Trauma, caste and classrooms: Why anthropology must change

By A Representative 

A review paper by Dr Ravinder Singh, Head of the Department of Medical Anthropology at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS), Delhi, calls for embedding “trauma-informed anthropology” into medical and social science education in India, arguing that classrooms are not emotionally neutral spaces and that teaching about caste, gender, conflict and inequality requires ethical and pedagogical transformation.

In the paper titled “Trauma-Informed Medical Anthropology, Pedagogy and Challenges”, Dr Singh examines how trauma is understood in clinical frameworks such as the DSM-5 and ICD-11, and contrasts these with anthropological approaches that foreground structural violence, intergenerational suffering and social inequality. He notes that while DSM-5 defines trauma largely in terms of exposure to discrete events such as death, injury or sexual violence, ICD-11 recognises complex PTSD arising from prolonged and repeated conditions such as childhood abuse, domestic violence and systemic persecution. However, he argues that both frameworks can underplay political, historical and social dimensions of suffering.

“Anthropology critiques both for medicalising human suffering and privileging Western models of distress,” Dr Singh writes, adding that trauma-informed anthropology “moves beyond diagnosis to context, embodiment, history and ethics of care.”

The paper situates trauma within Indian realities, including the legacies of colonialism, the Partition of 1947, caste oppression, gender-based violence, communal conflict and displacement. Drawing on ethnographies and autobiographies by Dalit writers such as Urmila Pawar and Shantabai Kamble, as well as studies on transgender jogappas in Karnataka and mental health in conflict-hit Kashmir, Dr Singh argues that trauma in India is often chronic, structural and intergenerational rather than confined to singular catastrophic events.

He highlights that in Indian classrooms, trauma may manifest as silence, withdrawal, fear of speaking, anger or academic underperformance, especially when students encounter topics that mirror lived realities. “Learning is embodied and emotional, not just cognitive,” he observes, warning that insensitive pedagogy can “re-open wounds, reinforce power imbalances and reproduce harm.”

The paper reviews twelve recent contributions published in "Teaching Anthropology" (2024), where international scholars explore trauma-informed approaches in teaching and fieldwork. Themes include environmental trauma in disaster research, idioms of distress such as “thinking too much” in South Africa, decolonising anthropology, vicarious trauma in fieldwork, and the need for institutional—not merely individual—responsibility in supporting educators and students.

Dr Singh argues that these global discussions resonate strongly with India’s social landscape and the goals of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. He draws linkages between trauma-informed pedagogy and NEP priorities such as holistic development, inclusive education, flexible assessment, teacher training and student wellbeing. According to him, trauma literacy, reflective learning and emotionally safe classrooms are essential to achieving these objectives.

“Trauma-informed anthropology does not mean avoiding difficult topics,” he states. “Rather, it means teaching them with care, recognising unequal emotional risks, and valuing students’ wellbeing as part of knowledge production.”

The paper concludes that anthropology, given its engagement with inequality, violence, health and social suffering, has both the ethical responsibility and disciplinary capacity to lead trauma-informed teaching in India. Dr Singh maintains that aligning anthropological pedagogy with trauma awareness and cultural specificity is crucial for building more equitable, inclusive and humane educational spaces.