Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar

University
Smt. S. B. Gardi, Department of English

Comparative
Literature in India
Presented by -
Darshan Vagh
Date - 3rd January
Bhumiba Gohil
2025
Dhatri Parmar
Abstract
Amiya Dev's article, Comparative Literature in India, delves into the complexities of defining
Indian literature amidst its linguistic diversity. It proposes an "interliterary process" framework
that highlights translation and cultural exchanges as essential to understanding Indian
literatures in a dynamic and interconnected way.

Research Problem
How can Indian literatures, with their linguistic and cultural diversity, be studied collectively
without erasing their individual identities?

Objectives
● To analyze the relationship between unity and diversity in Indian literatures.
● To explore the role of comparative literature in fostering interliterary understanding.

Methodology
● Analysis of India’s linguistic and literary traditions through historical, cultural, and
poststructuralist lenses.
● Engagement with concepts like interliterariness and differential multilogue.

Key findings
● Indian literature is not a fixed entity but an evolving process shaped by translation and
 Key Points

● India’s linguistic diversity challenges the idea of a singular

"Indian literature."
● Debate between unity (one Indian literature) and diversity
(separate traditions).
● Criticism of Indian poststructuralism for being too
theoretical and detached from practice.
● Proposal to view Indian literature as an interconnected
"interliterary process."
● Critique of creating an "English" archive of Indian literature
through translations.
Key Arguments
Amiya Dev:-

● Indian literature is not a single, homogeneous entity but comprises diverse

"Indian literatures."
● Viewing Indian literatures as entirely separate is problematic; there are
significant connections and interactions among them.
● Diversity and distinctness should coexist with the recognition of shared
"Indian commonality."
● Advocates for an "interliterary" approach that highlights interactions,
overlaps, and thematic connections across Indian literatures.
● Indian literature is an ongoing process of exchange and evolution, not a
fixed or static concept.
Perspectives from Key
Scholars
Gurbhagat Singh:-
● Critiques French, American, and Goethean approaches as inadequate for India's diversity.
● Proposes "differential multilogue" to celebrate differences in Indian literatures.
● Supports poststructuralist skepticism of "Indian literature" to prevent centralization and power
accumulation.

Jaydev:-
● Criticizes Indian fiction's trend of "existentialist aestheticism."
● Advocates for a "cultural differential approach" to preserve diversity without homogenization.
● Emphasizes the importance of fluidity and multiplicities in Indian literature, resisting narratives of
fixed unity.

Aijaz Ahmad:-
● Highlights limitations in defining "Indian literature" compared to the richness of individual
literatures in 22 languages.
● Critiques attempts to create a unified "Indian literature" that overshadow regional and linguistic
 Learning Outcomes
● I now have a deeper understanding of how diverse and complex Indian
literatures are, and why they can’t be seen as one unified entity.
● I learned to appreciate the balance between recognizing the distinctiveness
of each literature and identifying common threads that connect them.
● The idea of "interliterary processes" helped me see Indian literature as a
dynamic and evolving interaction between languages and cultures.
● I realized the importance of avoiding homogenization, which can
overshadow the richness of individual literatures.
● Key perspectives from scholars like Gurbhagat Singh, Jaydev, and Aijaz
Ahmad taught me to approach Indian literatures with respect for diversity
and context.
 The Problem of Unity in
Diversity
● Unparalleled linguistic diversity of India - 22
officially recognised languages, more than
221 other languages and many regional
dialects.
● “Is Indian literature, in the singular, a valid
category, or are we rather to speak of Indian
literatures in the plural?” (Dev)

● Sahitya Akademi’s motto: “Indian literature is one though

written in many languages”
● Hegemonic Apprehensions
● Encroaching upon the individualities of the diverse literatures.
● “Indian literature is one because it is written in many
languages.”
 Gurbhagat Singh and Differential
Multilogue
● ‘Differential Multilogue’ as an alternative to ‘dialogue’.
● Engagement among multiple perspectives and voices
● Understanding Indian diversity without sacrificing the individuality
of the particulars
(Singh)
● Rejection of French and American schools and the ideas of Goethe
● Comparative literature as an exercise in differential multilogue

● Poststructuralist suspicion
● Difference as inclusion
● Accumulation of power and decentralization
● Indian literatures should have mutual engagement without the
need for hierarchical categorisation
● Indian post structuralism tends to emphasise theoretical constructs at the
expense of practical applications
● Scholars often attempt to force literature into pre-existing theoretical
frameworks
● Abundance of meta-theory

● Question of situs and theory

● Situs is as important as theorization

● Jaidev, while criticising existentialist aestheticism in contemporary Indian

fiction develops the concept of Indian sensus communis
● Cultural commonality that allows interconnectedness without erasing
individual identities
● Rooted in similar social and historical experiences
● Pre-modern foundations of commonality - oral and performing traditions
and ease of inter-translatability (Jaidev)
● Dangers of nation-state
 Archive of Indian Literature

● Aijaz Ahmad‘s “In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures”

● Syndicated Indian literature - unsatisfactory categorisation
● Rejects the analogy between “Indian literature” and “European
(Ahmad)
literature”
● Indian archive with the literature of 22 major recognised languages
● Translations in English language - Non-hegemonies by removal of
differential archives, but hegemonizing by latent colonial attitude
● “English” archive of Indian literature was suggested by V. K. Gokak and
Sujit Mukherjee
● Indo-English corpus of literature that was created out of English
translations of major texts from major Indian languages
● Problem of using Indian language like Hindi

● “Indian literature is not an entity but an interliterary condition”(Mukherjee)

 Learning
Outcome
●Understanding the significance of interliterary
interactions, including translation and cross-
linguistic influences, in shaping Indian literature
as an ongoing process.

