scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Sudarsan Padmanabhan

Other affiliations: University of South Florida
Bio: Sudarsan Padmanabhan is an academic researcher from Indian Institute of Technology Madras. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cosmopolitanism & Democracy. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 10 publications receiving 39 citations. Previous affiliations of Sudarsan Padmanabhan include University of South Florida.

Papers
More filters
01 Jan 2005
TL;DR: Two Models of Consensus: Consensus is asymmetrical and partial or limited unanimity as mentioned in this paper, and consensus depends upon civil society, subsidiarity, and the dominant cultural paradigm of popular culture.
Abstract: My dissertation titled “Two Models of Consensus” is based on five arguments. 1. Consensus is asymmetrical. 2. Consensus is partial or limited unanimity. 3. Consensus and democracy do have a concomitant relation. 4. Consensus is not organic to political systems. 5. Consensus depends upon civil society, subsidiarity, and the dominant cultural paradigm of

14 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In his magnum opus, "A Theory of Justice" (1971), John Rawls, one of the most influential American philosophers of the twentieth century, emphasizes two principles of justice, one that ensures equa...
Abstract: In his magnum opus, "A Theory of Justice" (1971), John Rawls, one of the most influential American philosophers of the twentieth century, emphasizes two principles of justice, one that ensures equa...

11 citations

DOI
01 Jan 2017
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that Guru's insistence on the moral, existential and social necessity of the Dalit theory is valid and that the works of Dalit scholars and thinkers are more performance-oriented and less theoretical.
Abstract: In recent debates on the theoretical framework of social sciences, Indian political scientist Gopal Guru mounted a critique that Indian social science is not representative and egalitarian. In the same breath, Gopal Guru sought to rationalise this lacuna. Guru claimed that the works of Dalit scholars and thinkers are more performance-oriented and less theoretical. This paper would raise several issues with reference to Gopal Guru’s claims: Does theory belong to an elite category? Does the lack of representation of Dalit scholarship present a theoretical conundrum for Indian social sciences? Is Gopal Guru falling into the trap of hierarchical complementarity between theory and performance/praxis? And, is there an intractable dilemma among the Dalit scholars between the politics of representation and the politics of ideas? This paper demonstrates that Guru’s insistence on the moral, existential and social necessity of the Dalit theory is valid. But he is wrong in what he denies.

7 citations


Cited by
More filters