Comparative Literature in India - Amiya Dev

 

ARTICLE - 2

Comparative Literature in India - Amiya Dev

Generated by AI

Introduction to Amiya Dev

Amiya Dev is a renowned scholar in the field of Comparative Literature, known for his contributions to the study of Indian literature within a comparative framework. His work emphasizes the importance of understanding Indian literature as an intern literary process rather than viewing it through the binary of unity versus diversity. He challenges the conventional approach of treating Indian literature as either a single unified entity or as a collection of separate, distinct literatures. Instead, he advocates for a dialectical perspective, where different linguistic and cultural traditions interact dynamically.

Dev's scholarship also engages with global debates in Comparative Literature, drawing insights from various traditions while asserting the need for an indigenous framework for studying Indian literature. He stresses the role of multilingualism, translation, and literary reception in shaping Indian literature, urging scholars to first understand their own literary traditions before applying universal theories. His approach offers a nuanced and evolving perspective on Indian Comparative Literature, making significant contributions to both Indian and global literary studies.

Abstract:

Amiya Dev's article "Comparative Literature in India" explores how we should understand and study literature in India's multi-language environment. He starts with a basic fact: India naturally has many languages and literatures - this isn't something artificially created but has always been the case. This creates an interesting challenge. On one hand, we can't simply call everything "Indian literature" because that oversimplifies the rich diversity that exists. But on the other hand, we also can't treat each language's literature as completely separate because they're all connected in various ways.

Dev examines this situation by looking at two main viewpoints. Some scholars argue for unity, saying all Indian literature is fundamentally connected. Others emphasize diversity, focusing on how each language's literature is unique. Instead of choosing one side, Dev suggests that the relationship between these shared features and differences is what makes India such an important place for studying comparative literature. He looks at how different scholars have approached this issue, including how some modern thinkers worry that pushing for unity might erase important differences between literary traditions.

The most important part of Dev's argument is his suggestion that we should stop thinking about Indian literature as something fixed or unchanging. Instead, he proposes that we should see it as an ongoing process where different literary traditions constantly interact with and influence each other. He emphasizes how important it is to consider where each piece of literature comes from (its location) and how it's received in different parts of India. This way of thinking allows us to appreciate both the connections between different Indian literatures and their unique characteristics. In essence, Dev sees Indian literature as something that's always evolving and being reshaped through these interactions between different languages and literary traditions.

The Fundamental Context

India presents a unique case in world literature due to its extraordinary linguistic diversity. The country recorded 1,652 languages in earlier censuses (1961-71), while the 1981 census documented 221 spoken languages. Among these, 18 languages are officially recognized in the Indian Constitution, and the Sahitya Akademi (National Academy of Letters) recognizes 22 languages for their literary significance. This linguistic multiplicity naturally creates a complex literary landscape where different language literatures have coexisted and evolved over centuries. Some of these literary traditions, like Sanskrit and Tamil, date back to antiquity, while most others have histories spanning approximately 800-900 years. Indian English literature emerged as a relatively recent addition in the 19th century, bringing its own unique characteristics to this diverse literary ecosystem.

Summary:

Amiya Dev's argument challenges the traditional binary approach to Indian literature, which either emphasizes its unity or highlights its diversity. Instead, he proposes a comparative framework that acknowledges the interliterary process—the constant interaction and exchange between different linguistic and literary traditions in India.

He emphasizes a dialectical view of literary introduction, meaning that Indian literature should not be seen as a single, monolithic entity nor as entirely separate linguistic traditions. Rather, it should be understood as a dynamic system where languages and literatures influence each other over time.

With 22 officially recognized languages and literary traditions in India (as per the census and Sahitya Akademi), Dev points out that Indian literature cannot be confined to a single dominant language or perspective. The hegemonic view that privileges certain languages over others must be reconsidered in favor of a more inclusive and comparative literary approach. Through this, Dev presents a broader and more nuanced understanding of comparative literature in the Indian context—one that values both diversity and interconnectedness, rather than forcing a rigid distinction between them.

Amiya Dev explores the complex question of whether Indian literature should be viewed as a singular entity or as multiple distinct literatures. The traditional approach, influenced by both colonial and post-colonial perspectives, has often emphasized a unified Indian literature, as reflected in the Sahitya Akademi’s motto: "Indian literature is one though written in many languages." However, this perspective has been challenged by scholars who argue that the linguistic and literary diversity of India justifies referring to Indian literatures in the plural.

Dev critiques the notion of unity in diversity, suggesting that it risks overshadowing the uniqueness of individual literary traditions. He introduces the idea of hegemonic apprehensions, where the push for unity may inadvertently impose dominance over diverse literatures. Many writers and readers are primarily engaged with their own linguistic and literary traditions, reinforcing the argument for plurality.

Ultimately, Dev reframes the debate by proposing a revised interpretation of the Akademi’s motto: "Indian literature is one because it is written in many languages." This perspective acknowledges both the interconnectedness and the distinctiveness of Indian literary traditions, positioning comparative literature as the key to understanding India’s literary landscape.

Dev mentions Gurbhagat Singh who has been discussing the notion of "differential multilogue". He rejects the notion of Indian literature because the notion as such includes and promotes a nationalist identity. As a relativist, Singh accords literatures not only linguistic but also cultural singularities. With regard to the history of comparative literature as a discipline, he rejects both the French and the American schools as well as the idea of Goethe's Weltliteratur. His insistence on the plurality of logoi is particularly interesting because it takes us beyond the notion of dialogue, a notion that comparative literature is still confined to; enabling us to understand Indian diversity without sacrificing the individualities of the particulars.

Singh's concept of differential multilogue aligns with poststructuralist thought, which sees difference as a form of inclusion and mutuality rather than exclusion. Poststructuralism challenges fixed, singular categories and instead emphasizes fluid, dynamic relationships between elements. In this context, Singh deconstructs the idea of Indian literature as a singular entity, arguing that it is a politically constructed category rather than an organic literary reality.

He suggests that the resistance to the idea of Indian literature arises because it has been forcefully promoted as a national identity, rather than naturally emerging from the diverse literary traditions of the country. If individual literatures had been allowed to exist independently without being subsumed under the overarching idea of Indian literature, there would be no need for opposition to the unity-in-diversity framework. Thus, Singh’s perspective invites a reconsideration of how we define and categorize literature in India, advocating for a more decentralized and inclusive understanding that respects the uniqueness of each literary tradition.

Jaidav develops an argument for this cultural differential approach. Jaidev's notion of an Indian sensus communis is instances of "national" and racial image formations which suggest homogeneity and result in cultural stereotyping. The concept of an Indian sensus communis in the context of Singh's differential multilogue or Jaidev's differential approach brings me to the question of situs and theory. That is, the "site" or "location" of theory and of the theorist are important factors. If situs means cultural and linguistic rootedness then the notion of commonality is applicable.

Jaidev's concept of oneness provides an ambience for particular concerns with regard to cultural and artistic expression such as the case of language overlaps, the bi- and multilinguality of authors and their readership, openness to different genres, the sharing of themes based in similar social and historical experiences, emphasis on the oral and performing modes of cultural and artistic transmission, and the ease of inter-translatability. On the other hand, Jaidev suggests these characteristics of Indian cultural commonalities are rooted in a situs of the premodern age of Indian literatures.

Aijaz Ahmad's In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures describes the construct of a "syndicated" Indian literature that suggests an aggregate and unsatisfactory categorization of Indian literature. Ahmad argues the notion of "European literature" is at best an umbrella designation and at worst a pedagogical imposition while Indian literature is classifiable and categorizable.

Further, he argues that while European and African literatures have some historical signifiers in addition to their geographical designation, these are recent concepts whereas Indian homogeneity has the weight of tradition behind it. In Ahmad's argumentation, the problem is that in the "Indian" archive of literature, Indianness ultimately proves limited when compared with the differential literature comprising each of the twenty-two literatures recognized by the Sahitya Akademi.An "Indian" archive of literature as represented by an "English" archive -- while non-hegemonic on the one hand by removal from a differential archive but hegemonizing by a latent colonial attitude on the other – also reflects the official language policy of the government: English, while not included in the Indian Constitution, is still recognized as a lingua franca of government, education, etc.

V.K. Gokak and Sujit Mukherjee talked about an Indo-English collection of literature, which consists of major Indian texts translated into English.

Ahmad is concerned about the dominance of English but does not advocate for its complete removal, unlike Ngugi wa Thiong’o. In India, the idea of having one common language has been reinforced by political and ideological forces. Hindi is the official national language, and if all regional literary texts were translated into Hindi, it could create a unified Indian literature. However, this would again lead to the dominance of one language over others.

At the same time, English continues to be the most widely used language in higher education, as it is the main language of instruction in colleges and universities.

Swapan Majumdar, in his 1985 book Comparative Literature: Indian Dimensions, takes a systemic approach to Indian literature. He argues that Indian literature is neither a single unified entity, as nationalists claim, nor completely fragmented, as relativists and poststructuralists suggest. Instead, he sees it as a system where different literary traditions interact in a continuous and evolving way.

