Personal Information:
Name: Hemali Parmar
Batch: M. A. Sem-4 (2023-2025)
Enrollment Number: 5108230033
E-mail Address:
hemaliparmarzzz01@gmail.com
Roll No: 9
Assignment Details:
Topic: Rethinking the Nation through Narrative: A Comprehensive Exploration of Sisir Kumar Das’s “Why Comparative Indian Literature?”
Submitted To: Smt. S. B. Gardi, Department of English, MKBU, Bhavnagar.
Date of Submission: 17 April, 2025.
Abstract:
This assignment delves into Sisir Kumar Das’s seminal essay “Why Comparative Indian Literature?” as a foundational text for reimagining literary studies in the Indian context. Through a critical and contextual reading, the paper foregrounds Das’s vision of Comparative Indian Literature as both a theoretical intervention and a cultural necessity. Rejecting Eurocentric paradigms, Das proposes an indigenous model rooted in India’s multilingual and interliterary traditions. The analysis explores key themes such as the politics of translation, cultural memory, and interregional literary dialogues to underscore the dynamic interconnectedness of Indian literatures. The study also examines the pedagogical and institutional implications of Das’s proposals, arguing for a curriculum that integrates Indian literatures across languages. In doing so, the paper asserts that Comparative Indian Literature, as envisaged by Das, is not just an academic pursuit but a decolonial act that reclaims India’s pluralistic literary heritage.
Keywords:
Comparative Indian Literature, Sisir Kumar Das, Decolonization, Multilingualism, Translation, Cultural Memory, Interliterary Dialogues, Literary Historiography, Pedagogy, Indian Aesthetics
Introduction:
The discourse of Comparative Literature in India emerges as both a necessity and a challenge—an intellectual endeavor intertwined with the nation’s cultural, linguistic, and historical diversity. Sisir Kumar Das, a pioneering figure in Indian literary studies, articulates this urgency in his seminal essay “Why Comparative Indian Literature?” By situating Indian literary traditions within a framework that demands comparative engagement across linguistic and regional boundaries, Das not only critiques the Eurocentric model of Comparative Literature but also proposes a model indigenous to India’s multilingual realities. His essay is not merely a theoretical intervention; it is a manifesto for understanding Indian literature in its true plurality. The purpose of this assignment is to explore, critically analyze, and expand upon the ideas presented by Das by situating them within broader theoretical and cultural frameworks.
Historical and Theoretical Foundations:
Comparative Literature as an academic discipline has its roots in the nineteenth-century European context, primarily oriented towards studying influences, themes, and literary relations across national literatures. However, as Das points out, transplanting this model directly into the Indian context without modification would result in a distortion of the Indian literary landscape. The Euro-American model operates under the assumption of relatively homogenous national literatures separated by national boundaries. India, in contrast, presents a tapestry of languages and literatures coexisting within a single political and cultural entity.
Das critiques the colonial inheritance of literary historiography that tends to isolate Indian literatures into linguistic silos. This disintegration, according to him, is both artificial and ahistorical. He draws attention to the long tradition of cross-cultural literary engagement in India, such as the shared themes of devotion across Bhakti poetry or the Pan-Indian reverberations of epics like the Ramayana and Mahabharata. These texts circulated across languages and regions, evolving through retellings and adaptations. In this light, the idea of Comparative Indian Literature is not a modern invention but a reawakening to a forgotten heritage.
The Need for Comparative Indian Literature:
Sisir Kumar Das’s call for Comparative Indian Literature arises from a need to address three key issues:
1. Decolonization of Literary Studies: Das critiques the colonial and postcolonial hangover in Indian academia that prioritizes English and Western literary models. He argues for a re-centering of Indian languages in academic discourse and the recognition of inter-Indian literary exchanges.
2. Unity in Diversity: While India boasts a spectrum of regional languages and literary traditions, these are often studied in isolation. Das proposes Comparative Indian Literature as a means to understand the underlying cultural and philosophical unity that binds these diverse expressions.
3. New Methodologies: Das acknowledges that Comparative Indian Literature will require new methodologies that are different from Eurocentric paradigms. These must be sensitive to oral traditions, folk narratives, and the dynamics of translation, which play a critical role in Indian literary culture.
In his vision, Comparative Indian Literature becomes a way of reading Indian literature as a dynamic, interconnected system rather than a fragmented collection of isolated literatures. It is a move towards what he calls “an integrated literary historiography.”
Comparative Indian Literature vs. General Comparative Literature:
A central contribution of Das’s essay is his distinction between Comparative Literature as practiced in the West and the specificities of Comparative Indian Literature. Traditional Comparative Literature focuses on cross-national literary exchanges—say, between French and German literature. In the Indian context, however, the boundaries are linguistic and cultural rather than national. Telugu literature and Bengali literature may belong to the same nation, but they reflect different cosmologies, histories, and literary forms. Comparative Indian Literature thus must respond to the intra-national diversity that is far more complex than the models Western Comparative Literature has historically addressed.
Moreover, Das raises critical questions about translation, cultural proximity, and aesthetic reception. He points out that the very notion of influence must be reevaluated in the Indian context. In many cases, shared motifs or structures do not arise from direct influence but from common civilizational heritage or parallel development. Thus, Comparative Indian Literature requires a critical and historical sensitivity that goes beyond source-hunting or thematic comparisons.
