Understanding the colonial roots of Indian management thought: An agenda to decolonise and theorise for Indian contexts

Citation preview

Journal of Business Research 149 (2022) 700–712

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Understanding the colonial roots of Indian management thought: An agenda to decolonise and theorise for Indian contexts Abhoy K. Ojha *, Ramya Tarakad Venkateswaran a b

Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, Bannerghatta Road, Karnataka, India Strategic Management Group, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Diamond Harbour Road, JOKA P.O., Kolkata 700104. India

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Arthashastra Decolonisation Eurocentrism Indigenous knowledge India US-centrism

Despite several calls to develop indigenous theories to contribute to Indian management knowledge, there has been limited success. There is no well-developed alternate Indian paradigm in management that can sustain a rigorous research programme and be relevant to practice. We argue that the intellectual colonisation of Indian academia due to the prevailing Eurocentrism (and US-centrism) and the use of English as a language for research and dissemination of knowledge are two key reasons underlying this failure. We demonstrate this by illustrating the near absence of scholarly work on Kautilya’s Arthashastra despite its wide acceptance in popular writings in India and its use in management practice. Finally, we suggest strategies to achieve intellectual decolonisation or intellectual freedom to enable scholars to engage with Indian issues and phenomena using indigenous knowledge perspectives and to contribute to an indigenous paradigm that might provide unique insights into managing the Indian way.

1. Introduction There have been several calls to develop indigenous theories of business and management, but extant research efforts have not been fruitful in arriving at a management paradigm that is relevant to India and can sustain a rigorous research programme while informing prac­ tice. Most studies in the Indian context, whether by scholars from India or outside, have applied existing US-centric1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 theories due to the inherent US-centricity of scholarship in business and management (Barkema, Chen, George, Luo & Tsui, 2015; Bruton & Lau, 2008; Doktor, Tung, & Von Glinow, 1991; Raˇskovi´c, Dikova, & McDougall-Covin, 2020; Tung, 2005). Cautioning against the tendency to assume the universality of US-centric theories, Doktor et al. (1991) argued: “(A)s management researchers construct theory, they are, in fact, attempting to build a model that describes, predicts, and helps them to understand the world that they perceive about them… If North America is their domain, then it is but North America to which their theory may be applied, and application of that theory beyond the boundaries of the North American domain greatly enhances the

possibility of making Type I and Type II errors.” (Doktor et al., 1991: 363) Almost two decades later, the editors of another journal commented: “Surprisingly, despite its growing diversity, published research in the major entrepreneurship journals remains focused on phenomena whose genesis was largely in the United States—with theoretical foundations also generated in Western philosophical and research traditions.” (Bruton, Zahra, & Cai, 2018: 352) Venkateswaran and Ojha (2017) called out similar issues in strategy research, arguing that the dominant theoretical perspectives are not truly universal. Hoskisson, Wright, Filatotchev, and Peng (2013) nuanced their popular extension of US-centric theories for emerging economies that further extended the generalisation. We believe that these minor tweaks to US-centric research frameworks are incapable of providing an adequate understanding of phenomena in contexts that might be fundamentally different from the US context. In the context of India, US-centric frameworks are inadequate in explaining several as­ pects of business and management—for example, differences in (i) levels of hierarchy, (ii) incentive systems, (iii) strategy formulation and most

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.K. Ojha), [email protected] (R. Tarakad Venkateswaran). 1 We use the terms ‘Eurocentric’ and ‘US-centric’ interchangeably, largely using the former when referring to colonial influences before India’s independence, and the latter when referring to neo-colonial influences after independence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.067 Received 20 February 2021; Received in revised form 20 May 2022; Accepted 26 May 2022 Available online 2 June 2022 0148-2963/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A.K. Ojha and R. Tarakad Venkateswaran

Journal of Business Research 149 (2022) 700–712

importantly implementation of strategies, (iv) consumer behaviour and positioning of products, and (v) the role of personal relationships and networks in the conduct of business. These aspects can be better un­ derstood and explained by using indigenous theories that are grounded in the real voices and experiences of the subjects rather than through minor adaptations to US-centric perspectives may be adequate for the US context. Unlike in the natural sciences, where the theoretical perspectives are inherently universal (Rosenberg, 2012), researchers working in the so­ cial sciences, including business and management, need to recognise the importance of subjective meaning (Taylor, 1971) and local rationalities (Lukes, 2000) in developing contextually relevant theories. Hence, it seems quite reasonable to expect efforts to develop contextually relevant theoretical frameworks (Bruton & Lau, 2008; Doktor et al., 1991; Poulis & Poulis, 2018) for India. Similar to Nkomo (2011), we are also con­ cerned by the disconnect between the theories and the lived experience of the people in the local context, the near absence of contextually rich and locally relevant theories, and the inability to develop such theories. Scholars who are deeply embedded in the local context and who are also part of the global academic community should be able to undertake context-specific theory-building that genuinely engages with the context, informs rigorous, globally acceptable scholarship, and is truly relevant to local practice (Alcadipani, Khan, Gantman, & Nkomo, 2012). We borrow the term ‘amnesia’ from Devy (1992), a highly regarded Gandhian scholar, to explain how colonisation had a demoralising in­ fluence that was pervasive and entrenched. The deep-rooted effect of coloniality was an incurable sense of inferiority among Indian scholars that prevented them from becoming aware of or being able to recognise knowledge that was indigenous to the Indian context. Building on these thoughts, we argue that the efforts to develop contextually rich and locally relevant business and management theories have been hampered by the lingering influence of the intellectual colonisation of Indian academia. Given the immense value of post-colonial perspectives in reinvigorating the discipline (Banerjee & Prasad, 2008; Westwood, 2006; Westwood & Jack, 2007), we offer an analysis that will help provide an understanding of the historical roots of intellectual coloni­ sation in India, particularly in business and management, and suggest strategies for intellectual decolonisation. We notice that in at least two non-European countries that have relatively strong research programmes in business and management, scholars were able to draw on a rich tradition of knowledge and learning in their respective societies. Japan, based on traditional Japanese wis­ dom (Hayashi, 2002; Keys & Miller, 1984), and, more recently, China, based on Confucian philosophy (Boyd, 2018; Chen, 2014), have devel­ oped indigenous frameworks that are consistent with their cultural and philosophical heritage even as they learned from Eurocentric theories. In contrast, there has been little impact of indigenous perspectives from India on business and management research, even though social values and managerial practices in India are quite different from those in Europe (Hofstede, 1980; Sinha, 1984; Sinha & Sinha, 1990). In an extensive review of five decades of India-focused international business and management research in 17 leading journals, Mukherjee, Kumar, Mukherjee, and Goyal (2022) noted the dearth of conceptual studies using the Indian context, because most studies tended to replicate Western concepts, constructs, and theories in the Indian setting. There have been only a few sporadic efforts to examine Indian ways of man­ aging, and Mukherjee et al. (2022) urge researchers to engage in more context-sensitive theorising, consistent with Padalkar and Gopinath’s (2015) conclusion that there is a lack of context-sensitive theorising in India. We believe that the two key and related reasons for the lack of indigenous theorisation are intellectual colonisation and excessive reli­ ance on English as a language of research and knowledge dissemination. As an illustration, we discuss the case of the Arthashastra written by Kautilya (also known as Chanakya), an Indian scholarly treatise on po­ litical, strategic, and international affairs that has significant potential to

contribute to business and management knowledge in India (Starzl & Dhir, 1986). We demonstrate the neglect of this treatise in the main­ stream academic research that is available in the English language as an example of the marginalisation of indigenous knowledge in academic circles in India, despite it being a highly popular text that is widely acclaimed in Indian business practices and politics, and in popular In­ dian culture. Building on Gandhi (1938), Dei (2006), Quijano (2007), Kohn and McBride (2011), Schmidt (2011), and others, we argue for strategies to challenge intellectual colonisation and to create hybridity (Frenkel & Shenhav, 2006) and pluriversality (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018) to re-centre the knowledge around India based on indigenous theories while continuing to be open to influences from other paradigms. In this paper, we examine the harm caused by intellectual coloni­ sation in India because of British rule and its after-effects, and the damage due to the application of US-centric theories of business and management. We acknowledge that while we critically examine the is­ sues of our interest by deconstructing and reconstructing alternate possibilities, we ourselves are negotiating our roles as ‘outsiders’ in a system in which we are to some extent ‘insiders’, given our educational training and current affiliations (Bhattacharya, 2013). Further, while our focus is on the impact of external colonisation, we are aware of the role of what might be described as ‘internal’ colonisation (Kapoor, 2007) that might prevent certain segments of marginalised society in India from having an equal say in the process of evolving an indigenous paradigm. Additionally, similar to Mbembe (2016), we are conscious of possible ‘retrogression’ that might have negative consequences, and are alert to Hamann, Luiz, Ramaboa, Khan, Dhlamini, and Nilsson’s (2020) caution against possible scapegoating and valorising biases. Our effort in this paper is to create complementary hybrid spaces and pluriversality that might allow a body of knowledge that has so far been neglected in Indian academia to have a fair chance to participate in the dialogical engagements that have been dominated by Eurocentric discourses until now. Our endeavour is to produce an emic account and to push back the etic accounts that prevail when trying to improve research in India (for instance, Khatri, Varma, & Budhwar, 2017). While we do not claim to provide a fully evolved paradigm, we do suggest strategies to initiate the process of decolonisation of the Indian mind to attain intellectual freedom and to create space for indigenous traditions that might lead to the paradigm that we seek. 2. Intellectual colonisation in India We argue that despite the apparent political and economic freedom in the country, India has been unable to chart its own future because it has not achieved intellectual freedom, that is, it remains intellectually colonised. The issue of intellectual colonisation was highlighted by Mahatma Gandhi in an article published immediately after India’s independence: “Though we are politically free, we are barely free from the subtle domination of the West… It is to be hoped that no one contends that, because we seem to be politically free from foreign domination, the mere fact gives us freedom from the more subtle influence of the foreign language and foreign thought.”2 At the heart of intellectual colonisation is the ‘cultural bomb’ that is unleashed by the colonisers, which disconnects the colonised from their heritage (Ngugi,1994). “[The impact of] a cultural bomb is to annihilate a people’s belief in their names, in their languages, in their environment, in their heri­ tage of struggle, in their unity, in their capacities and ultimately in themselves. It makes them see their past as one wasteland of nonachievement and it makes them want to distance themselves from

2

701

Mahatma Gandhi in Harijan, 2–11-1947, p. 392.

