Pallavi Parmar : Assignment of Paper 208: Indian Literature: One, Many, or Interconnected? A Comparative Literary Exploration

Assignment of Paper 208: Indian Literature: One, Many, or Interconnected? A Comparative Literary Exploration

Personal Information:-

Name:- Pallavi Parmar

Batch:- M.A. Sem 4 (2023-2025)

Enrollment Number:- 5108230034

E-mail-Address:- pallaviparmar501@gmail.com

Roll Number:- 20

Assignment Details:-

Topic:- Indian Literature: One, Many, or Interconnected? A Comparative Literary Exploration

Subject code:- 22415

Paper 208: Comparative Literature & Translation Studies

Submitted to:- Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, MKBU, Bhavnagar.

Date of Submission:- 17, April, 2025

Abstract

This assignment looks at the question: Is Indian literature one or many? It shows that Indian literature is written in many languages, but the stories and ideas are often connected. Using the method of Comparative Literature, the paper explains how different Indian texts relate to each other. Ideas from scholars like Amiya Dev, Sisir Kumar Das, and others help us understand these links. The paper argues that Indian literature is not just one or many—it is a mix of both, always connected through language, culture, and history.

Keywords:
Indian literature, comparative literature, many languages, cultural connection, unity and diversity

Introduction:

India’s literary tradition is rich and diverse, shaped by many languages, cultures, and philosophies. From Sanskrit epics to Tamil devotional songs, and from Kabir’s Hindi dohas to modern novels by Premchand and U.R. Ananthamurthy, literature in India has developed across more than two dozen languages.

This diversity raises a central question: Is Indian literature one shared tradition, or many separate ones? Institutions like the Sahitya Akademi promoted the idea that Indian literature is “one though written in many languages,” but this view can overlook the depth of regional voices. On the other hand, treating each literature as completely separate ignores the connections that tie them together.

Comparative Literature offers a way to move beyond this divide. Instead of choosing between one or many, it focuses on how different literatures relate, influence, and respond to each other. In India, scholars like Amiya Dev have introduced the idea of “interliterariness” to describe these connections. Sisir Kumar Das further supports this view by calling for an Indian model of comparative literature that respects both difference and unity.

Amiya Dev: Interliterariness as India’s Literary Condition:

Indian literature has often been described as one unified whole, but Amiya Dev questions this simplified view. He offers a more flexible and accurate way to understand how different Indian literatures relate to each other.

A. Challenging the Idea of Oneness

Amiya Dev occupies a central position in the discourse on Comparative Literature in India. He questions the idea often repeated by cultural institutions like the Sahitya Akademi that Indian literature is “one though written in many languages.” According to Dev, this formulation conceals the complexity and plurality of India’s literary reality. In his view, Indian literature cannot be defined by a singular essence or unified core. Rather than seeking a homogenized unity, Dev proposes that Indian literature must be understood through the concept of “interliterariness.” As he states, “It is not oneness, but interliterariness that marks Indian literature” (Dev).

This idea redirects attention away from superficial unity toward the actual dynamics of literary production and exchange in a multilingual society. Dev emphasizes that Indian literature is formed through interactions among languages, regions, and historical traditions. These interactions are not occasional but continuous and foundational.

B. Interliterariness as the Basis of Comparative Method

For Dev, Comparative Literature is not an imported methodology but a necessary and organic mode of inquiry in India. He writes, “Comparison is right reason for us because, one, we are multilingual, and two, we are Third World” . In a country where multiple literary traditions coexist and overlap, comparison becomes not a luxury but a condition of engagement.

This view challenges the older, European models of Comparative Literature that often emphasized binaries such as source and influence, center and periphery. Dev resists framing Indian literary relationships through such static categories. He instead argues for a method grounded in lived cultural realities where oral traditions, regional forms, and translated texts shape one another within a shared literary space.

