewhat moved away from their colonial and Christian-centric past. Others state that Christian norms, Christian views, and Christian value systems were sought to be imposed on other Non-Christian societies. We also criticize and contest the tendency to categorize academic religious studies. We believe that a researcher’s approach must as far as possible, be self-contained, and lacking internal and external contradictions. This is in spite of the fact that there are a variety of approaches to study religion given its diverse historical origins. (Pals, 1996)

Indology has also not been entirely free from its colonial baggage, and we have been proposing alternative approaches in the recent past. We must mention this here given the fact that Indology includes religious studies for the most part. We must all however agree, that to Germany, Indology and India owe a great deal. A scientific study of India’s past began in Germany long before Indians had the capability and the energy to begin researching their past. However, as Douglas T. Mc Getchin points out contrasting and comparing motives in Germany and England "Although I touch here on the impact of German scholarship in modern India, it was ancient, not modern India that was important for nineteenth-century German scholars. As Kaushik Bagchi has argued, “Modern India and modern Indians did not really interest [German Indologists]. Modern India and Indian antiquity were for these scholars, two separate compartments. One was their professional interest of job, and the other an object of curiosity that was related to their professions, but not central to it. Modern Germans' representation of Ancient India had a narcissist element, that is, it was informed by Germans' interest in themselves rather than a genuine "other". German Sanskrit scholars considered the ancient Aryans to be their own ancestors, so they portrayed them in a bold and a favorable light. Albrecht Weber made it a point to divorce the Ancient Aryans from their modern Indian descendants. "In this free strength, this vigorous self-consciousness, a very different, and a far more manly and noble, picture of the Indian in presented to us than that to which we are accustomed from later times.”

Weber considered the enervating influence of the new climate as the primary reason for the decline of the ancient people. Muller's case shows that the lack of a direct German colonial presence on the Indian subcontinent did not mean German Indology was free of Imperial and colonial patterns of thinking and interests. AW Schlegel, described how 96 Germans would harvest the "intellectual treasures" of India even if the English took the material goods'.” [Mc Getchin, 2010, 185] Max Muller often spoke of a great Aryan brotherhood based on the sameness of blood and encompassing both Europeans and Indians, which he felt would bode well for the British Raj. Neville Chamberlain endorsed his views completely, but however dropped Indians completely from the brotherhood. As Thomas R Trautmann states, acknowledging the continuing legacy of colonialism “Speaking for myself, having been awakened from my dogmatic slumbers and having gone back to the British pioneers of Indology for a closer look, doing so has been a revelation for me, filled with unexpected discovery. At the outset, it became very clear that most the British Sanskritists, without any exception were empire loyalists and scholars who took it for granted that there was a very close connection between their scholarship and the British colonial adventure in India.” [Trautmann, 1999, 277]

As Edmund Leach also pointed out as recently as in 1990, “The origin myth of British colonial imperialism helped the elite administrators in the Indian Civil Service to see themselves as bringing ‘pure’ civilization to a country in which civilization of the most sophisticated, but morally corrupt kind was nearly 6000 years old. Here I will only remark that the hold of this myth on the British Middle-class imagination is so strong that even today, 44 years after the death of Hitler and 43 years after the creation of an independent India and Pakistan, the Aryan invasions of the second millennium BC are 97 still treated as if they were an established fact of history. This attitude fits well with the prejudices of the Nineteenth century English and German scholars who were committed to maintaining a system of sexual apartheid to separate the rulers from the ruled.” [Leach, 1990, 243] Thus, modernizing Indology, and stripping it from the misdeeds and the misadventures of the colonial past, will help it accomplish the ideals of this paper greatly. The same observations may hold good for African studies as well, though Indology and African studies must reach and attain the same level of rigorous exactitude that characterizes Egyptian and Chinese studies. [39]

Islamo-Leftism is a term that is applied in political sciences and in sociology to describe the alleged unhealthy or unsavoury political alliance between leftists and Islamists (and the alleged dislike by Marxists both academic and non-academic to Judaism and Zionism) due to similarity in ideology and temperament.  The term is generally traced to Pierre-Andre Taguieff's 2002 book New Judeophobia, and by some to Jean Marie Le Pen, though it has been widely used and applied ever since in many different contexts. This approach may lead some Marxists to whitewash crimes by Islamist radicals, and exaggerate the actions promoted by Hindutva groups, however unsavoury they themselves may be. This could be due to many reasons – to begin with, Islam is seen as being anti-west, a position that suits the Marxist narrative greatly. Islam also does not have a caste system, which Hinduism unfortunately does.

Characteristics of twenty-first century religious studies

The following are the ideal characteristics of twenty-first century religious studies from our perspective, and all other pre-ideal scenarios must be eliminated in due course.

1.       Objectivity

Religious studies is an academic and a scholarly approach that must naturally live upto it’s expectation of being more objective and academically sound than other methods of understanding and explaining religions. Objectivity in scientific research occurs or is said to take place when there are no personal biases or personal opinions involved in the process of research. Scientists must always strive to reduce bias and subjectivity in their output, which may arise when personal judgments and beliefs override objective considerations. This is however, by no means always easy. The underlying assumption of objectivity is the idea that truth exists independently of an observation or investigation, and that the researcher should not contaminate the truth. Also note that objectivity is indeed always necessary to formulate an accurate explanation of how things work in the world, and further downstream researcher would greatly benefit from it. However, poor quality research would have an aggregate net negative downstream effect, and we had introduced a concept called QEPIS (Quantification of the effects of poor or Ideologically-driven scholarship) in our paper on Twenty-first century historiography. Objectivity must be aggressively pursued not only in quantitative research, but in qualitative research also. Some groups of individuals particularly post-modernists have harped ad nauseum on the subjectivity of interpretation. We cannot concur with this except in extreme circumstances, such as where new and meaningful hypotheses are being formulated. There is also a world of difference between objectivity and objective-driven approaches. The latter refers to a fulfillment of the research objectives of the study at hand, and must be accomplished nonetheless. This alone would not however indicate that the research is objective. The idea of objectivity is also linked to the idea of positivism which states that only information gathered from real-world observations and real-world data is reliable. Objectivity is must also eliminate all forms of cognitive biases such as confirmation biases. Conformation bias, as proposed by the English psychologist Peter Wilson, refers to selective processing of data; people mentally process and accept data which confirms to their belief systems, and reject almost everything else. 

The idea of reliability means that the research output is capable of being used by downstream researchers without any further investigation or modification. Thus, the research must not have a myopic outlook and must be able to envisage the downstream implications of his research. This good research has an ampiliative quality to it, and begets further good downstream research. Research reliability refers to the idea whether research methods can reproduce the same results when experiments are carried out repeatedly or multiple times. If research methods can produce consistent results whenever the experiment is repeated, then the methods are likely to be reliable and not influenced by any extraneous factors. Reliabilism on the other hand, is the idea that scientific output is reliable only if it is produced by a reliable process.