Translation and the Question of Accessibility:
In the Indian context, translation is not merely a linguistic exercise—it is the very lifeblood of Comparative Indian Literature. Das insists that no study of Indian literature can proceed without addressing the politics, poetics, and ethics of translation. For centuries, India has witnessed rich traditions of translation—not in the sense of faithful reproduction, but as creative adaptations. Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas, for instance, is not a literal translation of Valmiki’s Ramayana but a reinvention tailored to the cultural and spiritual sensibilities of its time and space.
Das emphasizes the creative potential of translation in Comparative Indian Literature. In his vision, translation is a two-way process: it brings literary cultures together while simultaneously transforming them. He urges scholars to view translation not as a derivative act but as an act of original literary production that deserves equal critical attention.
Further, he critiques the lack of institutional support for translations across Indian languages, pointing out the dominance of English as a mediating language. This over-reliance on English creates a hierarchical system where Indian literatures are interpreted through an Anglophone lens, thus distorting native aesthetic sensibilities. For Comparative Indian Literature to thrive, Das argues, we must promote translations between Indian languages—from Assamese to Tamil, Marathi to Odia—without filtering them through English.
Interliterary Dialogues and Shared Cultural Memory:
A significant innovation in Das’s essay is his exploration of what may be called interliterary dialogues—the conversation between different literary traditions within India. Das provides historical examples of such dialogues, including the Bhakti movement, which manifested in various languages but was driven by shared themes of devotion, social reform, and emotional intensity. Despite linguistic diversity, the Bhakti poets—Kabir, Meera, Tukaram, and others—created a Pan-Indian literary consciousness.
This interliterary dialogue reflects what Das terms as “cultural memory”—a shared reservoir of symbols, archetypes, and myths that transcend regional boundaries. The motif of the wanderer or the ascetic, the invocation of the divine mother, the philosophical tension between karma and moksha—these ideas echo across Indian literatures and must be studied through comparative frameworks.
Das’s approach pushes us to consider Indian literature not as a set of separate entities but as nodes within a vast cultural network. His idea aligns with the later theories of “interliterary communities” proposed by scholars like Dionýz Ďurišin, though Das anticipates this model in the Indian context.
Relevance in Contemporary Academia:
In today’s globalized academic world, Das’s insights are more relevant than ever. The rise of regional assertion, identity politics, and language-based movements in India has further fragmented literary study. Departments often operate in silos—Hindi, Bengali, Tamil—without dialoguing with one another. Comparative Indian Literature, as Das envisioned it, offers a corrective to this insularity.
Moreover, as India grapples with postcolonial anxieties, the importance of understanding and reclaiming indigenous literary forms becomes urgent. Das’s call to go beyond Western models and to create methodologies rooted in Indian literary traditions is not a rejection of Western thought but a plea for intellectual autonomy.
Das’s vision also intersects with decolonial studies, which seek to re-center marginalized epistemologies and cultural narratives. Comparative Indian Literature, when practiced sincerely, resists the hegemonic structures of Eurocentric literary criticism and affirms the complexity of Indian voices.
Pedagogical Implications:
For educators, Das’s ideas have profound implications. He argues for a redesigning of curricula in Indian universities to include Comparative Indian Literature as a central discipline. Currently, most literature departments follow a tripartite division: English literature, regional (vernacular) literature, and occasionally world literature. Das challenges this model by advocating for an approach that interconnects literary texts across Indian languages.
For instance, a course on the epic tradition in India could include Ramayana adaptations in Sanskrit, Tamil (Kamba Ramayanam), Hindi (Ramcharitmanas), and Bengali (Krittivasi Ramayana), encouraging students to trace cultural continuities and innovations. Similarly, the study of Partition literature must include voices from Punjabi, Urdu, Bengali, and Sindhi traditions—not just English-language narratives. This multilingual pedagogy is central to Das’s project.
Moreover, Das believes that training students in multiple Indian languages should be a priority for Comparative Indian Literature to flourish. Without linguistic competence, comparative analysis risks becoming superficial. He encourages scholars to immerse themselves in the aesthetic, cultural, and semantic nuances of texts—a commitment that demands both passion and discipline.
Conclusion:
Sisir Kumar Das’s “Why Comparative Indian Literature?” is not merely an academic treatise; it is a visionary manifesto for India’s literary future. He challenges us to decolonize our minds, to rethink our pedagogies, and to rediscover the interwoven richness of Indian literatures. His concept of Comparative Indian Literature is a radical invitation—to move beyond binaries of regional and national, classical and modern, oral and written, to embrace a pluralistic literary imagination.
Das offers not just a critique of existing models but a constructive blueprint. He urges us to build bridges—between languages, genres, epochs, and aesthetics. In doing so, we do not erase difference; rather, we recognize diversity as the soul of Indian literature. His essay remains a foundational text for anyone seeking to engage seriously with India’s literary traditions—not as isolated monuments but as conversational currents in a shared cultural ocean.
In an era marked by fragmentation, Das reminds us of literature’s power to connect. His Comparative Indian Literature is ultimately an act of intellectual solidarity, a celebration of India’s multilingual genius, and a call to imagine new futures rooted in our complex past.
No comments:
Post a Comment