Learning Outcome - National Seminar on IKS and English Studies
Participating in the National Seminar on IKS and English Studies greatly improved my understanding of the connection between Indian Knowledge Systems and English Studies. The seminar helped me learn how traditional Indian knowledge, philosophy, and cultural ideas can be connected with modern literary studies and academic research. It showed how Indian perspectives can add new meaning to the study of literature and help create a more balanced and inclusive academic approach.
Through the lectures and discussions, I understood the importance of including Indian Knowledge Systems in education and research. The seminar also made me think critically about the dominance of Western ideas in literary studies and the need to explore Indian ways of understanding knowledge, culture, and literature. It introduced me to new ideas about interdisciplinary research and showed how Indian Knowledge Systems can be linked with literature, language, culture, and education.
Overall, the seminar was an enriching academic experience that expanded my perspective, improved my critical thinking, and encouraged me to explore research from more diverse .
INAUGURAL CEREMON& Plenary Sessions:
Plenary Sessions by Dr. Dushyant Nimavat :
In his session, Prof. Dushyant Nimavat discussed the importance of understanding Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) as a plural and diverse body of knowledge rather than as a single unified system. He emphasized that the discussion of IKS should not be approached through debates of superiority, but through constructive academic inquiry and critical examination. He highlighted how India’s education system has long remained influenced by Western models and argued that post-independence India missed the opportunity to redesign its educational framework according to indigenous needs.
Referring to Dharampal’s The Beautiful Tree, he explained that pre-colonial India possessed a rich and sophisticated educational system, much of which was undervalued under colonial narratives. He stressed that researchers must critically investigate such claims through evidence rather than accept them blindly.
Prof. Nimavat further argued for the inclusion of Indian Knowledge Systems as an alternative and supplementary research methodology in academia. According to him, Western research methods often dominate literary and academic analysis, creating limitations when applied to Indian and regional texts whose cultural contexts differ significantly from Western frameworks. He noted that applying Western theories—such as feminism or literary criticism—without considering cultural specificity can lead to misinterpretation and injustice toward non-Western texts.
Drawing upon Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies, he highlighted the need to develop indigenous research tools and frameworks rather than relying solely on Western academic standards and benchmarks. He also connected this discussion with the objectives of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, arguing that the policy encourages the revival and integration of Indian intellectual heritage into mainstream education.
Concluding his talk, Prof. Nimavat clarified that Indian Knowledge Systems should not replace Western methodologies entirely; rather, they should function as complementary frameworks that enrich research, broaden perspectives, and create more culturally sensitive and multifaceted academic inquiry.
Plenary Sessions by Dr. Kalyani Vallath :
Dr. Kalyani Vallath explored the significance of Dravidian Knowledge Systems, particularly classical Tamil poetics, and demonstrated how they can be integrated into English literary studies. She emphasized that knowledge should not be divided into separate compartments; rather, literary and cultural traditions must be studied in an interconnected way through Indian perspectives.
Her lecture focused on the Thinai system from classical Tamil poetics, found in the Tolkappiyam and Sangam literature. She explained that Thinai is an ancient framework that connects landscape, emotion, ecology, and human experience. Through the division of literature into Akam (inner/personal world) and Puram (outer/public world), the Thinai system presents a structured understanding of how human emotions are linked with natural environments.
Dr. Vallath discussed the five major Thinai landscapes—Kurinji, Mullai, Marudam, Neithal, and Palai—showing how each landscape represents a specific emotional condition such as union, waiting, conflict, longing, or separation. She argued that this ecological-emotional mapping is not limited to ancient Tamil poetry but can also be seen in Sanskrit literature, Western literature, modern poetry, cinema, performance traditions, and contemporary ecological criticism.
By comparing Thinai with concepts such as Rasa Theory, Romanticism, Symbolism, Modernism, Ecocriticism, and Northrop Frye’s archetypal criticism, she demonstrated that Indian and Dravidian aesthetic traditions offer valuable frameworks for comparative literary analysis. She concluded that Thinai can function as a powerful ecological and comparative literary theory, contributing meaningfully to global poetics and environmental humanities.
Overall, the session highlighted the richness of Dravidian literary aesthetics and encouraged scholars to rethink literature, ecology, and emotion through indigenous knowledge frameworks.