The idea of validly refers to how well a scientific test or research activity actually measures what it seeks to measure, or how well it reflects reality and real-world considerations. Validity may also be categorized into internal validity and external validity. Internal validity refers to the extent to which evidence is valid within the context of a particular study. External validity on the other hand, refers to the extent to which a claim is valid against external data or observations. It also refers to whether the results of a study can be vetted or ratified against external ideas or concepts. We may also refer to the theory of paradoxes here; any theory, hypothesis or paradigm is effectively useless if it contains a large number of internal and external paradoxes.

The concept of precision refers to how close measurements of the same item are to one other. The idea of precision is independent of the ideal of accuracy. This is because accuracy refers to how close observations are to the widely accepted value. Therefore, it is possible to be extremely precise without being very accurate, and vice versa. Both precision and accuracy are required for science to be accepted as high-quality science.

Accuracy refers to how well an observed value tallies with a more widely accepted value. It may also sometimes refer to the match between the sample population and target population. Accuracy must thus be differentiated and distinguished from precision, and both these are absolutely required for research to qualify as high-quality research. Both accuracy and precision must be constantly measured and verified by a researcher as a part of his study, and red flags raised whenever these are compromised. In addition to precision and accuracy, data validity and reliability are also necessary for research to be categorized as high-quality research.

Rigour refers to the quality of being extremely thorough and careful. It also at times refers to the principle and characteristics of following rules, regulations, processes and procedures in an extremely thorough way, and communicating them effectively as well. Rigorous research is also often accompanied by a thorough analysis and handling of data or exceptions. Rigour does not always necessarily mean precision and accuracy, and rigour does not necessarily guarantee us objectivity. However, rigour is an important cog in the wheel and takes us closer to the truth. For example, the Indian Marxist historian DN Jha was rigorous, but arguably not objective as he was driven and motivated by ideology. These people can be given away by their cherry-picking of data or one-sided and limited interpretation of data. The same holds good of Hindutva proponents who often subscribe to victimhood narrative, and cry out foul over alleged unfair play and discrimination. At the same time, we also need consistency and epistemic coherentism at all times. We also need institutional coherentism, and there must be no vacillation between adulation and hate. There must be a consistency of purpose, and a consistency of mission always. For other characteristics of good research, refer our paper on “Advocating Output Criteria based Scientific and Research Methodologies: why the Reliability of Scientific and Research Methods Must be Measured based on Output Criteria and Attributes” published in 2023. [40]

2.       Interdisciplinary approach

Religious studies draws on many academic disciplines, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and history of religion, and this key and essential characteristic must be retained at all times. Multidisciplinary research is a collaborative effort for research that involves a liaison between experts belonging to different fields of study in order to solve complex problems and develop comprehensive and wide ranging solutions. Multidisciplinary a growing and a welcome trend in many fields, and may even involve researchers from fields as far apart as the natural sciences, social sciences, (including fields such as sociology, anthropology and linguistics) economics, among other disciplines. Experts from different disciplines may often work jointly or independently on a common research problem and share common research goals as well. Different researchers may look at a problem or an issue from their own perspective, and may therefore provide fresh insights into the matter. One example of multidisciplinary research is climate change research, in which experts from different fields and areas of study such as environmental sciences, ecology, economics, and policy making talk to each other, and cooperate and collaborate with each others to develop new frameworks, paradigms, and workable solutions.  Cross-disciplinary research or inter disciplinary research is much broader and wider in scope, and experts form often loosely interrelated areas of study talk to each other, and collaborate with each other. Multidisciplinary research can lead to faster scientific progress, potential breakthroughs, it is also the crying need of the hour and day.

 

3.       Historical assessments 

Religious studies considers the history of religions, as well as current religious developments. A historical approach is a way of studying and interpreting the past to understand and explain the present and future. It can be used in a variety of fields, including politics, literature, policy analysis, and sociology. It can also be used to expose religious or show them in scientific light. A historical approach must always be followed by the researcher, often in combination with other approaches. We had also introduced concepts such as the Dialogue between the past, present, and future (DPPF), and deep historical analysis (DHA) in the past.

 

4.       Analytical approach

Religious studies compare and contrast different religions and their traditions and practices to better understand and analyze their impact on their followers and on the world in general. Religious studies originated in nineteenth -century Europe when scholars began to translate Hindu and Buddhist sacred texts into European languages. Therefore, a researcher must possess some degree of analytical ability in order to carry out his tasks. This is also extremely important that external help may not always be readily available at hand.

5.       Practicalism and Pragmatism

The English term “practical” is widely used in daily life, and has many practical connotations. The term “practical” means the state of being concerned with the actual performance or execution of a thought or idea to the benefit of certain groups of people or society in general, rather than being limited to abstract or nonfigurative theories and ideas. In cases where practicality is thoroughly and rigorously pursued, theories and ideas are seamlessly and flawlessly linked to practical real-world application. A practical idea is entirely feasible, and is like to succeed or be effective in real-world circumstances. The term “practicalism” which we propose to define and use here, means a dedication and devotion to practical matters. However, we propose to use it in a slightly different connotation here. Another closely related, though somewhat less commonly used term, is the term practicality which means a concern for what is practical, or what works in the real-world. All these words taken together, are also related to the school of pragmatism in the philosophy of science; this school of thought is somewhat similar to our own, but possesses and carries with it is own set of fundamental weaknesses. Therefore, the following and the important, critical and imperative characteristics of the term “practical”, though there may indeed be several others:

1. Alignment with real-world problems rather than indulging or dabbling in arcane, senseless or meaningless pursuits; 2. Prioritization and time allocation according to the nature and importance of real-world problems, in such a way that more pressing and urgent problems concerning a society or culture, are given higher priority, and less crucial concerns are given less priority; 3. Practical and workable solutions to real world problems are conceptualized and adopted, rather that solutions that are not really feasible or workable in the short-term and long-term; 4. Alignment with cultural needs is extremely important. At the same time, alignment with cross-cultural needs and cross-cultural dialogue and collaboration is also equally important, since there are diverse cultures with diverse needs; 5. Eschewing abstract and non-productive ideas, or relegating them to the background, and taking them up only when time or resources permit; 6. Eschewing intellectual nerdism or intellectual nerdiness and aloofness, and a general lack of purposefulness; 7. An outside in approach is carried out at all times, or as far as practically possible, as opposed to an inside out approach, so that real-world problems and real-world problems alone are a springboard for further action; 8. Measuring real-world applicability or connectedness and utility of proposed and executed solutions as far as possible, through meaningful, workable, and efficient metrics ; 9. An overall desire to do service to society must be at the heart of scientific activity, and constitute its fundamental driving force; social responsibility of scientists is prioritized over academic freedom. While there can be some careerism, it must as far as possible, be subservient to the doctrine and principle of service to society. 10. Consequently, there must also as far as possible, very little to no hanky-panky and mischief in peer-reviews and evaluation of third party ideas. Better science may also result if all the concepts proposed by us all along, are scrupulously adhered to, and all parties are committed to the welfare and well-being of society, and to high-quality science.

6.       Use of uptodate historical models wherever necessary

Researchers must also adopt the usage of uptodate historical models as far as possible. This is necessary particularly in the case of highly multicultural societies such as India where an interplay between cultures and religious traditions needs to be investigated and understood. Alas, and unfortunately, the historical models used to study ancient India are extremely outdated, and we have harped on this repeatedly. This has hampered crucial and critical progress not only in Indology or Ancient India studies, but in allied fields of study as well.

