What Two Days at a National Seminar Did to How I Read Literature
A Volunteer's Critical Reflection on the IKS and English Studies National Seminar-Workshop, MKBU
By Nidhi Pandya | MA English Literature, Department of English, MKBU April 2026
"IKS and English Studies are not rivals competing for the same space. They are two traditions that have not yet been properly introduced to each other. This seminar is that introduction." - Concept Note, IKS and English Studies National Seminar-Workshop, MKBU, March 2026
A Note Before I Begin
I signed up to volunteer at this seminar because it was organised by our department and I wanted to help. I expected to spend two days coordinating logistics printing delegate lists, managing registration desks, keeping the projector from failing at critical moments. I did all of that.
What I did not expect was to come away with a sharper, more honest understanding of what I have actually been doing for the past three years in an English Literature programme in India and more specifically, what I have been not doing, without realising it.
The IKS and English Studies National Seminar-Workshop was held on 23–24 March 2026 at the Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University (MKBU), supported by a grant from the Knowledge Consortium of Gujarat (KCG). The event brought together scholars from multiple universities to ask one focused question: how can Indian Knowledge Systems be integrated into the teaching, research, and curriculum design of English Studies in Indian universities not as decoration, not as a nationalist gesture, but as a rigorous, working intellectual framework?
I want to go through what was said, session by session, with some honesty about what hit me, what complicated my thinking, and what I think I will actually do differently because of those two days.
Day One, Session One — The Challenge Laid on the Table
Prof. Dushyant Nimavat: Why Indian Epistemology Is Not the Alternative - It Is the Starting Point
📺 Watch: Inauguration & Plenary Sessions — Day 1
The auditorium was full on the morning of 23 March. There was the particular energy of a room that is not entirely sure what it is about to hear. The inaugural lamp was lit, the dignitaries were seated, and then Prof. Dushyant Nimavat from the Department of English at Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, opened the academic programme with a question that, honestly, no one in that room could comfortably deflect.
He asked why we Indian students and scholars of literature habitually reach for Eurocentric theoretical frameworks as our first and often only analytical tools. Not as one set of tools among many. As the tools. Structuralism, psychoanalysis, Marxist criticism, post-structuralism, deconstruction: we know their vocabularies, their key thinkers, their canonical applications. Most of us can reference Lacan or Derrida faster than we can articulate what arthapatti means or how the Nyaya Sutras approach the question of valid inference.
Prof. Nimavat was not making a case against Western theory. That would be too easy and, frankly, not very interesting. His argument was more precise: that India has a set of epistemological frameworks developed over centuries the Nyaya school of logic, the Pramanas as systematic categories of valid knowledge, Bhartrhari's philosophy of language, the interpretive methodology of Mimamsa that are as rigorous, as technically demanding, and as analytically productive as anything produced by European philosophy. The problem is not that we read Foucault. The problem is that we read Foucault and never read the Vakyapadiya.
The practical demonstration was what made this concrete rather than merely idealistic. Prof. Nimavat showed how Rasa theory the aesthetic framework developed in Bharata Muni's Natyashastra and elaborated by Abhinavagupta in his commentary Abhinavabharati functions as a fully developed critical methodology. Rasa theory identifies eight (later nine) fundamental aesthetic emotions (rasas): Shringara (love), Hasya (humour), Karuna (grief), Raudra (fury), Vira (heroism), Bhayanaka (terror), Bibhatsa (disgust), Adbhuta (wonder), and Shanta (serenity). Each rasa is produced through specific emotional stimulants (vibhavas), reactions (anubhavas), and transitory feelings (vyabhicharibhavas).
When he applied this to a modern English text analysing how a novel's emotional architecture is constructed, which rasas it activates and in what sequence the analysis was not thin. It was not a cultural curiosity exercise. It had the same granularity that a psychoanalytic reading of the same text would have. The difference is that Rasa theory does not require the reader to accept a set of assumptions about the unconscious or about capitalist alienation before proceeding. It begins with the aesthetic transaction itself: what emotion does this text produce in the reader, through what means, and to what end?
