English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Marr’s critique of Indo-European philology is analysed in the light of contemporary postcolonial theory, showing how Marr considered “Indo-Europeanism” to be something very close to a Foucauldian discourse of power/knowledge. It is suggested that here one finds both the strengths and weakness of Marr’s ideas, which alerts us to certain problems in much postcolonial theory today. Genetic connections between Marr’s ideas and contemporary postcolonial studies are revealed. Marr’s ideas are then compared to the critique of the ideology of the Aryan supremacy developed by the Indian anti-caste intellectuals Phule and Ambedkar, in which the symbiotic relationship between imperial philology and brahman domination over the lower castes were revealed and subjected to critique. Important continuities are identified, and it is suggested that an approach to the interaction between European powers and colonial peoples’ needs to pay particular attention to the social divisions among the latter and the complex modes of dialogue that accompanied colonialism and its aftermath.

Nikolai Marr’s Critique of Indo-European Philology and the Subaltern Critique of Brahman Nationalism in Colonial India