7.       Service of society and making society better

The religious scholar must also act in the service of society and attempt to make society better. In sum, he must make the world a better place to live in for its denizens and citizens as far as he has the capability to do so. This can be done by eliminating religious strife and religious misunderstanding, due to inaccurate and inconsistent research that may in turn eliminate religious violence, hatred and bigotry as well. Religious conflict is a disagreement or hostility between religious groups and may be caused by a variety of factors, such constant as bickering, a desire for, or a competition for political power, economic and non-economic resources, ethnic rivalry and unhealthy competition, lack or absence of education and religious fundamentalism. Better education can play a major role in eliminating religious fundamentalism, and the academic and professional scholar can play a major role here. 

8.       Modulating the excesses of religion

The researcher and the academician can also play a major role in modulating the excesses of religion, and reducing the role played by religion in daily life. This can be done through the medium and mechanism of better education for example, and we have dwelt on this, and on similar allied issues extensively in our previous papers.  Responsible and constrained criticism and evaluation is also extremely necessary at all times, not one that is driven by counter ideology or vested interests – people’s sensitivities must also be borne in mind at all times, and as such must not be trampled upon. Researchers must also contribute to religious thought as far as possible – they may either seek to modulate the excesses and evils of religion, or channelize them in modern and in less dangerous directions. Religious reform is another area where professional researchers and professional scholars may contribute in liaison with other experts and non-experts, though their contribution on this front is admittedly rather limited.

9.       No nerdism and no ivory tower approaches

The noun nerd is used to describe someone who is an expert in one particular area of study, but otherwise generally lacks social skills, empathy, or an emotional quotient. He lacks the ability to reach out to the world at large or connect with it due to this aloofness, apathy or disinterest. An ivory tower is a place of privileged seclusion where people disconnect themselves from the external world to dabble in, or follow their own interests, usually esoteric ones. There must be No nerdism and no ivory tower approaches at any cost, as it will distract scholars and researchers from our core objectives. Many researchers unfortunately fall into this category even today, as there are seldom fieldwork or ethnography driven approaches in many fields of the social sciences.

10.   No rampant careerism

Careerism is the practice of prioritizing career advancement and success over personal life or ethics. It can also refer to the tendency to pursue power and prestige outside of work performance. While some amount of careerism is practically necessary, it must be minimized to the extent and to the degree possible. Otherwise, a position of conflict of interest will invariably and inevitably result, and the general direction of research activity may be lost. We also need social responsibility over unbridled, no holds barred academic freedom, however unpalatable this might be to a section of academic and professional researchers, and we had also devoted and dedicated an entire paper to this cause. [41]

11.   No ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism in social science and anthropology refers to the process of applying one's own culture or ethnicity as a frame of reference to judge other cultures, and their beliefs and practices, in lieu of using the standards of the particular culture involved. This indirectly implies that one’s own culture is innately and inherently superior to the other culture in question. The researcher may therefore approach the other culture condescendingly or superciliously, and this must be avoided at all times. There must also be no ethnic rivalry, only mutual self-respect at all times, and evaluation whether positive or negative, applied objectively.  There must also be no racism or unhealthy nationalism. Racism is prejudice or active and applied discrimination by an individual or a group of people against another individual or groups of people on the basis of their racial or ethnic group, or is the belief that different races possess distinct but unequal characteristics, talents, or qualities. Nationalism is an ideology that promotes the idea that considerations pertaining to a nation and state should be put above all other considerations.

12.   Cross-cultural research design

At the same time, cross-cultural research design needs to be adopted both in theory and in praxis, and a wide variety of individuals from different cultural backgrounds need to participate in research design. Emic and etic perspectives also need to be elicited, and there could be many different types of emic and etic perspectives such as typical emic or etic, atypical emic or etic, representative emic or etic, and non-representative emic or etic, as discussed in our previous papers. This is of paramount importance if bias and prejudice are to be eliminated, and we have dedicated an entire paper to this cause. [42]

While we have still a long way to go, we had proposed many new sociological concepts in the seventy odd papers we had published in various journals over the years. We hope that these will go at least some way in making the world a better place, through the medium of social science. In this paper, we had proposed the ten canons or the ten commandments of the think tank “Scholars and intellectuals for mankind” (SCHIMA), and as such researchers and academicians must strive to bring them to fruition. To reiterate, these would be as follows:

1. A complete and a total separation of religion and state in all  countries and in all societies where this has not yet been achieved or accomplished.

2. Developing secular constitutions that grant all human rights to citizens in countries where these have not yet been implemented.

3. Universal education for all groups and both genders, and being Up-to-date with latest pedagogical techniques so that educational systems can be brought Up-to-date from time to time.

4. Granting complete religions freedom including freedom to practice, freedom to convert, and freedom to non-religion.

5. Saying no to religious inspired laws, and instituting and promulgating secular laws instead.   

6. Taking steps to promoting a scientific temper and a spirit of enquiry in society, by allowing meaningful and productive debate, and improving education systems.

7. Phasing out religious education and teaching universal human values instead.

8. Allowing free media – There must be absolutely no censorship of internet and media.

9. Allowing complete freedom of speech and free and open discussion of religion, and permitting constructive criticism of religion in various platforms such as the media, and in universities.

10. Moving all nations towards democracy and democratically elected governments in due course

We must fight to gradually bring them into fruition. This can be done through collaborative and concerted action by scholars, and by putting pressure on governments and institutions over the next couple of decades. These alone can put the menace of religious violence to a complete end, and once and for all. Researchers and scholars of religion must also valiantly and heroically strive to bring these into fruition. This will however, naturally merit and warrant a clean break from old-fashioned, and hackneyed approaches and techniques to the study of religion.  At the same time, we must also always bear in mind that humans will be humans; therefore, a psychological perspective and emic and etmic perspectives are required, so that the role played by religion in society can be gradually reduced with time.

The ten gods that failed

We now propose the idea “The various Gods that failed” with respect to left-leaning thought. This is by no means any form of witch-hunting or ad hominem attacks against individuals. These should instead be viewed as healthy and constructive criticism aimed at bringing about positive and meaningful change. These criticisms in fact should be the basis of new intellectual thought patterns that must emerge in different parts of the world. For the sake of convenience, we propose the “Ten Gods that failed”. We can also call them the ten cardinal sins. For the sake of convenience and brevity, we keep this section short and sweet. However, valid regress arguments are indeed possible and will become self-evident to anyone who probes the issue further and more deeply. These criticisms should become the launching pad and the spring board to further creativity, analytical thought, new paradigms and equations, and all other varied forms of intellectualism. The right wing is also extremely dangerous in this regard, and as far as possible, we expose right-wing positions too.

