National Seminar on IKS and English Studies

Apr 26, 2026

National Seminar on IKS and English Studies

Learning Outcome – National Seminar on IKS and English Studies

Inaugural Ceremony& Plenary Sessions:

Introduction

The National Seminar on Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) and English Studies, held on 23rd and 24th March 2026, provided an intellectually stimulating platform for engaging with the intersections between indigenous knowledge traditions and contemporary literary studies. In recent decades, English Studies in India has increasingly been critiqued for its dependence on Western theoretical frameworks, often overlooking the richness of Indian intellectual traditions. This seminar sought to address this imbalance by foregrounding Indian Knowledge Systems as both complementary and alternative frameworks for literary analysis, pedagogy, and research.

The seminar brought together eminent scholars who explored diverse dimensions of IKS—from classical poetics and philosophy to translation studies and feminist reinterpretations. Each session contributed to a deeper understanding of how Indian epistemologies can reshape English Studies, making it more inclusive, culturally grounded, and critically dynamic. The discussions collectively emphasized the need for interdisciplinary approaches, decolonizing methodologies, and the integration of indigenous perspectives into academic discourse.

Plenary Session by Dr. Dushyant Nimavat

Dr. Dushyant Nimavat’s session offered a foundational framework for understanding Indian Knowledge Systems as a plural, dynamic, and critically engaging field rather than a monolithic or static tradition. His central argument challenged the simplistic tendency to treat IKS as a unified body of knowledge. Instead, he emphasized that it is composed of diverse intellectual traditions, regional practices, and philosophical schools that have evolved over centuries.

One of the key contributions of his lecture was his insistence on moving beyond binary debates of superiority between Indian and Western knowledge systems. Rather than positioning IKS as superior or inferior, he advocated for a balanced academic approach grounded in critical inquiry and evidence-based research. This perspective is particularly important in avoiding both uncritical glorification and dismissive skepticism.

Dr. Nimavat also critically examined the historical development of India’s education system, highlighting its deep entanglement with colonial legacies. He argued that despite achieving political independence, India largely retained Western educational structures, thereby missing an opportunity to design a system rooted in indigenous knowledge traditions. This critique resonates with broader debates on decolonization and epistemic justice in academia.

Drawing on Dharampal’s The Beautiful Tree, he illustrated how pre-colonial India possessed a vibrant and decentralized educational system that was systematically undermined by colonial narratives. However, he cautioned against accepting such claims without rigorous examination, emphasizing the need for scholarly verification and critical engagement.

A particularly significant aspect of his lecture was his discussion on research methodologies. He argued that Western frameworks often dominate academic research, which can lead to misinterpretations when applied to culturally distinct Indian texts. For instance, applying Western feminist or critical theories without contextual sensitivity may overlook indigenous gender dynamics and cultural nuances. Therefore, he proposed that IKS should be developed as a complementary research methodology capable of offering culturally relevant interpretations.

By referencing Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies, Dr. Nimavat highlighted the importance of creating indigenous research tools that challenge Western epistemological dominance. He also linked his arguments to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which advocates for the integration of Indian knowledge traditions into mainstream education.

In conclusion, Dr. Nimavat’s session established a critical and balanced perspective on IKS, arguing for its integration as a complementary framework that enriches academic inquiry while maintaining intellectual rigor and cultural sensitivity.

Plenary Session by Dr. Kalyani Vallath

Dr. Kalyani Vallath’s lecture provided a fascinating exploration of Dravidian Knowledge Systems, particularly classical Tamil poetics, and demonstrated their relevance to contemporary literary studies. Her central argument emphasized the interconnectedness of knowledge systems, rejecting rigid disciplinary boundaries in favor of a more holistic and integrative approach.

The focal point of her lecture was the Thinai system, an ancient framework from the Tolkappiyam and Sangam literature. Thinai categorizes human emotions and experiences in relation to specific landscapes, thereby establishing a profound connection between ecology and human psychology. This ecological-emotional mapping represents a sophisticated understanding of how environment shapes human experience.

Dr. Vallath elaborated on the division between Akam (the inner, personal domain) and Puram (the outer, public domain), which together provide a comprehensive framework for analyzing literary themes. She further explained the five primary landscapes—Kurinji, Mullai, Marudam, Neithal, and Palai—each associated with distinct emotional states such as love, patience, conflict, longing, and separation.

One of the most compelling aspects of her lecture was her demonstration of the universality and adaptability of the Thinai system. She argued that this framework is not limited to ancient Tamil literature but can be applied across various literary traditions, including Sanskrit texts, Western literature, modern poetry, cinema, and performance art. This highlights the potential of IKS as a global analytical tool.

Dr. Vallath also engaged in comparative analysis by linking Thinai with other literary theories such as Rasa Theory, Romanticism, Symbolism, Modernism, Ecocriticism, and Northrop Frye’s archetypal criticism. Through these comparisons, she demonstrated that Indian aesthetic traditions are not isolated but are intellectually comparable to globally recognized theoretical frameworks.

Another significant dimension of her lecture was its relevance to contemporary ecological concerns. By emphasizing the relationship between human emotions and natural environments, the Thinai system offers valuable insights for ecocriticism and environmental humanities. In an era of ecological crisis, such frameworks can contribute to more sustainable and ethically informed approaches to literature and culture.

In conclusion, Dr. Vallath’s session highlighted the richness of Dravidian literary aesthetics and demonstrated how indigenous frameworks like Thinai can function as powerful tools for comparative literary analysis, ecological criticism, and interdisciplinary research.

Plenary Session by Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay

Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay’s session focused on the urgent need to rethink English Studies in India by integrating Indian Knowledge Systems into its pedagogical and analytical frameworks. His lecture began with a historical overview of English education in India, tracing its origins to colonial policies such as Macaulay’s Minute, which aimed to create a class of Indians aligned with British values.

He argued that this colonial legacy resulted in a Eurocentric academic structure that continues to dominate English Studies. This has led to what Paulo Freire describes as the “banking model” of education, where knowledge is passively transmitted rather than actively constructed through critical engagement.

To address this issue, Dr. Chattopadhyay proposed that IKS should not merely be added to the curriculum as supplementary content but should function as an alternative analytical framework. He highlighted several Indian philosophical and literary traditions—Nyaya, Vedanta, Rasa Theory, and Dhvani Theory—as sophisticated tools for literary interpretation.

For example, Nyaya provides a logical framework for textual analysis, Vedanta offers insights into metaphysical and existential themes, Rasa Theory enables a nuanced understanding of aesthetic experience, and Dhvani Theory deepens the analysis of implied meaning in literature. By comparing these with Western theories such as psychoanalysis and deconstruction, he demonstrated that Indian frameworks are equally capable of critical inquiry.

A key pedagogical innovation he proposed was the adoption of dialogic learning, inspired by the Bhagavad Gita. This approach encourages active participation, questioning, and intellectual engagement, moving away from rote learning.

He also suggested practical reforms, including redesigning curricula to incorporate comparative studies of Indian and Western theories, integrating IKS into research methodology, and promoting interdisciplinary approaches.

In conclusion, Dr. Chattopadhyay argued that integrating IKS can help decolonize English Studies, foster critical thinking, and create a more inclusive academic environment that values diverse intellectual traditions.

Plenary Session by Ashok Sachdeva

Ashok Sachdeva’s session offered a compelling exploration of the deep and often underacknowledged influence of Indian philosophy on British and American literary traditions. His lecture challenged the conventional assumption that intellectual influence flows only from the West to the East. Instead, he demonstrated that Indian philosophical ideas have significantly shaped Western literary thought, especially during the period known as the Oriental Renaissance, when key Indian texts were translated into English and became accessible to European scholars.

Sachdeva began by outlining the core philosophical concepts that traveled from Indian traditions into Western intellectual discourse—ideas such as Vedanta, Maya (illusion), Karma (action and consequence), Moksha (liberation), detachment, and the cyclical nature of time and existence. He argued that these concepts resonated deeply with Western writers who were searching for spiritual alternatives to rigid Christian frameworks and the growing materialism of modernity.

