Talk:Kalpana Kannabiran

By Anirudha patel

Kalpana Kannabiran is Sociologist as of July 2023. Her principal area of study is the sociology of law, historical sociology, social movements, disability rights, violence and gender studies, caste, indigenous/adivasi rights, jurisprudence, equality, and anti-discrimination law, etc ^[1].

In 2021, she endorsed the "Dismantling Global Hindutva" conference and made the allegation

"the current government of India [in 2021] has instituted discriminatory policies including beef bans, restrictions on religious conversion and interfaith weddings, and the introduction of religious discrimination into India’s citizenship laws. The result has been a horrifying rise in religious and caste-based violence, including hate crimes, lynchings, and rapes directed against Muslims, non-conforming Dalits, Sikhs, Christians, adivasis and other dissident Hindus. Women in these communities are especially targeted. Meanwhile, the government has used every tool of harassment and intimidation to muzzle dissent. Dozens of student activists and human rights defenders are currently languishing in jail indefinitely without due process under repressive anti-terrorism laws."^[2]

Publications[edit]

Kannabiran, Kalpana "Tools of Justice: Non-Discrimination and the Indian Constitution". Routledge, 2012.
Kannabiran, Kalpana. "Women and Law: Critical Feminist Perspectives". Sage, 2014.
Kannabiran, Kalpana. "Violence Studies". Oxford University Press, 2016.
Kannabiran, Kalpana. "Law, Justice, and Human Rights in India: Short Reflections". Orient BlackSwan, 2021.
Kannabiran, Vasanth, and Kalpana Kannabiran. "Caste and gender: Understanding dynamics of power and violence." Economic and Political Weekly (1991): 2130-2133.
Kannabiran, Kalpana. "Judiciary, Social Reform and Debate on 'Religious Prostitution' in Colonial India." Economic and Political Weekly (1995): WS59-WS69.
Kannabiran, K.G. "The wages of impunity: Power, justice, and human rights." Orient Blackswan, 2004.
Kalpana Kannabirān, and Swethaa S. Ballakrishnen. Gender Regimes and the Politics of Privacy. 2021.
Kalpana Kannabaran and Swethaa S. Ballakrishnen claim that caste and purity of women are forms of Brahmanical Patriarchy (which itself is a fictitious term). The author conjures up fictitious slokas about the caste system and assigns them to the Bhagavad Gita.
The authors make several claims about "Brahmanical Hinduism" which is a colonial term that has no meaning to practicing Hindus
1. That Indian democracy is based on Brahmanical Hinduism ^[3]^[4]
2. Set as a standard culture setting for ‘juridicalization’ of rights in India
3. Reduces people to servitude, serfdom, and indignity
The authors show their ignorance of India by making the following statements:
1. the “juridicalization of the rights” of Muslim women in the courtrooms is done on the basis of the Hindu standard of justice and as per the constitutional laws of India and is the same for - discussions on sexual assault, marriage, reproductive rights, divorce or maintenance, the public sphere in post-colonial India constructs religious minorities, especially Muslims while ignoring actual law in India which has a separate set of laws that relate to Muslims vs Hindus and others ^[5]^[6]
2. “Gendered privacy in India cannot be understood without acknowledging that caste Hindu society is the ontological ground on which the claim to privacy stands – it is therefore caste and Hindu majoritarianism that frames dominant consciousness and reasoning – and is the epistemic basis for juridical reasoning.” mixes up caste, gender and law showing her ignorance of all three in the context of Indian society. Gender based privacy has something that concerns Muslim women more than Hindu women in India. There are various personal laws in India that are on the basis of religion including Hindu and Muslim law boards.

References[edit]

↑ Kalpana Kannabiran Linkedin Profile accessed July 2023,
↑ "Letter of Support", Dismantling Global Hindutva Conference website, accessed August 7, 2022
↑ “It is therefore important to recall that the drafting committee of the Constitution was especially mindful of the treacherous enclosures of caste Hindu society fueled by religious orthodoxies that reduced entire peoples to servitude, serfdom and indignity.”
↑ “Brahmanical Hinduism as the ‘normal’ cultural/discursive setting for the juridicalization of rights, especially where women (Hindu and not-Hindu) are concerned.”
↑ “We see several expressions of this containment especially in the juridicalization of the rights of Muslim women in courtroom cultures that cleave the ratio apart from the obiter, granting a right while legitimising it not in terms of its being-in-itself, but in terms of the Hindu ‘gold’ standard of justice”
↑ “Whether in discussions on sexual assault, marriage, reproductive rights, divorce or maintenance, the public sphere in post-colonial India constructs religious minorities, especially Muslims, in ways that divest them of their voice and autonomy, using Hindu worldviews, frameworks and claims to nationhood as the ultimate standard.”

[1] Kalpana Kannabiran Linkedin Profile accessed July 2023,

[2] "Letter of Support", Dismantling Global Hindutva Conference website, accessed August 7, 2022

[3] “It is therefore important to recall that the drafting committee of the Constitution was especially mindful of the treacherous enclosures of caste Hindu society fueled by religious orthodoxies that reduced entire peoples to servitude, serfdom and indignity.”

[4] “Brahmanical Hinduism as the ‘normal’ cultural/discursive setting for the juridicalization of rights, especially where women (Hindu and not-Hindu) are concerned.”

[5] “We see several expressions of this containment especially in the juridicalization of the rights of Muslim women in courtroom cultures that cleave the ratio apart from the obiter, granting a right while legitimising it not in terms of its being-in-itself, but in terms of the Hindu ‘gold’ standard of justice”

[6] “Whether in discussions on sexual assault, marriage, reproductive rights, divorce or maintenance, the public sphere in post-colonial India constructs religious minorities, especially Muslims, in ways that divest them of their voice and autonomy, using Hindu worldviews, frameworks and claims to nationhood as the ultimate standard.”

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]