"We do not need to reject the West. We need to stop being dependent on it. There is a difference between dialogue and intellectual colonisation, and most of our research has been the latter without knowing it." — Prof. Dushyant Nimavat, Opening Plenary, 23 March 2026
I left this session with a specific problem I had not had before: I could not explain why I had spent three years learning to read through Western frameworks and never once been offered this. That is not blame. It is a structural observation about how English Studies is inherited in India. But it is a real observation, and it unsettled me.
Dr. Kalyani Vallath: The Ecology That Was Never Separated from the Self
Dr. Kalyani Vallath, CEO and Founder of Vallath Education in Thiruvananthapuram, followed Prof. Nimavat and took us into territory that felt, at first, very specific ancient Tamil literary aesthetics from the Sangam period and turned out to be one of the broadest arguments of the entire seminar.
Her subject was Tinai aesthetics, the classical framework articulated in the Tolkappiyam, one of the oldest surviving works of Tamil literary theory. The Tinai system divides the landscape into five ecological zones and assigns to each zone a corresponding emotional register, a corresponding set of plants, animals, seasons, times of day, and human activities. This is not metaphor in the Western Romantic sense the pathetic fallacy, the projection of human emotion onto a neutral nature. It is something structurally different: a theory in which human emotional life and the natural environment are understood to be the same kind of thing, operating according to the same principles.
The five Tinai landscapes are:
What Dr. Vallath argued drawing on Lévi-Strauss's structural anthropology and Northrop Frye's archetypal criticism to show that Western scholarship had arrived at adjacent ideas through very different paths is that the Tinai system is a pre-modern theory of ecological consciousness. It anticipates by two millennia what contemporary ecocriticism has been trying to build: a way of reading the relationship between human interiority and the natural world as non-hierarchical, non-extractive, and structurally reciprocal.
The reason this mattered practically, for those of us reading English literature, is that ecocriticism as we inherit it in most curricula is dominated by British Romantic assumptions and twentieth-century American environmental movements. Both of those traditions begin from a premise of separation nature as something external to the human, something lost, something to be returned to. The Tinai system begins from the opposite premise: that the mountain landscape, the monsoon forest, and the shore at late afternoon are not backdrops to human emotion. They are the emotion, expressed in a different register.
Reading Keats's "To Autumn" through Tinai, for instance, is not a gimmick. The seasonal landscape in that poem is doing exactly what the Mullai zone does in classical Tamil poetry it is the emotional equivalent of waiting, of patient endurance at the end of something, of a constancy that does not protest its own impending conclusion. Western ecocriticism notices this but does not have the precise vocabulary for it. The Tinai system gives you the vocabulary.
"In Tinai aesthetics, the mountain does not symbolise love. The mountain is love rendered in stone and altitude and winter midnight. The inside and the outside were never two things." — Dr. Kalyani Vallath, Plenary Session, 23 March 2026
Day One, Sessions Two and Three - Theory Under Examination
Paper Presentations: The Nerve It Takes to Stand Up and Argue
📺 Watch: Paper Presentation — Session 1
📺 Watch: Paper Presentation — Session 2
The afternoon of the first day moved into paper presentations, and this is where I paid the closest attention, because these were the moments where the theoretical frameworks introduced in the plenary talks had to survive contact with actual texts. That is always the test.
Bhumi Gohil presented Krishna as a trickster hero, drawing on comparative mythology and archetypal criticism while staying firmly within the Indian textual tradition. The argument was that the figure of the trickster the divine transgressor who breaks rules to restore a deeper order does not require Loki or Anansi as its archetype. Krishna's Lila (divine play), his theft of butter, his deception on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, his relationship with the gopis: all of this constitutes a fully articulated trickster mythology that predates and in many respects exceeds the Western comparative examples we usually reach for. What I found genuinely useful in this paper was the methodological implication: comparative mythology does not have to be comparative in the direction of West as reference point and East as example. The frame can be entirely indigenous, and the analytical depth does not diminish.
