Assignment 208: Comparative Studies and Translation Studies
Name: Avani Jani
Roll No.: 3
Enrollment No.: 4069206420220014
Paper no: 208
Paper code: 22415
Paper name: Comparative Literature and Translation Studies
Sem.: 4 (Batch 2022- 2024)
Submitted to: Smt S.B. Gardi Department of English, M.K. Bhavnagar University
Abstract:
In his article, "Comparative Literature in India," Amiya Dev bases his discussion on the fact that India has many languages and literatures thus representing an apriori situation and conditions of diversity. He therefore argues that to speak of Indian literature in the singular is problematic. Nonetheless, Dev also observes that to speak of Indian literature in the plural is equally problematic. Such a characterization, he urges, either overlooks or obscures manifest interrelations and affinities. His article compares the unity and the diversity thesis, 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 looks into the post-structuralist doubt of homogenization of differences in the name of unity. Dev also examines the search for common denominators and a possible pattern of togetherness and Dev underlines location and located inter-Indian reception as an aspect of inter-literariness. It is t/here Dev perceives Indian literature, that is, not as a fixed or determinate entity but as an ongoing and inter literary process: Indian language and literature ever in the re/making.
Comparative Literature in India (Detailed points from article):
Just as Aristotle prioritized speech over writing, Indian ancestors also believed in prioritizing writings. The earliest forms of speech in India are reflected in texts such as the Rig-Veda, the Brahmanas, and the Upanishads - the oldest preserved treatises from which Indian "literary" traditions of verse have sprung. The earliest works were composed to be sung or recited and were orally transmitted for many generations before being written down.
The Indian linguistic space, as it exists today in truncated form in the South Asian subcontinent – after its independence in 1947, has been a new geo-political identity. But India has, in all ages, been a concept – more true on the mental map than being a physical reality. At the same time, she has also contributed to numerous ideas that form the basis of modern-day knowledge-based society.
Mother Tongues and Languages:
There are different theories about how many of these mother-tongues qualify to be described as independent languages. Even Sir George Grierson's twelve-volume Linguistic Survey of India (1903-1923) – material for which was collected in the last decade of the 19 th century, had identified 179 languages and 544 dialects. One of the early Census reports also showed 188 languages and 49 dialects (1921 census). Out of these mother-tongues, 184 (Census 1991) or at least, 112 (Census 1981 figure) had more than 10,000 speakers. There are other estimates that would put the number higher or lower; For instance, the encyclopaedic People of India series of the Anthropological Survey of India, identified 75 "major languages" out of a total of 325 languages used in Indian households. Ethnologue, too reports India as a home for 398 languages, including 387 living and 11 extinct languages. Most importantly, as early as in the1990s, India was reported to have 32 languages with one million or more speakers. The People of India also reports that there are 25 writing systems in India that are in active use as in 1990s. The results of a 1989-survey titled ‘The Written Languages of The World : A Survey of the Degree and Modes of Use (2. INDIA, Book 1, Constitutional Languages, Book 2, Non-Constitutional Languages)’ conducted by P.Padmanabha , B.P.Mahapatra , V.S.Verma , G.D.McConnell (Office of the Registrar General, India, Laval University Press) showed that there are at least 50 Indian languages in which writing and publishing are done in substantial quantity.
Modern-day Writing Systems Although Indian writing systems number at least 25 in a recent survey, the major scripts are 14, out of which 12 originated from the Brāhmī. Like the Greek alphabet, it had many local variants and gave rise to many Asian scripts - Burmese, Thai, Tibetan, etc. Emperor Asoka inscribed his laws as well as Lord Buddha’s teachings onto columns in Brahmi.
Indian States and Multilingualism:
The Linguistic Recognition As of today, the Indian constitution recognizes 22 major languages of India in what is known as “the 8 th Schedule” of the Constitution. They also happen to be the major literary languages in India, with a considerable volume of writing in them. They include, besides Sanskrit, the following 21 modern Indian languages: Assamese, Bangla, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kashmiri, Kannada, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Tamil, Telugu, Santali, Sindhi, and Urdu. Originally, only 14 languages were included in the 8 th Schedule of the Indian constitution. Bodo, Dogri, Konkani, Maithili, Manipuri, Nepali, Santali and Sindhi were recognized later. The first Prime Minister of India, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru had made this comment about the recognition of languages: ‘The makers of our Constitution were wise in laying down that all the 13 or 14 languages’ were to be national languages. There is no question of anyone language being more a national language than the others...’ (Kumaramangalam 1965). The languages listed in this Schedule had acquired different names at different stages. They are better known as the Scheduled languages now. The Minorities Commission Report, and The Official Language Resolution (3) of 1968 considered languages listed in the Schedule as major languages of the country.
