Walter D. Mignolo's essay "Prophets Facing Sidewise: The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference" examines the entanglement of coloniality and modernity, highlighting how both are intertwined in the logic of domination, oppression, and exploitation. He argues that Western liberalism and Hindu nationalism are both rooted in this colonial logic, which is masked by the rhetoric of modernity. Mignolo critiques the universalist assumptions of liberal thinkers, suggesting that science is not neutral but can be both imperial and liberating. He emphasizes the need for a critical cosmopolitanism that transcends the binary of East and West, advocating for a pluriversal approach that recognizes diverse epistemologies. Meera Nanda's work, "Prophets Facing Backward," explores the postmodern critique of science in the West and its parallels with critiques in India, particularly from the Indian Left and Hindu Nationalism. Nanda argues that the critique of Western science by the Indian Left is often co-opted by Hindu Nationalism, which uses it to defend Vedic Science. She highlights the tension between the universalist claims of Western science and the local, culturally specific knowledge systems. Nanda also critiques the capabilities approach of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, arguing that it can inadvertently reinforce colonial epistemic differences by assuming a universal standard of human capabilities. Nanda's analysis reveals the complexities of modernity and coloniality, noting that the logic of coloniality is embedded in the modern world, shaping the subjectivity and knowledge of both colonizers and the colonized. She emphasizes the need for epistemic delinking, a process that challenges the dominance of Western epistemologies and promotes a pluralistic, decolonized understanding of knowledge. This involves recognizing the local histories and experiences that have been marginalized by the Western epistemic framework. Nanda also critiques the universalist tendencies of Sen and Nussbaum, arguing that their positions can support imperial and fundamentalist agendas. She calls for a pluralistic, critical cosmopolitanism that acknowledges the diversity of human experiences and the need to move beyond the universalist assumptions of modernity. This approach would allow for a more inclusive and equitable understanding of knowledge and science, one that respects the epistemic differences and local contexts of different cultures. In conclusion, Mignolo and Nanda argue for a critical engagement with the geopolitical dimensions of knowledge, challenging the dominant narratives of modernity and coloniality. They advocate for a pluralistic, decolonized epistemology that recognizes the complexity of human experiences and the need to move beyond the universalist assumptions of Western science and philosophy. This approach would enable a more just and equitable understanding of the world, one that values diverse epistemologies and promotes a critical cosmopolitanism.Walter D. Mignolo's essay "Prophets Facing Sidewise: The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference" examines the entanglement of coloniality and modernity, highlighting how both are intertwined in the logic of domination, oppression, and exploitation. He argues that Western liberalism and Hindu nationalism are both rooted in this colonial logic, which is masked by the rhetoric of modernity. Mignolo critiques the universalist assumptions of liberal thinkers, suggesting that science is not neutral but can be both imperial and liberating. He emphasizes the need for a critical cosmopolitanism that transcends the binary of East and West, advocating for a pluriversal approach that recognizes diverse epistemologies. Meera Nanda's work, "Prophets Facing Backward," explores the postmodern critique of science in the West and its parallels with critiques in India, particularly from the Indian Left and Hindu Nationalism. Nanda argues that the critique of Western science by the Indian Left is often co-opted by Hindu Nationalism, which uses it to defend Vedic Science. She highlights the tension between the universalist claims of Western science and the local, culturally specific knowledge systems. Nanda also critiques the capabilities approach of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, arguing that it can inadvertently reinforce colonial epistemic differences by assuming a universal standard of human capabilities. Nanda's analysis reveals the complexities of modernity and coloniality, noting that the logic of coloniality is embedded in the modern world, shaping the subjectivity and knowledge of both colonizers and the colonized. She emphasizes the need for epistemic delinking, a process that challenges the dominance of Western epistemologies and promotes a pluralistic, decolonized understanding of knowledge. This involves recognizing the local histories and experiences that have been marginalized by the Western epistemic framework. Nanda also critiques the universalist tendencies of Sen and Nussbaum, arguing that their positions can support imperial and fundamentalist agendas. She calls for a pluralistic, critical cosmopolitanism that acknowledges the diversity of human experiences and the need to move beyond the universalist assumptions of modernity. This approach would allow for a more inclusive and equitable understanding of knowledge and science, one that respects the epistemic differences and local contexts of different cultures. In conclusion, Mignolo and Nanda argue for a critical engagement with the geopolitical dimensions of knowledge, challenging the dominant narratives of modernity and coloniality. They advocate for a pluralistic, decolonized epistemology that recognizes the complexity of human experiences and the need to move beyond the universalist assumptions of Western science and philosophy. This approach would enable a more just and equitable understanding of the world, one that values diverse epistemologies and promotes a critical cosmopolitanism.