Asha Kurana's paper took a different angle entirely. Her argument was about timing: if the goal of decolonising education is to produce students who can think critically from within their own epistemological traditions, then beginning at the postgraduate level is far too late. By the time a student arrives in an MA programme, their reading habits, their sense of what constitutes a valid argument, their aesthetic assumptions all of these are already formed. She proposed introducing IKS concepts into school curricula at secondary level: not as cultural heritage content but as genuine analytical tools. Dharma as an ethical framework for reading moral dilemmas in literature. Basic Nyaya logic as an introduction to how arguments are structured and how knowledge claims are validated. Rasa aesthetics as a way of discussing why a poem produces the emotional response it does. I found myself both persuaded by this and uncertain about its practical feasibility given how school curricula work in practice. But the question she was asking at what age do we begin to form critical thinkers, and through whose framework? is not one you can dismiss.
Dr. Balaji Shel's paper offered the most formally unusual comparative argument of the session. He placed Lepcha oral traditions from the indigenous communities of Sikkim and the Himalayan foothills alongside Tinai poetics from the Tamil Sangam tradition and used neither Western theory nor a Western thinker as the bridge between them. The comparison worked through shared structural principles: both traditions map emotional meaning onto specific landscape features; both treat human experience as inseparable from ecological context; both use seasonal and environmental cues as the primary vocabulary for describing interior states. The methodological point was quiet but important: comparative literature does not need a Western mediator. Two non-Western traditions can speak to each other directly. The shared intellectual territory they find is comparative literature.
In Session 2, the papers pushed further into the comparative engagement between IKS and canonical Western texts.
Omi Joshi compared the "sense sublime" in Wordsworth's Tintern Abbey with the Advaita Vedanta concept of non-duality the realisation of the non-separation between Atman (individual self) and Brahman (universal consciousness). This is not a superficial parallel. Wordsworth's description of moments when the individual mind feels itself to be continuous with the force that runs through all things "a motion and a spirit that impels / all thinking things, all objects of all thought, / and rolls through all things" is philosophically close to the Upanishadic understanding that the boundary between individual and universal consciousness is a construction, not a fact. Reading Tintern Abbey through Advaita does not reduce the poem; it opens it. It gives the poem's most theologically serious moments a philosophical apparatus that Wordsworth himself was reaching for and could only partially articulate through the tradition available to him.
Priti Taresha's comparison of Robinson Crusoe with the Bhagavad Gita on the question of divine intervention surprised the room, and it should have. On the surface, Defoe's Protestant merchant castaway and Arjuna on the field of Kurukshetra have nothing in common. But Priti's paper argued that both texts are, at their structural core, narratives about a man alone separated from the social world that normally tells him who he is confronting a crisis of action. Crusoe on his island must decide how to build a life, how to treat Friday, how to understand his situation as either punishment or providence. Arjuna on the battlefield must decide whether to act or refuse to act, and what the relationship is between his personal grief and his duty. In both cases, the divine God speaking through scripture for Crusoe, Krishna speaking through the Gita for Arjuna provides the framework within which action becomes possible again. The paper was not arguing that Defoe read the Gita. It was arguing that IKS offers interpretive categories for one of the most taught texts in the English canon that Western scholarship has not exhausted.
Shristi and Anandini's joint paper on flood memory and Tinai poetics connected the Neithal (coastal) landscape aesthetics to modern climate fiction, looking at how catastrophic water events are processed, mythologised, and narrativised in coastal literary traditions. The contemporary relevance was not forced: climate fiction has become one of the most discussed genres in recent years, and it has almost entirely been theorised through Western environmental humanities. An indigenous Indian poetics of the coastal landscape one that has been thinking about the relationship between water, land, and human survival for over two thousand years has something specific to contribute to that conversation.
[IMAGE Paper presentation session in the seminar hall, student at the podium]
Day Two, Morning - The Classroom We Have Not Built Yet
Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay: Teaching Differently Is Not Optional If You Are Teaching This
📺 Watch: Plenary Talk — Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay, Day 2
The second day opened with what was, for me, the most uncomfortable and necessary lecture of the entire seminar. Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay from Bankim Sardar College, University of Calcutta, spoke about pedagogy about how IKS should be taught, not just what should be taught and the discomfort his lecture generated was productive precisely because it was aimed at the entire room, including the faculty in it.
He began with Paulo Freire's concept of the "banking model" of education: the classroom as a one-directional transaction in which the teacher deposits approved knowledge into passive students, who receive, memorise, and reproduce it in examinations. This model is deeply embedded in the colonial history of Indian education it was, after all, a structure designed to produce functionaries who could administer an empire, not citizens who could interrogate the assumptions of the system they were living inside. Most of us in that room had spent our entire educational lives inside this structure. Most of us had been, to some degree, good at it.
Dr. Chattopadhyay's argument was straightforward and, once stated, obvious: you cannot use a colonial pedagogical structure to teach a decolonial intellectual tradition. The method and the content are not separable. If IKS is being taught through the banking model through lectures that deposit information, examinations that test recall, classrooms where the student's doubt is treated as disruption rather than as the starting point of inquiry then the content is being contradicted by the form in which it is delivered.
"If we are teaching Indian Knowledge Systems using a colonial, authoritarian method, we are defeating the purpose before we even begin." - Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay
His proposed alternative is the model of Samvada, which translates approximately as dialogue or debate but carries connotations that neither English word fully captures. Samvada is not the Socratic method, though it is often compared to it. In the Socratic method, the dialogue is in the service of the teacher's conclusion: the teacher already knows where the argument is going, and the questions are designed to bring the student there. Samvada in the Upanishadic tradition is genuinely open-ended. In the Kena Upanishad, in the Katha Upanishad, in the Chandogya Upanishad, the philosophical conversations are driven by the student's question, not the teacher's agenda. Nachiketa goes to Yama, the god of death, with a question about the nature of the self after death. Yama initially refuses to answer and tries to redirect him with gifts. Nachiketa insists. The entire philosophical content of that Upanishad emerges from the student's refusal to accept evasion.
The Bhagavad Gita, which is the most read philosophical text in the Indian tradition, is structured the same way. It begins with Arjuna's breakdown his grief, his refusal to act, his crisis of moral certainty and every line of Krishna's teaching is a response to the specific texture of that breakdown. The teaching is generated by the student's need, not delivered as a pre-formed curriculum.
Dr. Chattopadhyay then described specific pedagogical interventions: using primary texts in translation as direct reading material rather than only reading scholarship about those texts; designing assessment tasks that require students to apply IKS frameworks to new texts rather than describe those frameworks in isolation; creating classroom structures in which students debate the validity of different interpretive approaches rather than simply learning which approach a given school uses. He discussed the concept of parishad (scholarly assembly or council) as a model for seminars and tutorials, in which the role of the facilitator is to ensure the quality of the argument rather than to deliver the conclusion.
What struck me about this lecture was its practical implication for how I study, not just for how teachers should teach. If Samvada is the right model, then my own relationship with the texts I read should be dialogic I should be bringing my actual questions and confusions to them, not looking for ways to demonstrate that I have understood the approved interpretation. The seminar was, in a small but real way, an example of that. Scholars from different institutions disagreed with each other, qualified each other's arguments, asked questions during plenary talks rather than only during designated Q&A periods. That is a seminar working as a parishad. It felt different from most academic events I have attended.
