What do you think Anshul Kumar would think of Spivak being awarded Holberg Prize ?

It’s difficult to say with certainty what Anshul Kumar’s exact opinion would be about Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak receiving the 2025 Holberg Prize, as it would depend on his personal reflections and evolving perspective since their public altercation in May 2024 at JNU. However, based on his previous statements and actions—particularly his critique of Spivak during and after that incident—we can make an educated guess about how he might react.

Kumar, a Dalit sociology student at JNU, has expressed significant frustration with Spivak, not just over the pronunciation dispute (where she corrected his pronunciation of W.E.B. Du Bois’ name), but more broadly over what he perceives as her privileged position and the way she engages with subaltern voices. His question at the seminar challenged Spivak’s claim to a middle-class identity, pointing to her elite background (e.g., her familial ties to Bihari Lal Bhaduri, a notable figure in Bengal’s intellectual history). After the event, Kumar’s social media posts and interviews revealed a deeper critique: he accused Spivak of embodying a “circle of sycophancy” in academia, where established scholars like her are placed on pedestals and shielded from genuine critique, particularly from marginalized voices like his own. He also argued that her focus on his pronunciation was a way to sidestep his substantive question, reinforcing power imbalances rather than dismantling them—ironic, given her seminal work “Can the Subaltern Speak?”

Given this context, Kumar might view Spivak’s Holberg Prize win with skepticism or even disdain. The Holberg Prize, awarded for her “groundbreaking interdisciplinary research in comparative literature, translation, postcolonial studies, political philosophy, and feminist theory,” elevates her status further within the global academic elite. Kumar could see this as another instance of the academic establishment rewarding someone he believes speaks about the subaltern rather than truly amplifying their voices. His critique of Spivak’s scholarship—such as her framing of Sati in “Can the Subaltern Speak?” as a case of “White men saving Brown women from Brown men,” which he contrasted with Ambedkar’s view of it as an upper-caste tool to enforce endogamy—suggests he might question whether her work genuinely serves the marginalized or simply polishes her own intellectual reputation.

On the other hand, Kumar’s reaction might not be entirely negative. He has acknowledged attending Spivak’s seminar out of interest in engaging with scholars he disagrees with, indicating a willingness to grapple with their ideas. He might recognize the significance of an Indian scholar receiving such a prestigious international award, especially one who has worked on postcolonial and subaltern issues, even if he disputes her approach. However, this recognition would likely be tempered by his belief that awards like the Holberg reinforce hierarchical structures he rejects—structures where, as he put it, “scholars are brought in to be placed on the pedestal of a godman or godwoman” and dissent is stifled.

In short, Anshul Kumar would likely have a complex reaction. He might criticize the award as further proof of Spivak’s entrenchment in an elitist academic system that he feels silences subaltern challenges—like his own at JNU—while grudgingly noting her influence. His exact thoughts would depend on how much he’s reflected on the incident since 2024 and whether he sees this accolade as validating her authority over marginalized voices or as a broader commentary on postcolonial scholarship’s place in the world. Without a direct statement from him post-award (as of March 17, 2025), this remains a reasoned speculation based on his prior stance.