Paper short abstract:

Carrying out fieldwork with people who oppose each other in a lawsuit needs the anthropologist to be very diplomatic, however unforeseen revelations can result during interviews. The neutral position of the anthropologist may encourage major expressions of each individual point of view

Paper long abstract:

In the late 1990s a dispute arose concerning the management of the Kāmākhyā temple complex (India). Significant economic interests intertwined with strong ideological positions. The Brahmans having the highest ritual rank, the Bardeuris, defended their “traditional” right to elect among themselves the Dalais (heads of the temple complex). The opposing party, the Kamakhya Debutter Board (KDB) claimed to be a modern organ, rooted in “democracy”, because its declared aim was to extend the access to management to all servants of the temple complex, irrespective of their cast. The two opposed parties invested money and energies in an eighteen-year suit, which was finally settled in 2015 by the Supreme Court of India.

I carried out extensive fieldwork while the suit was pending (2011-2013), interviewing members of both parties. This paper focuses on the interviews I carried out with two men, one committed to KDB and the other to the Bardeuri Samaj (the association of the Bardeuris). These two individuals knew each other and were aware that I was interviewing both of them. This is probably the reason why they were particularly responsive to my questions. The delicate balance I had to maintain in my relationships with them had unexpected results. The passionate accounts the two men gave me allowed me to go beyond the ideological discourses displayed by the two parties (“tradition” against “democracy”) and to explore the socio-political dynamics and economic interests that led to the formation of the two opposite groups in the late 90s.