Sisir Kumar Das follows a similar approach in his ambitious ten-volume project, A History of Indian Literature. The first volume, 1800-1910: Western Impact / Indian Response, was published in 1991. His research highlights patterns of commonality among nineteenth-century Indian literatures. However, he does not claim that Indian literature is a single unified category. Instead, he aims to study whether such patterns exist across different historical periods.

Das’s findings suggest that Indian literature is neither completely unified nor entirely separate. Each historical period has its own literary trends, making it impossible to define Indian literature as a single, fixed entity.

The Gujarati poet Umashankar Joshi, who supported the idea of a unified Indian literature, was the first president of the Indian National Comparative Literature Association. The Kannada writer U.R. Anantha Murthy currently leads the Comparative Literature Association of India. Scholars of comparative literature often reflect the two opposing views on Indian literature—whether it is a single entity or a collection of diverse literatures. However, the Association also represents a shift towards a more balanced approach. Comparative Literature as a discipline helps in understanding Indian literature through both unity and diversity, viewing it as a dynamic and evolving interliterary process.

Dev highlights key aspects that support his idea of Indian literature as part of an interliterary process. He explains that we are rooted in our own languages, whether actively or passively bilingual, and often have access to one or two additional languages. Through translations within Indian languages, we gain access to even more texts, expanding our literary exposure. As readers, we naturally compare and relate texts from different languages with our first language literature. This process of inter-Indian reception shows that our primary literary perspective is shaped by our first language, but it is continuously influenced by other literatures through translation and multilingual engagement.

Conclusion

Amiya Dev concludes by reassuring readers, scholars, and students that the debate on unity and diversity in literature is not unique to India. He emphasizes that every nation faces similar challenges in defining its literary identity. Through Comparative Literature, we learn that comparisons should not be taken at face value and that literary theories cannot always be applied universally. Instead of imposing external frameworks, Dev suggests that we should first focus on understanding our own literary traditions and interliterary processes. By fully shaping our own Comparative Literature, we can later contribute to a broader, more inclusive understanding of literary diversity on a global scale.

Key points of the Article:

1. The Fundamental Problem of Unity vs. Diversity:

India's linguistic diversity is reflected in over 1,600 recorded languages, with 22 major literary languages officially recognized. This creates a fundamental tension between two perspectives in Indian literary discourse. The unity approach promotes the idea that "Indian literature is one though written in many languages," emphasizing a unified cultural and literary identity. In contrast, the diversity approach argues for recognizing multiple distinct literatures, acknowledging the unique characteristics and traditions of each language's literary output.

2. Poststructuralist Critique:

The poststructuralist perspective, championed by scholars like Gurbhagat Singh, presents a comprehensive critique of unified Indian literature. This critique warns against the dangers of nationalist identity construction through literary unification and highlights the risks of cultural hegemony. Poststructuralists are particularly concerned about power centralization that might result from such unification. Their proposed solution, the "differential multilogue" approach, aims to celebrate diversity while enabling meaningful dialogue between different literary traditions without forcing uniformity.

3. The English Archive Problem:

The use of English as an intermediary language in Indian literary translation has created significant complications. This practice has led to the creation of an "Indo-English corpus" that poses several challenges to Indian literary identity. The English archive risks creating a hegemonizing situation where English becomes the dominant medium, potentially oversimplifying the complexity of Indian literatures. Furthermore, this approach perpetuates colonial influences and may distort the authentic representation of various Indian literary traditions.

4. The Interliterary Process:

Dev's proposed concept of Indian literature as an "interliterary condition" offers a nuanced understanding of the literary landscape. This approach recognizes the historical interconnections between various Indian literatures while respecting their individual identities. It views literature as a dynamic, ongoing process rather than a fixed category, allowing for the study of commonalities without forcing homogenization. The interliterary perspective acknowledges the continuous interaction and mutual influence between different Indian literary traditions while maintaining their distinct characteristics.

5. Methodological Approaches:

The study of Indian literature has been enriched by various methodological frameworks. Sisir Kumar Das's historical approach involves creating comprehensive chronologies across languages, providing a temporal understanding of literary developments. K.M. George's comparative approach focuses on studying genres across different Indian literatures, offering insights into shared literary forms and traditions. Both these approaches emphasize the importance of "situs" (location) in studying Indian literature, recognizing that the cultural context significantly influences literary interpretation and understanding.