A.K. Ojha and R. Tarakad Venkateswaran

Journal of Business Research 149 (2022) 700–712

that wasteland. It makes them want to identify with that which is furthest removed from themselves… with other peoples’ languages rather than their own.” (Ngugi,1994: 3)

house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.”3 Outside the small pockets of elite society that are strongly influenced by European traditions, Indian society and the business world are still largely informed by the indigenous knowledge systems that are embedded in Indian society (Mohnot, Pratap, & Saha, 2021; Ven­ kateswaran, Vadivelu, & Krishnan, 2021) but are neglected by the ac­ ademic elite. In his book Hind Swaraj, Gandhi was not parochial and drew on many traditions—including European traditions that he oppo­ sed—to make his argument for complete freedom or Purna Swaraj, suggesting that cross-cultural dialogue should be encouraged (Kohn & McBride, 2011). Along similar lines, Nehru (2004) also argued for continuity:

Many colonisers, particularly European colonisers, and their apolo­ gists have argued that colonisation was required to modernise the peo­ ple of the colonised societies. Ironically, even Marx (1853) supported the imperial interventions in India on similar grounds. However, Memmi (2003) strongly refutes any such assertions, arguing that colonisers never had any positive intentions for the societies that they colonised, and if at all something positive was done, it was with the intention of serving the needs of the colonisers. Intellectual colonisation has a deeper effect than that of political and economic colonisation. It “colonises minds in addition to bodies and it releases forces within the colonised societies to alter their cultural priorities once for all… the West is now everywhere, within the West and outside; in structures and in minds” (Nandy, 1983: 11). Along similar lines, deSouza (2017) referred to the “enslavement of the mind” and the replacement of the “real mind” by the “shadow mind”. The process of political, economic, and intellectual decolonisation had varied trajectories in different contexts. Japan, which was not colonised, could rapidly build a modern economy by borrowing ideas from the West and integrating them into its traditional systems without facing the challenge of intellectual colonisation (Duara, 2004). On the other hand, China—which was politically and economically colonised by Japan briefly—did not have to deal with intellectual colonisation for too long because it was able to go back to its traditions. Unlike Japan and China, India was economically, politically, and intellectually colonised. The British colonisers consciously weakened and destroyed India’s traditional knowledge systems and imposed English as a medium of education. These imperial interventions created an academic elite whose interests were aligned with those of the colonisers. This elite either lost touch with, or worse, learnt to detest or mistrust indigenous knowledge systems (Devy, 1992; Gandhi, 1938; Nehru, 2004). After independence, many from this same elite occupied leadership positions in a system of knowledge and education that was suitable for the colo­ nisers. Rather than change the system, they continued the legacy, partly because of self-interest, but more importantly because of intellectual colonisation (Devy, 1992; Memmi, 2003; Ngugi,1994). The hegemony of the Eurocentric tradition, now carried forward by the native Indians, does not allow scholars to see outside those frames, and their entrenchment in leadership positions in the higher education system hinders those who adopt alternate frames. Many Indian aca­ demics who are at the ‘periphery’ and outside the ‘centre’ of Eurocentric knowledge work hard to gain access to the dominant ‘centre’ and win the and approval of the gatekeepers at this ‘centre’. Nandy (1983) referred to these scholars as gladiators who act to impress the Caesars, the academic gatekeepers of knowledge in the Eurocentric ‘centre’, not realising that in the end, death (that is, intellectual death) is the only outcome for those on the ‘periphery’ who seek approval from the ‘centre’. We argue that unless deep-rooted colonial influences are addressed, scholars who are interested in India will face such an intel­ lectual death and will be unable to develop indigenous knowledge that adequately addresses the issues in the Indian context. In the context of Africa, Mbembe (2016) argued that intellectual freedom is not about returning a society to its pre-colonial state. Rather, it is more about ensuring that the debates on Africa are grounded in the real lived experiences of the people of Africa. Echoing similar senti­ ments, Mahatma Gandhi, during the early days of his participation in the independence movement in India, had written:

“A blind reverence for the past is bad and so also is a contempt for it, for no future can be founded on either of these. The present and the future inevitably grow out of the past and bear its stamp, and to forget this is to build without foundations and to cut off the roots of national growth.” Nehru (2004: 33) Consistent with these views, we argue for the need to develop indigenous knowledge that is based not on modified Eurocentric knowledge, but on knowledge that provides a voice to the local subject and the indigenous scholar. However, even in the early 1900 s, when Gandhi and Nehru emphasised the need to draw on Indian heritage to modernise, not everyone agreed. M. N. Roy, who was strongly influ­ enced by Marx, argued vehemently against borrowing from Indian tra­ ditions (Kohn & McBride, 2011). We quite clearly side with Gandhi and Nehru rather than Roy on the need to build on the Indian heritage with all its blemishes, rather than abandon it. Rajni Kothari, in his intro­ duction to Alvares (1991), argued for non-European societies to develop their indigenous paradigms to solve their own problems and to contribute to hybridity (Frenkel & Shehnav, 2006) and pluriversality (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018) in global thought, which might allow the former colonisers to borrow and deal with the problems they encounter due to a misguided pursuit of modernity and progress. 2.1. Societal identities in India during and after colonisation Underlying the phenomenon of intellectual colonisation is the transformation of societal identities. A society and its identity get defined by discursive conversations that are often influenced by those who control the nature of the discourse. Since the early days of European colonisation, the societal identity of India has been strongly influenced by Eurocentric perspectives and reactions to them. Rudolph (2009) suggested that over time, there have been four variants of Indian civi­ lisational identity (see Table 1). The first, the Orientalist variant, was shaped largely by officials of the British East India Company during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. They presented a rather romantic image of an evolved society. However, even in this portrayal, there was an implicit attempt to suggest that Indian society was ‘exotic’, but not ‘modern’. The descriptions soon changed as the imperialists took control of the discourse, leading to the emergence of the Anglicist variant. The holders of this view made no pretence of presenting India as an evolved society. They quite clearly presented India as a degraded and pagan society that required interventions to promote modernity. There were many, both in India and Britain, who did not accept the Anglicist perspective. Scholars tried to argue for an Indian societal identity that was more rooted in India than in Europe. Over time, these narratives created a Liberal nationalist variant that contributed to the image of India as a pluralist and tolerant society that sheltered multiple civilisational streams. The fourth, the Hindu nationalist variant, which also emerged as a response to the Anglicist variant, has been contesting

“I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my

3

702

Mahatma Gandhi in Young India, 1–6-1921, p. 170.

A.K. Ojha and R. Tarakad Venkateswaran

Journal of Business Research 149 (2022) 700–712

Table 1 Societal Identities in India During Colonisation and After. Variant

Presentation of social identity

Influencers

Exemplar scholarship

Orientalist

A romantic image of an evolved society. Exotic, but not modern.

Officials of the British East India Company during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century.

William Jones (1771) A grammar of the Persian Language. William Jones (1784) A discourse on the institution of a society for enquiring into the history, civil and natural, the antiquities, arts, sciences, and literature of Asia.

Anglicist

A degraded and pagan society lacking in modernity.

Officials of the British East India company after early nineteenth century, supported by some Indian who had received British education

James Mill (1817) History of India.

Liberal nationalist

A pluralist and tolerant society that sheltered multiple civilisational streams.

Indians who were rooted in India but also able to participate in the Eurocentric discourse to get the best of both.

Hindu nationalist

A Hindu civilisation, with religious overtones, with a desire to rid Indian society of ‘external’ influences.

Indians who had a desire to revive pre-colonial society rooted in Indian traditions

for space in India with the Liberal nationalist variant since then. Pro­ ponents of this last variant view Indian society as an expression of Hindu civilisation, which has religious overtones, with attempts to rid Indian society of ‘external’ influences from the colonisers. For us, this creates a dilemma, because we do want to re-connect to the heritage of India, which is quite inextricably linked to Indic civilisation, without empha­ sising the chauvinistic aspects. After reflection, we believe that it is possible to re-connect with the pre-colonial heritage of India to gain from the positives without necessarily inviting the negatives. We argue that these four societal identities have had an impact on the knowledge and education systems in India. We focus largely on the impact of the Anglicist view in imposing an alien knowledge and edu­ cation system on India. We then argue that since independence, the Liberal nationalist response to intellectual colonisation has not been radical enough to allow the re-centring of knowledge around India. We argue for a more forceful opposition to the Eurocentric knowledge sys­ tems that are based on Gandhi’s aim of achieving Purna Swaraj. This view was also expressed by Nehru (2004):

Charles E. Trevelyan (1938) On the Education of the People of India. M. K. Gandhi (1909) Hind Swaraj. J. Nehru (1936) Toward Freedom. R. Tagore (1917) Nationalism. M. S. Golwalkar (1939) We or Our Nation Defined. V. D. Savarkar (1928) Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?