The God that failed: Part One – Marxist economic praxis

Praxis refers to a practice, and is opposed to theory. “The God that failed Part One” as we call it (or the original God that failed). “The God that Failed” refers to a collection of six essays published in 1949 by Louis Fischer, Arthur Koestler, Andre Gide, Stephen Spender, Ignazio Silone, and Richard Wright (and edited by Richard Crossman) denouncing Communism; these authors unequivocally state that the doctrine of communism was an ideological disaster and an economic failure to boot. This book as such exposes the authors’ disillusionment and disenchantment with communism. George Orwell (ne Eric Blair) also expressed his disillusionment with communism in the books 1984 and Animal Farm. The flight from the communist camp not only continued but also accelerated by the 1990’s, and many communists not only became ex-communists, but also anti-communists. Many other intellectuals and thinkers subsequently referred to communism as a murderous and failed ideology. They not only criticized it as an economic doctrine, but also criticized it on various other grounds including its academic influence. Notable critics of communism have included economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman (They blame communism for economic stagnation), and other writers such as Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Andrzej Paczkowski, Jean-Louis Margolin who have criticized it on political grounds (They equate it with genocide and political repression)

This is in spite of the fact that Marxism had some successes; for example, Stalin successfully industrialized a largely agricultural land through the mechanism of centralized planning and five year plans. The USSR also came to be known as a scientific superpower, and its accomplishment in certain fields such as space exploration are highly impressive. Marxists however unfortunately, resort to the over-simplification or the false dichotomy fallacy, and state that Communism is the only solution for capitalism. Both are fuzzy and ambiguous terms which also have a wide variety of connotations, and encompass multiple sub-ideologies. We had also proposed alternatives to Marxist economic doctrine such as Anthropological Economics, Social welfare schemes, and trickle up models of development (along with local-specific economic development models) in our papers. This should be the ultimate solution for most of our woes, though some western thinkers may see it as developing countries focused and oriented.[43] [44]

The God that failed: Part two – Marxist Historiography

The God that failed Part Two as we propose and see it, is a critique of Marxist historiography from a Non Hindutva and Non Indian nationalist perspective. Of course, Hindutva ideologues in India may have been fundamentally and ideologically opposed to Marxist historiography, but they may have another agenda to push. In India, left wing interpretations of history are referred to as crimsonization, and right wing interpretations of history are referred to as saffronization. Both have negative and pejorative connotations and implications. We had originally proposed these terms in a paper on  cross-cultural research design  in 2023, and now extend it even further to cover and include more Gods that failed. We had also discussed the severe limitations, fallacies and logical absurdities of Marxist Historiography from a scientific perspective. This is of extreme and urgent importance because Marxist historians have been in clover for decades, and were on a high pedestal and in total monopoly of the field in the decades ensuing India’s independence. As such, and rather unfortunately too, they set no great store by objectivity. Marxist historians have not followed inter-disciplinary approaches. They have not reached out to Anthropologists, geneticists and other specialists. They have not linked history with pre-history and proto-history. They have failed to understand that a scientific view of history can raise scientific consciousness and boost a scientific temper.  They also follow a materialistic conception of history and fail to understand or appreciate the role played by culture in shaping society.

For this, read our already published papers (1) Historiography by Objectives: A new approach for the study of history within the framework of the proposed Twenty-First Century School of Historiography (This was published by us in 2015) (2) Enunciating the Core principles of Twenty-first Century Historiography: Some additional extrapolations and inferences from our studies and observations on Historiography (This was published by us in 2016) (3) Introducing Anthropological Historiography as an integral component of Twenty-first Century Historiography: The role played by Anthropological Historiography in the attainment of long-term Anthropological goals and objectives (This was published by us in 2018) (4) Presenting the art and the science of Qualified Historiography: Anchoring history-writing in the event of uncertainty and unreliability of narratives (This is a non-core and a peripheral paper and was published by us in 2022) We had proposed 39 objectives of core twenty-first Century historiography in these papers, along with 49 objectives of anthropological historiography. We have also proposed various core principles of twenty-first century historiography. We had also evaluated the performance of Marxist historians against each of these objectives and principles. Thus, Indian history is seen as a ding dong battle between the left and the right, and is referred to as the battle of the  ideologies.

Some left wing ideologues have established themselves in blind ideological opposition to the right. For example, when Hindutva groups say or claim that Hinduism is the oldest religion on earth, DN Jha states that Hinduism is the youngest religion on earth. When Hindutva groups state that India had a hoary and a glorious past, DN Jha states that India never had a golden age. This is of course, a highly subjective statement. RS Sharma stated on flimsy grounds that virtually nothing existed in the Gangetic plains before the Buddha; his work was banned by the Jan Sangh, which was the political and ideological predecessor to the BJP. Irfan Habib went on to state that nothing existed in the Gangetic plains before the Islamic age. However, when they wish to criticize Hinduism, they magically state that something existed in the Gangetic plains before the Buddha. Marxist historiography is the fodder for Hindutva reactionary right. It provides it with its purpose and reason for existence. Weakening or eliminating the left particularly the far left, will solve many problems, and lead to great progress in society, but we must remember that the far right is far more venomous, and is capable of inflicting far greater damage than the left. It can, and quite dangerously so, hijack the public consciousness in a way that the left possibly cannot. We would eventually like to see both the far-right and the far-left castigated as being extremely dangerous to science, society, the education, and to objective scholarship, but this must be based on rock solid scholarship. The left at least will disappear entirely as they have seldom learnt from their own follies and blunders.[45] [46] [47] [48] [49]

The God that failed: Part three – Left-leaning Intellectualism

The God that failed part three refers to the idea that Marxist intellectualism and other present-day forms of intellectualism are highly limited and flawed, particularly as applied in an Indian context. Intellectualism in other parts of the world may have meaningfully taken off, and we bear no grudge, rancor or ill-will towards them. The left-wing may have broadened its horizons greatly outside India as also explained and highlighted in this paper, and this must be appreciated and acknowledged; however, this has scarcely happened in India, and they still seem overly pre-occupied with obsolete notions such as class struggle, or harbor a desire to take India back to the Nehruvian era.

They do not appreciate India’s successes in the last few decades because they see it as a vindication of capitalism. They are also opposed to globalization which has benefitted developing countries, They have not appeared to have helped the rise of India and other developing countries; like old-school Marxists, they have become an obstacle to their development. Do Marxist intellectuals in India care about gender equality, human rights, child rights and abuse, drug trafficking, substance abuse, global warming, sustainable development, prevalence or absence of a scientific temper, trickle up economics, scientific historiography, international peace and harmony? Do they care about universalisation of education, pedagogical techniques, racism in science, Eurocentrism in science, racism, apartheid (apart from a narrow focus based on the principles of class struggle) and social duties of researchers? The answer is a resounding and an unfortunate no. This is just a short list; Marxist intellectuals do not seem to care about almost any issue facing the world or India today. We still lament the fact that no broad or a viable and effective twenty-first century school of Intellectualism has emerged in India and elsewhere. We are waiting eagerly and patiently for it to emerge. All our papers may need to be read together, and a new intellectualism driven by objectives, and relevance to present-day needs must emerge. Intellectuals must actively identify problems that plague the world, and seek solutions for them. They must connect with people proactively instead of engaging in ivory-tower pursuits.