Day Two, Afternoon — How the Current Also Ran the Other Way
📺 Watch: Plenary Sessions — Day 2 (Sachdeva, Bhattacharya, Ketkar)
Prof. Ashok Sachdeva: T.S. Eliot Borrowed From Us
Prof. Ashok Sachdeva, Principal of Mata Jijabai Government Postgraduate Girls' College in Indore, delivered a lecture that overturned the most persistent assumption in the standard English Studies narrative: that intellectual and aesthetic influence between India and the West moved in one direction, from West to East, through colonisation.
The examples he brought were not obscure. T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land the single most discussed poem in the twentieth-century English canon ends with lines drawn directly from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. The thunder's command - Datta (give), Dayadhvam (sympathise), Damyata (control) and the poem's closing invocation of "Shantih shantih shantih" are not decorative Orientalism. They are the poem's emotional and spiritual resolution. Eliot himself noted this in his own annotations. When we teach The Waste Land without teaching the Upanishadic context, we are teaching an incomplete text. We are teaching Eliot without the framework he chose to end in.
W.B. Yeats's engagement with Indian philosophy was even deeper and more sustained. His collaboration with the mystic Shri Purohit Swami, his translation of the Upanishads, and his absorption of Hindu cyclical time into his theory of history the concept of the Gyres in A Vision were not peripheral interests. They shaped the structure of his late poetry. Reading "The Second Coming" without understanding that Yeats's "rough beast slouching towards Bethlehem" is operating within a Hindu cosmological framework of cyclical dissolution and renewal is reading it with one eye closed.
Ralph Waldo Emerson's debt to Vedantic philosophy was explicit. His concept of the Over-Soul the universal consciousness of which individual human minds are expressions is Advaita Vedanta translated into nineteenth-century American prose. He acknowledged this. The American Transcendentalist movement, which shaped the self-understanding of American literary culture for generations, was substantially built on ideas taken from the Upanishads.
The practical implication of Prof. Sachdeva's lecture for those of us studying these writers is significant. If we are teaching canonical Western modernism without teaching the Indian sources that several of its major figures explicitly drew on, we are not just omitting IKS we are giving an inaccurate account of how Western modernism was built. This is not a question of adding Indian content for the sake of cultural balance. It is a question of factual completeness.
"Eliot did not end The Waste Land with 'Shantih shantih shantih' as an exotic ornament. He ended it there because that is where the poem's spiritual logic arrived. If we do not teach the Upanishads alongside Eliot, we are not teaching Eliot at all."- Prof. Ashok Sachdeva, Plenary Session, 24 March 2026
Prof. Atanu Bhattacharya: The Grammar That Predates Everything, and What Was Done to It
Prof. Atanu Bhattacharya, I/c Vice Chancellor of Central University of Gujarat, took the longest historical view of the seminar. He began with Panini the grammarian of the fourth century BCE whose Ashtadhyayi is, by any serious assessment, one of the most sophisticated formal descriptions of language ever produced by any civilisation.
The Ashtadhyayi is not a grammar in the sense of a rulebook for correct usage. It is a generative grammar a system that describes the rules by which the Sanskrit language produces all possible valid sentences from a finite set of roots and transformations. Computational linguists in the twentieth century, when building the first formal models of language generation, found that Panini had arrived at structurally analogous solutions to the same problems. The Ashtadhyayi was not a historical curiosity. It was a working model of the relationship between cognition, language structure, and meaning-generation that had anticipated Chomskyan linguistics by two and a half millennia.
Prof. Bhattacharya then moved to Bhartrhari and the Vakyapadiya, the fifth-century CE treatise on the philosophy of language. Bhartrhari's argument that shabda (word/language) is not merely a vehicle for thought but the medium in which thought exists that there is no pure pre-linguistic consciousness that language then represents is a position that Western philosophy only arrived at with Wittgenstein and the later Heidegger. In India, it was the foundation of an entire philosophical tradition.
He then traced what happened to this tradition during the Fort William College era of the early nineteenth century, when the British colonial administration established institutions for the systematic study and standardisation of Indian languages. The purpose was administrative: the Empire needed functionaries who could communicate across linguistic communities, needed legal and revenue codes that could be applied across regions, needed Indian languages reduced to manageable forms that could be taught to British officers. The languages were studied, but the philosophical traditions embedded in them were stripped out. Panini's grammar became a historical curiosity rather than a living analytical tool. Bhartrhari's philosophy of language became an object of Orientalist scholarship rather than a methodology for literary and linguistic inquiry.
What was lost in that process is precisely what this seminar was trying to recover: not the languages themselves, which many of us can read, but the ways of thinking about language, meaning, knowledge, and interpretation that those languages carried.
"Panini gave us a generative grammar in the fourth century BCE. Bhartrhari gave us a philosophy of language that Wittgenstein would arrive at fifteen hundred years later. We did not lose this knowledge. We were taught to stop looking for it." - Prof. Atanu Bhattacharya, Plenary Session, 24 March 2026
Prof. SachinKetkar: Why the Word for Translation Already Contains the Argument
Prof. Sachin Ketkar from Maharaja Saiyajirao University of Baroda gave the translation studies lecture, and it was built around an etymological argument that did real philosophical work.
The Sanskrit word for translation is Anuvad: anu (after, following) and vad (to speak, to say). To translate is to speak after to follow the original utterance and carry it forward into a new context. The word does not imply copying. It implies continuation.
This is structurally different from the dominant Western framework for translation, which has been organised around the concept of equivalence. The translator's task, in that framework, is to find the closest possible equivalent in the target language for each element of the source text. Fidelity is the standard. Deviation is failure.
The problem is that equivalence, when applied to translation between languages as fundamentally different in their conceptual structures as Sanskrit and English, or Tamil and English, is routinely impossible. There is no English equivalent for Dharma not because the concept is exotic or mystical, but because Dharma carries simultaneously the meanings of cosmic order, moral duty, natural law, the inherent nature of a thing, and right action. English has separate words for each of those and no word that holds them together. Any translation of a text in which Dharma is doing philosophical work must make a choice, and every choice is a reduction.
Prof. Ketkar argued that treating this as a failure is a category error. The Anuvad framework says: you are not copying, you are speaking after. Something is carried. Something is transformed. The text finds a new life in its new linguistic home. The question is not whether the translation is perfect it cannot be but whether it continues the intellectual and aesthetic life of the original in a form that can be inhabited by readers who live inside a different language.
The practical implication for how we read translations of Indian texts in English Studies curricula is significant. If we understand that every translation of the Gita, or the Ramayana, or the Tolkappiyam into English is an Anuvad a speaking-after, not a reproduction then we read those translations differently. We look for what is carried, what is transformed, what choices the translator made and why, and what the gaps tell us about the difference between the conceptual worlds the two languages inhabit. That is a richer, more honest form of reading than either dismissing translations as imperfect or treating them as transparent windows onto the original.
"The moment we accept that translation is Anuvad a continuation, not a copy we stop mourning what is lost and start attending to what survives, and how, and why. That shift changes everything about how we read across languages." - Prof. Sachin Ketkar, Plenary Session, 24 March 2026
Day Two, Final Session - The Vocabulary That Was Already There
Dr. Amrita Das: What Shakti Offers That Irigaray Had to Build
📺 Watch: Dr. Amrita Das & Valedictory Ceremony
Dr. Amrita Das closed the academic programme with the lecture I have thought about most since the seminar ended. Her subject was the concept of the Divine Feminine in Indian intellectual and spiritual traditions, read through the theoretical framework of Luce Irigaray, the French feminist philosopher whose critique of Western metaphysics is one of the most discussed in contemporary gender studies.