The Charter Act of 1813 was the first significant move in this di­ rection, as the British Government took responsibility for the education of Indian subjects. The Orientalists, who were dominant then, advocated the continuation of the indigenous system of education. However, once the Anglicist perspective prevailed within the British administration, the need to modernise the colonies by spreading English education informed by European Enlightenment had a major impact on interventions in education in India. Macaulay’s Minute on Indian Education,4 which is often referred to as the document that defined the intent of the colo­ nisers, was a product of the Anglicist mindset that took upon itself the ‘white man’s burden’ to change the world. It took a few decades for at least a few prominent Indians to realise “the damage done to their psyche and the grave distortion inflicted on their understanding by colonialism” before any organised efforts to reverse the effects were even attempted (Gohain, 2011: 24). A related change was that the medium of instruction was changed to English. This was implemented by restricting all government funds to only those schools in which knowledge was imparted in English. In 1837, the language of the courts was changed to English, and in 1844, it was decided that all government jobs would be available only to those who had a working knowledge of English. The Woods Despatch of 1854, while attempting to increase access to education, further entrenched the role of Eurocentric knowledge and education by ensuring that all higher education was imparted in English, even though regional languages were permitted for the school-level education. Since English became the language of higher education and the government, and the medium of education in many schools in urban centres, it hurt the cause of edu­ cation and the literacy of large sections of the population, and created a situation in which the next few generations, particularly those from the elite, were alienated from the traditional knowledge that was available in the regional languages. Quite naturally, most Indians, particularly those who already had contact with the colonisers, accepted Eurocentric knowledge and the English language as passports to a better career and life. The changes had significant supporters from among some prominent progressive-

“The Indian people, freed from the terrible sense of oppression and frustration, will grow in stature again and lose their narrow nationalism and exclusiveness. Proud of their Indian heritage, they will open their minds and hearts to other peoples and other nations, and become citizens of this wide and fascinating world, marching onwards with others in that ancient quest in which their forefathers were the pioneers.” Nehru (2004: 41) We emphasise the need to re-centre Indian knowledge in the Indian context instead of continuing to depend on Eurocentric knowledge paradigms to guide the future, while continuing to be open to perspec­ tives from other parts of the world. 2.2. The imposition of Eurocentric education and English language in India According to Sundaram (1959), respect for learning and pursuit of knowledge was well-established in India. The education system in India, though different from that in Britain, resulted in literacy levels that were comparable to those in Europe in the early 1800 s. Dharampal (2000) provided a detailed account of the indigenous education systems in India in the eighteenth century, which provided education through patha­ shalas, madrassas, and gurukuls. However, rather than improve on the existing systems, the colonisers deliberately damaged the indigenous systems of education by imposing Eurocentric knowledge and education systems to suit their colonial designs.

4 Macaulay’s Minute on Indian Education refers to a note written by Thomas Macaulay when he served as an official for the Governor General of the British East India Company in the 1830s. It emphasised the need to create "a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect", which subsequently influenced the dismantling of traditional knowledge and education systems and the imposition of British education and English language in India.

703

A.K. Ojha and R. Tarakad Venkateswaran

Journal of Business Research 149 (2022) 700–712

minded Indians. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, one of the founders of the Brahmo Samaj, welcomed the colonial initiatives. Similarly, the reformer Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, founder of Aligarh Muslim University, also welcomed these initiatives. Both represent examples of Indian agency in the colonisation of the Indian mind. We do not suggest that they were wilfully destroying the indigenous knowledge traditions or were aware of the long-term implications of the causes that they championed. But we do assert that they had a role, however inadvertent or indirect, in the colonisation of the mind (Memmi, 2003) in India. Many years later, lamenting on the effect of the interventions by the colonisers, Mahatma Gandhi was quoted as saying, “I say without fear of my figures being challenged successfully, that today India is more illiterate than it was fifty or a hundred years ago” (Dharampal, 2000: 6).

periphery’ and, like before, they found willing collaborators in India. This impacted academic curricula, teaching methods, and most impor­ tantly, the choice of English as the language of instruction. The initial cohort of faculty of the two IIMs were sent to US universities to acquire knowledge about US-centric management to start this process. This process was sustained by the continued dominance of US-trained faculty in the later hires. Srinivas (2008) suggested that there was some initial resistance, and there were attempts to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of western management practice in India and some attempts to develop indigenous knowledge. However, this did not last for long. The pressures on academics to be part of a global discourse on “modernity” led them to neglect efforts to develop indigenous management knowledge. The dominant impact of the IIMs, which are now 20 in number, has steered management knowledge and education in India towards the US-centric approach. In recent times, global rankings and accreditation by UScentric agencies have only increased the pressure to conform to US norms to become so-called world-class institutions (Kothiyal, Bell, & Clarke, 2018). Srinivas (2008) and Kothiyal et al. (2018) focused their critique of neo-colonial influences on Indian business and management education on two issues: (i) the persistence of English as the language of scholarly working and teaching, and (ii) the mimicry of US research norms. First, the English language as the dominant language of management discourse in international forums has a negative impact on scholars in all non-Anglophone countries, including Japan, China, and Europe. How­ ever, the impact in those countries is less damaging than that in India. While scholars in these countries remain connected to their own society and conduct research in their local language even as they share their scholarly work for global audiences in English, scholars in India are disconnected from their own society because of their facility with En­ glish and a corresponding lack of scholarly knowledge in the languages of India. They quite effortlessly get ‘sucked’ into US-centric discourses and are unable to perceive their disconnect with their own local context. Second, the pressure to mimic US-centric research norms is also uni­ versal. Kodeih and Greenwood (2013) presented the struggles of a business school in France, which attempted to adapt to US-centric pressures while trying to retain its local identity and relevance. We believe that business schools in India have experienced similar pres­ sures, but unfortunately, they have been unable to retain local relevance in the face of the neo-colonial influences. US-centric academic associa­ tions, journals, and conferences act as agents that continue to impose their hegemony on all non-US management education (Murphy & Zhu, 2012). The US hegemony is so strong that it is a matter of prestige to be affiliated to academic associations in the US, to present work in US conferences, and to publish in US journals, even for academics outside the US (Bruton et al., 2018; Meril¨ ainen, Tienari, Thomas, & Davies, 2008; Tung, 2005). Local organisations, journals, and conferences are pressurised to seek approval from the ‘centre’ by seeking affiliations of their academic bodies with those in the US, by having members from the US on the editorial and review boards of journals, and by having con­ ference chairs and keynote speakers from the US (Kothiyal et al., 2018). The programmes offered by business schools in India are forced to mimic those offered in the US through rankings (Ojha, 2005) and accreditation (Ojha, 2017), and act as local agents who plant and replicate US-centric research paradigms and methods that alienate potential scholars who might be able to contribute to indigenous knowledge creation (Srinivas, 2012).

2.3. Continued intellectual colonisation after political and economic freedom According to Bandyopadhyay (2009), whether we have really aver­ ted Gandhi’s apprehension that India might end up with ‘English rule without the Englishmen’ needs to be examined, because many from the same elite that collaborated with the colonists retained their positions when the British left India (Grewal, 2016). Prominent members of In­ dian society who adhered to the Liberal nationalist identity attempted to provide direction. Despite some differences among them (for example, Gandhi was deeply rooted in Indian tradition, while Nehru was more open to European influence, and Tagore straddled both traditions), they were very well-grounded in the Indian ethos and were well-versed with developments in post-Enlightenment Europe to be able to chart a future that adequately balanced elements from the heritage and the modern influences that might prepare the country for the twentieth century and later. Unfortunately, the reins of the country gradually slipped into the hands of the next generation of the Liberal nationalists, who were not as rooted in the Indian ethos as the early Liberal nationalists were. They continued the colonial Eurocentric legacy with limited tinkering instead of treading a truly independent path. As a result, Eurocentric knowledge took centre stage once again, and academic pursuits in India attempted to mimic those of the metropole or Eurocentric centres. Over time, the discourse itself was delinked from the aspirations of the Indian masses, unfortunately taking a tilt towards the very Anglicist perspective that the Liberal nationalists had opposed. The modernity project that had been followed since independence, with all its positive intentions, had deepened the colonisation of the mind rather than challenged it (deSouza, 2017). Therefore, the country was left in a state of ‘suspension’, with very little capacity to reconnect to the pre-colonial past and was in no position to catch up to the Eurocentric development model that it attempted to imitate (Guha, 1997). 2.4. Neo-colonialism: Imposition of US-centric management education The concept of a business school emerged in the late 1800 s in the US. It largely remained an American idea till the mid-1900 s. It was ‘exported’ to Europe as part of the reconstruction of the continent after the devastation of World War II. London Business School and INSEAD are examples of schools that were established with US support. The concept was also imposed on India as part of US efforts to integrate the country into the global capitalist economy. The Ford Foundation sup­ ported the establishment of the first Indian Institute of Management (IIM) in Kolkata in 1959 in partnership with Sloan School of Manage­ ment and a second IIM in Ahmedabad in 1960 in partnership with Harvard Business School. The IIMs, like the Indian Institutes of Tech­ nology (IITs), were kept outside the university system, ostensibly for ease of implementation, but this also facilitated neo-colonisation without scrutiny from those outside the elite groups. The intent, almost like the intent of the Anglicists more than a century ago, was to transfer management knowledge and pedagogy ‘from the technologi­ cally advanced, affluent core to the economically poor, underdeveloped