●Evaluating the role of poststructuralism and

nationalism in Indian literary discourse and their
implications for constructing “Indian literature.”

●Appreciating the historical depth and cultural

specificity of Indian literary practices.
Swapan Majumdar's Contribution

Indian literature is neither a simple unity nor pure diversity, but rather a
"systemic whole where many subsystems interact towards one in a
continuous and never-ending dialectic."
Middle ground between nationalist unity and poststructuralist diversity
approaches.(Majumdar)

Sisir Kumar Das's Contribution:

Created a comprehensive chronological history of Indian literature

through:
1.Team-based data collection covering all 22 recognized literatures
2.Documentation of literary events, publications, reviews, translations
3.Integration of social events with literary data
Patterns of "pro-phanes and meta-phanes" across different literatures
Commonalities in 19th century Indian literatures while avoiding forced
unification.
 "Das's work on the
literatures of the nineteenth
century in India does not
designate this Indian
literature 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."
(Das)
K.M. George's Work:

● Only covered 15 literatures instead of all recognized ones

● Restrictive generic bias
● Showed Western hegemony in categorization

"Poetry, for instance, was discussed in terms of 'traditional' and

'modern' but as if traditional was exclusively Indian and modern the
result of a Western impact."
Lacked true comparative analysis: "comparison was only suggested,
that is, the reader was required to make whatever comparison was
necessary or appropriate."(George)

Umashankar Joshi and Institutional Development:

Significance: As the first president INCLA represented the unity

approach
Conclusions :

● The article proposes that Indian literature should be understood as an

"interliterary condition" rather than a fixed entity
● Importance of "situs" (location) in theoretical approaches
● CL provides a framework for understanding the unity-diversity dialectic
● Inter-Indian reception and translation
● Indian literature as "ever in the making"
● Emphasizes the need to develop comparative approaches specific to
Indian contexts

Limitations Noted:

Challenge of dealing with multiple languages and translations

Risk of hegemonic approaches through English or Hindi translations
Difficulty in balancing unity and diversity without compromising either
 Learning outcome

● Learn how to apply comparative approaches to

studying Indian literatures
● Appreciate the role of translation in facilitating literary
exchange
● Learn to identify commonalities without forcing
uniformity
● Identify shared historical influences while
acknowledging regional variations
● Recognize the importance of "situs" (location) in
literary analysis
 References :

Ahmad, Aijaz. "'Indian Literature': Notes towards the Definition of a Category." In Theory: Classes, Nations,
Literatures. Aijaz Ahmad. London: Verso, 1992.
Bernheimer, Charles, ed. Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
UP, 1995.
Das, Sisir Kumar. A History of Indian Literature. Vol 1: 1800-1910: Western Impact / Indian Response. New
Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1991.
Dev, A. (2000). Comparative literature in India. CLCWeb Comparative Literature and Culture, 2(4).
https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1093
Durisin, Dionýz. Theory of Interliterary Process. Bratislava: VEDA/Slovak Academy of Sciences, 1989.
Gálik, Marián. "Interliterariness as a Concept in Comparative Literature." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and
Culture: A WWWeb Journal 2.4 (2000): <http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb/vol2/iss4/8>.
George, K.M., ed. Comparative Indian Literature. Madras and Trichur: Macmillan and Kerala Sahitya Akademi,
1984-85. 2 vols.
Jaidev. The Culture of Pastiche: Existential Aestheticism in the Contemporary Hindi Novel. Simla:
Indian
Institute of Advanced Study, 1993.
Majumdar, Swapan. Comparative Literature: Indian Dimensions. Calcutta: Papyrus, 1985.
Mukherjee, Sujit. Translation as Discovery. New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1981. 15-73.
Ngugi, wa Thiong'o. "On the Abolition of the English Department." Homecoming: Essays on African
and
Caribbean Literature, Culture and Politics. By Ngugi wa Thiong'o. London: Heinemann, 1972. 145-
50.
Singh, Gurbhagat. "Differential Multilogue: Comparative Literature and National Literatures."
Differential
Multilogue: Comparative Literature and National Literatures. Ed. Gurbhagat Singh. Delhi: Ajanta
Publications, 1991. 11-19.
"University Grants Commission Circular Letter." No. F5-5-85 (HR-1) New Delhi (25 March 1986).
THANK
YOU!