Editor’s Note: When I reached out to Sujay Rao Mandavilli, founder of the Institute for the Study of the Globalisation of Science, I expected a formal academic conversation. What unfolded instead was a three-hour deep dive into colonial paradigms, intellectual imperialism, the future of pedagogy, and why most social science research is fundamentally flawed. This interview has been edited for length, but I’ve preserved Sujay’s characteristic precision, his refusal to oversimplify, and his unapologetic mission to democratize knowledge production across the developing world.
Priya Srivastava: Sujay, you’ve published over 150 research papers and 17 books. You’ve founded multiple think tanks. You’re taking on Eurocentrism, Marxist historiography, and outdated pedagogical models all at once. Where does someone even begin with a mission this vast?
Sujay Rao Mandavilli: You begin by admitting that most of what we’ve been taught in social sciences is fundamentally context dependent, and that context was Europe and America in the 19th and 20th centuries. Economics assumes consumption driven models. Anthropology was literally built on Europeans studying exotic cultures. Historiography carries colonial baggage we haven’t even unpacked yet. The entire edifice of social science knowledge production has been monopolized by Western institutions, and everyone else has been reduced to data providers or consumers of Western theories. That’s not science. That’s intellectual imperialism dressed up in academic robes.
PS: That’s a strong accusation. Aren’t you essentially saying that decades of scholarship from prestigious institutions is obsolete?
SM: Not obsolete. Context dependent. There’s a massive difference. Newton’s laws aren’t wrong, they’re incomplete. They work beautifully at certain scales. Similarly, Western developed paradigms in social sciences work for Western contexts. But when you try to apply consumption driven economic models to societies where saving is culturally embedded, or when you use 19th century Indological frameworks to study 21st century India, you get catastrophic failures. Look at the Aryan problem. Western scholars spent 150 years creating elaborate theories based on linguistic evidence alone, completely ignoring archaeology, genetics, cultural continuity. Why? Because their paradigms were developed in an era when they literally believed non Western peoples were incapable of scientific thinking. Lucien Levy Bruhl openly argued this. That mindset hasn’t disappeared, it’s just become more polite.
PS: You’ve had some very public confrontations with established scholars. The exchange with Gregory Possehl, the debates with Michael Witzel. Some might say you’re burning bridges.
SM: Bridges to what? To a system that perpetuates its own obsolescence? Let me tell you about Gregory Possehl. Brilliant archaeologist. Genuinely knowledgeable about Harappan civilization. But when it came to the Aryan question, the identity of Harappans, the nature of the Indus script, he was so deeply invested in 19th century paradigms that he couldn’t see past them. He called me naive. The irony is spectacular. Here’s a man who knew everything about Harappan pottery and urban planning but understood nothing about India itself because he’d never bothered to engage with Indian scholarship except as raw data. That’s not science, that’s intellectual colonialism with a smile.
PS: You’re known for coining the phrase “One kind of bias legitimizes every other kind of bias.” Can you unpack that?
SM: It’s the social sciences equivalent of Newton’s third law. If you allow Eurocentrism, you automatically legitimize every other centrism, Sinocentrism, Indocentrism, Afrocentrism. If you allow ideological bias in historiography, you legitimize Marxist bias, Hindutva bias, Dravidian nationalist bias. Bias breeds counter bias. The only solution is radical objectivity, which requires intellectual multipolarity. You cannot have objective social science if 90 percent of paradigm development happens in Western universities studying Western contexts and then gets exported as universal truth. That’s not universalization, that’s imperialism.
PS: Let’s talk about your concept of anthropological economics. You’re essentially arguing that standard economic theory needs a foundational reboot?
SM: Standard economic theory assumes rational actors, consumption maximization, individualistic decision making. These assumptions don’t hold in most of the world. In India, economic decisions are deeply embedded in family structures, caste dynamics, religious obligations, intergenerational wealth transfer patterns. You cannot understand Indian economics without understanding Indian anthropology. Same with most developing nations. But Western economists keep pushing consumption driven models because that’s what worked in post war America. The result? Catastrophic policy failures, widening inequality, environmental destruction. We need economic models built from ethnographic data collected across diverse cultures. That’s anthropological economics. Not economics informed by anthropology. Economics rebuilt from anthropological foundations.
PS: You’ve written extensively about pedagogy. What’s wrong with how we teach?
SM: Everything. We teach subjects in silos when real world problems are transdisciplinary. We emphasize rote memorization over critical thinking. We don’t teach scientific method properly, so students can’t distinguish science from pseudoscience. We don’t teach innovative thinking techniques, so they become consumers of knowledge rather than producers. Most criminally, we don’t teach students to think independently. They graduate believing that if something is in a textbook or comes from a prestigious institution, it must be true. That’s not education, that’s indoctrination. And it’s particularly catastrophic in developing countries where education is the only path to social mobility.
PS: You’ve been quite critical of both Hindutva historiography and Marxist historiography. That’s politically brave in India.
SM: I’m not brave, I’m consistent. Hindutva historians want to glorify ancient India by inventing out of India theories and claiming Vedas contain aeronautics. Marxist historians want to denigrate ancient India by clinging to Aryan invasion theories and denying any indigenous development. Both are ideology driven nonsense. The truth is complex. Yes, Indo Aryan languages came from outside. Yes, the Harappan civilization was indigenous and sophisticated. Yes, there was cultural continuity. Yes, there was also cultural change. Reality doesn’t care about your ideology. If you start with the conclusion you want and work backwards, you’re not doing history, you’re doing politics with footnotes.
PS: Your background is unusual. You’re not from an academic family. You started in commerce, switched to IT, became a Governance Risk and Compliance consultant, and only completed your Masters in Anthropology at 51. How did that shape your thinking?
SM: It gave me three things most academics lack. One, real world problem solving skills. Academic research often happens in bubbles. I’ve worked with corporations, governments, diverse teams across cultures. I know how things actually work, not how theories say they should work. Two, financial independence. I wasn’t beholden to academic institutions, research grants, or publishing cartels. I could say uncomfortable truths without risking my career because my career wasn’t in academia. Three, multiple perspectives. I’ve been an auditor, a project manager, a security consultant. I’ve lived in multiple countries. I’ve experienced different professional cultures. That gives you a kind of cognitive flexibility that pure academics often lack. They know their field deeply but narrowly. I know multiple fields less deeply but connectedly.
PS: You’ve also been quite open about your personal struggles. Bipolar disorder, OCD, health issues, divorce, financial devastation. Why share that?
SM: Because the myth of the solitary genius effortlessly producing brilliant work is exactly that, a myth. Newton was probably autistic. Einstein struggled socially. Darwin suffered chronic illness. Creative intellectual work is hard, messy, often done by people who don’t fit conventional molds. I want young researchers from developing countries to know that you don’t have to be born privileged, mentally healthy, financially secure, or socially adept to contribute to science. You need passion, rigor, honesty, and persistence. The rest is negotiable. Also, my struggles shaped my thinking. When you’ve been financially devastated, you understand economic precarity in ways privileged academics never will. When you’ve been depressed, you understand the gap between knowing what you should do and actually doing it. That gap is the subject of social science research. If researchers haven’t lived it, can they really understand it?
PS: Let’s talk about your mission. You’ve founded multiple think tanks, the Institute for the Study of the Globalisation of Science, Scholars and Intellectuals for Mankind, the Movement for Open Transparent High Quality and Ideology Free Science. What’s the endgame?
SM: The endgame is intellectual multipolarity. Right now, paradigm development in social sciences is monopolized by Western institutions. That needs to end. Not because Western scholars are bad people, but because no single cultural context can produce universal paradigms. You need Indian anthropologists studying Indian contexts, African economists studying African contexts, Chinese sociologists studying Chinese contexts, and then you need cross cultural dialogue to identify genuine universals versus culturally specific patterns. That’s how you build actual universal knowledge, not Eurocentric knowledge marketed as universal. The second goal is pedagogical revolution. Education systems worldwide are obsolete. They were designed for industrial era workforce production. We need education for critical thinking, creativity, innovation, scientific temper. The third goal is intellectual revolutions in developing countries. Europe had Renaissance and Enlightenment. Developing countries need their equivalents, not replications of European versions but culturally rooted intellectual awakenings that value reason, evidence, debate over dogma, tradition, authority.
PS: You’ve been particularly critical of the role of religion in contemporary society.
SM: I’m not anti religion, I’m anti religion as a replacement for scientific thinking. When highly educated people believe in astrology, when PhD holders think ancient texts contain lost technologies, when religious identity determines political positions, you have a civilization level problem. Religion can provide community, meaning, ethical frameworks. Fine. But when it starts dictating scientific education, historical narratives, or public policy, it becomes actively harmful. And this isn’t just about India or Islam. American Christians reject evolution. Hindu nationalists claim Vedic aircraft. Islamic fundamentalists reject modernity entirely. The solution isn’t aggressive atheism, that creates reactionary backlash. The solution is better education that teaches people to hold religious beliefs and scientific knowledge in separate cognitive compartments. You can be spiritually Hindu and scientifically rational. They’re not contradictory unless you insist on literalism.
PS: Your concept of twenty first century intellectualism is central to your work. What does that mean?
SM: It means moving past 19th and 20th century intellectual frameworks that no longer serve us. European Enlightenment intellectualism was great for its time, but it carried Eurocentric baggage, colonial assumptions, racist undertones. Marxist intellectualism had valid critiques of capitalism but became dogmatic and ideological. We need intellectualism that is transdisciplinary, cross cultural, evidence based, ideology free, focused on solving real world problems rather than academic gatekeeping. Twenty first century intellectuals should be able to synthesize insights from multiple disciplines, engage with diverse cultural contexts, update beliefs based on new evidence, communicate complex ideas to general audiences, and work collaboratively across borders. Most current intellectuals excel in none of these areas. They’re specialists talking to other specialists in jargon laden papers that nobody reads and nothing changes.
PS: You’ve published 150 plus papers, most in non prestigious journals. Why not target top tier publications?
SM: Three reasons. One, time. I have over 100 papers. High tier journals take months or years for review. I’d die before getting through my backlog. Two, ideology. Top journals have editorial biases, peer reviewers with vested interests. My work challenges established paradigms. That makes me unpublishable in journals that exist to maintain those paradigms. Three, transparency. I publish in open access platforms, republish on SSRN, share everything freely. My goal isn’t academic prestige, it’s knowledge dissemination. Every paper I write is a data point in the globalization of science movement. Together, they form a comprehensive critique of existing social science paradigms and a blueprint for reconstruction. That’s more valuable than ten papers in prestigious journals that twelve people read.
PS: You’ve written poetry advancing globalization of science, albeit humorously. That’s unusual for an academic.
SM: “Man, be not proud,” “Ideologies, you shall come to naught,” “Obsolescence, nothing escapes your wicked ways.” These aren’t traditional academic output, but they serve a purpose. Humor makes complex ideas accessible. Poetry makes them memorable. And frankly, after writing 150 technical papers, sometimes you need to say “Step aside you Marxist historians, your time is over” with a bit of flair. It reaches different audiences. Not everyone reads 50 page technical papers on historiographical method, but they might read a poem mocking academic gatekeepers. Different tools for different purposes.
PS: You’ve launched the Mandavilli Foundation providing awards to social science researchers from developing countries. Why cash free awards?
SM: Because the point isn’t money, it’s recognition. Researchers from developing countries doing globalization of science work often labor in obscurity. They don’t have institutional backing, research grants, or academic platforms. A cash free award acknowledges their work, gives them credibility, connects them to a broader movement. It says your work matters, you’re not alone, keep going. That’s often more valuable than money. Though if I had millions, I’d definitely give cash too. But I’m working with what I have, and what I have is a platform and a movement.
PS: What’s been your biggest professional disappointment?
SM: That it took so long. I published my first paper on the Aryan problem in 2008. It’s 2026. Eighteen years later, the mid 19th century school of Indology is finally dying, but it’s taken nearly two decades and it’s still not dead. Academic Marxism is in terminal decline but still taught in universities. Eurocentric paradigms are being questioned but still dominant. Change in academia happens at glacial pace because institutions have built in resistance to change. Peer review becomes gate keeping. Academic freedom becomes freedom to maintain the status quo. Prestige becomes a cudgel to silence dissent. I’ve published over 150 papers challenging fundamental assumptions in multiple fields. In a rational system, that would trigger widespread debate, reexamination, course correction. Instead, most of it gets ignored because I’m not from a prestigious institution, because it challenges too many sacred cows, because academic incentives reward incremental work within existing paradigms, not paradigm challenges.
PS: What gives you hope?
SM: The internet. Democratization of knowledge production and dissemination. Thirty years ago, I couldn’t have done this. I’d have needed institutional affiliation, research grants, access to journals. Now I can publish on SSRN, maintain blogs, create YouTube videos, reach global audiences directly. The gatekeepers are losing power. Knowledge production is globalizing whether Western institutions like it or not. Researchers from India, Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America are starting to develop their own paradigms based on their own contexts. That’s the future. Not one dominant center, but multiple centers in dialogue. The globalization of science movement is inevitable. I’m just trying to accelerate it.
PS: You’ve criticized Western intellectuals quite harshly. Michael Witzel, Gregory Possehl, and others. Yet you also acknowledge their contributions. How do you reconcile that?
SM: Simple. Good work in one area doesn’t grant immunity from criticism in another. Possehl was an excellent archaeologist. His Harappan excavation work was superb. But his understanding of the Aryan question was abysmal because he refused to update his paradigms. Witzel is a skilled linguist. But his investment in 19th century Indological frameworks makes him impervious to new evidence. You can acknowledge someone’s contributions while critiquing their limitations. In fact, you must. Hagiography helps no one. Honest assessment, even harsh when warranted, is how science progresses. If I say Witzel is brilliant in Old Indo Aryan linguistics but obsolete in his broader Indological framework, that’s not personal attack, that’s professional assessment. He’d probably return the favor by calling me unqualified, which is fine. Scientific discourse isn’t about hurt feelings, it’s about truth.
PS: You’ve positioned yourself outside mainstream academia deliberately. Is there any part of you that wants institutional validation?
SM: Honestly? No. Institutional validation comes with strings. You moderate your positions to maintain funding. You avoid controversial topics to keep colleagues comfortable. You publish incremental safe work to satisfy tenure committees. I’ve seen brilliant researchers become timid because institutional incentives reward conformity. My independence is my strength. Nobody can threaten my funding because I don’t have funding. Nobody can deny tenure because I don’t seek tenure. Nobody can reject my papers because I control distribution. The downside is lack of institutional resources, collaborative networks, student bodies to carry work forward. But the upside is complete intellectual freedom. I can say Marxist historiography is catastrophic nonsense. I can say Hindutva revisionism is pseudoscience. I can say Western social science paradigms are obsolete. Try doing that with institutional affiliation in India and see how long you last.
PS: Your father was an IIT professor. That must have shaped your expectations of yourself.
SM: It did, but not in obvious ways. My father was technically brilliant but also very Westernized in his approach. IIT Madras was German sponsored in his era. He spent long periods in Germany. His academic career was stellar. I initially felt I could never match that. But I realized later that we measure success differently. He excelled within an established system. I’m trying to change the system itself. Different missions, different metrics. He’d probably think I’m wasting my time tilting at windmills. But windmills that need tilting are worth the effort. The real gift he gave me wasn’t academic pressure but intellectual curiosity. He taught me to question, to think deeply, to value knowledge. The direction I took that curiosity wasn’t what he expected, but the foundation was his.
PS: What would you say to a young researcher in India or Africa or Southeast Asia who wants to contribute to social sciences but feels intimidated by Western dominance?
SM: Start local, think global. Study your own context with rigor. Document cultural patterns, economic behaviors, social structures in your community using proper ethnographic methods. Don’t try to force your observations into Western paradigms. Build your own frameworks from ground up. Publish where you can, even if it’s not prestigious journals. Put work on open access platforms. Connect with other researchers in developing countries doing similar work. Ignore gatekeepers who tell you you’re unqualified. The people calling you unqualified are often the ones whose paradigms you’re threatening. Read widely across disciplines. Learn proper research methods. Be ruthlessly honest about limitations of your data. Update beliefs based on evidence. And remember, you’re not just doing research, you’re part of a civilizational level shift in knowledge production. That’s bigger than any individual career, any individual paper. You’re contributing to intellectual multipolarity, to decolonization of knowledge, to the democratization of science. That’s worth doing even if prestigious institutions never acknowledge it.
PS: Last question. You’re 56 years old. You’ve published over 150 papers and 17 books in essentially ten years. You’ve founded multiple think tanks. You’ve launched a foundation. What’s next?
SM: More of the same, but amplified. I have at least 50 more papers mapped out. Several more books in development. The think tanks need to transition from concepts to movements with actual organizational structures, funding, collaborative networks. The Mandavilli Foundation needs to expand awards, create scholarships, fund research in developing countries. I want to see the first textbook on anthropological economics published. The first university courses on twenty first century historiography taught. The first academic departments focused explicitly on globalization of science established. I want to see intellectual revolutions in India, Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America not Western style enlightenments but culturally rooted awakenings that embrace reason without abandoning identity. I want to see pedagogy transformed so the next generation thinks critically, innovates freely, engages scientifically. I’m racing against time, against my health, against institutional inertia, against my own limitations. But the mission is too important to stop. Someone has to do this work. Might as well be me.
PS: Sujay, this has been extraordinary. Thank you for your candor, your passion, and your refusal to simplify.
SM: Thank you for giving me space to lay out these ideas without demanding I moderate them. That’s rare. Most interviewers want soundbites. You let me think out loud. That’s what real intellectual discourse should be.
For more information on Sujay Rao Mandavilli’s work, visit his blog “Abhilasha: This is not utopia” or find his publications on SSRN. His books, including “Making India a Scientific and Intellectual Powerhouse,” “Rebooting Pedagogy and Education Systems for the Twenty-First Century,” and “Religion in the Twenty-First Century and Beyond,” are available through Eliva Press, Google Books, and Amazon.
With over 11 years of experience in the publishing industry, Priya Srivastava has become a trusted guide for hundreds of authors navigating the challenging path from manuscript to marketplace. As Editor-in-Chief of Deified Publications, she combines the precision of a publishing professional with the empathy of a mentor who truly understands the fears, hopes, and dreams of both first-time and seasoned writers.