2.5. An illustration: Marginalisation of Kautilya’s Arthashastra The marginalisation of Indian knowledge due to colonial influences can be illustrated by the conspicuous absence of discussions in academic circles about texts and entire bodies of indigenous knowledge that have relevance for today. While we focus on Kautilya’s Arthashastra in this paper, other examples of neglected classics include Shookraneeti’s the­ ories of political science, Bhartrihari’s Neetishatakam about governance, 704

A.K. Ojha and R. Tarakad Venkateswaran

Journal of Business Research 149 (2022) 700–712

present. While we are not in a position to dismiss the concerns that have been expressed in the past, we believe that it is unfair to suppress a perspective on the mere possibilities of something going wrong. Scholars should be able to give an indigenous perspective a fair chance, even if they ultimately do not accept it. We are aware that the original work was written in Sanskrit, and based on most accounts, the author was a Brahmin, and there is evidence that the text implicitly accepted the varna-based social hierarchy that is criticised today. However, scholars seem to ‘judge’ Kautilya and his work by today’s standards and fail to contextualise the knowledge into the historical and cultural milieu to which it belonged. Scholars make accommodations for traditional scholarly contributors from Europe but are not willing to make the same accommodations for those outside Europe. For example, Aristotle, a contemporary of Kautilya, was from the elite of the Greek society who accepted a three-tier society, including slavery. Aristotle’s views about women would be inappropriate by contemporary norms. However, modern academics acknowledge Aristotle’s contributions to knowledge, while they are not comfortable with acknowledging Kautilya’s contri­ butions (Baggini, 2018). Similarly, the field of business and manage­ ment has been open to the contributions of Max Weber despite strong criticism about the racist views that are inherent in his writings (Zim­ merman, 2006). We believe that if we can contextualise the knowledge in the Arthashastra, we might be able to acknowledge that this scholarly work could perhaps offer a basis to understand much of the social and eco­ nomic issues prevalent in India, even if the academic circles have neglected it. We believe that a contemporary interpretation of this classic has the potential to offer the foundation of a paradigm that can inform research in business and management in India and might also provide insights that are relevant to other societies. At its core, the text focuses on guidelines for the pursuit of wealth (artha) but emphasises the need to balance this with the pursuit of ethics or moral behaviour (dharma) and worldly pleasures (kama), even as the leader works to obtain the goodwill of society (Rangarajan, 1992). The treatise offers the foundational blocks of a paradigm that is similar to the stakeholder perspective (Freeman, 1984) and is indigenously relevant and contex­ tually sensitive. We are aware that during the pre-paradigmatic stage, all scholars might not be persuaded to adopt a perspective that is based on the Arthashastra, but we believe that with sufficient efforts, a fully evolved paradigm that is locally relevant will emerge. Metaphorically, we would like to see our efforts as the early stages of radical innovation, when the innovation appears to be inferior to the established technology based on the prevailing norms. The hope is that over time, when the paradigm finds a foothold, it will in turn change the norms of acceptance of ‘good’ theory in India and will be established as the provider of contextually rich and locally sensitive knowledge.

works on ethics such as Thiruvalluvar’s Thirukkural, Purananooru of the Tamil Sangam literature, and Kamandakas’s Neetisara about elements of polity and statecraft. The Arthashastra, which is a compendium of clas­ sical practical knowledge, is a collation of 15 books. The English translation by Shamasastry (1915) has over 600 pages of text. It is a treatise that covers a wide range of topics that are primarily relevant for a king or ruler but have implications for management knowledge in contemporary times. We believe that it is a treasure trove of indigenous knowledge that continues to widely influence the world of practice in government and business in India. However, it is nearly absent in business and management research. We believe that scholars and re­ searchers are likely to be better informed about the Indian phenomena that they examine after they study this great piece of traditional schol­ arly work. In the context of business and management, there have been at­ tempts to draw on the Arthashastra to provide insights for leadership (Sekhar, 2001; Sihag, 2004), organisation behaviour (Rajeev, 2007), accounting (Murthy & Rooney, 2018) and organisation design (Sihag, 2004), organisational controls and incentive systems (Sihag, 2007), ethics (Gopinath, 1998; Kumar & Rao, 1996; Sekhar, 2001), and corporate governance (Alexander & Buckingham, 2011). Boesche (2017) suggested that unlike traditional literatures from Japan and China that are getting academic attention, the Arthashastra is not quite acknowledged in the US. More worrying is that Mitra and Leibig (2017) found an absence of any references to the Arthashastra in academic circles in India. Banerjee (2012) argued that despite this, the Arthashastra has had a prominent place in Indian society. There have been several books drawing on the Arthashastra in the popular press, with Rangarajan’s (1992) “The Arthashastra by Kautilya”, being one of the better researched and written books in English that make the treatise more accessible. In addition, there are newspaper articles that refer to the Arthashastra, and several prominent commentators use the pseu­ donym of Kautilya to indicate an affiliation with the name to signify intellectual insight. There is probably a lot more literature based on the Arthashastra in the different regional languages of India. However, ac­ ademics in India who publish in English do not seem to be able to pro­ vide a similar place to Kautilya or the Arthashastra in their pursuit of knowledge. What could explain this paradox? According to Mishra (1989), aca­ demic interest in the study of the Arthashastra was very strong during the struggle for independence. However, after obtaining political freedom, the urgency to draw on the country’s heritage declined. Unaware of the role of intellectual colonization, intellectuals adopted Western models to catch with the rest. Mitra and Liebig (2017) attributed this neglect of the Arthashastra to the struggle that the social sciences faced in trying to negotiate space in universities, which seem to focus primarily on the natural and applied sciences. This tension between the social sciences and the natural sciences in India is an extension of the debates between these sciences after the ‘scientific’ revolution and positivist approaches (Rosenberg, 2012), further illustrating that the Indian academic context has become another playground for the continuation of Eurocentric discourses. The stream of postcolonial studies that aimed to reconstruct the ignored and repressed history of the ‘subalterns’, and consequently, to oppose what might be seen as colonial hegemony could have revived interest in the Arthashastra. However, they also neglected it because within Indian society, the treatise is probably seen as representing an elite or ‘Brahmanical’ view that is available in Sanskrit, which is to be opposed just as much as the Eurocentric views are to be resisted. Further, many have argued that Indian academics should refrain from reconnecting with the pre-colonial heritage because of concerns of po­ tential fascism, majoritarianism, and xenophobia (Bose, 1998; Chakra­ varti, 1998). Presenting a critique of these arguments, Mukherjee (2010) suggested that by emphasising or highlighting only the possible down­ sides of re-connecting with the past, these scholars seem to suggest that the Indic tradition has a place in history or in a museum but has little or no ability to contribute to the thoughts that might be relevant for the

3. Strategies for intellectual freedom Several scholars have suggested strategies to achieve intellectual freedom (Burney, 2012a, 2012b; Dei, 2006; Kohn & McBride, 2011; Mignolo & Walsh, 2018; Quijano, 2007; Schmidt, 2011). Consistent with the arguments of Gandhi in his appeal for Purna Swaraj, Dei (2006) suggests: “The anti-colonial challenges any form of economic, cultural, polit­ ical and spiritual dominance… An anti-colonial perspective is about developing an awareness/consciousness of the varied conditions under which domination and oppression operate. Such a perspective seeks to subvert the dominant relations of knowledge production that sustain hierarchies and systems of power.” (Dei, 2006: 5) In other words, strategies for intellectual freedom should focus on “claiming the power of local subjects’ intellectual agency” (Dei, 2006: 11). It includes challenging the colonial representations of the past and asserting the relevance of the pre-colonial knowledge for today, re705