One of the most insightful aspects of his lecture was his close reading of major literary figures. For instance, he demonstrated how William Wordsworth’s spiritual engagement with nature reflects Vedantic notions of unity between the self and the cosmos. Wordsworth’s belief in a living, conscious natural world aligns closely with Indian philosophical ideas of universal interconnectedness. Similarly, Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poetry, with its emphasis on transience and illusion, echoes the concept of Maya, where reality is perceived as unstable and ever-changing.

Sachdeva also highlighted the influence of Indian philosophy on modernist writers such as T. S. Eliot and W. B. Yeats. Eliot’s The Waste Land and Four Quartets incorporate references to the Upanishads and express a search for spiritual meaning beyond Western traditions. Yeats, influenced by Indian philosophy and mysticism, developed ideas of cyclical time and reincarnation, which are evident in his poetic works. Furthermore, American transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Walt Whitman drew heavily on Indian texts like the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads, integrating these ideas into their philosophical and literary writings.

A particularly engaging part of Sachdeva’s lecture was his comparative analysis of Hamlet and Arjuna. Both characters are princes confronted with moral dilemmas that create psychological conflict. Hamlet struggles with indecision and existential doubt, unable to reconcile his duty with his emotions. In contrast, Arjuna, guided by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, resolves his conflict through philosophical understanding and spiritual clarity. This comparison illustrates how Indian philosophical frameworks can offer alternative interpretative tools for analyzing Western literary characters.

Sachdeva concluded by asserting that Indian philosophy should not be seen as a peripheral or decorative influence on Western literature but as a significant intellectual force that has contributed to shaping global literary traditions. His lecture ultimately reinforced the idea that cross-cultural intellectual exchange has been reciprocal and that Indian Knowledge Systems deserve recognition as vital contributors to world literature.

Plenary Session by Atanu Bhattacharya

Professor Atanu Bhattacharya’s session provided a profound rethinking of language and its role within Indian Knowledge Systems. His central argument challenged the modern tendency to view language merely as a tool for communication. Instead, he emphasized that in traditional Indian thought, language is fundamentally a medium for generating, transmitting, and interpreting knowledge.

Bhattacharya began by rejecting the notion that Indian intellectual traditions experienced a rupture or discontinuity over time. He argued that Indian knowledge systems have maintained a continuous flow (dhara or parampara), evolving through various linguistic and cultural forms—from Sanskrit texts to Bhakti literature and regional languages. This continuity underscores the resilience and adaptability of Indian epistemological traditions.

A key focus of his lecture was the central role of Sanskrit in shaping Indian knowledge systems. He explained that Sanskrit functioned not only as a classical language but also as a foundational structure through which philosophical, literary, and scientific knowledge was articulated. At the same time, regional languages developed through dialogue with Sanskrit, creating a multilingual intellectual environment.

Bhattacharya emphasized that traditional Indian approaches to language education were holistic and integrative. Literature, narratives, poetry, and dramatic texts were not treated as separate from language learning but were essential components of it. This stands in contrast to modern educational systems, which often separate language instruction from literary and cultural contexts.

His discussion of Panini’s Ashtadhyayi was particularly illuminating. He described Panini’s grammar as not merely a technical linguistic system but a sophisticated and generative framework that captures both formal rules and real-world language use. In this sense, Panini’s work anticipates modern linguistic theories such as Noam Chomsky’s generative grammar. However, Bhattacharya stressed that Panini’s system is deeply embedded in social and cultural contexts, making it more holistic than many modern approaches.

Bhattacharya also identified key features of traditional Indian language pedagogy, including the importance of memorization, the integration of oral and written traditions, multilingual competence, and context-based interpretation. These elements contributed to a rich and dynamic learning environment.

In contrast, he critiqued the impact of colonial education, particularly institutions like Fort William College, which transformed language learning into a utilitarian and administrative tool. This shift reduced language to mere communication, separated it from knowledge production, and marginalized the role of literature and narratives.

In conclusion, Bhattacharya argued for a reconsideration of traditional Indian language practices in modern education. By reintegrating language, literature, and knowledge, contemporary pedagogy can recover a more comprehensive and meaningful approach to learning.

Plenary Session by Sachin Ketkar

Sachin Ketkar’s lecture focused on the crucial role of translation in preserving, transmitting, and reinterpreting Indian Knowledge Systems. His central argument emphasized that translation is not a secondary or derivative activity but a vital intellectual process that enables access to knowledge across linguistic and cultural boundaries.

Ketkar began by highlighting a significant challenge: the majority of Indians cannot access foundational texts such as the Vedas, Upanishads, or Panini’s works in their original languages. As a result, translation becomes essential for the survival and dissemination of these traditions. However, he pointed out that translation has often been undervalued in India due to misconceptions about its nature and purpose.

One of the key ideas he challenged was the notion of equivalence—the belief that translation must produce an exact match between the source and target languages. Ketkar argued that this expectation is unrealistic, especially when dealing with culturally specific terms such as dharma, guru, or sari, which do not have precise equivalents even within Indian languages. He suggested that this obsession with equivalence is a colonial inheritance that misunderstands the nature of language and meaning.

Drawing on contemporary translation studies, Ketkar explained that translation should be understood as an act of interpretation and cultural production. Every translation reflects the translator’s historical, ideological, and literary context. Therefore, translations are not neutral reproductions but creative engagements with the source text.

He illustrated this point through the works of Sri Aurobindo and A. K. Ramanujan. Aurobindo’s translations of the Vedas reinterpret them through a spiritual and philosophical lens, challenging colonial interpretations. In contrast, Ramanujan’s translations adapt Indian texts into a modern literary idiom, shaped by his engagement with modernist poetry. These examples demonstrate that different translations can produce different meanings, each shaped by its context.

Ketkar also rejected the idea that texts have a single, fixed meaning that translation must preserve. Instead, he argued that meaning is dynamic and evolves over time. Translation, therefore, becomes a process of continuous reinterpretation and knowledge creation.

In conclusion, Ketkar’s lecture redefined translation as a powerful intellectual practice that not only preserves cultural heritage but also generates new meanings and perspectives. His insights highlight the importance of translation in sustaining and revitalizing Indian Knowledge Systems.

Plenary Session by Dr. Amrita Das

Dr. Amrita Das’s session offered a nuanced and interdisciplinary exploration of divine femininity in Indian traditions through the lens of French feminist philosopher Luce Irigaray. Her lecture sought to bridge the gap between Western feminist theory and Indian spiritual traditions, presenting a unique framework for understanding women’s identity, agency, and empowerment.

Dr. Das began by critiquing Western religious traditions for their lack of strong feminine divine representations. In contrast, she highlighted the richness of Hindu goddess traditions, where female divinity is central and multifaceted. Goddesses in Hinduism embody power, creativity, nurturing, and destruction, offering a complex and empowering model of femininity.

Using Irigaray’s theoretical concepts, Dr. Das explored themes such as self-love, embodiment, breath, and maternal genealogy. She explained that Irigaray emphasizes the importance of recognizing the female body and subjectivity as sources of knowledge and identity. When applied to Hindu traditions, these ideas resonate with the symbolic and spiritual significance of goddesses.

A particularly innovative aspect of her lecture was the focus on breath and air as metaphors for spiritual and existential freedom. In both Hindu philosophy and Irigaray’s thought, breath represents life, continuity, and transcendence. This metaphor becomes a powerful tool for understanding women’s self-realization and autonomy.

Dr. Das also analyzed contemporary literary works such as Nikita Gill’s The Girl and the Goddess and Smriti Dewan’s Urmila: The Forgotten Princess. These texts reinterpret mythological narratives to foreground female perspectives, relationships, and experiences. Through these works, she demonstrated how modern literature engages with traditional symbols to construct new forms of feminist expression.

Another significant theme in her lecture was the idea of maternal genealogy—the relationship between mothers, daughters, and female ancestors. In both Irigaray’s theory and Hindu traditions, this lineage creates a sense of continuity and solidarity among women, challenging patriarchal structures that often erase or marginalize female connections.

In conclusion, Dr. Das argued that Hindu goddess traditions offer a powerful alternative framework for feminist thought. By integrating these traditions with contemporary theory, scholars can develop more inclusive and culturally relevant approaches to gender and identity. Her lecture ultimately emphasized the transformative potential of reclaiming divine femininity in both literary and cultural discourse.