Comparative Literature in India.
Amiya Dev
[Reading and comprehending original articles by scholars can be a daunting task, and I found it especially challenging while preparing for my exam. To alleviate this stress, I have simplified the article based on my understanding and with the assistance of ChatGPT. I have attempted to present the information in simple and easy-to-understand language. This blog is geared toward exam preparation and aims to provide a clear understanding of the article's core ideas and concepts. However, it's important to note that if you want to gain a deep understanding of the topic, reading the original article is highly recommended. CLICK HERE FOR BLOG I (it has quotes in the language of the original article)]
Abstract:
Amiya Dev argues that India's diverse linguistic and literary traditions make it problematic to speak of Indian literature in either the singular or the plural. He believes that the relationship between commonality and difference in India is the main site of comparative literature. Dev examines the tension between unity and diversity, and post-structuralist critiques of homogenization. He also looks at efforts to find common denominators and patterns of togetherness. Dev emphasizes the importance of location and inter-Indian reception in understanding inter literariness. He views Indian literature as an ongoing process of re/making rather than a fixed entity.
Article:
In this article, the author discusses the diversity and unity of Indian literature, given India's immense linguistic diversity. The author argues that the binary approach of either seeing Indian literature as unified or diverse is problematic, and instead proposes a dialectical view of literary interaction and the notion of the inter-literary process. The article begins by providing a brief account of India's linguistic diversity, noting that previous censuses have recorded a total of 1,652 languages. While only eighteen languages are listed in the Indian Constitution as major languages, there are actually twenty-two major languages and literature recognized by the Sahitya Akademi. However, this diversity is not reflected in social discourse or literary scholarship, which often views India as a hegemonic language and literature area. The author highlights the importance of studying the ongoing process of literary interaction in India's diverse linguistic and literary traditions.
In India, there are many different languages and literature, but scholars often debate whether there is one 'Indian literature' or many 'Indian literature'. Historically, Western scholars focused on Sanskrit literature, and Indian scholars have also tended to focus on a single literature. However, some argue that a country with such linguistic diversity should be understood as having much literature. There are also concerns that the term 'Indian literature' may eventually become equated with one of the major languages and literature, which would ignore the diversity of the other literature. Ultimately, writers and readers tend to focus on their literature, so it is important to recognize the individualities of each piece of literature rather than trying to force them into a singular category. It is from this perspective that to the Akademi's motto "Indian literature is one though written in many languages," the retort is "Indian literature is one because it is written in many languages."
The problem of unity in diversity is a key issue in Comparative Literature as a discipline in India. One scholar, Gurbhagat Singh, has proposed the idea of 'differential multilogue' which emphasizes the singularities of different languages and cultures in India. Singh rejects the notion of Indian literature as a whole because it promotes a nationalist identity and instead advocates for the celebration of difference. He sees Comparative Literature as an exercise in differential multilogue, which goes beyond mere dialogue and acknowledges the plurality of logoi.
Singh's proposal is based on a poststructuralist trend in Indian discourse today, which is suspicious of the designation of Indian literature as one. This suspicion is due to concerns about the accumulation of power and the importance of decentralization. Singh argues that decentralization minimizes aggression from above and encourages grassroots movements from below. The notion of difference and inter-literary processes has recently engaged Indian scholars in the context of inter-Indian translation.
Poststructuralism understands difference as a notion of inclusion, not exclusion, and sees it as a way to achieve mutuality. If the deconstruction of politics involves the weeding out of things excessively local or peripheral, it is appropriate because all value-loading is suspect. If 'Indian' is a mere description, a general signifier, then there is no need for the act of deconstruction.
However, Singh notes that some negative discrimination has occurred towards texts produced in 'less important' and 'different' literature in the pursuit of 'Indian literature'. The poststructuralist stance is wary of rhetoric in the name of integration and a call to emotion in the name of the nation, as nationalism and fundamentalism of any type are built on regimentation and exclusion.
