Learning Outcome - National Seminar on IKS and English Studies

 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:

Inauguration & Plenary Sessions | IKS and English Studies |

Date: 23 March ,2026

image of Inaugration session : 

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 :

Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay’s plenary session focused on the need to rethink English Studies in India by integrating Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) into its pedagogy and curriculum. He began by explaining that English education in India was historically introduced during British colonial rule, particularly through Macaulay’s educational policy, with the aim of producing Indians who would think and act according to British values. Because of this colonial foundation, English Studies in India has long remained dependent on Eurocentric theories, texts, and teaching methods. He argued that this created a “banking model” of education, borrowing from Paulo Freire, in which teachers deposit knowledge into passive students rather than encouraging critical engagement.

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.