They must strive to break down barriers that divide us humans, and whittle down identities such as nationalistic identity and religious identity. Religious identity from our perspective can only gradually become less strong as people become more intellectually aware. There are no magic wands and no magic formulas here. Another problem is that social science research techniques, methods and paradigms (along with theories, hypotheses and concepts as well) have not kept up with other fields of research. Social science research techniques must also not be Eurocentric and must be derived through inductive methods. They must be taught to students whenever and wherever necessary, and the teaching of research strategies and research techniques must replace rote learning. We have also spoken of intellectual revolutions, renaissances and enlightenments in other parts of the world and these must fructify and materialize as well so that science progresses holistically.  

Marxist intellectuals instead of playing a vital role here, have become a major stumbling block to India’s development. Arundhati Roy has compared India to a plane flying backwards. (sic!) She like her fellow comrades (have contributed almost nothing to India economically or intellectually), but bash India in front of the foreign media. Why? The Indian journalist Aakar Patel likewise thinks India has been an economic failure since 1991, as also does Ashoka Mody. The anti-India attitude of Indian intellectuals has been exposed by the American sociologist Salvatore Babones too. What agenda do they have to push? Do they have nothing meaningful to contribute? Political psychologist Ashish Nandy and Meera Nanda (besides a host of other commentators) are also sometimes associated with the left, besides virtually all Marxist historians. They have failed to develop economic models or cultural and national integration models suitable for India. They have let themselves be overtaken by events and have rendered themselves obsolete without even realizing it. Whatever their merits, achievements and accomplishments may be, one is reminded of Raymond Aron’s statement “Marxism is the opium of intellectuals”. Some of their positions may be ideologically-driven too. We have discussed the possible causes for their aberrant behavior in our paper on “Extended identity theory.” The Indian right, on the other hand, has no intellectualism to offer; it is only based on the desire to boost sectarian pride, or is sometimes based on the inclination to resurrect old religious values. We must therefore work towards the atrophy and elimination of ideological cleavages gradually and eventually. We have our task cut out, and must begin the process in right earnest before it is too late.[50] [51] [52] [53]

The God that failed: Part four – Eradication of religion

Marxists may also support and adhere to a flawed analysis of religion. The neologism Islamo-leftism and the term the regressive left were coined by other researchers and are already in use. The term regressive left was used by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher and other thinkers. Marx also had a disdain and contempt for Jews and their alleged mercenary way of life, and even promoted and propagated anti-Semitism. Some Indian Marxist historians also appear to have ideologically discriminated between religions, but this must be necessarily proven through empirical evidence.  

In the paper on historiography by objectives published way back in 2015, we had classified approaches towards religion into three different categories from the point of view of our approach. The first would be “The religious fundamentalists approach” or an ideologically-driven discrimination between religions as followed by the religious right in various contexts and situations. This approach typically is accompanied by condescension or a mindless criticism of other religions or religious traditions. The second approach would be a secularists’ approach, who see all religions as being equal and the path towards what they see as the same goal. This approach may have been formulated to achieve a fair modicum of clinical unity between adherents of various faiths in Indian and non-Indian contexts, but is logically fallacious given that all religions are fundamentally unequal with respect to their teachings, and fundamental postulates and concepts. This realization must form the back bone of twenty-first century intellectualism.

However, it must always be remembered and borne in mind that human beings are human beings, and a humane touch is required while reforming religion of eliminating the excesses of religious fundamentalism. Thus the principles and tenets of the social sciences must also always been borne in mind. Leftists may have symbolically burnt copies of the Manusmriti, but in spite of their avowed anti-religious stance, did not reform religion in a meaningful way or critique of criticize religion holistically or comprehensively. The third approach is the critical analysis approach, and this approach calls for a critical and a balanced and comprehensive analysis of all religions against the backdrop of the twenty-first century requirements and exigencies, and encourages new areas of critical hermeneutical study devoid and bereft of any religious or ideological underpinnings. This must be done with a human touch, and is the only logical and meaningful way forward. We look forward to new researchers and scholars from across the world contribute to this field of study, and strive towards eliminating the excesses of religion. Thus, the sway religion holds in public life must gradually decline, and people must become truly secular and scientifically literate and scientifically aware. [54] [55]

In the USSR, there was an attempt to reduce the role played by religion and some places of worship were even demolished, and properties owned by religious authorities confiscated. Religious education was outlawed, and people were systematically brainwashed into Communist ideology. There was also a government sponsored program to convert people into atheism. In China, there were anti-religious campaigns run before, during and after the Cultural Revolution. During the Cultural Revolution, many antiquities were destroyed. In Tibet, many Buddhist monasteries were pillaged, ransacked and destroyed. The persecution of Muslims in the Xinjiang province of China (and Uyghurs and others) continues even to this day. All these policies may not naturally have had the desired effect. The role played by religion must be gradually diminished through better education and better pedagogical techniques. This is the only workable way, and the only viable path.

The God that failed: Part five- Over-centralisation of power

Karl Marx did not envision a post-capitalist society in detail. He only spoke about the excesses and evils of capitalism (along with the exploitation of the labour class by the capitalists) in his books such as “Das Kapital” and “The Communist Manifesto”.  His primary pithy epithet was “from each according to his ability, and each according to his needs.’ Thus, Karl Marx’s intentions were indeed well-meaning. His work was primarily a critique of the political economy as it existed at that time. He also spoke about productive forces of the economy such as labour, and the social relations with respect to production in his work. He believed that capitalism just like primitive communism and feudalism would eventually disappear, and would be replaced by a classless society. Marx called for the abolition of private property, and believed that a worker-run society would give humans enough time to pursue leisure activities such as fishing. Little may he have realized that communist societies would morph into totalitarian dictatorships. In the former Soviet Union everything was run by the state, and there was no space for personal freedom or entrepreneurship. Over-centralization undoubtedly played a role in its disintegration in 1991. In India, Indira Gandhi too led an over-centralized administration where the principles of federalism were often compromised and not rigidly adhered too. This led to mutiny, and calls for independence in the Punjab and elsewhere in the early 1980’s. Many rebellions against over-centralized rule were brutally suppressed, and there was a descending vortex of violence. Pakistan disintegrated in 1991 due to the very same reason (linguistic hegemony and discrimination too played a vital role), and Sri Lanka edged towards civil war. This was however due to far-right organizations like the Buddhist Bodu Bala Sena. [56]

The God that failed: Part six- Linguistic uniformity

Attempts at linguistic homogenization, whether driven by the left or the right, are driven by dangerous and unwarranted implications. In 1906, Mahatma Gandhi sought to make Hindi the national language of India, but later changed his stance towards Hindustani. Ambedkar and others thought Hindi should be the working official language in Non-Hindi states as well. There were revolts against the imposition of Hindi in several non-Hindi states particularly Tamil Nadu, where Dravidian parties were strong, and Dravidian ideology prevailed. Some leaders like RV Dhulekar, Purushottam Das Tandon, and others wanted an unreasonable form of a linguistic uniformity, and fallaciously argued that only one language could unite the nation. This observation was made by the Indian sociologist Andre Beteille. While Indians must indeed learn each other’s languages, many nations like Canada and Switzerland have promoted multilingualism and have thrived and flourished .The USSR sought to impose linguistic hegemony on other cultural and linguistic groups and faced their wrath instead. This may have been one of the causes for its disintegration. In China, Putonghua was imposed as a standardized dialect of Mandarin on speakers of other dialects. West Pakistan sought to impose Urdu on East Pakistan and disintegrated in 1971. Sri Lanka sought to discriminate against its Tamil minority through discriminatory language policies, and was pushed towards civil war. Most of these nations pursued not left-wing, but right-wing ideologies. However, there are disadvantages associated with multilingualism, and one must always attempt to strike a fine balance between the two.  This is only a high level overview; we have authored a total of three papers on language and language dynamics. These papers almost explain everything there is to know, and must be read in detail. [57] [58] [59]