A.K. Ojha and R. Tarakad Venkateswaran

Journal of Business Research 149 (2022) 700–712

interpreting the present, and laying the foundations for true intellectual freedom in the future (Quijano, 2007). These endeavours might require a deeper rethinking of the pursuit of knowledge because “(i)ndigeniza­ tion is not only about empowering local subjects … It is also about affirming the rights of a people to retain their “indigeneity” in the face of so-called modernity and modernization” (Dei, 2006: 14). Similarly, there is a need to ‘write back’ to the colonisers to create a counterdiscourse (Burney, 2012b) and pursue possible ‘reverse colonisation’ so that former coloniser nations are encouraged to re-interpret their own past by considering new knowledge from the former colonies (Burney, 2012a). According to deSouza (2017), there have been five general strategies of resistance to intellectual colonisation in India. The inspired eclectic strategy, which can be associated with the Liberal nationalist identity before independence, utilised the colonial encounter to recognise the strength of Indian traditions while drawing on the strengths of what the colonisers had to offer. Tagore’s Viswa Bharati is an illustration of this strategy. The incrementalist strategy, which can be associated with the Liberal nationalist identity after independence, recognised weaknesses in the Indian systems as well as strengths in the Eurocentric perspectives to build alternative knowledge systems. However, its adherents were not able to resist Eurocentric knowledge imposition because over time, they were themselves intellectually colonised and alienated from Indian so­ ciety (Bandyopadhyay, 2009), which again “created the ground for a subsequent recolonization” (deSouza, 2017: 146). The subaltern stra­ tegies focused on the voice of those marginalised in Indian society, while the nativist strategies focused on the voice of the more privileged who highlighted the glory of the pre-colonial past. Both these strategies rejected Eurocentric knowledge. While these two strategies created space for indigenous knowledge in small pockets, they were not suc­ cessful in finding a foothold in the mainstream of Indian academia or in the Eurocentric ‘centre’. The fifth strategy is counter discourse, which can be associated with the work of Alvares (1991) in India and many others such as Aníbal Quijano in Latin America. This strategy simulta­ neously highlights the shortcomings—including environmental and so­ cial harm—of the modernity project and the strength of the knowledge of the former colonies in providing guidance for a more harmonious and sustainable world (Quijano, 2007). Invoking the idea of discursive institutionalism, as suggested by Schmidt (2011), it can be argued that the sentient agents who pursued intellectual decolonisation using the incrementalist strategy were un­ able to alter the institutional arrangements that were entrenched in Eurocentric paradigms, because they were probably overwhelmed by the power of the institutionalised structures that favoured Eurocentrism. Meanwhile, those who followed subaltern and native strategies spent their energies vehemently opposing each other and did not find a voice in the mainstream discourse. Thus, these efforts to achieve intellectual freedom were not effective ultimately. We believe that the way forward for India is to develop a radical alternative consisting of inspired eclectic strategies that were successful before independence, and counterdiscourse strategies, which have met with success in South America. Such an alternative would truly lead to original and indigenous con­ ceptualisation. Since the key actors in society in India who can facilitate the change are yet to recognise the crisis and since there is limited scope for an exogenous crisis, the change will have to be championed by sentient agents participating in different discursive spheres to create a momentum for change. Kohn and McBride (2011) described a two-stage process based on Gandhian values that involves demystification and reversal to achieve intellectual decolonisation. Demystification “involves showing that the West is not superior in absolute terms but rather it is superior only in terms of the criteria that it sets for itself” (Kohn & McBride, 2011: 1430). In response to a journalist’s question, ‘What do you think of Western civilization?’, Gandhi is supposed to have answered, ‘I think it would be a good idea’. In doing so, he was practising demystification (Duara, 2004) by suggesting that the West did not meet the criteria of civilisation

that he valued. However, it is quite clear that demystification is not enough. It needs an alternative to facilitate reversal. Reversal refers to “attempts to undermine power relations by valorizing the cultural markers that the colonial system has denigrated as inferior” (Kohn & McBride, 2011: 1430). Gandhi depicted spirituality and the lack of desire for material wealth that are inherent in Indian civilisation as positive rather than negative as was portrayed by the colonisers5 to offer alternate criteria to define civilisation. While demystification and reversal help replace Eurocentric perspectives with an indigenous perspective in elite discourses, this process also has political implica­ tions. This tactic, if conducted in regional languages, might help in the mobilisation and participation of the common public in the discourse from which they had been excluded (Kohn & McBride, 2011). Hence, if handled well, the masses can be engaged in the discourse to exert pressure on the academia to provide space for indigenous knowledge (Schmidt, 2011). In the next section, we provide suggestions on how to reduce, if not erase, ‘amnesia’ to re-connect with the plural knowledge heritage of India. Some of our suggestions might appear to be drastic, but they are based on our view that incrementalism has not worked in the face of global pressures, and that a concerted effort is required to shake the foundations of the current system to create the possibility of change. We feel confident that having re-centred knowledge around India, Indian academia will remain open to external influences not only from Europe or the US, but from any source that facilitates the survival of hybridity and pluriversality in our knowledge systems and society. 4. Implications for business and management knowledge in India We have concluded thus far that Eurocentric and US-centric knowl­ edge and the English language have contributed to the lack of devel­ opment of indigenous knowledge in India. We have also concluded that efforts to achieve intellectual freedom need to be more fundamental than they have been so far. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 of the Government of India is a step in this direction. This policy clearly emphasises the need for education in India across a wide variety of disciplines to reconnect with the knowledge heritage of India. Further, it emphasises the need to promote primary education in regional lan­ guages to allow the youth to learn effectively and to retain the ability to connect with indigenous thought and culture. The policy highlights the need to revive and develop the classical and regional Indian languages and to train scholars to access the vast treasures of ‘hidden’ knowledge and make them available for contemporary use. It underlines the need to develop textbooks and literature—which are largely available in English currently—in regional languages to make them more accessible to the non-Anglicised masses. Finally, the policy offers incentives to higher educational institutions to provide education through bilingual pro­ grammes. In short, the two major sources of intellectual colonisation that are the focus of this paper have been recognised in the policy document, and provisions to overcome them have been initiated. It is now up to the educational institutions to build on these possibilities to create momentum for intellectual freedom. In other words, the ball is in the court of the researchers and authors, and others similar to us, to seize the opportunity to create space for the development and sustenance of indigenous theories that are informed by the rich knowledge traditions of India, which might re-centre knowledge around India. The process of demystification within business schools will have to be driven by those in leadership positions in business schools and by faculty, with the involvement of prominent opinion-makers from in­ dustry. The first step towards demystification would be to have honest discussions to acknowledge and realise the extent of the damage caused 5 Max Weber’s criticism of Indian society and his belief that India cannot achieve modernity are based on this view.

706

A.K. Ojha and R. Tarakad Venkateswaran

Journal of Business Research 149 (2022) 700–712

by intellectual colonisation and to mobilise the need for change. Prominent people in academia and practice need to clearly state that ‘the US-centric emperor has no clothes’ when it comes to understanding business and management issues in India, and stand up to be counted among the those who really care for indigenous knowledge and contextual practice rather than admitting to the deficiencies of UScentric practices in private but proclaiming support in public (Kuran, 1997). If feasible, these discussions can be encouraged in the regional languages of India so that members of the business community and ac­ ademics who are less articulate in English can participate. Second, the outcomes of these discussions need to be widely publicised among managers and the general public so that they are in a better position to demand more from academics to contextualise their research. With the awareness that prominent members of industry and academia have questioned US-centric knowledge, managers and the public will also feel more confident to highlight the flaws in the apparent best practices instead of accepting such practices meekly. We hope these exchanges, preferably conducted in regional languages, will provide an opportunity to generate public pressure to develop and build indigenous theories and to identify contextually relevant research topics.

salvaging them through modifications. The works of Amiya Kumar Bagchi highlighting the damaging effects of imperialism and colonialism on the Indian economy during the British colonial period, the historical writings of Dwijendra Tripathi and Harish Damodaran highlighting the genius of Indian entrepreneurship before, during, and after colonial rule, and Gita Piramal’s accounts of successful business houses should be shared with faculty. This will serve two purposes. It will allow academics and the public to lose their sense of inferiority related to India’s past heritage, based on which they believe that there is nothing that it can contribute to inform the present. It will also provide access to the knowledge, some of it well-codified and others culled from documen­ tation and literature prepared for other purposes, that will provide the basis for the development of indigenous theories. Second, business schools should be encouraged to change incentive systems and career progression requirements that move away from UScentric scholarship models towards India-centric scholarship models. They should stop glorifying US-centric research, and should provide little or no incentive for scholars from India who publish US-centric perspectives, particularly those who co-author papers while merely performing the role of providing ‘data’ or legitimating distorted theo­ risation for Indian contexts. They should start favouring Indian journals while incentivising well-established scholars to help raise the standards of the journals, which have suffered due to the neglect caused by in­ tellectual colonisation. They should also include papers or books that are published in the classical, native, and regional languages as part of the evaluation process. Third, to cement the process of demystification, we suggest that In­ dian business schools should avoid obtaining accreditation from UScentric bodies, which are neo-colonial entities that subtly promote UScentric norms in non-US contexts. It can be widely publicised that un­ like accreditation in the field of medicine, for example, which is based on a solid body of more universally accepted knowledge, business school accreditation is based on US-centric norms that have had to be modified several times to remain relevant within the US and make them accept­ able outside the US. Similarly, business school rankings that favour UScentric schools should be challenged. India-centric accreditation and rankings need to be encouraged, and well-respected business schools should provide prominence to these rankings in their publicity material and on their websites, and downplay US-centric affiliations. The importance of journals that are promoted by accreditation and ranking entities needs to be challenged. They are also instruments of neocolonialism that entrench US-centric theories and marginalise other ways of researching and theorising. Fourth, editors and reviewers of journals and other outlets of research in India should explicitly assess papers based on their contri­ butions and implications for Indian business and management, and In­ dian business schools should assess faculty by their ability to publish context-specific research rather than US-centric research.

4.1. Implications for business and management research We were initially encouraged by the recommendation for ‘ambicul­ tural’ scholarship as suggested by Chen (2014). However, as discussed earlier, we believe that such incremental approaches have not worked in the past and will not work in the future in India. The US-centric man­ agement education offered in the English language is too deep-rooted, and many Indian scholars and others interested in India are too de­ tached from the Indian ethos to be able to achieve what Chinese (or Japanese) scholars have achieved. Ironically, as Indian scholars in India, we ourselves have felt discouraged from pursuing ‘unfashionable’ research topics due to the perceived non-approval from US-centric scholars who are the gatekeepers of global knowledge. We are aware that we are not the first ones attempting to suggest strategies to develop indigenous theories. However, we believe that with the understanding of the colonial influences that prevented past success, and as ‘internal’ actors who understand the current dynamics, we are in a better position to suggest specific steps to start the process of demystification and reversal. Fig. 1 illustrates the three stages from US-centric paradigm domi­ nance to hybridity and pluriversality in the knowledge space in business and management. In Stage 1, which reflects the current situation, the US-centric paradigm dominates, providing little space for indigenous knowledge to be applied or even to develop in the pre-paradigmatic phase. Demystification will help remove the ‘halo’ around US-centric theories, creating space for indigenous knowledge to be accepted and to evolve into a paradigm, as shown in Stage 2. In Stage 3, reversal will allow indigenous knowledge to develop a more cohesive paradigm that can address the spaces from which the US-centric paradigm has been pushed back due to demystification. In this stage, the indigenous knowledge paradigm occupies the central space while continuing to engage with the US-centric paradigm as well as paradigms from other societies and cultures.

