Decolonial theory, as articulated by scholars like Walter D. Mignolo and applied in contexts like J. Sai Deepak’s India That Is Bharat, has gained traction as a framework for challenging Eurocentric knowledge systems and colonial legacies. However, its application, particularly in Deepak’s work, raises critical concerns about essentialism, historical oversimplification, and its co-optation by exclusionary nationalist agendas. Furthermore, Mignolo’s own partial withdrawal from the decolonial project, coupled with the unique cultural synthesis of Goan-ness, offers a compelling counterpoint that highlights the limitations of decoloniality while proposing a more inclusive, emancipative alternative rooted in hybridity and relationality.
J. Sai Deepak’s Decoloniality: A Critique
In India That Is Bharat: Coloniality, Civilisation, Constitution (2021), J. Sai Deepak make use of decolonial theory, drawing heavily on Mignolo, Aníbal Quijano, and others, to argue for a resurgence of an “Indic civilisation” (Bharat) that he claims was suppressed by colonial powers.
Deepak’s thesis posits that a unified, resilient Hindu identity, untainted by caste or colonial distortions, should form the basis for a new Indian constitution grounded in indigeneity. While this narrative appeals to those seeking to reclaim cultural pride, it is fraught with problematic assumptions and risks
First, Deepak’s application of decoloniality flattens the complexity of India’s historical and cultural landscape. By framing “Bharat” as a singular, precolonial civilization, he overlooks the diversity of precolonial Indian societies, which included myriad linguistic, religious, and cultural traditions. His portrayal of a monolithic “Hindu” identity as an “ecumenical decolonial avenger” ignores the historical realities of caste hierarchies, regional differences, and syncretic practices that shaped the subcontinent. This essentialism aligns comfortably with Hindutva ideologies, which have been criticized for promoting majoritarian nationalism under the guise of decolonial rhetoric. As noted in a 2023 critique, Deepak’s work “hitches the decolonial wagon to the Hindutva juggernaut,” risking the reinforcement of exclusionary politics that marginalize minorities and lower-caste communities.
Second, Deepak’s reliance on Mignolo’s framework of “delinking” from Western epistemologies oversimplifies the colonial encounter. While Mignolo advocates for epistemic disobedience to challenge Eurocentric knowledge, Deepak’s interpretation reduces colonialism to a cultural clash, ignoring its material dimensions—land dispossession, economic exploitation, and systemic violence. This culturalist lens, as critiqued in Jacobin (2023), “dehistoricizes and culturalizes colonialism,” presenting it as a battle of identities rather than a complex interplay of power and resources. Deepak’s focus on an “ontological-epistemological-theological” complex (OET) further abstracts the material realities of colonial oppression, making his decolonial project more symbolic than transformative.
Finally, Deepak’s vision risks co-optation by authoritarian agendas. By aligning decoloniality with a nationalist reclamation of “Bharat,” he inadvertently or advertenty supports narratives that exclude non-Hindu communities and suppress internal diversity. This mirrors global trends where decolonial rhetoric has been used to justify illiberal policies, as seen in contexts like India under Modi or Russia under Putin, where “civilizational” identities are weaponized to consolidate power. Such applications betray the emancipatory potential of decoloniality, turning it into a tool for reinforcing new hierarchies rather than dismantling old ones.
Walter Mignolo’s Partial Withdrawal from Decoloniality
Walter D. Mignolo, a foundational figure in decolonial theory, has himself expressed reservations about the trajectory of the decolonial project, signaling a partial withdrawal from its more rigid formulations. In works like On Decoloniality (2018, co-authored with Catherine E. Walsh) and earlier writings, Mignolo emphasized “delinking” from Western epistemologies to affirm marginalized knowledge systems. However, in later reflections, particularly in On Decoloniality and interviews like the 2014 discussion with Weihua He, Mignolo acknowledges the limitations of an overly epistemic focus and the risk of romanticizing non-Western traditions.
Mignolo’s critique centers on the potential for decoloniality to become a dogmatic framework that essentializes non-Western cultures, much like Deepak’s approach. He warns against reducing decoloniality to a binary opposition between Western and non-Western knowledge, noting that such a stance can obscure the material and political dimensions of anticolonial struggles.
In On Decoloniality, he and Walsh stress the need for “theory-praxis” that engages local histories and struggles, rather than abstract universalisms. Mignolo’s shift is evident in his growing emphasis on “re-existence”—reaffirming diverse ways of living rather than merely rejecting Western frameworks. This nuanced stance contrasts with his earlier, more polemical calls for epistemic delinking, which Deepak heavily draws upon.Mignolo’s partial withdrawal is also a response to critiques from scholars like Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò, who argue that decoloniality’s conflation of coloniality with modernity makes total emancipation unattainable and analytically flawed. Táíwò contends that decoloniality risks becoming an academic exercise detached from material restitution, such as land repatriation or economic justice.
Mignolo’s later work implicitly acknowledges this by advocating for grounded, context-specific practices non-universal decolonial templates. His reflections suggest a recognition that decoloniality, when applied uncritically, can devolve into the very culturalism he sought to challenge, a concern echoed in critiques of Deepak’s work.
Goan-ness as an Emancipative Alternative
Against the essentialist and nationalist tendencies of Deepak’s decoloniality, the concept of Goan-ness offers a compelling counterpoint rooted in hybridity, relationality, and emancipative potential. Goan-ness, as a cultural identity forged through centuries of Portuguese colonialism, Indian traditions, and global exchanges, embodies a syncretic ethos that resists the binary frameworks of decoloniality. Unlike Deepak’s monolithic “Bharat,” Goan-ness embraces multiplicity—blending Catholic, Hindu, Muslim and indigenous practices; Konkani, Portuguese, and English languages; and local and diasporic influences.
Goan-ness challenges the decolonial emphasis on “delinking” by demonstrating that emancipation can arise from creative synthesis rather than rejection of colonial legacies. For instance, Goan music, cuisine, and architecture reflect a fusion of Portuguese and Indian elements, creating a distinct identity that neither glorifies nor erases the colonial past. This aligns with the decolonial notion of “re-existence” but goes further by rejecting the need for a pure, precolonial indigeneity.
As scholars like R. Benedito Ferrão have noted, Goan identity is inherently transnational, shaped by migration to Africa, Europe, and beyond, which fosters a cosmopolitanism that defies nationalist or essentialist narratives.
Moreover, Goan-ness is emancipative in its inclusivity. Unlike Deepak’s Hindu-centric vision, Goan culture accommodates religious and cultural diversity, as seen in the celberations of shared festivals like the Feast of St. Francis Xavier or the Hindu Deities ( the seven Sisters).
This relationality echoes the decolonial concept of “pluriversality” but grounds it in lived practice rather than theoretical abstraction. Goan-ness thus offers a model of emancipation that does not require the erasure of colonial influences but instead reworks them into a dynamic, inclusive identity.
Conclusion
J. Sai Deepak’s application of decolonial theory in India That Is Bharat risks essentializing Indian identity, dehistoricizing colonialism, and aligning with exclusionary nationalist agendas. Walter Mignolo’s partial withdrawal from his earlier decolonial project underscores these limitations, advocating for a more grounded, praxis-oriented approach that avoids culturalist traps.
In contrast, the syncretic and inclusive nature of Goan-ness provides an emancipative alternative that embraces hybridity and relationality, offering a path to liberation that does not rely on rejecting modernity or glorifying a singular indigeneity. By centering lived experiences of cultural synthesis, Goan-ness challenges the rigid binaries of decoloniality and points toward a more inclusive vision of postcolonial freedom.
References
The Reactionary Jargon of Decoloniality – jacobin.com
Full article: J Sai Deepak’s India that is Bharat: Coloniality, Civilisation, Constitution. Bloomsbury 2021 – www.tandfonline.com
Decoloniality – Wikipedia – en.wikipedia.org
The Prospect of Harmony and the Decolonial View of the World: Weihua He Interviews Walter Mignolo – criticallegalthinking.com
On Decoloniality – www.dukeupress.edu