The article discusses the problems with poststructuralism in Indian scholarly discourse. The author argues that there is an overemphasis on theory to the detriment of application, resulting in an overabundance of meta-theory. Indian poststructuralism does not recognize the differences in the Indian experience and tends to fit literature to theory rather than the other way around. The author suggests that the situs or location of theory and the theorist is as important as theorization, particularly in a country where the decolonization process is still incomplete, and a neo-colonial situation is in the making. The author emphasizes the importance of cultural and linguistic rootedness, which can lead to a sensus communis or commonality. However, the author warns against commonality turning into self-referentiality, nationalism, or racism. The theorist must be vigilant against this and must ensure that commonality does not become an ideological and political commodity. The author also cautions against the theorist denying commonality out of expediency or fear or suggesting a superior and detached intellect, which can lead to alienation.
The author cites Jaidev's critique of existentialist aestheticism in contemporary Indian fiction and his argument for a cultural differential approach. The author also mentions Tagore and Gandhi, who emphasized the importance of situs, and the problem of situs in Indian Marxism.
The author is talking about the idea of 'commonality' and 'oneness' as a primary location for Indian theorists and their theories. They argue that this is important because of the incomplete decolonization process and the risk of a neo-colonial situation. However, they also acknowledge the danger of commonality turning into self-referentiality, nationalism, or racism. The author suggests that Indian theorists should strike a balance between acknowledging commonality while also being wary of its potential negative consequences.
The author mentions a critic named Jaidev, who critiques the use of cultural pastiche in contemporary Indian fiction. Jaidev's concept of oneness is different from the author's, as it is rooted in the pre-modern age of Indian literature. The author argues that Jaidev's structure is more applicable to contemporary literature in India, where the danger of constructing a national identity looms.
In Aijaz Ahmad's book In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, he talks about the problem of constructing a singular 'Indian' literature identity. He argues that the notion of homogenous Indian literature is limiting, as each of the 22 recognized literature by the Sahitya Akademi has its own unique archive. Ahmad also criticizes the use of English as a lingua franca in government and education, as it reflects a colonial attitude and reinforces the nation-state's official language policy. He discusses how the National Book Trust, which is responsible for inter-Indian translation, uses a process where the first translation is into English followed by translations into other languages, which perpetuates English dominance. Ahmad argues that Indian literature cannot be compared to European literature, as the notion of "European literature" is an umbrella term and a pedagogical imposition, whereas Indian literature is categorizable.
Two decades ago, V.K. Gokak and Sujit Mukherjee suggested creating an "Indo-English" archive of Indian literature, which would include English translations of major texts from different Indian languages. This would help authenticate the idea of Indian literature and propose a history for it, with different forms and techniques from various ages. Gokak and Mukherjee also suggested including this corpus in university curricula to canonize their proposal.
A decade ago, the government committee recommended a Master's program in Indian literature following an undergraduate degree in any single Indian literature, but Ahmad expressed concern about the hegemony of English. However, Gokak, Mukherjee, and Motilal Jotwani suggested implementing English as a function, owing to the growing corpus of translations from different Indian literatures into English. They believed this would create a more or less homogeneous Indian literature and suggest an Indian commonality.
However, there are problems with this notion and its implementation. Ahmad argued against the construction of national literature, and there could be a hegemonizing situation if literary texts from different languages were translated only into Hindi. Furthermore, English is the largest language program in Indian colleges and universities.
The idea of creating an "English" archive of Indian literature was suggested by V.K. Gokak and Sujit Mukherjee about two decades ago. They proposed an Indo-English corpus of literature that included major texts from different Indian languages. This would authenticate Indian literature and propose a history for it. They suggested that this corpus be inserted into university curricula. A decade ago, a government committee recommended a Master's program in Indian literature following an undergraduate degree in any single Indian literature.