4.1.2. Reversal First, the IIMs and other prominent institutions should be at the forefront of establishing centres that develop knowledge about the or­ thodox and heterodox darshanas and other such philosophies to make the rich discussions, dialogues, and debates on the philosophy of knowledge accessible to contemporary scholars. Many in academia are unaware of the richness of the ontological and epistemological discus­ sions in the darshanas because they did not get exposed to them in the colonial education system in India or in their studies outside the country. Further, they should be exposed to the works of Kautilya, Shookraneeti, Bhartrihari, Thiruvalluvar, and Kamandaka, among many others, to lay the foundations of the process of reversal. Devy (1992) also suggested that we could search for repressed or lost knowledge in the traditional knowledge systems. Second, there should be support and incentives for faculty guides and doctoral students who pursue research on local business and societal challenges using indigenous concepts and frameworks, stronger

4.1.1. Demystification First, faculty members at business schools in India should be encouraged to change the focus of their research. When using US-centric theories, their focus should be on falsification rather than verification, with the confidence to discard theories that do not meet the norms of falsification. In other words, rather than conducting research using UScentric perspectives and seeking to adapt them to Indian contexts, or even worse, explaining the lack of support for these theories as limita­ tions of the Indian business and management systems, the focus of demystification research should be on ‘debunking’ the universal claims of US-centric theories and rejecting them when falsified rather than 707

A.K. Ojha and R. Tarakad Venkateswaran

Journal of Business Research 149 (2022) 700–712

Fig. 1. Intellectual Decolonisation: From US-centric Paradigm Dominance to Hybridity and Pluriversality.

incentives for publication in India-centric journals and conference pro­ ceedings, and further encouragement and intellectual community sup­ port to publish in regional languages so that the subjects of the study and the larger population can read and appreciate these publications. Third, Indian management research journals should welcome research in a variety of classical, native, and regional languages in addition to English. Journals should invite articles in a variety of for­ mats, which could include, for example, commentaries, debates, di­ alogues, and other formats that are popular in local scholarly traditions, instead of being limited to the text-only format that is sanctioned by the Eurocentric traditions. India has rich oral and visual research traditions that could be captured as multimedia content, and the latest digital technologies could be employed for unstructured data representation and analysis. Rigor is expected to be a concern in the pre-paradigmatic stage.6 Scholars interested in India might need to take the lead in curating online platforms with crowd-sourced content that will break the stranglehold of the Eurocentric gatekeepers who control knowledge and information related to India. Just like Wikipedia was able to replace Encyclopaedia Britannica as a more current and reliable source of in­ formation on a wide range of topics, Indian academics can disrupt the dominance of hegemonic Eurocentric journals with other legitimate

sources of contemporary knowledge. Fourth, there should be an increased emphasis on qualitative research methods that are more suitable to the developmental of preparadigmatic theories relative to quantitative methods that are more suitable for established paradigms. A reading of the ontological and epistemological discussions in the darshanas can reveal the limitations of the positivistic research methods—which are still very suitable for the natural sciences—when applied to the social sciences (Rosenberg, 2012), and can provide insights to develop superior research methods suitable for the context. Alternate research methods inspired by the darshanas have the potential to contribute to developing an indigenous paradigm in India and to bridge some gaps in Eurocentric and US-centric research. 4.2. Implications for business and management education We now focus on the process of dissemination of knowledge to decentre US-centric knowledge and re-centre knowledge based on an emerging indigenous paradigm. 4.2.1. Demystification The efforts to demystify business and management research will have a long-term influence on business and management education. However, there must be some immediate and direct changes to sustain the transition. First, doctoral programmes in Indian business schools tend to mimic U.S. doctoral training and socialise students into believing only in positivistic, often quantitative, research, which is incompatible with the efforts to revive indigenous knowledge at this stage. They should be encouraged to critique the research methods by relying on insights from the darshanas to highlight the limitations of these methods

6 We believe that once an India-centric paradigm emerges, it will be able to define parameters of rigor, which might be different from those used in the US, but are able to stand up to the scrutiny of peers. Metaphorically, we draw parallels to disruptive innovation. In the early stages, disruptive innovations are always seen as inferior to the legacy technology based on the parameters used to evaluate them. However, once the innovation gets accepted, it contributes to the emergence of new parameters that are used until the next disruption.

708

A.K. Ojha and R. Tarakad Venkateswaran

Journal of Business Research 149 (2022) 700–712

for the social sciences. Second, doctoral students need to be encouraged to read and critique the original works of prominent scholars to understand the Eurocentric context of their evolution. For example, reading Max Weber critically would help students understand the racial prejudices that are inherent in his writings. A critical reading of Adam Smith would expose students to the cautionary statements about capitalism that are neglected in current theorising. Students could also be made aware that the data used by Fredrick Taylor to promote ‘scientific management’ was doctored to suit the theory. Collectively, this exposure should encourage doctoral stu­ dents to appreciate the messiness of theory development instead of simply accepting the neat frameworks that are presented to them in the derived works. Third, in their first year of coursework, doctoral students must be encouraged to become aware of and reflect on their own positions as scholars in a post-colonial context and to evolve their individual stra­ tegies for decolonised knowledge creation. Many enter the doctoral programme with the experience of real-world challenges, and when looking for solutions, they are often disillusioned by the US-centric in­ puts that are provided to them. Doctoral programmes should encourage students to pursue their ideas without necessarily adopting US-centric frameworks, and to undertake grounded research and create opportu­ nities for indigenous theories. Masters-level education would require comprehensive curriculum revisions to defocus from the sweeping generalisations that are made from US-based cases and examples. First, the lack of universality of UScentric management tools and frameworks must be explained. For example, the failures of US firms in India, presumably using universal best practices, and the success of Japanese, Korean, and even Chinese companies in India should be highlighted to suggest that there are alternate models of business and management. Second, the ethical failures of US models (Ghosal, 2005) must be included in courses, and the discourse must discourage the evangelisation of MNCs for the rest of the world to emulate. Third, as part of the de-mystification process, students can be made aware of the devious methods used by prominent business stalwarts (such as Thomas Edison’s tactics in his competition with Nikola Tesla) instead of providing sanitised versions of their great deeds. Fourth, the negative impact of British colonial rule should be taught to dispel the myth that all that is good in India is the legacy of colonial rule.

a language that would allow the scholar to access original scholarship in that language. They might, however, be provided training in English, if necessary, to enable them to communicate their thoughts to others, similar to how people from other non-English speaking countries are trained. This also implies the need to ensure that earlier stages of predoctoral education have adequate incentives for students to develop fluency in regional languages or classical Indian languages rather than just English. Fourth, in a few years, courses designed around India-based theories, such as “The Nurturant Leadership Theory” proposed by Sinha (1984), and other indigenous theories that might emerge from the cur­ rent efforts could be included as part of the curriculum. Masters-level education should focus more on building skills such as critical and reflexive thinking instead of accepting pseudo-universal UScentric toolboxes without any questions. First, the history of Indian business and trade and international trade should be included as a core requirement. Second, students should be prescribed books and research papers that are based on indigenous frameworks or that actively use these frameworks for understanding some situations instead of using Indian editions of US books that retain US-centric theories and merely use Indian examples to support them. Third, the proportion of Indian cases for class discussions should increase, and there should be less reliance on US cases, and more cases of Japanese and Korean companies should be included. Fourth, pedagogies could be revisited to be cultur­ ally more suitable for Indian students rather than aping those of the US. For instance, class participation in case studies is highly suitable in US classrooms, especially for male students, but not in contexts where the average student might be culturally less vocal or have confidence levels that are already low due to ‘cultural amnesia’. Management education might need to rely on a greater degree of experiential learning and encourage the seeking of authentic insights from phenomena until such time that research can produce more India-based theories. We realise the transition that we seek through the processes of demystification and reversal will not be easy because quite under­ standably, not all stakeholders will immediately accept the need for change. For example, many faculty members who might genuinely believe in US-centric knowledge and do not accept some of the concerns we have raised might either offer strong resistance or quit their jobs and join schools that continue to adhere to US-centric norms, thereby creating a shortage of faculty in the short run in schools that try to lead the transition. Similarly, significant parts of the industry might still have a need to hire those with US-centric knowledge, possibly because of the belief that the knowledge relevant to India can be taught on the job. Students might have a desire to obtain ‘world-class’ education. Many students who wish to pursue higher education or to take up a job abroad might hesitate to accept the changes we have suggested. Further, the aspirations and emotions of parents and family might become an impediment. Based on our own experiences, we believe that people who attempt to bring about this transition will face several challenges. In our attempt to dispassionately look into India’s past heritage and try to derive sources of indigenous knowledge, we discovered that reconnecting with Indian heritage is inextricably linked with understanding the Indic civilisation. Although as scholars, we might subscribe to critical, decolonial, post-colonial, or multi-paradigmatic perspectives that cele­ brate pluriversality, we run the risk of being simplistically branded as Hindu nationalists, or even worse, being accused of being opportunistic. The implication of such a perceived identity is that it might either quickly alienate us or fiercely include us into different polarised world views to which we might not necessarily subscribe. In a recent event, while attempting to propose alternative pedagogies based on Indian classical arts, we faced criticism for reviving Sanskritic and Brahminical traditions. The critics would not accept the fact that the pieces of art to which we were referring were sculptures or statues that had no in­ scriptions or that had inscriptions in the regional language, but were certainly not the creation of Brahmins. One of the authors, who was part of a team in a leading business school that is trying to articulate its long-

4.2.2. Reversal We agree with Kothiyal et al.’s suggestion (2018) that doctoral programmes should draw on local knowledge, philosophical traditions, and belief systems, and should focus on place, ecology, and values. Such ‘indigenous’ approaches to management research seek to empower the people who have survived imperialism and colonialism, and who recognise their right to take control of their own forms of knowledge, languages, and cultures. First, we argue that rather than train students in narrow Eurocentric ontological and epistemological traditions, which are being challenged within Europe and the US, they should be exposed to the plurality of knowledge traditions in India to help the re-centring of knowledge in India. Rather than focussing exclusively on Eurocentric scholarship, doctoral programmes should focus on Indian darshanas and other such knowledge traditions while making the students aware that similar perspectives have also evolved in Europe and maybe other parts of the world. Second, ground-up exercises involving ‘cultural resource mapping’ could possibly help surface some of the lost knowledge, and a combi­ nation of approaches such as ‘appreciative inquiry’ and collective visioning could generate ideas for indigenous theories. Third, business schools should be encouraged to seek new faculty members and doctoral students from under-represented segments of society that might still be connected to traditional knowledge. Further, rather than seek fluency in English as a requirement for admission into doctoral programmes, they should seek fluency in a regional or classical Indian language, preferably 709

A.K. Ojha and R. Tarakad Venkateswaran

Journal of Business Research 149 (2022) 700–712

term strategic vision, experienced significant resistance and struggle while trying to convince key stakeholders not to subscribe to the dominant US-centric paradigm, and to instead allow space for indige­ nous paradigms. Further, many academics, including us, who are convinced by the need to decolonise might face other challenges due to our own colonial education. For example, similar to most academics in India, we participate in the English discourse and lack the proficiency in the classical, native, or regional languages of India, which limits our understanding of indigenous knowledge. Unfortunately, we must rely on translations and commentaries in English even as we oppose the continuation of English as a language of research and knowledge dissemination. The second disconnect is that given our prior training, we began this journey by viewing indigenous knowledge through Euro­ centric lenses before recognising the shortcomings of this approach and making conscious efforts to overcome the shortcomings. Some of these challenges can, however, be partly overcome by collaborating with those who are still embedded in the Indian traditions. A third and related challenge is that even those individuals who are embedded in these traditional knowledge systems are themselves going through the process of decolonisation and experiencing the flux of multiple narratives simultaneously, making collaboration not as easy as it could have been without colonial influences.

emergence of an indigenous paradigm that re-centres knowledge on business and management in India. Staying true to the Liberal nation­ alist identity, these scholars should work towards knowledge spaces that are plural and hybrid such that the indigenous paradigm is open to engagements with paradigms that are developed in other contexts. If successful, such an indigenous paradigm will contribute to the attain­ ment of Purna Swaraj as envisioned by Gandhi and articulated in the ‘Declaration of Independence’ that was officially promulgated on 26 January 1930. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. CRediT authorship contribution statement Abhoy K. Ojha: Conceptualization, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Ramya Tarakad Venkateswaran: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

5. Conclusion

Declaration of Competing Interest

We examined the reasons for the lack of indigenous knowledge in India, particularly in business and management. We attributed this to the deep-seated effects of the colonisation of the Indian mind, which took root during the long period of British colonial rule in India, and the subsequent dominance of intellectual discourse by those who continue to be shackled by Eurocentric or US-centric perspectives, despite several decades of political freedom. We agree with Devy (1992) that the demoralising effect of colonisation led to a nearly incurable inferiority complex that caused ‘amnesia’ and an inability to identify indigenous traditional knowledge that may very well be alive in contemporary practice. We suggested that continued colonisation through the capture of higher learning institutions and research space in the country by scholars who are intellectually colonised is at the heart of the inability to achieve intellectual freedom. This hegemony further debilitates the ability of the few who are rooted in Indian perspectives and have the desire to develop more contextually relevant and rich perspectives to meaningfully contribute to indigenous knowledge creation and dissemination. We then highlighted how US-centric management knowledge and education were imposed on India, which was aided by the colonisation of the mind during the British rule and the acceptance of English as the language of higher education, business, and govern­ ment even after independence. We used the case of the Arthashastra to illustrate the marginalisation of indigenous knowledge in India. We highlighted how it is ironical that the Arthashastra is so wellacknowledged and used in business, government, and society, but is neglected in academic circles. We argued for the decolonisation of the knowledge space in India to provide a fair opportunity for those who are pursuing indigenous and culturally sensitive knowledge to be able to participate in the discourse. Finally, we suggested some possible steps to initiate the process of decolonisation of the Indian mind to achieve intellectual freedom, particularly in the domain of business and management knowledge. We believe that these steps are relevant not only for Indian scholarship, but also for global scholarship at large to benefit from a real understanding of the context and to prevent research in various fields of management from moving backward. We essentially encourage researchers, educa­ tors, and practitioners to be true to their own experience, and to call a spade a spade when required through the demystification of the UScentric paradigms and a reversal towards indigenous systems. Collec­ tively, like-minded practitioners and scholars would be able to facilitate intellectual decolonisation and overcome ‘amnesia’ to contribute to the

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Acknowledgement We gratefully acknowledge the inputs received at the Paper Devel­ opment Workshop and Colloquium on Decolonising Management and Organisational Knowledge held at Durban, South Africa, from 05 to 06 November 2019. We are thankful to Anupama Kondayya, Biswatosh Saha and Devi Vijay for constructive reviews and Anila Varghese for copy-editing the manuscript. We thank the anonymous reviewers and the Special Issue Editors for helping to strengthen our contribution over multiple revisions. References Alcadipani, R., Khan, F. R., Gantman, E., & Nkomo, S. (2012). Southern voices in management and organization knowledge. Organization, 19, 131–143. Alexander, J. M., & Buckingham, J. (2011). Common good leadership in business management: An ethical model from the Indian tradition. Business Ethics: A European Review, 20(4), 317–327. Alvares, C. (1991). Decolonizing history: Technology and culture in India, China and the West 1492 to the present day. The Other India Press. Baggini, J. (2018). How the world thinks: A global history of philosophy. Granta Books. Bandyopadhyay, S. (2009). Decolonization in South Asia, Meanings of freedom in postindependence West Bengal, 1947–52. Routledge. Banerjee, P. (2012). Chanakya/Kautilya: History, philosophy, theatre and the twentiethcentury political. History of the Present: A Journal of Critical History, 2(1), 24–51. Banerjee, S. B., & Prasad, A. (2008). Introduction to the special issue on critical reflections on management and organizations: A postcolonial perspective. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 4(2/3), 90–98. Barkema, H. G., Chen, X. P., George, G., Luo, Y., & Tsui, A. S. (2015). West meets East: New concepts and theories. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 460–479. Bhattacharya, K. (2013). Performing gender as “Third-World Other’’ in higher education: De/colonizing transnational feminist possibilities. Creative Approaches to Research, 6, 30–47. Boesche, R. (2017). The first great political realist: Kautilya and his Arthashastra. Harper Collins. Bose, S. (1998). Nation, reason and religion: India’s independence in international perspective. Economic and Political Weekly, 33(31), 2090–2097. Boyd, B. K. (2018). Paradigm development in Chinese management research: The role of research methodology. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35, 805–827. Bruton, G. D., & Lau, C. M. (2008). Asian management research: Status today and future outlook. Journal of Management Studies, 45(3), 636–659. Bruton, G. D., Zahra, S. A., & Cai, L. (2018). Examining entrepreneurship through indigenous lenses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(3), 351–361.