The God that failed: Part seven – Family planning

India has had one of the world’s oldest birth control programs, and this was launched way back in the year 1952. By the 1960’s, it had become the world’s largest birth control program. The inverted triangle symbol with the caption “We two, ours two” in English, Hindi and in other Indian languages, had become an ubiquitous sign across India. In 1951, India had a total fertility rate of six children per woman; today, in 2023, it is two. Thus, the birth rate in India has fallen only slowly. Thus, while birth rates have fallen sharply in the Southern, Western, Eastern regions of India as well as the far north, birth rates in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar remain high. In Uttar Pradesh, the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath launched a new population control policy in 2021, and in Bihar, the Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is focussing on girl’s education as a solution to the high birth rate. A part of the problem is that India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru did not focus on the universalization of elementary education due to the misplaced fear that the economy would not be able to produce enough jobs (However, his concern may have been partly right because the economy was then a command economy, a centrally planned economy, and a Semi-Stalinist one).

Indian far right leaders often exhort Hindus to produce more children and fear that Hindus would soon become a minority. Sakshi Maharaj squarely blamed Muslims for population growth, and called upon all communities to promote family planning; at times he even called on Hindus to produce four kids. The Shankaracharya of Badrikashram, Shri Vasudevanand Saraswati, even went on record saying that Hindus should have ten children. .However, this fear of a Muslim takeover is absurd and misplaced. Muslims make up 14% of India’s population. While the birth rate of Muslims is higher than that of Hindus (religion of course plays a role in birth control) the percentage of Muslim population in India will never cross the 18% mark, and the birth rate of Hindus and Muslims is slowly and gradually converging.

Many Muslim nations have brought down their birth rates examples being Iran, UAE and Qatar which are already below replacement rate, and Bangladesh which is approximately at replacement rate. Birth rates in Yemen and Afghanistan which were once among the highest in the word, are now slowly decreasing. The Philippines and Iraq have largely failed at birth control (they follow different religions) while Thailand and Brazil have succeeded remarkably, along with the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir as latest trends indicate. All this goes on to demonstrate that there are a wide variety of issues at play, and not religion alone. During the infamous emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi between 1975 and 1977, there was forced sterilization and birth control imposed by Sanjay Gandhi in North India. This backfired horribly, and any talk of birth control became a taboo in those regions. Even China’s birth control policy (its one child policy with concomitant policies for infraction) had unintended consequences, and skewed the sex ratio. It has largely been abandoned now. At the same time, there must be no appetite and tolerance for the environmentally destructive policy of pro-natalism which is sometimes promoted by the far-right. All these problems also often stem from the non-formulation of India-specific or other local-specific theoretical platforms and positions.[60] [61]

The world is as such in an advanced stage of a demographic transition. The world’s TFR may reach the replacement rate of 2.1 by the middle of the century (it is estimated at around 2.3 at present), and the world population itself may stabilize before the end of the century. We have come a long way since Margaret Sanger first advocated birth control in the USA in the 1920’s. While ageing may present its own set of problems, and the idea of a demographic dividend and demographic window may indeed have its own set of merits, problems of ageing can be somewhat overcome by measures like raising the retirement age, retraining and reskilling people, and engaging the elderly more dynamically, gainfully, and productively. People with less children also tend to raise their kids much better, and pay greater attention not only to their education but also to their physical and emotional needs. The benefits of a low birth rate far outweigh the benefits of a high birth rate. Let us focus on the quality of human resources, not quantity. If the birth rate falls to alarming levels, we can worry. Each nation must also fix an ideal TFR, which in our view can be between 1.5 and 1.8 children per woman. India is particularly vulnerable to global warming, most parts of Africa are vulnerable to over-exploitation of resources. Hence, the ideal TFR in South Asia and Africa needs to be much lower. 

The God that failed: Part eight- basis of nationalism

This is another God that failed. The basis for nationalism and nationhood should of course be pluralism and diversity merging towards a greater national whole, but this plurality and diversity must confirm to national laws and all citizens must live in harmony. Thus, the far right’s notions of homogeneity as sometimes argued by primordialists and others, are utterly misplaced. M S Gowalkar also exhorted Hindus to fight Muslims, Christians and Communists who were their internal enemies, rather than the British. The penchant for over-centralization and the belief in the need for a strong centre (which may have been required in the early years of nationalism) may also be a misplaced one, and this encouraged divisive elements and fissiparous tendencies. Hitler on the other hand, pursued an aggressive definition of nationalism, (defined by territorial aggression) and saw Austria, and parts of Poland as German territory. He infamously annexed Austria in 1939 in violation of the Treaty of Versaiiles. Some radical right-wing Hindu elements exhibit such tendencies too when the call for the formation of a “pristine” Akhanda Bharat. [62]

The God that failed: Part nine- theological conception of God

Many intellectuals still advocate old school atheism based on the definition of a Christian idea of God, (and the natural dichotomy between the Christian idea of a God and the obvious lack of evidence for it). However, this may be a gross over-simplification, and there are a large number of cultural, sociological, theological, metaphysical and scientific aspects involved in the debate. There is also no standard definition of God, and it is not possible to deny the existence of something without first defining what it is first. There is no standard definition of atheism either, and a mild version only states that we have no evidence for a supernatural entity exists. This is fine, but there are also more dogmatic (and rabid) assertions of atheism which almost state that anything that cannot be perceived by the senses does not exist. This is of course also wrong. Atheism also provokes different reactions among Muslims and Hindus than it does among Christians. We prefer the terms agnostic and freethinker instead, and advocate the emergence of meaningful cross-cultural debate. Deism is another option too, and the God without religion or religion without God debate is another interesting Twenty-first century debate. On the whole, the ill-effects of religion can only decline with better education, and not the imposition of a counter-ideology such as rabid or dogmatic atheism which makes adherents of various religions extremely wary and suspicious.

We also invoke the saying “What one man calls God, another calls the laws of physics.” This statement is famously attributed to the genius Nikola Tesla. Most atheists are evolutionists, but this is much more than a simple battle between adherents of evolution (which is of course undoubtedly and unquestionably true) and non-adherents of evolution. Such atheists have not also embraced social science research techniques and have not understood the fact that religion cannot decline so easily. People have different mind-orientations, and turn to religion and God for different reasons. Most only have a vague and a basic understanding of science. Religion(s) and the philosophical idea of God are also two different things. Dogmatic, half-baked assertions may though up counter-reaction and may increase blind faith through the process of self-reinforcing cognitive dissonance. In the recent past, the New Atheism movement has emerged, and among its four horsemen include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Jerry Coyne is an avowed atheist and anti-theist too, and he sees religion as a dangerous affair. These thinkers may have a decidedly western-oriented outlook and tradition. Recent surveys in Iran, Egypt and Turkey have shown that only a small percentage of the total population identifies as atheist. We cannot imagine a scenario where the tables will be overturned completely, and billions become atheists. Figures in the UK and the USA are of course higher, though not significantly. One kind of a bias always reinforces another kind of bias, and nobody wants to subscribe to a half-baked or a deeply and fundamentally flawed assertion.