However, there are concerns about the hegemony of English and the notion of homogeneous Indian literature. Instead, it is proposed that Indian literature is not an entity but an inter-literary condition. This idea is related to Goethe's original idea of Weltliteratur and its use by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto. The inter-literary condition of India stretches back much farther than its manuscript or print culture. There are many literary and cultural textualities in India whose nature, while manifest in different other systems of a similar nature, is based primarily on themes or genres, forms, and structures observable in historiography. It is possible to think of a series of such sub-systems in which the individual literature of India has been interrelated with one another over the ages. Such a systemic view of Indian literature predicates that we take all Indian literature together, age by age, and view them comparatively.
Critics of the notion of an "English" archive of Indian literature include Ahmad, who is concerned with the hegemony of English, and Motilal Jotwani, who suggests implementing English as a function. Swapan Majumdar takes a systemic approach in his book, Comparative Literature: Indian Dimensions, where Indian literature is viewed as neither a simple unity nor a simple diversity. Sisir Kumar Das has taken a similar approach with his planned ten-volume project, A History of Indian Literature.
Das is working with a team of scholars to collect data on Indian literature from different languages. They are listing information on authors' births and deaths, dates of text composition and publication, genres, text dissemination, literary reviews, society formations and debates, translations, and more. This information is both literary and social data. The approach is pragmatic and involves a comparative chronology. Das has developed a narrative based on the collected data, but other readings are possible. He has discovered a structure of pro-phanes and meta-phanes, which may be found in different literatures at different times Das's work focuses on nineteenth-century Indian literature and does not propose it as a category by itself. Instead, he seeks to establish patterns through different ages. Indian literature is neither a unity nor a total differential.
Das's work is comparatist in nature, despite the fact that he does not refer to it as such. His approach is similar to that of K.M. George's two-volume Comparative Indian Literature, which was published in 1984-85. However, George's work was not as comprehensive as Das's and only covered fifteen literatures, with a focus on a few given genres. George's genealogy was mostly given and not based on the literature itself.
Furthermore, George's work demonstrated Western hegemony in the way that poetry was discussed. The traditional and modern classifications were framed as if traditional was exclusively Indian and modern was a result of Western influence. Additionally, George's two volumes lacked comparison as the fifteen individual literatures were simply placed side by side, leaving it up to the reader to make necessary comparisons. It's important for Indian students to be aware of these issues in comparative literature studies and how they can impact the interpretation of literature. The critic mentioned in this passage is K.M. George.
The writer discusses the discipline of comparative literature in relation to the question of Indian literature. They mention that the work of scholar Sisir Kumar Das on Indian literature is comparatist in nature, and similar in some ways to the work of K.M. George. The writer also notes that the institutional manifestation of comparative literature in India reflects the binary approach to the question of Indian literature, which sees it as either a unity or a diversity. They mention two presidents of Indian comparative literature associations, Umashankar Joshi and U.R. Anantha Murthy, who represent different approaches to the question. The writer then discusses their own evolving understanding of Indian literature, which now sees it as constantly changing and in a state of becoming.
In studying Indian literature, there are different aspects that help us understand it in an inter-literary process. One of these aspects is the fact that we are located in our own languages, with access to one or two other languages. Through inter-Indian translation, we can also access texts from other languages. As readers, we may consciously or subconsciously place texts in additional languages besides our original and first text. An example of this process is when reading an early twentieth-century Oriya novel, which reminded the reader of an acclaimed pioneer of Bengali fiction. This suggests a possible commonality in genre history, although evidence to the contrary may also exist. This process of active juxtaposition does not mean that we have already made up our minds about the so-called Indian novel of the first phase and reduced these texts to their common denominator. On the other hand, the texts are very much themselves, unique to their own language and culture.
This is important to understand because there is no neutral territory between Indian literature. The situs of both theory and theorists is an important issue, and we should first look at ourselves and try to understand our own situations as thoroughly as possible before formulating a comparative literature of diversity in general. The problematics of unity and diversity are not unique to India, but Comparative Literature has taught us not to take comparison literally, and it has also taught us that theory formation in literary history is not universally tenable.