Plenary Sessions by Dr.Kalyan Chattopadhyay :
To challenge this model, he proposed that Indian Knowledge Systems should not merely be added to the syllabus as extra content, but should function as alternative analytical and pedagogical frameworks. He explained how Indian philosophical and literary traditions offer sophisticated methods for interpretation that can enrich literary studies. For example, Nyaya can be used for logical inference and textual reasoning, Vedanta can help interpret metaphysical and existential dimensions of characters and narratives, Rasa Theory can provide a nuanced framework for analyzing emotions and aesthetic experience, and Dhvani Theory can deepen understanding of implied meaning and suggestion in literary language. He compared these frameworks to Western critical theories such as psychoanalysis, reader-response criticism, and deconstruction, arguing that Indian traditions can stand alongside them as equally valid intellectual tools.
He also emphasized the importance of adopting a dialogic pedagogy, inspired by the dialogic structure of the Bhagavad Gita, where learning occurs through questioning, debate, and active engagement rather than rote memorization. In practical terms, he suggested that English departments redesign curricula to include comparative study of Indian and Western theories, incorporate Indian poetics into literary criticism courses, and use IKS frameworks in research methodology and classroom discussion. Ultimately, his argument was that integrating IKS can help decolonize English Studies, reconnect learners with indigenous intellectual traditions, and create a more inclusive, pluralistic, and intellectually balanced academic environment—provided that the integration is done rigorously and not merely as symbolic tokenism.
Day : 2 Inaugration session
24 march 2026
Plenary Sessions by Ashok Sachdeva :
Ashok Sachdeva discusses the profound influence of Indian philosophy and Indian knowledge systems on British and American literature. He argues that many Western writers were directly or indirectly shaped by Indian philosophical concepts such as Vedanta, Maya, Karma, Moksha, Detachment, Reincarnation, and Spiritual Unity. He explains that this influence became prominent during the Oriental Renaissance when Indian texts like the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, and Sanskrit classics were translated into English and became accessible to Western scholars.
Dr. Sachdeva demonstrates how Indian thought influenced writers such as William Wordsworth, whose spiritual view of nature reflects yogic and Vedantic ideas; Percy Bysshe Shelley, whose poetry contains concepts of Maya and Karma; T. S. Eliot, who drew heavily on Indian philosophy in The Waste Land and Four Quartets; and W. B. Yeats, whose poetry reflects ideas of reincarnation and cyclic time. He also highlights the influence of Indian thought on American transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Walt Whitman.
A significant part of the lecture focuses on the comparison between Hamlet and Arjuna, where Dr. Sachdeva argues that both characters experience similar moral and psychological dilemmas. Both are princes torn between action and inaction, duty and emotion. However, Arjuna receives spiritual guidance from Krishna and resolves his conflict, whereas Hamlet lacks such guidance and therefore meets a tragic end. Through this comparison, Dr. Sachdeva suggests that Indian philosophical frameworks can be effectively applied to the study of Western literary texts.
Overall, Dr. Sachdeva concludes that Indian philosophy should not be viewed merely as decorative influence in Western literature, but as a serious intellectual and philosophical force that enriched British and American literary traditions.
Plenary Sessions by Atanu Bhattacharya :
.jpg)
Professor Atanu Bhattacharya discussed how language education functioned within the Indian Knowledge System (IKS) and how colonial education transformed it. His main argument was that traditional Indian approaches to language viewed language not merely as a tool of communication but as a means of producing and transmitting knowledge.
1. Continuity of Indian Knowledge Tradition
He rejected the idea that Indian intellectual tradition experienced a “break” in history. Instead, he argued that Indian knowledge has flowed continuously through centuries (dhara/parapara), from ancient Sanskrit traditions to Bhakti literature and later regional literary cultures.
2. Central Role of Sanskrit
Bhattacharya emphasized that Sanskrit holds a foundational place in understanding Indian knowledge systems. Even regional languages and literary traditions developed through dialogue with Sanskrit.
3. Language as Knowledge, Not Just Communication
A major point of the lecture was that in Indian traditions, language was never treated simply as a communicative tool. Instead:
- Language was considered a producer of knowledge.
- Knowledge emerged through interpretation of language.
- Language and meaning were deeply interconnected.
4. Importance of Narratives in Education
He argued that narratives and literature were essential for language learning in traditional Indian education:
- Stories, poetry, dramatic texts, and commentaries were all used in language teaching.
- Literary and creative texts were considered necessary for producing knowledge.
- This challenges modern debates about whether literature should be taught in language classrooms.
5. Panini and the Grammatical Tradition
Bhattacharya used Panini’s Ashtadhyayi as a central example:
- Panini’s grammar is not only technical but also social.
- It records linguistic variation and real-world language use.
- It includes both formal and everyday language.
- Panini’s system is generative and computational in nature, similar in some ways to modern linguistic theories like Chomsky’s grammar.
6. Features of Traditional Language Education
He identified several characteristics of early Indian language pedagogy:
- Explicit grammar teaching was central.
- Memorization played an important role.
- Writing and orality were both important.
- Multilingualism was encouraged.
- Interpretation always considered context, not just grammar.
7. Colonial Shift in Language Education
Bhattacharya then explained how colonial institutions, especially Fort William College, transformed language education:
- Language became treated as a practical administrative tool rather than a source of knowledge.
- Theoretical and practical language learning were separated.
- Translation and multilingual methods were discouraged.
- Language teaching became textbook-based and utilitarian.
8. Critique of Colonial Educational Legacy
He argued that colonial education created a deviation from indigenous traditions by:
- Reducing language to communication only.
- Separating language from knowledge and culture.
- Weakening the role of literature and narratives in education.
Conclusion
Professor Bhattacharya concluded that traditional Indian language education was holistic, multilingual, interpretive, and knowledge-centered. He suggested that modern education should reconsider these principles to recover a richer and more integrated understanding of language learning.
Plenary Sessions by Sachin Ketkar :
.jpg)
Ketkar further explains that contemporary translation studies no longer view translation as a secondary or inferior copy of an original text. Instead, translation is understood as an act of interpretation, semiotic transformation, and cultural production. Every translation reflects the historical, political, ideological, and literary context of the translator. Using examples from translators like Sri Aurobindo and A. K. Ramanujan, he demonstrates that translation is never neutral: Aurobindo’s translations of the Vedas reinterpret them spiritually to challenge colonial and Orientalist readings, while Ramanujan’s translations adapt Indian literary texts into modern poetic English shaped by literary modernism. Thus, translations should be studied not by asking which version is “better” or “more accurate,” but by examining how each translation reflects the translator’s ideological choices and cultural circumstances.
Finally, Ketkar rejects the idea that texts possess one fixed or original meaning that translation must preserve. He argues that meaning is always shaped by time, community, and interpretation, and therefore no translation can claim to present the absolute intention of the original author. Instead of searching for a “correct” interpretation, scholars should analyze how meanings change across different translations and historical periods. In this way, translation becomes not merely a linguistic activity but a dynamic process of knowledge creation, cultural negotiation, and intellectual reinterpretation. For Ketkar, translation is therefore essential not only for accessing Indian literature and philosophy but also for continuously rediscovering and reconstructing Indian cultural identity.
Plenary Session Dr. Amrita Das :
Dr. Amitita Das’s lecture, “Reclaiming the Divine Femininity of Indian Women through the French Theoretical Lens of Luce Irigaray,” explores how Hindu goddess traditions can be interpreted through postmodern feminist theory to understand women’s subjectivity and empowerment. Drawing upon the ideas of French feminist philosopher Luce Irigaray, Dr. Das argues that Western religious traditions often lack a strong feminine divine presence, whereas Hinduism provides rich representations of female divinity through goddess worship. She explains that concepts such as divine femininity, self-love, breathing, and maternal genealogy are central to understanding how women can reclaim spiritual and personal autonomy through the symbolic power of goddesses in Hindu tradition.
The lecture further examines how breathing, air, and spiritual embodiment function as metaphors for women’s transcendence and self-realization in both Hindu philosophy and Irigaray’s feminist thought. Dr. Das connects these ideas to contemporary literary works such as Nikita Gill’s The Girl and the Goddess and Smriti Dewan’s Urmila: The Forgotten Princess, showing how modern women writers use Hindu goddesses and mythological narratives to portray female bonding, maternal lineage, and spiritual empowerment. Through these texts, she demonstrates that the relationship between women, mothers, daughters, sisters, and goddesses creates a symbolic framework of feminine solidarity and subjective identity.
In conclusion, Dr. Das argues that the Hindu goddess tradition offers a powerful alternative framework for feminist thought by presenting women not as passive figures but as spiritually and culturally empowered beings. Through the lens of Irigaray’s theory, she suggests that the divine feminine in Hinduism enables a rethinking of women’s identity, body, and transcendence beyond patriarchal structures. Her lecture ultimately emphasizes that reclaiming goddess traditions can help construct a renewed understanding of women’s strength, spirituality, and selfhood in both literary and cultural discourse.