The ‘Programme of Action’ document 1992 on National Policy on Education, 1986, considered them as Modem Indian Languages. Besides the Scheduled languages, the Indian Census did record 1,576 rationalized languages as well as 1,796 other mother-tongues. The highest literary awards in the country are given in 24 literary languages in India by the National Academy of Letters, called the ‘Sahitya Akademi’, but newspapers and periodicals – 3,592 in number, are published in 35 Indian languages every year. There are only 69 to 72 languages that are taught in schools in India in some capacity, but again the radio network beams programmes in 146 languages and dialects. By 1960s, 87.13% of Indians spoke languages already included (by 1960s) in the 8 th Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Having recognized the importance of English as an instrument of knowledgedissemination as well as commerce as well as maintenance of international relations, a provision was left to extend the use of English language in the Article 343 on ‘Official language of the Union’ - “for all the official purposes of the Union” even after “a period of fifteen years,” with a proviso that “the President may, during the said period, by order authorize the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of the Devanagari form of numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union”. (Ministry of Education)
When faced with the abundance of distinct literary traditions in India, a pressing question emerges: Should we regard Indian literature as a singular entity, or is it more accurate to recognize it as Indian literatures in the plural?
In his article, Amiya Dev argues for a unique approach to comparative literature in India. He challenges the binary view of either a singular "Indian literature" or a collection of entirely distinct regional literatures. Instead, Dev proposes a framework that considers the interconnectedness of these literatures. He emphasizes a dynamic exchange between them, where each influences and is influenced by the others. This approach acknowledges India's immense linguistic diversity. With 22 major languages recognized by the Sahitya Academy and countless others spoken throughout the country, India boasts a rich tapestry of literary traditions. However, Dev cautions against viewing this diversity in isolation. He argues that a more nuanced understanding emerges by examining the interliterary processes at play.
Traditionally, literary histories in India have often presented a unified view, influenced by both colonial and post-colonial perspectives. The Sahitya Akademi's motto, "Indian literature is one though written in many languages" (Radhakrishnan), exemplifies this approach. However, this concept has been challenged by scholars who argue that India's rich tapestry of languages necessitates acknowledging distinct literary traditions ("literatures" in the plural).
A more recent critique, termed "hegemonic apprehensions" by Dev, argues that emphasizing unity can diminish the unique qualities of individual literatures. This perspective resonates with cultural relativism, where differences are paramount. Readers and writers tend to be most invested in their specific literary traditions, further reinforcing the concept of separate literatures. In response to the Sahitya Akademi's motto, Dev and others propose an alternative view: "Indian literature is one because it is written in many languages." This reframing emphasizes the interconnectedness and contributions of diverse languages to India's rich literary landscape.
Dev references Gurbhagat Singh's exploration of "differential multilogue," where Singh challenges the concept of Indian literature due to its perceived association with nationalist identity. Singh, adopting a relativist stance, emphasizes the uniqueness not only of linguistic but also cultural aspects within literatures. In critiquing the historical development of comparative literature, he dismisses both the French and American schools, as well as Goethe's idea of Weltliteratur. Singh's emphasis on the plurality of logoi, or voices, goes beyond mere dialogue, which has traditionally been the focus of comparative literature. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of Indian diversity while preserving the individual characteristics of each particular literary tradition.
Singh's concept of differential multilogue aligns with a poststructuralist perspective prevalent in Indian discourse. Poststructuralism views difference as a form of inclusion, emphasizing mutual interaction. Consequently, it challenges the singular focus of categories like "Indian," advocating for their deconstruction to reveal underlying political implications. Singh suggests that if Indian literature hadn't been extensively promoted and imposed upon our national consciousness, if each individual literary tradition had been allowed to exist autonomously without being subsumed under the umbrella of "Indian literature," there would be less resistance to the idea of unity in diversity.
Indian thinkers engaging with poststructuralism face a curious challenge. Their critiques often mirror those voiced elsewhere, potentially overlooking the unique ways "difference" operates within the Indian context. Additionally, this approach might disregard a potential underlying commonality, a broadly cultural "shared sense" (sensus communis) that connects diverse Indian experiences.
Jaidev argues for a "differential" approach that acknowledges this cultural specificity. However, his concept of an Indian sensus communis risks nationalistic homogenization and cultural stereotyping, similar to how "national image" formations often do. This raises a crucial question: how does the theorist's location and background (situs) influence their theoretical perspective? If situs refers to cultural and linguistic grounding, a degree of shared experience becomes more plausible.
Jaidev's notion of "oneness" creates an environment for specific considerations in artistic and cultural expression. This includes: overlapping languages, multilingual authors and audiences, openness to various genres, recurring themes rooted in shared social and historical experiences, and a focus on oral traditions and performance-based cultural transmission.
In Aijaz Ahmad's work "In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures," he critiques the concept of a "syndicated" Indian literature, which he views as an inadequate and oversimplified categorization. Ahmad argues that while the term "European literature" may serve as a broad classification, it can also be seen as a pedagogical imposition. In contrast, he contends that Indian literature is capable of being classified and categorized effectively.
Jaidev further argues that unlike European or African literatures, which possess historical markers alongside their geographic labels, the concept of Indian homogeneity is deeply ingrained in tradition. However, as Ahmad points out, the notion of a unified "Indian" literary archive is ultimately restrictive when compared to the rich diversity found within the twenty-two distinct literatures recognized by the Sahitya Akademi. Creating an "Indian" archive modeled on an "English" archive presents a dilemma. On one hand, it avoids the fragmented nature of a purely differential approach. But on the other hand, this method risks replicating a colonial perspective by privileging English, despite its absence from the Indian Constitution and its unofficial yet significant role in government and education.
The concept of an Indo-English literary corpus, championed by V.K. Gokak and Sujit Mukherjee, focused on English translations of significant works from various Indian languages.
Ahmad, however, raises concerns about the dominance of English, without advocating for its complete removal as seen in Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o's arguments. While India has established Hindi as its official national language, translating literary works from other languages into Hindi could potentially create a national literature. However, this approach also risks replicating a hegemonic structure. Interestingly, English remains the most widely offered language program in Indian higher education.
Swapan Majumdar, in his 1985 book Comparative Literature: Indian Dimensions, proposes a similar nuanced view. He argues against both the nationalistic idea of a singular Indian literature and the fragmented perspective of pure diversity. Instead, he suggests Indian literature functions as a complex system, where diverse subsystems interact in a continuous dialogue.
Sisir Kumar Das employs a similar historical approach in his ambitious ten-volume project, A History of Indian Literature. The published first volume, focusing on the 19th century ("Western Impact / Indian Response"), reveals a pattern of commonality within Indian literatures of that period. However, Das avoids defining this as a distinct category of "Indian literature." His primary objective is to investigate whether such patterns can be identified across different historical periods. Since literary trends can vary significantly between eras, Das's work ultimately reinforces the idea that Indian literature is neither a unified whole nor simply a collection of entirely separate entities.
Similar to K.M. George's two-volume Comparative Indian Literature (1984-85), Das's project explores connections within Indian literatures. However, George's work focuses on just fifteen languages, offering a less comprehensive view. Additionally, Dev critiques George's approach for potentially reinforcing Western dominance. For instance, the categorization of poetry as "traditional" (Indian) and "modern" (Western-influenced) implies a one-directional flow of influence. Furthermore, despite the title, George's work lacks in-depth comparisons between the included literatures. The information is presented more as a collection of individual literary histories placed side-by-side.
Dev argues for additional factors that contribute to his view of Indian literature as an interliterary process. He highlights our inherent position within specific languages, even if our proficiency is bilingual (active or passive). This allows access to texts in one or two additional Indian languages. Furthermore, inter-Indian translation expands our reach to potentially four or more languages. As readers, we then consciously or unconsciously engage in a process of placing texts from these various languages in conversation with our original, primary language text. This inter-Indian reception process suggests that our initial "situs," or location, is rooted in our first language literature.
Conclusion:
In closing, Dev emphasizes that the challenges of reconciling unity and diversity are not exclusive to India. He argues that even seemingly homogenous nations, like Canada when viewed from an Indian perspective, might reveal underlying complexities. Comparative Literature, he reminds us, has challenged the notion of straightforward comparisons and underscored the limitations of universally applicable literary theories. Therefore, Dev suggests prioritizing a deep understanding of our own literary landscape before attempting to formulate a broader theory of comparative literature focused on diversity. In essence, he advocates for building a robust "homegrown" comparative literature in India before venturing outwards.
Words: 2645
References:
Bassnett, Susan, and Susan Bassnett-MacGuire. Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction. Wiley, 1993.
Ministry of Education. “Indian languages.” Ministry of Education, https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/languagebr.pdf. Accessed 25 April 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment