AIJAZ AHMAD
Aijaz
Ahmad’s essay “Indian Literature: notes towards the category of Indian
literature” looks into the complications associated with the category of Indian
literature by making references to D.D Kosambi and S.K Das. He argues on the
cultural and literary identity of Indian literature and sees it as a source of
multiple languages. Indian literature is not a distinct unity but a sum of
various specific regional literatures created over a period of time.
Ahmad
begins the essay by talking about the problems in constructing a category such
as Indian literature; he makes a reference to Kosambi
“the outstanding characteristic of a backward bourgeoisie, the desire to
profit without labor or grasp of technique, is reflected in the superficial
research.”
.
[Pg 373] Kosambi criticizes
superficial research in India, it lacks efficacy which can produce a better
understanding of Indian literature. Ahmad calls this statement ironic because
the texts published in metropolitan countries display this characteristic of
backward bourgeoisie. If Indian researchers are unable to define Indian
literature then first world researchers are also unable to define and
categorize third world literature. Ahmad then counters Kosambi by listing the
reasons for poor classification of Indian literature.
The
reasons Ahmad lists are that there is no institutional support, the
institutions are very limited and the research is done by individual scholars
who dig up archives. The mediating language is English but it is not a fitting
mediating language. English is unable to do justice to the ambience, totality
or experience of the native. European tradition can be traced with the help of
unified language, universities and libraries but Indian literature tradition
can’t be traced since the texts are looked in isolated ways. Ahmad ends the
essay by mentioning Kosambi once again. He praises Kosambi saying that
“he was able to produce is
a single sweep of narrative of the empirical facts of ancient India and
theoretical position, the very organic principle of narrativization from which
narrative was to be assembled” .
[Pg-408] Ahmad
praises Kosambi’s link between political purpose and study. Ahmad says that
when we engage in Indian literature then the insufficiencies are empirical and
theoretical both and to achieve clarity in literature more writing should be
done and rewriting should be minimized.
Kosambi’s analysis and understanding of
Sanskrit literature was informed by his commitment to a social and political
ideology rooted in Marxism. In his view, literature like science should be
understood as a function of the age in which it is produced. He tells us’ the
great poet in a class society must not only express the position and
aspirations of an important class, but must also transcend the class barriers,
whether implicitly or explicitly and to be sure his most provocative statements
on Sanskrit language and literature were about its class character statements
he made in the context of the works of both Bhartihari and vidyakara. The use
of historical materialism in reading literature and analyzing it from the class
perspective is also seen in Kosambi’s study of the working class in the Amarakosha.
Kosambi links bhakti doctrine enunciated in the Gita with the rise of feudalism
and asserts that to hold a feudal society and state together the best religion
is one which emphasizes the role of bhakti, personal faith even though the
object of devotion may have clearly visible flaws.
Indian literature is not one or many but rather
a whole where many sub systems interact and S.K Das has taken a systematic view
of Indian literature which involves taking India literature together age by age
and then viewing them comparatively. Das adopts a methodologically pragmatic
where he works through development of a chronological history of literature. In
this there are authors birth dates, translations, text composition, publication
and classification in genres. Through Das’ method it is known that Indian
literature is neither a unity nor is it a total differential. For Das Indian
literature is something which expresses the Indian nation. Arnab chakladar says
‘Das disavows the nationalist vision of one literature through written in many
languages but his own formulation remains, finally, within a nationalist
framework’ [Pg 4]. Indian literature is complex; it’s related to geographical
areas as well as with history. Ahmad does not speak of geographical proximity
like Das. Ahmad is more concerned with the problems in defining the category of
Indian literature however Das is concentrating on finding ways to construct
such a category. Ahmad is conscious of the difficulty of separating a unified
conception of Indian literature from Indian nationalism.
Ahmad mainly provides us with three reasons for
the under development of Indian literature, first, Indian literature doesn’t
mean combining other languages, India has been a polyglot and multilingual
society, the language is not particular to itself and one writer doesn’t write
in only one language. Second is the problem of high brahmanical texuality. The
texts we give emphasis to are texts coming from brahmanical point of view.
Third is canonization, certain texts are privileged over others. Our sense of
text is based on the dominant version of that text; plurality of text is not
given importance since we are aware of only the dominant idea.
Ahmad is a Marxist and he shuns the
post-colonial situation adopted by Edward Said, for Ahmad Marxism is an effect
of orientalism, Ahmad wants to re claim post colonialism and literature plays
an important role in it. Homogenizing of third world literature is problematic.
By categorizing Indian literature under third world literature deproduces them
because then they are seen as a representation only of nationalism; because of
homogenizing of Indian literature under third world literature, Ahmad proposes
the difficulties faced by scholars in constructing a category of Indian
literature. He makes references to Kosambi and Das to explore and explain his
idea of problematization of the construction of category of Indian literature.
WORKS
CITED
Ahmad Aijaz. ‘Indian Literature; Notes towards
the definition of a category’, “Literary Theory: An Anthology, ed. A.N Dwivedi.
Doaba publications, (2014).[Pg- 373-408].
Chaklader Arnab. ‘Language, Nation and the
question of “Indian Literature” ’. Postcolonial Text, volume 6, no. 4 (2011).
[Pg- 4]
Submitted
by-
Deepali
yadav, 297
No comments:
Post a Comment