C. Beyond Binaries: Literature as a Constellation

Dev’s concept of interliterariness allows for a different mapping of literary relations. Indian literature does not fit into the binary of being either one or many. It functions more as a constellation of interrelated literatures. These literatures may differ in language and form but participate in a shared civilizational dialogue. A text in Malayalam may draw on classical Sanskrit motifs while responding to modern concerns reflected in contemporary Hindi writing. Such crosscurrents cannot be accounted for by national-literary frameworks that assume linguistic or cultural separation.

This constellation is horizontal moving across regional literatures and vertical linking texts across historical periods. The presence of such multiple relational axes invites an approach that sees comparison not as an analytical tool applied from the outside but as an inherent characteristic of the literary field itself.

D. Rethinking the Comparative Framework

In engaging with the term “interliterary,” Dev draws on the work of scholars like Dionýz Ďurišin, who used the phrase “interliterary community” to describe transnational literary formations. Dev’s innovation lies in repurposing this idea for India’s internal literary relationships. While Ďurišin focused on cross-national clusters, Dev emphasizes multilingual and intra-national exchanges. In the Indian context, literatures do not only cross national boundaries but also move across internal linguistic borders that are often more complex and layered.

This shift also requires a reconsideration of the frameworks used in Comparative Literature. Dev insists that Indian Comparative Literature cannot remain dependent on European models. It must be grounded in its own epistemologies and cultural experiences. He writes, “We need to decolonize our tools, including our understanding of comparison”. This approach supports the idea that Indian literary studies should evolve from within, responding to its own literary and cultural landscape rather than adapting theories from elsewhere. (Dasgupta)

E. Locating Dev in the Broader Discourse

Dev’s intervention sets the tone for many subsequent debates within Indian Comparative Literature. His emphasis on location, multilingualism, and internal comparison anticipates later critiques of Eurocentric models by scholars such as Sruthi B. Guptha. It also aligns with Subha Chakraborty Dasgupta’s argument that Indian Comparative Literature must center marginal voices, folk forms, and oral traditions. Dev offers a model that sees India’s literary field as inherently comparative, rich with overlaps, tensions, and dialogues that transcend any static notion of unity or diversity.

In this framework, Indian literature is not a fixed category. It is a process of constant exchange and transformation. Inter Literariness, then, is not simply a feature of Indian literature, it is its defining condition. (Dasgupta)

Tagore’s Vishva Sahitya: Literary Unity through Shared Humanity

Rabindranath Tagore’s idea of Vishva Sahitya (World Literature), first articulated in his 1907 essay of the same name, offers one of the earliest frameworks for imagining Indian literature as part of a broader literary and ethical community. Tagore rejected narrow nationalism and sought a model where Indian literature would engage with other literatures through openness, mutual respect, and shared human values.

He envisioned world literature as a “temple of communion” built not by conquest or imitation, but by creative dialogue among diverse cultures. This metaphor resists both cultural isolation and homogenization. Tagore believed that each national literature had its own soul, but that these souls could come together in a larger spiritual unity. As Subha Chakraborty Dasgupta observes, his idea of Vishva Sahitya emphasized a “creative reciprocity” rather than domination or standardization (Dasgupta).

Tagore’s vision is not only transnational but also internally plural. His writings engage multiple Indian languages and traditions Sanskrit, Bengali, Persian, and regional folk forms revealing an interliterary sensibility that anticipates the concerns later addressed by scholars like Amiya Dev. While Dev speaks of “interliterariness” in critical terms, Tagore enacts it poetically.

This early formulation of literary universality offers a vital counterpoint to later hierarchical models. Tagore affirms that unity in literature is not based on uniformity of language or form, but on a shared commitment to truth, beauty, and human dignity.

Sisir Kumar Das: Comparative Indian Literature as a Discipline:

Sisir Kumar Das made a significant contribution to shaping the idea of Comparative Literature in India. He believed that Indian literature must be studied through its multilingual and historical connections.

A. Challenging Narrow Literary Frameworks

Sisir Kumar Das was one of the first to argue that Comparative Literature in India must develop independently of both Eurocentric models and monolingual regional practices. He critiques the tendency among Indian scholars to focus solely on their own language traditions, warning that this “may breed a kind of literary patriotism or critical parochialism which must be avoided”. At the same time, he questions the applicability of Western comparative models based on nation-states or language families, which fail to capture the complexity of Indian literary relations. (Das)

B. Interlinguistic Comparison and the Multilingual Reader

Das distinguishes Indian literature from its Western counterparts by stressing that comparison in India must be interlinguistic. In his view, the Indian literary space is inherently multilingual, with texts across languages shaped by shared concerns and civilizational continuity. This comparison is not simply between authors or texts, but between entire cultural systems that influence and reflect each other.

He also emphasizes the role of the multilingual reader a common figure in Indian literary culture who engages with texts across languages without viewing them as separate domains .(Das)

C. Comparative Literature as a Structured Discipline

To institutionalize this vision, Das proposes that Comparative Indian Literature must begin with internal comparisons across Sanskrit, Tamil, Urdu, Hindi, Bangla before expanding to global literatures. He encourages including regional classics, modern works, oral forms, and underrepresented voices in comparative frameworks.His approach complements Amiya Dev’s idea of interliterariness but grounds it in pedagogical practice.(Das)

D. Unity without Homogeneity

While he acknowledges an ethical unity across Indian literatures, Das avoids suggesting that this unity is homogeneous. He instead proposes a model where diversity coexists with dialogue, and where literary comparison becomes a way to engage India’s plural identities without flattening them . Comparative Indian Literature, for Das, is a space to critically explore these layered relationships one that is rooted in Indian history and equipped to face its contemporary complexities. (Das)

Subha Chakraborty Dasgupta: Pluralism, Pedagogy, and Historical Development:

Subha Chakraborty Dasgupta offers a broader view of Comparative Literature in India by focusing on inclusion, history, and changing methods of study. Her work helps us understand how the discipline has grown and adapted over time.

A. Shifting from European to Indian Models

Subha Chakraborty Dasgupta outlines how Comparative Literature in India evolved by gradually shifting away from European influence-based models toward frameworks rooted in India’s multilingual and multicultural realities. She notes that early comparative studies often emphasized Eurocentric binaries like “influence” and “originality,” but over time, Indian scholars began to focus on literary relationships shaped by proximity, overlap, and shared histories (Dasgupta).

B. Expanding the Comparative Field

Dasgupta emphasizes the need to expand Comparative Literature beyond canonical texts and elite traditions. She argues for including oral literature, performative genres, Dalit writing, and folk narratives in comparative frameworks (Dasgupta). This broader field reflects India’s cultural diversity and resists the limitations of print-centric or text-based hierarchies.

She draws on Aijaz Ahmad’s idea of tracing “the dialectic of unity and difference” as a method for engaging with Indian literatures comparatively. This approach foregrounds overlapping cultural vocabularies and literary forms rather than isolated linguistic units (Dasgupta).

C. Comparative Literature as Location-Specific Practice

Dasgupta stresses the importance of acknowledging the location from which one reads. Comparative Indian Literature, she suggests, must be aware of its own position and purpose. Rather than merely applying Western methods to Indian content, the discipline should respond to Indian realities its oral legacies, translation histories, and social inequalities (Dasgupta). Comparative Literature becomes not just a study of texts, but a way of confronting issues of caste, language politics, gender, and marginality.

D. Relevance to the “One or Many” Debate

Dasgupta does not answer the question of whether Indian literature is one or many. Instead, she reframes it. Her work shows that Indian literature operates through interlocking systems oral and written, Sanskritic and vernacular, dominant and marginal which complicate any binary answer. In this sense, her position aligns with both Dev’s concept of interliterariness and Das’s call for an Indian model of comparative study.

Sruthi B. Guptha: Postcolonial and Transnational Critique:

Sruthi B. Guptha brings a strong postcolonial perspective to Comparative Literature. Her work draws attention to power imbalances within global literary studies and calls for a more grounded, inclusive approach in the Indian context.

A. Questioning the Global Turn in Comparative Literature

Sruthi B. Guptha offers a critical lens through which to evaluate the contemporary practice of Comparative Literature, particularly its global and transnational orientation. While the discipline has increasingly embraced global frameworks, Guptha argues that this “transnational turn” often re-centers Europe and the West as benchmarks for literary value. She emphasizes that transnationalism in its dominant form does not erase hierarchies; it frequently reinforces them by continuing to prioritize texts that are already translated, canonized, and institutionally visible in the global North.

The idea of “world literature” or “global comparativism” appears inclusive, but in practice, it often excludes marginal voices, indigenous traditions, and vernacular literatures that do not circulate widely in global academic markets. Guptha points out that such an approach risks transforming Comparative Literature into a platform that reproduces Western visibility while silencing internal linguistic and cultural diversity (Guptha).

B. Comparative Literature and Postcolonial Specificity

In the Indian context, Guptha insists that Comparative Literature must be deeply grounded in postcolonial realities. India’s literary field cannot be understood solely through frameworks developed in Euro-American academia. Issues such as caste, regional inequality, the politics of translation, and access to education all shape how literature is produced, circulated, and studied. A comparative method that overlooks these conditions risks becoming abstract and detached from the lived experiences embedded in Indian literary cultures. (Guptha).

She highlights the persistent dominance of English in Indian literary studies, not only as a language of instruction but also as the primary medium through which comparison takes place. This linguistic dominance marginalizes texts in less-translated Indian languages and often leads to selective inclusion based on ease of access rather than representational breadth. As a result, the so-called “comparative” method risks excluding oral literatures, Dalit writing, and indigenous forms that challenge dominant literary norms. (Guptha).

C. Toward a Decolonial Comparative Framework

Guptha calls for a decolonial reimagining of Comparative Literature in India. This involves resisting the pressure to frame Indian literatures in ways that suit international readerships or academic publishing markets. Instead, she advocates for an inward-looking comparative model that foregrounds regional epistemologies, alternate knowledge systems, and literary traditions that do not conform to Western literary aesthetics (Guptha).

Her approach emphasizes that marginal literatures whether Dalit autobiographies, tribal oral narratives, or regional performance forms must be read on their own terms, within their own cultural and historical frameworks. She argues that comparison must move away from abstract notions of universality and toward grounded, historically specific practices that acknowledge structural inequalities.

This argument aligns with the positions of Amiya Dev and Subha Chakraborty Dasgupta but adds an explicitly political layer. While Dev speaks of interliterariness and Dasgupta of cultural overlap, Guptha draws attention to the systems of power that shape what counts as literature, who gets translated, and whose voices are institutionalized. Her critique strengthens the claim that the question of whether Indian literature is one or many cannot be answered purely on textual grounds it must also account for access, visibility, and the politics of comparison itself.

Literary Illustrations: Exploring Unity and Diversity through Texts

Concrete examples from Indian literature demonstrate how texts written in different languages engage in shared themes, ethical concerns, and aesthetic practices. These relationships support the idea that Indian literature cannot be classified as simply one or many. Instead, they point to what Amiya Dev defines as an “interliterary process” where texts are not isolated, but interconnected through cultural memory, historical context, and dialogic engagement (Dev).

A. Shared Epics, Distinct Forms

A prominent example of inter literariness is the Ramayana tradition. While Valmiki’s Sanskrit Ramayana is considered foundational, its retellings in regional languages demonstrate both continuity and creative reinterpretation. Kamban’s Iramavataram in Tamil, Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas in Awadhi, and Ezhuthachan’s Adhyatma Ramayanam in Malayalam all share narrative elements and moral structure, but diverge in poetic form, regional aesthetics, and devotional priorities. These texts affirm Dev’s argument that Indian literature evolves through internal comparison and reinterpretation across linguistic lines (Dev ).

B. Literary Dialogues across Languages

Tagore’s vision of literary universality finds echoes in the writings of other Indian authors across language divides. Subramania Bharati, writing in Tamil, and Muhammad Iqbal, writing in Urdu, both engaged with ideas of nationalism, spiritual freedom, and ethical reform in ways that resonate with Tagore’s own humanist ideals. These shared concerns illustrate Sisir Kumar Das’s point that Indian literature contains “one national literature written in many languages,” where texts speak to each other through shared civilizational and ethical questions (Das ).

C. Parallel Voices from the Margins

Dalit autobiographies offer powerful cases of literary parallelism shaped by historical and social struggles. Omprakash Valmiki’s Joothan (Hindi) and Bama’s Karukku (Tamil) deal with caste-based discrimination, resistance, and identity reclamation. Though grounded in different languages and regions, both works reflect common experiences and contribute to what Sruthi B. Guptha describes as “regionally situated, politically conscious literatures” that challenge dominant narratives in Indian literary study. These texts support her call to center vernacular, oral, and marginalized forms within comparative frameworks (Guptha).

D. Translation as Comparative Practice

Translation has long functioned as a key mode of literary transmission in India. The works of Premchand, originally written in Urdu, have been translated into Bangla, Malayalam, and other Indian languages. Similarly, Bhakti poetry from Tukaram in Marathi to Akka Mahadevi in Kannada has circulated widely through translated and performative forms. These examples reflect Subha Chakraborty Dasgupta’s view that Indian literatures are “constantly in circulation, reception, and re-interpretation,” forming a dynamic comparative field that exists within the Indian cultural context (Dasgupta).

Conclusion

Indian literature cannot be described as simply one or many. It is shaped by many languages, cultures, and histories that are closely connected. Scholars like Amiya Dev and Sisir Kumar Das show that Indian literature should be studied through relationships between texts, rather than seen as separate or uniform traditions. Dev’s idea of interliterariness and Das’s focus on interlinguistic comparison help us understand how these literatures interact.

Tagore’s vision of world literature, along with the work of Subha Chakraborty Dasgupta and Sruthi B. Guptha, reminds us that comparison should include diverse voices—regional, oral, and marginalized. Examples from Indian texts show that different languages often explore similar themes and ideas, even if they do so in unique ways.

So, Indian literature is not just one, and not completely separate either. It is best understood as a shared space of dialogue and connection. Comparative Literature helps us see this clearly and gives us the tools to read Indian literature in all its richness and diversity.

Word count: 3103

Images: 2

References:

Chakraborty Dasgupta, Subha. “Comparative Literature in India: An Overview of Its History.” Cwliterature.Org, 4 July 2016, www.cwliterature.org/uploadfile/2016/0711/20160711020042997.pdf. Accessed 17 Apr. 2025.

Dev, Amiẏa, and Sisir Kumar Das, editors. Comparative Literature: Theory and

Practice. Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1989.

Dev, Amiya. “Comparative Literature in India.” Purdue E-Pubs, Dec. 2000, docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=clcweb. Accessed 17 Apr. 2025.

Guptha, Sruthi B. “COMPARATIVE LITERATURE, POST COLONIAL SPACES AND TRANSNATIONAL COMPARITIVISM: A CRITICAL REFLECTION.” ResearchGate, Sept. 2017, www.researchgate.net/publication/321183063_COMPARATIVE_LITERATURE_POST_COLONIAL_SPACES_AND_TRANSNATIONAL_COMPARITIVISM_A_CRITICAL_REFLECTION. Accessed 17 Apr. 2025.

Tagore, Rabindranath. “Visvasahitya.” Rabindra-Rachanabali, vol. 10, West Bengal Government, 1987, pp. 324–333.

Pallavi Parmar

Thursday, April 17, 2025