Irigaray's argument, developed across several books from the 1970s onwards, is that Western philosophy has been structured around the male subject as the norm, with women defined in relation to that norm as absence, lack, or mirror. The feminine in Western metaphysics is not an independent category. It is the not-male. Feminist thought, in Irigaray's framework, requires the construction of an entirely new symbolic vocabulary for the feminine a language in which women appear as subjects rather than as objects or reflections of male subjectivity.
Dr. Das's critical move was to note that this construction which has occupied Western feminist theory for decades is already present in Indian philosophical and spiritual traditions, not as something that needs to be built but as something that needs to be reclaimed from the patriarchal distortions that have accumulated around it.
Shakti is the concept at the centre of this argument. In the Shakta philosophical tradition, Shakti is the primordial energy that underlies all existence the active, dynamic principle without which even the male divine (Shiva) is inert and powerless. The Sanskrit formulation is precise and unequivocal: Shiva without Shakti is shava a corpse. The feminine principle is not supplementary to the cosmic order. It is its engine. The goddess traditions of India from the Devi Mahatmyam to the Lalita Sahasranama constitute an uninterrupted philosophical and literary tradition of the feminine divine as autonomous, powerful, and ontologically primary.
The figure of Prakriti (nature, the material world, creative energy) in Samkhya philosophy complements this. Prakriti is feminine, and it is the generative principle of the entire material universe. The Purusha (consciousness, spirit) is masculine, but it is Prakriti that moves, creates, differentiates, and produces. The philosophical hierarchy is far more complicated than a Western reader might assume.
Dr. Das applied this to contemporary Indian women's writing including Nikita Gill's work, which reclaims goddess imagery as a framework for female subjectivity and showed that the contemporary feminist project of finding a language for female power is not, in the Indian context, an exercise in invention. It is an exercise in archaeology: the vocabulary was there, it was suppressed, and it can be recovered.
"While Western feminists often have to invent a new language to express the feminine divine, Indian women have possessed this vocabulary for millennia. We just need to reclaim it from patriarchal distortions." - Dr. Amrita Das
The implication for feminist literary criticism in the Indian context is not that Irigaray is irrelevant her philosophical analysis of Western metaphysics is accurate on its own terms but that using Irigaray as the primary framework for reading Indian women's writing is importing a solution to a problem that Indian tradition had already addressed differently. Reading Mirabai through Irigaray is possible and sometimes illuminating. But reading Mirabai through the Shakta tradition, through the figure of the female mystic as someone who bypasses patriarchal mediation and accesses the divine directly, is reading her through the tradition she herself was working within.
The Valedictory: What a Certificate Actually Means
After Dr. Das's lecture, the auditorium changed temperature in the particular way it does at the end of an academic event that has gone well: the concentrated attention of two days softened into something more human. Certificates were distributed. Photographs were taken. There was a lot of applause.
As a volunteer standing near the back of the hall, I had a slightly different angle on the room than the delegates sitting in it. I could see my peers walking up to collect their presentation certificates, and the applause from our cohort was not polite. It was the kind of noise a room makes when it is genuinely pleased for someone, because it knows what standing in front of senior academics and making an argument feels like, and it is harder than it looks.
Organising a national seminar from the inside which is what volunteering means involves a kind of attention that is different from attending as a delegate. You are watching the event as a logistical system as well as an intellectual one. You notice the things that almost went wrong and were quietly fixed. You know which sessions ran over time and how that was managed. You understand what it means that the audio-visual equipment worked throughout, because you were watching it with the specific anxiety of someone who knows it might not.
The valedictory was a recognition of all of that the academic work of the speakers and presenters, and the practical work of the organisers and volunteers. Both kinds of work are necessary for an event like this to be what it was.
What I Am Taking Out of Those Two Days: A Practical Account
I want to be specific here, because vague takeaways are easy to write and useless to read. These are not inspirational conclusions. They are the actual changes in how I am going to read and work.
On methodology: The most immediate practical change is that I now have two Indian epistemological frameworks I can use as primary analytical tools rather than as optional additions. Rasa theory gives me a vocabulary for the aesthetic transaction between text and reader that is as precise as psychoanalytic criticism and does not require me to accept the entire architecture of Freudian or Lacanian theory before I can use it. The Nyaya framework for valid knowledge perception, inference, analogy, testimony gives me a way to think about how different kinds of literary evidence work, what we can claim on the basis of textual analysis alone, and where interpretation requires acknowledged inference rather than direct evidence. Both of these are working tools. I intend to use them.
On reading Western modernism: The three writers Prof. Sachdeva discussed Eliot, Yeats, Emerson are all writers I have studied and will study further. I cannot now read The Waste Land without the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad open alongside it. This is not an addition to the reading. It is a completion of it. Eliot cited those sources. Teaching the poem without them is teaching an edited text.
On translation: Every translation of an Indian text I read from here forward, I will read as Anuvad as a speaking-after, not a copy. I will pay attention to what choices the translator made, what the gaps are, and what those gaps tell me about the conceptual distance between the languages involved. This is a richer form of reading, and it makes the translations more interesting rather than less.
On ecology: I study and write about nature in literature. The Tinai framework has given me an analytical precision I did not have before. The specific claim that in classical Tamil poetics, the distinction between interior emotional life and exterior natural environment is not a distinction at all but a difference in register within a single system is a position I can now apply, argue for, and test against specific texts. That is more useful than a general commitment to ecological reading.
On feminist criticism in the Indian context: I was already reading some feminist criticism. I was reading almost none of it through the Shakta tradition, through Prakriti, through the history of female mystics in India. That is a gap I intend to close, beginning with the texts Dr. Das mentioned the Devi Mahatmyam, the poetry of Akka Mahadevi, the bhakti lyrics of Mirabai read not as historical curiosities but as a living critical tradition.
On how I learn: Dr. Chattopadhyay's lecture about Samvada changed something in how I think about my own responsibility as a student. If the seminars and tutorials I attend are going to be anything other than banking-model transactions, I have to bring genuine questions to them not polished demonstrations of having understood the material, but the actual difficulties, the actual points of disagreement, the moments where two frameworks I have been taught give me conflicting readings and I do not know how to adjudicate between them. That is not a failure of preparation. In the Samvada model, that is the starting point.
A Final Note
The seminar is over. My notebook from those two days is almost completely full. The ideas in it will take time to work through properly some of them I will not fully understand until I try to apply them and discover where they break down or need qualifying.
What I am certain of is this: I came into that auditorium as a student who had learned to read English literature through frameworks that were, almost entirely, produced outside the intellectual tradition I live inside. I came out with the beginning of a different reading practice one that is not anti-Western, not nostalgic, not nationalist, but genuinely comparative in the sense that the seminar's organisers intended: treating Indian Knowledge Systems and English Studies as equal participants in a global intellectual conversation rather than as host and visitor.
The harder work is what happens next. The dissertation. The classroom. The reading I do quietly, alone, after the seminar has ended and no one is watching whether I actually use what I was given. That is where it either becomes real or it doesn't.
I am grateful to MKBU, to every speaker who took those two days seriously, and to every peer who stood up and made an argument in front of people who knew more than they did. That nerve is not nothing.
📺 Full Seminar Recordings:
- Inauguration & Plenary Day 1 - Nimavat & Vallath
- Paper Presentation Session 1
- Paper Presentation Session 2
- Plenary - Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay
- Plenary Day 2 - Sachdeva, Bhattacharya, Ketkar
- Dr. Amrita Das & Valedictory
This blog reflects on the IKS and English Studies National Seminar-Workshop held at the Department of English, MKBU. A two-day journey from Eurocentric literary methodology towards the rich, integrated world of Indian Knowledge Systems exploring Rasa, Tinai, Samvada, Anuvad, and Shakti as living critical tools for the contemporary student of literature.
.png)
.png)