710

A.K. Ojha and R. Tarakad Venkateswaran

Journal of Business Research 149 (2022) 700–712

Burney, S. (2012a). Conceptual frameworks in postcolonial theory. Counterpoints, Pedagogy of the Other: Edward Said, Postcolonial Theory, and Strategies for Critique, 417: 173–193. Burney, S. (2012b). Resistance and counter-discourse. Counterpoints, Pedagogy of the Other: Edward Said, Postcolonial Theory, and Strategies for Critique, 417: 105–116. Chakravarti, U. (1998). Saffronizing the past: Of myths, histories and right-wing agendas. Economic and Political Weekly, 33(5), 225–232. Chen, M. (2014). Becoming ambicultural: A personal quest, and aspiration for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 119–137. Dei, G. J. S. (2006). Mapping the terrain – Towards a new politics of resistance. In G. J. S. Dei, & A. Kempf (Eds.), Anti-colonialism and education (pp. 1–23). Sense Publishers. deSouza, P. R. (2017). The recolonization of the Indian mind. Revista Crítica de Ciˆencias Sociais, 114, 137–160. Devy, G. N. (1992). After amnesia: Tradition and change in Indian criticism. Orient Longman. Dharampal (2000). The beautiful tree. Other India Press. Doktor, R., Tung, R. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1991). Future directions for management theory development. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 362–365. Duara, P. (2004). Introduction: The decolonization of Asia and Africa in the twentieth century. In P. Duara (Ed.), Decolonization: Perspectives from now and then (pp. 1–18). Routledge. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. Frenkel, M., & Shenhav, Y. (2006). From binarism back to hybridity: A postcolonial reading of management and organization studies. Organization Studies, 27(6), 855–876. Gandhi, M. K. (1938). Hind swaraj or Indian home rule. Navajivan Publishing House. Ghosal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91. Gohain, H. (2011). Two roads to decolonisation. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(31), 23–26. Gopinath, C. (1998). Alternative approaches to indigenous management in India. Management International Review, 38(3), 257–275. Grewal, I. (2016). The masculinities of post-colonial governance: Bureaucratic memoirs of the Indian civil service. Modern Asian Studies, 50(2), 602–635. Guha, R. (1997). Dominance without hegemony. Harvard University Press. Hamann, R., Luiz, J., Ramaboa, K., Khan, F., Dhlamini, X., & Nilsson, W. (2020). Neither colony nor enclave: Calling for dialogical contextualism in management and organization studies. Organization Theory, 1, 1–21. Hayashi, M. (2002). A historical review of Japanese management theories: The search for a general theory of Japanese management. Asian Business and Management, 1, 189–207. Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42–63. Hoskisson, R. E., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., & Peng, M. W. (2013). Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50(7), 1295–1321. Kapoor, D. (2007). Subaltern social movement learning and the decolonization of space in India. International Education, 37(1), 10–41. Keys, J. B., & Miller, T. R. (1984). The Japanese management theory jungle. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 342–353. Khatri, N., Varma, A., & Budhwar, P. (2017). Commonly observed shortcomings in manuscripts submitted to management journals. IIMB Management Review, 29(3), 203–209. Kodeih, F., & Greenwood, R. (2013). Responding to institutional complexity: The role of identity. Organization Studies, 35(1), 7–39. Kohn, M., & McBride, K. (2011). Political theories of decolonization: Postcolonialism and the problem of foundations. Oxford University Press. Kothiyal, N., Bell, E., & Clarke, C. (2018). Moving beyond mimicry: Developing hybrid spaces in Indian business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 17, 137–154. Kumar, N. S., & Rao, U. S. (1996). Guidelines for value based management in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 415–423. Kuran, T. (1997). Private truths, public lies. Harvard University Press. Lukes, S. (2000). Different cultures, different rationalities? History of the Human Sciences, 13(1), 3–18. Marx, K. (1853). The British rule in India. New York Herald Tribune. https://www.marxist s.org/archive/marx/works/1853/06/25.htm. Mbembe, A. J. (2016). Decolonizing the university: New directions. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 15(1), 29–45. Memmi, A. (2003). The colonizer and the colonised. Earthscan Publication. Meril¨ ainen, S., Tienari, J., Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2008). Hegemonic academic practices: Experiences of publishing from the periphery. Organization, 15(4), 584–597. Mignolo, W. D., & Walsh, C. E. (2018). On decoloniality. Duke University Press. Mishra, S. C. (1989). A historiographical critique of the Artha´s¯ astra of Kauṭilya. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 70(1/4), 145–162. Mitra, S. K., & Liebig, M. (2017). Kautilya’s Arthashastra: An intellectual portrait: The classical roots of modern politics in India. Rupa Publications. Mohnot, J., Pratap, S., & Saha, B. (2021). Governance of Marwari capital: Daily living as a decolonial ‘matrix-of-praxis’ intermeshing commercial, religious and familial spheres. Organization, 28(5), 741–772. Mukherjee, M. (2010). Transcending identity: Gandhi, nonviolence, and the pursuit of a “different” freedom in modern India. The American Historical Review, 115(2), 453–473.

Mukherjee, D., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., & Goyal, K. (2022). Mapping five decades of international business and management research on India: A bibliometric analysis and future directions. Journal of Business Research, 145, 864–891. Murphy, J., & Zhu, J. (2012). Neo-colonialism in the academy? Anglo-American domination in management journals. Organization, 19(6), 915–927. Murthy, V., & Rooney, J. (2018). The role of management accounting in ancient India: Evidence from the Arthasastra. Journal of Business Ethics, 152, 323–341. Nandy, A. (1983). The intimate enemy. Oxford University Press. Nehru, J. (2004). The importance of the national idea: Changes necessary in India. In P. Duara (Ed.), Decolonization: Perspectives from now and then (pp. 32–41). Routledge. Ngugi, wa Thiong’o (1994). Decolonising the mind. Zimbabwe Publishing House. Nkomo, S. M. (2011). A postcolonial and anti-colonial reading of ‘African’ leadership and management in organization studies. Organization, 18(3), 365–386. Ojha, A. K. (2005). Management education in India. Decision, 32(2), 19–33. Ojha, A. K. (2017). Management education in India. In M. Thakur, & R. R. Babu (Eds.), Management Education in India: Perspectives and Practices (pp. 55–77). Springer. Padalkar, M., & Gopinath, S. (2015). Do Indian management practices drive global research agenda? Journal of Indian Business Research, 7(2), 108–139. Poulis, K., & Poulis, E. (2018). International business as disciplinary tautology: An ontological perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 517–531. Quijano, A. (2007). Coloniality and modernity/rationality. Cultural Studies, 21(2), 168–178. Rajeev, P. (2007). Wisdom from ancient Indian philosophy for the corporate world. International Management Review, 3(1), 72–81. Rangarajan, L. N. (1992). Arthashastra by Kautilya. Penguin Books. Raˇskovi´c, M., Dikova, D., & McDougall-Covin, T. P. (2020). International business with Central and Eastern Europe: From tyranny of history to revisited laboratories of learning. Journal of Business Research, 108, 417–420. Rosenberg, A. (2012). Philosophy of social science. Westview Press. Rudolph, S. H. (2009). Four variants of Indian civilization. In P. J. Katzenstein (Ed.), Civilizations in world politics: Plural and pluralist perspectives (pp. 139–155). Routledge. Schmidt, V. A. (2011). Speaking of change: Why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation. Critical Policy Studies, 5(2), 106–126. Sekhar, R. C. (2001). Trends in ethics and styles of leadership in India. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(4), 360–363. Shamasastry, R. (1915). Translation of Arthashastra by Kautilya. Government Press. Sihag, B. S. (2004). Kautilya on the scope and methodology of accounting, organizational design, and the role of ethics in ancient India. Accounting Historians Journal, 31(2), 125–148. Sihag, B. S. (2007). Kautilya on moral and material incentives and effort. History of Political Economy, 39(2), 263–292. Sinha, D., & Sinha, J. B. P. (1990). Role of social values in Indian organizations. International Journal of Psychology, 25, 705–714. Sinha, J. B. P. (1984). A model of effective leadership styles in India. International Studies of Management and Organization, 14(2/3), 86–98. Srinivas, N. (2008). Mimicry and revival: The transfer and transformation of management knowledge to India, 1959–1990. International Studies of Management and Organization, 38(4), 38–57. Srinivas, N. (2012). Epistemic and performative quests for authentic management in India. Organization, 19(2), 145–158. Starzl, T. W., & Dhir, K. S. (1986). Strategic planning 2300 years ago: The strategy of Kautilya. Management International Review, 26(4), 70–77. Sundaram, M. S. (1959). A century of British education in India 1857–1957. Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 107(5035), 491–507. Taylor, C. (1971). Interpretation and the sciences of man. The Review of Metaphysics, 25 (1), 3–51. Tung, R. L. (2005). Reflections on engendering a sustainable community within the Academy. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 239–244. Venkateswaran, R. T., & Ojha, A. (2017). Strategic management research on emerging economies: Cultural imperialism in universalizing research paradigms. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 13(3), 204–225. Venkateswaran, R. T., Vadivelu, S., & Krishnan, S. (2021). Long-term orientation of South Asian leadership and organizational competitiveness and survival of Sasken Technologies Limited. South Asian Journal of Business Studies. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/SAJBS-11-2019-0208 Westwood, R. I. (2006). International business and management studies as an orientalist discourse: A postcolonial critique. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 2(2), 91–113. Westwood, R. I., & Jack, G. (2007). Manifesto for a post-colonial international business and management studies. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 3(3), 246–265. Zimmerman, A. (2006). Decolonizing Weber. Postcolonial Studies, 9(1), 53–79. Abhoy K. Ojha is a Professor in the area of Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management. He obtained his PhD in Organizational Analysis from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Prior to joining IIMB, he was an Assistant Professor at Lau­ rentian University, Sudbury, Canada. His research interest is in Organization Theory, particularly Institutional Theory. He also has an interest in Philosophy of Social Sciences and teaches a course on the subject to the doctoral students. His more current and evolving interest is in decoloniality as it applies to India. He has published in Indian and interna­ tional journals and is quite active as reviewer and presenter at conferences. His email id is [email protected]. Ramya T. Venkateswaran is an Associate Professor at Indian Institute of Management Calcutta. She joined academia after completing more than a decade of corporate work

711

A.K. Ojha and R. Tarakad Venkateswaran

Journal of Business Research 149 (2022) 700–712

experience in India and teaches courses on Strategic Management, Strategy Execution and International Business. Her research interests are in the areas of culture in international business where she has adopted eclectic perspectives. She has published in Asia Pacific Business Review, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Critical Perspectives on International

Business, and Journal of Business Research, and presented her research work at several in­ ternational conferences. She is a three-time winner of Best Reviewer awards at the Academy of Management and won a Best Instructor Award at the X-Culture project in 2018 among instructors from 37 countries. Her email id is [email protected].

712