The God that failed: Part ten- basis of rationalism

Similarly, the rationalist movement may also need a reboot to bring it in line with our philosophy and thinking and concepts such as “Cultural frame of reference” and a “Cross-cultural frame of reference”. They have valiantly and heroically fought superstition and blind faith in India and elsewhere, (examples being the rationalist Abraham Kovvur and the Indian physicist H Narasimhaiah who criticized belief in Godmen, and fought valiantly to expose them) but have failed to understand the human psyche, human culture in different parts of the world, and social science research techniques likewise. Many were western-mould atheists. We wish them all the best in their variegated endeavours, but a familiarity with social sciences research techniques would help too. What do we have now? A resurgence of Godmen, religious strife, and new age movements  around the world! This automatically vindicates and justifies the basis for neo-centrism. Rational thought may however be fostered though better education, pedagogical techniques and technology, and we must make this happen gradually and eventually. [63]

In sum, many full-blown crises such as the Sri Lankan crisis of 1983- 2009, and the multiple crises stemming from Indira Gandhi’s over-centralization and authoritarianism such as the Punjab and the Assam crises may be traced to Marxist tendencies in some form or the other which promoted authoritarianism. We also had the notorious and infamous Indian emergency of 1975-76 which was marked by an abuse of power.  Socialism and authoritarianism do also additionally always appear to go hand in hand, and Marxists scupper all attempts towards democratic reform. Some Marxists also wax eloquent about scientific communism, a concept that they scarcely define. The author is reminded of a speech by a lady in the year 1985 when he was in his higher secondary, where she parroted the benefits of scientific communism, contrasting it with democracy – one is a political system and the other is an economic system, and therefore cannot be directly compared.  To reiterate there is a lack of alternative streams or systems of thought in major academic disciplines. Lack of alternative streams of thought is therefore a major and a constraining issue. We need to develop alternate theoretical frameworks within and across academic disciplines quickly and rapidly. We also need to integrate it seamlessly with contemporary post-colonial thought. We need a new generation of thought leaders who can work across cultures and disciplines, and can get the bigger picture always, both across space and time. This must become one of the biggest endeavours of the twenty-first century, and must become legions of though leaders immersed, engrossed and preoccupied.

Conclusion

The core objective of this paper has been to show why academic Marxism, the intellectual arm of Marxism and Marxist thought has hit an intellectual road block, and is staring at an inevitable dead end. Our prognosis therefore was that it is barely likely to survive in its present form for another decade or two in whatever way defined. We aptly began this paper by defining what Marxism was and then traced its thought over the past one and a half centuries or so including varieties and regional variants of Marxism and its common criticisms. The success and failures of Marxism and communism were also likewise probed and investigated, all things considered. The sphere of influence of Marxism was also probed on fields such as art, architecture, archeology, historiography, religious studies, and cultural studies.  We also then went on to show why Marxist thought is greatly fossilized and steeped in a mid-nineteenth century mindset, and is unlikely to work in different contexts and situations as it had limited bandwidth, validity and applicability. Many of the failures of mainstream Marxism and Marxist thought also overflow and cascade into academic Marxism too, and we had argued that it was time to reassess all facets and aspects of Marxism from their bootstraps. We also proposed and examined alternative approaches to replace various concepts and components of academic Marxism, and linked all our concepts with our previously published papers in a seamless, and in an integrated chain. As such we expect this paper to be an integral component of our globalization movement, and it would not be difficult to understand or figure out why.

---

[1] Rogers, H. Kendall. Before the Revisionist Controversy: Kautsky, Bernstein, and the Meaning of Marxism, 1895–1898. (Routledge, 2015)

[2] Steger, Manfred. "Historical materialism and ethics: Eduard Bernstein's revisionist perspective." History of European Ideas 14.5 (1992): 647–663

[3] Blumenberg (1960). Karl Kautskys literatisches Werk: eine bibliographische Übersicht (in German). 's-Gravenhage: Mouton & Co

[4] Gronow, Jukka. On the Formation of Marxism: Karl Kautsky's Theory of Capitalism, the Marxism of the Second International and Karl Marx's Critique of Political Economy. [2015] Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2016.

Geary, Dick. Karl Kautsky (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1987)[5]

[6] Howard, M. C.; King, J. E. (1992). "12". A History of Marxian Economics. Vol. II, 1929–1990. Princeton, NJ:

[7] Johnston, Les (2015) [1986]. Marxism, Class Analysis And Socialist Pluralism: A Theoretical and Political Critique of Marxist Conceptions of Politics. Routledge Library Editions: Marxism. Vol. 15

[8] Agar, Jolyon (2006). Rethinking Marxism: From Kant and Hegel to Marx and Engels. London / New York

[9] Sperber, Jonathan. Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013.

[10] Walker, Frank Thomas. Karl Marx: a Bibliographic and Political Biography. (bj.publications), 2009.

[11] Orlovsky, Daniel (1997). "Corporatism or democracy: the Russian Provisional Government of 1917". Soviet and Post-Soviet Review. 24 (1): 15–25.

[12] Sukhanov, N. N. (1955) [1922]. Carmichael, Joel (ed.). The Russian Revolution: A Personal Record. Translated by Carmichael, Joel. originally published in Russian. Oxford University Press. pp. 101–108

[13] Himmer, Robert (1986). "On the Origin and Significance of the Name "Stalin"". The Russian Review. 45 (3): 269–286

[14] Wilkinson, Endymion (2018). Chinese History: A New Manual (5th paperback ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Asia Center

[15] Brenton, Tony, ed. (2017). Was revolution inevitable? turning points of the Russian Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press

[16] Lyandres, Semion; Nikolaev, Andrei Borisovich (3 July 2017). "Contemporary Russian Scholarship on the February Revolution in Petrograd: Some Centenary Observations". Revolutionary Russia. 30 (2): 158–181

[17] Miller, Martin A., ed. (2001). The Russian revolution: the essential readings. Blackwell essential readings in history. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers

[18] Tyner, James A. (2018). From Rice Fields to Killing Fields: Nature, Life, and Labor under the Khmer Rouge. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press

[19] Hinton, Alexander Laban (2005). Why Did They Kill: Cambodia in the Shadow of Genocide. University of California Press

[20] Chandler, David P. (1992). Brother Number One: A Political Biography of Pol Pot. Boulder, San Francisco, and Oxford: Westview Press

[21] De Nevers, Renée (2003). Comrades no more: the seeds of political change in Eastern Europe. BCSIA studies in international security. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

[22] Falk, Barbara J. (2003). The dilemmas of dissidence in East-Central Europe: citizen intellectuals and philosopher kings. Budapest; New York: Central European University Press

[23] Meisner, Maurice (January–March 1971). "Leninism and Maoism: Some Populist Perspectives on Marxism-Leninism in China". The China Quarterly. 45 (45): 2–36

[24] Pyzhikov, Aleksandr V. (10 December 2014). "The Cult of Personality During the Khrushchev Thaw". Russian Studies in History. 50 (3). Basingstoke, England: Taylor & Francis: 11–27

[25]  Cooke, Chris, ed. (1998). Dictionary of Historical Terms (2nd ed.). pp. 221–222, 305.

