Under the Tutelage of M. N. Srinivas: Homage of the Last Pupil

My close and direct association with Srinivas (MNS) as his last student began in 1976 that lasted till I joined the University of Hyderabad in June 1991 as a faculty in the Department of Anthropology. After joining the University of Hyderabad, I physically got distanced. I also learnt that he was a bit annoyed with me as I was moving out of Bangalore and he never wanted me to leave Bangalore. I was also not very happy to get distanced from him physically. Professor Srinivas and Mrs Srinivas always treated me as a family member and almost like a son. However, my condition was such that I had to get out of the Institute of Social and Economic Change (ISEC) to get into a secure academic job, as I was on a tenurial project position at ISEC. Also, I was not growing any younger. V. S. Parthasarathy (hereafter VSP), a close associate of MNS, told him about my plight but still, the hurt feeling remained. I feel that I have always been unlucky in this regard. These things apart, I have immensely gained academically under his tutelage. If I count my meetings and interactions for my PhD thesis, they are only a few and far between. However, during my frequent interactions with him (every Saturday morning, I used to visit him from 1987 till I left Bangalore in 1991 June, and I tried to make a catalogue of the books in his library), I have learnt about many scholars of all hues, the discipline of anthropology and sociology, academic politics, and much more. Each meeting with him was a rich experience of learning. That is why, it is difficult for me as to where and how to begin to write about my journey under MNS’ tutelage. There were also some misgivings created by circumstances (maybe also by some persons) which also had impacted the relationship with MNS sometime in the middle. Because of perseverance, they all got dissolved and the relationship was always in a buoyance state. In other words, there were times of trials and tribulations in this journey, but patience and perseverance always paid in managing my relationship with MNS. He used to enquire about my problems and always tried to comfort me. This I have always tried to do with my students as it helps them to overcome any psychological trauma that they face. Anyway, I will not discuss in this write-up non-academic or personal matters. Let me make this write-up a little structured. I would like to divide this into five parts of timeline events that happened during my association with him and how each one taught me many things, including also as to how to face problems in career and life.

Programming the USSR: Leonid V. Kantorovich in context

In the wake of Stalin's death, many Soviet scientists saw the opportunity to promote their methods as tools for the engineering of economic prosperity in the socialist state. The mathematician Leonid Kantorovich (1912–1986) was a key activist in academic politics that led to the increasing acceptance of what emerged as a new scientific persona in the Soviet Union. Rather than thinking of his work in terms of success or failure, we propose to see his career as exemplifying a distinct form of scholarship, as a partisan technocrat, characteristic of the Soviet system of knowledge production. Confronting the class of orthodox economists, many factors were at work, including Kantorovich's cautious character and his allies in the Academy of Sciences. Drawing on archival and oral sources, we demonstrate how Kantorovich, throughout his career, negotiated the relations between mathematics and economics, reinterpreted political and ideological frames, and reshaped the balance of power in the Soviet academic landscape.

THE ‘PARRY REPORT’ (1965) AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

This article examines the origins of the ‘Parry Report’ (1965), the implementation of which led to the massive expansion of Latin American Studies in the United Kingdom. Drawing on material from several archives, the article argues that the Report was the product of a peculiar geopolitical conjuncture – decolonization, the 1959 Cuban Revolution, Britain's rejection from the European Economic Community – that prompted the Foreign Office to convene a group of academics (and selected others) from institutions then in the process of formalizing links with US-based private foundations. It seeks to show how extramural and intramural factors, geopolitics and academic politics, combined to generate an interdisciplinary area study that survived long after the conditions that had given rise to its genesis had disappeared.