Reflections on the National Seminar on IKS and English Studies

 Reflections on the National Seminar on IKS and English Studies

Some academic events leave behind only certificates, while a few leave behind lasting intellectual questions. The National Seminar–Workshop on Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) and English Studies, organized by the Department of English at Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University in collaboration with Knowledge Consortium of Gujarat, undoubtedly belonged to the latter category.

Over the course of two intellectually engaging days, the seminar brought together scholars, researchers, and students to reconsider an important question: can Indian intellectual traditions function as equal partners in literary criticism, pedagogy, translation, and research, rather than remaining merely cultural references?

By the end of the seminar, the answer seemed unmistakably clear — they can.

The seminar did not advocate rejecting Western theories; instead, it encouraged intellectual plurality, balance, and dialogue. It emphasized that meaningful scholarship emerges not from choosing between “East” and “West,” but from learning to think critically across traditions.

Day One: Reconsidering Inherited Frameworks

As a student of English literature, I had long approached texts through frameworks such as structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminism, postcolonialism, and deconstruction. These theories had become so normalized within academic study that I had rarely questioned whether Indian traditions offered equally rigorous methodologies. The first day of the seminar challenged this assumption from the very beginning.

Prof. Dushyant Nimavat — IKS as a Research Methodology

Dushyant Nimavat presented Indian Knowledge Systems not as nostalgic remnants of the past, but as sophisticated epistemological frameworks relevant to modern scholarship. Referring to Dharampal’s The Beautiful Tree and Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies, he argued for indigenous research approaches that can work alongside Western methods rather than replace them. He also connected IKS with the aims of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, situating the discussion within current educational reform.

Particularly insightful was his explanation of Nyaya philosophy as a practical analytical tool. He introduced three concepts useful for literary criticism:

Pratyaksha — direct perception or what is immediately visible in the text

Anumana — inference or meanings implied beyond explicit statements

Arthapatti — postulation or deriving conclusions through contextual necessity

This session revealed that Indian traditions already possess systems of reasoning and interpretation comparable to globally recognized critical theories. The issue has never been the absence of such frameworks, but rather the tendency to overlook them.

Dr. Kalyani Vallath — Ecology and the Thinai Tradition

Kalyani Vallath explored the Thinai system from classical Tamil poetics found in the Tolkappiyam and Sangam literature. Thinai connects landscape, ecology, emotion, and human experience through five symbolic landscapes — Kurinji, Mullai, Marudam, Neithal, and Palai — each representing distinct emotional states such as union, longing, waiting, conflict, and separation.

In this framework, nature is not merely decorative; it is deeply interconnected with human emotion and experience. Dr. Vallath demonstrated how Thinai resonates with ecocriticism, Romanticism, Symbolism, and Northrop Frye’s archetypal criticism. The session highlighted Thinai as an advanced ecological literary theory that remains highly relevant to contemporary environmental humanities.

It transformed my understanding of literary landscapes. Rivers, mountains, forests, and coastlines in literature are not simply settings; they become emotional and philosophical presences.

Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay — Rethinking Pedagogy

Kalyan Chattopadhyay critiqued the colonial “banking model” of education, in which teachers deposit knowledge into passive learners. Drawing inspiration from the Bhagavad Gita, he advocated a dialogic pedagogy rooted in questioning, debate, and active participation.

He demonstrated how Indian intellectual traditions can function alongside Western theories as equally valid analytical tools:

Nyaya for logic and inference

Vedanta for metaphysical interpretation

Rasa Theory for emotional and aesthetic analysis

Dhvani Theory for implied meaning and suggestion

His central argument was that integrating IKS into English Studies should go beyond token inclusion. It must become part of curriculum design, literary criticism, research methodology, and classroom practice.

Day Two: Comparative Thought, Language, and Translation

The second day expanded the discussion into comparative literature, linguistics, translation studies, and feminist thought, offering broader perspectives on culturally grounded scholarship.