[26] Zeitgeist "spirit of the epoch" and Nationalgeist "spirit of a nation" in L. Meister, Eine kurze Geschichte der Menschenrechte (1789). der frivole Welt- und Zeitgeist ("the frivolous spirit of the world and the time") in Lavater, Handbibliothek für Freunde 5 (1791), p. 57

[27] Adas, Michael (2006). Dominance by Design: Technological Imperatives and America's Civilizing Mission. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

[28] Aldrich, Robert (1996). Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion. Palgrave MacMillan.

[29] Anderson, Warwick (1995). "Excremental Colonialism: Public Health or the Poetics of Pollution". Critical Inquiry. 21 (3): 640–669

[30] Conklin, Alice L. (1998). A Mission to Civilize: The Republican Idea of Empire in France and West Africa 1895–1930. Stanford: Stanford University Press

[31] Smith, Martin (1991). Burma – Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity. London; New Jersey: Zed Books. pp. 43–44, 56–57, 98, 176

[32]  Pauwels, Jacques R. The Great Class War 1914–1918. Formac Publishing Company Limited. p. 88.

[33] Race Relations Within Western Expansion, p. 98 Alan J. Levine. 1996. Preposterously, Central European Aryan theorists, and later the Nazis, would insist that the Slavic-speaking peoples were not really Aryans

[34] Woolf, Daniel, ed. The Oxford History of Historical Writing. 5 vols. (Oxford University Press, 2011–12)

[35] Martin, Thomas R. Herodotus and Sima Qian: The First Great Historians of Greece and China: A Brief History with Documents (2009)

 

[36] Martin, Luther H., and Donald Wiebe. "Religious studies as a scientific discipline: The persistence of a delusion." Journal of the American Academy of Religion (2012)

[37] E. Foley, Douglas (2010). Learning Capitalist Culture: Deep in the Heart of Tejas. Baltimore, MD: University of Pennsylvania.

[38] Selden, Raman, Peter Widdowson, and Peter Brooker. 2005. A Reader's Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory (5th ed.). Harlow. p. 76

[39] The Demise of the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus Hypotheses: A brief explanation as to why these three Hypotheses are no longer tenable, Sujay Rao Mandavilli, 2013

[40] Advocating Output Criteria based Scientific and Research Methodologies: why the Reliability of Scientific and Research Methods Must be Measured based on Output Criteria and Attributes, Sujay Rao Mandavilli, IJISRT, 2023

[41] Social Responsibility over Academic freedom: Emphasizing Ethics and Codes of Conduct geared for a Scholar’s duties towards science, society and the education system in Twenty-First Century Science, Sujay Rao MandavilliIJISRT September 2022

[42] Operationalizing cross-cultural research design: Practical, cost-effective, and a minimalistic application of cross-cultural research design to minimize cultural bias in research and reconcile diverse viewpoints IJISRT, April 2023 Sujay Rao Mandavilli

[43] The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, by Stéphane Courtois, Andrzej Paczkowski, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Margolin, 1997,

[44] The God that Failed, essays by Louis Fischer, André Gide, Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Stephen Spender, and Richard Wright, 1949

[45] Historiography by Objectives: A new approach for the study of history within the framework of the proposed Twenty-First Century School of Historiography Sujay Rao Mandavilli ELK Asia Pacific Journal of Social Sciences Vol 1, Issue 2 (2015)

[46] Enunciating the Core principles of Twenty-first Century Historiography: Some additional extrapolations and inferences from our studies and observations on Historiography Sujay Rao Mandavilli ELK Asia Pacific Journal of Social Science (ISSN: 2394-9392) in Volume 2, Issue 4 July to September 2016

[47] Introducing Anthropological Historiography as an integral component of Twenty-first Century Historiography: The role played by Anthropological Historiography in the attainment of long-term Anthropological goals and objectives International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, February 2018, Volume 3, Issue 2 Sujay Rao Mandavilli

[48] Presenting the art and the science of Qualified Historiography: Anchoring history-writing in the event of uncertainty and unreliability of narratives Sujay Rao Mandavilli IJISRT Volume 7, Issue 7, July 2022

[49] Operationalizing cross-cultural research design: Practical, cost-effective, and a minimalistic application of cross-cultural research design to minimize cultural bias in research and reconcile diverse viewpoints IJISRT, April 2023 Sujay Rao Mandavilli

[50] Making the use of Inductive approaches, Nomothetic theorybuilding and the application of Grounded theory widespread in the social sciences: A guide to better research and theorization in the social sciences Sujay Rao Mandavilli IJISRT May 2023

[51] Unveiling the Sociological Ninety-ten rules for Social Sciences research: Towards better hypothesis formulation in the Social Sciences in the interests of higher quality research and intellectual multi-polarity Sujay Rao Mandavilli Published in IJISRT, February 2023

[52] Babones, S. (2018). The New Authoritarianism: Trump, Populism, and the Tyranny of Experts. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

[53] Formulating ‘Extended identity theory’ for twenty-first century social sciences research: Modeling extended identity in relation to real-world observations and data Sujay Rao Mandavilli IJISRT, July 2023

[54]
Austin, Peter (2008). One Thousand Languages: Living, Endangered, and Lost. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25560-9.

[55] Barry Hindess & Paul Q. Hirst, Pre-capitalist modes of production. London: Routledge, 1975.

 

[56]
Harjinder Singh Dilgeer (2012). Sikh History in 10 volumes. Sikh University Press. ISBN 978-2930247472.: presents comprehensive details of the invasion of Indian Army (causes and events

[57] Towards a comprehensive compendium of factors impacting language dynamics in post-globalized scenarios: Presenting principles, paradigms and frameworks for use in the emerging science of language dynamics Sujay Rao Mandavilli ELK Asia Pacific Journal of Social Sciences Volume 6, Issue 3 (April –June 2020)

[58] On the origin and spread of languages: Propositioning Twenty-first century axioms on the evolution and spread of languages with concomitant views on language dynamics Sujay Rao Mandavilli ELK Asia Pacific Journal of Social Science Volume 3, Number 1 (2016)

[59] Observations on language spread in multilingual societies: Lessons learnt from a study of ancient and modern India, Sujay Rao Mandavilli, Elk Asia Pacific Journals, 2015

[60] Siedlecky, Stefania; Wyndham, Diana (1990). Populate and perish: Australian women's fight for birth control. Allen & Unwin

[61] Warren C. Robinson; John A. Ross (2007). The global family planning revolution: three decades of population policies and programs. World Bank Publications. ISBN 978-0-8213-6951-7.

[62] Smith, A.D. (1981). The Ethnic Revival in the Modern World. Cambridge University Press.

[63] Spohn, Wolfgang (2002). "The Many Facets of the Theory of Rationality". Croatian Journal of Philosophy.