Academia often asserts itself as a space open to dialogue, inclusive in nature, and considerate of diverse knowledge systems. However, that is hardly the case, as structural and systemic exclusion and marginalisation are still predominant. The divide between the Global North and the Global South is not only about funding limitations, but also about regulating the process of knowledge production and controlling the voice. This divide has led to the continuous silencing, exploitation, and alienation of academics from the Global South. This article, therefore, is an attempt to shed light on a few issues that academics from the Global South often encounter and how they can be addressed.

First, conferences, workshops, and seminars are a way for the exchange of knowledge to take place. This is, however, prevented by the lack of participation from Global South scholars. It is because, most of the time, sufficient funding is not provided for scholars living outside the Global North to travel to Global North countries and present their work. Global South scholars, due to economic constraints, do not get sufficient funding in their home countries as well. Moreover, there have been significant cases of visa applications being rejected for scholars from the Global South. The lack of participation from scholars of the Global South does pose serious questions about the internationality of these international meet-ups. To change this, academia needs to be open to hybrid modes of participation. If academia truly believes in fighting structural issues, it has to be fluid, and not form structures and norms that are deemed unbreakable, for more inclusive participation.

The second barrier that scholars from the Global South face is that of language. Global South scholars whose native language is not English are often asked to consult professional editing services, or, at times, are desk-rejected by journals. This sidelines the knowledge produced in the Global South by scholars residing in Global South countries, and helps create a canon of Global North representatives of the Global South. However, a more inclusive way would be to look at the content of the paper and the rigour of the research. If a paper is contributing to scholarship, in-house language editing support should be provided before sending it for blind reviews. As authors and peer reviewers hardly get paid for their contribution to the process, it is fair that publishers provide services to authors for free to make the research community more inclusive. Another possible way would be to incorporate the use of AI ethically, to polish the language of the manuscripts submitted by non-native English speakers.

Another important question that we must ask is, who gets to decide what we can research? This question is particularly pertinent here, as Global South scholars are often asked to stick to Global South issues and areas. They are asked questions about the fluency of the native language that they will be using while working in a particular area or with a specific community. The same is not the case for Global North scholars. They can freely move beyond boundaries and engage with communities and issues of different countries, without ever visiting the country previously. The borders, both epistemic and ontological, seem to only exist for scholars from the Global South. This needs to change fundamentally, because if they can write about us, we can write about them too. The research question cannot be universal for them, and relativist for us. There is an urgent need for scholars in India, and the Global South in general, to work on American democracies, on issues of refugees and migration in the United Kingdom, and on the politics of exclusion in Canada and Europe.

Lastly, archives based in the Global North, of magazines, media, and other agencies, often charge a hefty sum to provide access and copyright clearance for using sections of their materials for educational and research purposes. These archives, based on the lives of Global South people and communities, become inaccessible for scholars working from the Global South, and act as materials for the Global North to speak about the Global South. They gatekeep the histories, the stories, and the discourses that emerged in the Global South, away from the people of the Global South. One example that will be interesting here, suppose a photographer from the Global North, or working for an agency based in the Global North, clicked photographs of Indians during Partition without compensating them appropriately. Years after the Partition, an Indian scholar wants to use the photographs to look at how the Western media covered the event. Should the scholar be required to pay a hefty sum to access the photographs, which were never appropriately paid for when they were clicked? Do the people of a community have no rights over their own stories, their histories, their sufferings?

This is not about complaining or whining about what we do not have. This is about justice, inclusion, and reparation. As academics, we must fight for our freedom to speak and against any form of gatekeeping. We must stand against the gatekeeping that the Global North is involved in, as well as speak against the silencing that happens within the Global South regularly.

***

Rishiraj Sen is an independent researcher. He was previously with the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad as a researcher. He was also the Margaret Basu Scholar at LSE (2022-23).