Prof. Ashok Sachdeva — Indian Philosophy in Western Literature

Ashok Sachdeva examined the influence of Indian philosophy on British and American writers. Concepts such as Vedanta, Maya, Karma, reincarnation, and spiritual unity were shown to have shaped writers including T. S. Eliot, W. B. Yeats, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Walt Whitman.

One particularly memorable comparison was between Hamlet and Arjuna. Both characters struggle with moral conflict and indecision, yet while Arjuna receives philosophical guidance from Krishna and finds clarity, Hamlet remains trapped in uncertainty and tragedy. This comparison demonstrated how Indian philosophy can serve as a valuable interpretive framework even for canonical Western texts.

Prof. Atanu Bhattacharya — Language as Knowledge

Atanu Bhattacharya emphasized that traditional Indian linguistics regarded language not simply as communication, but as a source of knowledge itself. Through discussions of Panini’s Ashtadhyayi and Bhartrhari’s philosophy of language, he illustrated the deep relationship between language, meaning, and cognition within Indian intellectual traditions.

He further argued that colonial education systems, particularly through institutions such as Fort William College, reduced language to a utilitarian administrative tool, separating it from literature and knowledge production. His lecture challenged the modern division between language and literature studies and advocated a more integrated educational approach.

Prof. Sachin Ketkar — Translation as Interpretation

Sachin Ketkar questioned the conventional belief that translation aims for perfect equivalence between languages. He argued that this expectation is largely a colonial inheritance rather than an indigenous Indian understanding of translation.

Using the concept of Anuvad — “speaking after” — he described translation as an act of interpretation and cultural recreation. Examples such as Sri Aurobindo and A. K. Ramanujan demonstrated how translations are shaped by ideology, literary sensibility, and historical context. Rather than being imperfect copies, translations become evolving intellectual dialogues.

This session fundamentally changed my perception of translated literature. A translation is not secondary to the original; it is another meaningful interpretation of it.

Dr. Amrita Das — Reclaiming the Divine Feminine

Amrita Das concluded the seminar with a discussion on divine femininity in Hindu traditions through the feminist ideas of Luce Irigaray. She argued that while many Western religious traditions lack a powerful feminine divine presence, Hindu philosophy offers rich symbolic and spiritual models of female agency.

Through contemporary works such as The Girl and the Goddess and Urmila: The Forgotten Princess, she demonstrated how modern women writers reinterpret goddess traditions to explore female identity, spirituality, and empowerment. Her lecture presented feminism not as imitation of Western frameworks, but as something that can emerge organically from indigenous traditions.

Key Learning Outcomes

The seminar became more than a series of lectures; it marked a significant intellectual shift in my perspective. It broadened my understanding of how knowledge is created, interpreted, and transmitted across cultures. Some of my major learning outcomes include:

Indian Knowledge Systems such as Nyaya, Rasa, Vedanta, Dhvani, and Thinai are rigorous analytical frameworks rather than supplementary cultural references.

Applying IKS frameworks to literary analysis can produce culturally grounded and insightful interpretations of both Indian and Western texts.

Translation is an interpretive and ideological act, not merely a mechanical transfer of words.

Language shapes thought and knowledge rather than simply conveying pre-existing ideas.

Dialogic pedagogy rooted in questioning and discussion offers a meaningful alternative to passive learning.

Ecological consciousness has existed within Indian literary traditions long before modern ecocriticism.

Indian philosophical traditions provide rich resources for feminist discourse without depending entirely on Western models.

Student research presentations demonstrated that IKS can function effectively as a practical research methodology.

Closing Reflection

The lasting significance of the seminar lies not only in the lectures delivered, but in the questions it continues to raise about reading practices, interpretive frameworks, and intellectual authority. It encouraged a reconsideration of whose traditions are treated as universal and whose are marginalized.

Ultimately, the seminar reminded me that true scholarship does not require choosing between Eastern and Western traditions. Rather, it demands the ability to think across them critically, thoughtfully, and with intellectual openness.