Assignment Paper 208: Comparative Literature & Translation Studies
Name: Bhavyata Kukadiya
Roll No.: 04
Enrollment No.: 4069206420220018
Paper no: 208
Paper code: 22415
Paper name: Comparative Literature & Translation Studies
Sem.: 4 (Batch 2022- 2024)
Submitted to: Smt S.B. Gardi Department of English, M.K. Bhavnagar University
Comparative Literature in India
Amiya Dev
Abstract:
In his article "Comparative Literature in India," Amiya Dev bases his discussion on the fact that India possesses a multitude of languages and literatures, representing an inherent situation and conditions of diversity. Consequently, he argues that referring to Indian literature in the singular is problematic. However, Dev also observes that employing the plural form, "Indian literatures," is equally problematic. Such a characterization, he contends, either overlooks or obscures the manifest interrelations and affinities that exist among these diverse literary traditions.
Dev's article compares the unity and diversity theses and identifies the relationship between Indian commonality and differences as the prime site of comparative literature in India. He surveys the current scholarly and intellectual positions on unity and diversity and explores the post-structuralist doubt concerning the homogenization of differences in the name of unity. Dev also examines the search for common denominators and a possible pattern of togetherness, underscoring location and located inter-Indian reception as an aspect of inter-literariness.
Ultimately, Dev perceives Indian literature not as a fixed or determinate entity but as an ongoing and inter-literary process: Indian language and literature are ever in the process of re/making. His perspective challenges the notion of a singular, monolithic Indian literature, instead viewing it as a dynamic and constantly evolving interplay among diverse literary traditions.
Comparative Literature in India
In this article, Amiya Dev is discussing the a priori location of comparative literature concerning the aspects of diversity and unity within India's literary landscape. Scholars of literature either argue for the unity of Indian literature or for the diversity and distinctiveness of the literatures of India. Departing from this binary approach, Dev's proposal involves a particular view of the discipline of comparative literature because he argues that in the case of India, the study of literature should involve the notion of an interliterary process and a dialectical view of literary interactions.
According to the census and the Sahitya Academy, there are a total of 22 major languages in India, each with its own literature. In general, the perspective of India as a hegemonic language and literature area is pervasive.
However, with the plurality of so-called major literatures in India, we are confronted with a particular problem: Is Indian literature, in the singular, a valid category, or are we rather to speak of Indian literatures in the plural? This question highlights the tension between perceiving Indian literature as a unified entity or as a collection of distinct literary traditions.
Literary histories written in India by Indian scholars have traditionally focused on and continue to focus on a single literature. This single-focus perspective is a result of both a colonial and a post-colonial perspective, the latter exemplified by the motto of the Sahitya Akademi: "Indian literature is one though written in many languages" (Radhakrishnan). However, this perspective was opposed by scholars who argued that a country where so many languages coexist should be understood as a country with literatures (in the plural).
Presently, a different kind of resistance has emerged to the unity thesis in the form of what may be called "hegemonic apprehensions." In Dev's opinion, arguments of unity in diversity are suspect, as they encroach upon the individualities of the diverse literatures. In other words, a cultural relativist analogy is implied here, emphasizing difference and corroborated by the fact that both writers and readers of particular and individual literatures are overwhelmingly concerned with their own literature and their own literature only. From this perspective, the Academy's motto "Indian literature is one though written in many languages" is countered with "Indian literature is one because it is written in many languages."
Dev mentions Gurbhagat Singh, who has been discussing the notion of "differential multilogue." Singh rejects the notion of Indian literature because it includes and promotes a nationalist identity. As a relativist, Singh accords literatures not only linguistic but also cultural singularities. Regarding 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. Singh's 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 notion of differential multilogue reflects a poststructuralist trend in Indian discourse: poststructuralism understands difference as a notion of inclusion, that is, mutuality. Thus, it cannot accept the single-focus category "Indian" without deconstructing its accompanying politics. If Indian literature had not been so heavily publicized and ingrained, as it were, into our national psyche, if our individual literatures had been left alone and not asked to pay their dues to "Indian literature," there would be no resistance to the notion of unity in diversity.
Ironically, Indian poststructuralism imposes upon itself a sameness with difference-speaking elsewhere and does not seem to recognize that difference-speaking in India may be different from difference-speaking in other contexts. At the same time, this poststructuralist perspective does not seem to recognize that given all the differences pertaining to the Indian experience, underlying it and tying together the different entities, there may be a commonality, a sensus communis of a broadly cultural kind.
The poststructuralist trend in Indian discourse, while advocating for the recognition of differences and rejecting the imposition of a singular "Indian" identity, paradoxically adheres to a notion of difference that is similar to that espoused in other contexts. However, this perspective fails to acknowledge that the articulation of difference in the Indian context may be distinct from other regions. Additionally, this poststructuralist view overlooks the possibility of an underlying cultural commonality that transcends the various differences inherent within the Indian experience.
Jaidav develops an argument for this cultural differential approach. Jaidev's notion of an Indian sensus communis cautions against 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 us 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 regarding 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 that while the notion of "European literature" is at best an umbrella designation and at worst a pedagogical imposition, 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 spoke of an Indo-English corpus of literature that was created out of English translations of major texts from major Indian languages.
Ahmad's concern is with the hegemony of English, although he does not suggest its abolition in a way that would be close to Ngugi's arguments. It is true that the ideal of one language in India has been made a reality by now through ideological and political mechanisms. The official national language is Hindi, and if literary texts from the other languages could be translated into Hindi, we could possibly arrive at a national Indian literature. However, in this case, we would again arrive at a hegemonizing situation. On the other hand, it is clear that in the realm of education, English is the largest single language program in our colleges and universities.
Swapan Majumdar takes a systemic approach in his 1985 book, 'Comparative Literature: Indian Dimensions', where Indian literature is neither a simple unity as hegemonists of the nation-state persuasion would like it to be, nor a simple diversity as relativists or poststructuralists would like it to be. He suggests that Indian literature is neither "one" nor "many" but rather a systemic whole where many subsystems interact towards one in a continuous and never-ending dialectic.
Sisir Kumar Das has taken a similar route of literary history with his planned ten-volume project, 'A History of Indian Literature', whose first volume, '1800-1910: Western Impact / Indian Response', appeared in 1991.
The underlying and most important finding is a pattern of commonality in nineteenth-century Indian literatures. Das's work on the literatures of the nineteenth century in India does not designate this Indian literature as a category by itself. Rather, the work suggests a rationale for the proposed research, the objective being to establish whether a pattern can be found through the ages. One age's pattern may not be the same as another age's, and this obviously preempts any given unity of Indian literature. Thus, Das's method and results to date show that Indian literature is neither a unity nor is it a total differential.
In many ways, Das's work is similar to K.M. George's two-volume Comparative Indian Literature of 1984-85. However, George's work was not as comprehensive as Das's: it only dealt with fifteen literatures and that too in a limited way. In Dev's view, George's work also demonstrates Western hegemony. For example, poetry was discussed in terms of "traditional" and "modern," but as if traditional was exclusively Indian and modern the result of a Western impact. Another problem with George's two volumes was that although they were titled Comparative Indian Literature, there was no comparison built into the findings, and the fifteen individual literatures were placed simply side by side.
The Gujarati poet Umashankar Joshi -- a supporter of the unity approach -- was the first president of the Indian National Comparative Literature Association, and the Kannada writer U.R. Anantha Murthy is the current president of the Comparative Literature Association of India. Comparatists reflect the binary approach to the question of Indian literature as explained above. However, the Association also reflects a move toward a dialectic. The method of Comparative Literature allows for a view of Indian literature in the context of unity and diversity in a dialectical inter-literary process and situation.
Dev suggests other aspects which support his understanding of Indian literature in an inter-literary process: we are located in our own languages -- whether with an active or passive bilingualism -- where we have access to one or two other languages. Through inter-Indian translation, we have access to texts from a fourth and more languages. Now, as readers, consciously or subconsciously, we place the texts in additional languages beside our original and first text. Inter-Indian reception presupposes that our situs is in our first text, that is, first language literature.
Conclusion
Amiya Dev concludes by emphasizing the importance of first understanding the nuances and complexities of one's own literary traditions before attempting to apply universal frameworks or make broader comparisons. He advises focusing initially on developing a comprehensive understanding of comparative literature within the Indian context, accounting for its inherent unity and diversity. Once this is achieved, Dev believes India can then contribute to formulating a more inclusive and culturally sensitive approach to comparative literature that embraces diversity across the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment