National Seminar on IKS and English Studies

 Learning Outcomes from the National Seminar on IKS and English Studies

Introduction

The National Seminar on Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) and English Studies, conducted on 23rd and 24th March 2026, created a valuable academic space for examining the relationship between indigenous Indian traditions and contemporary English Studies. In modern academia, English Studies in India has often relied heavily on Western critical theories, while many Indian intellectual traditions have remained neglected. This seminar attempted to bridge that gap by introducing Indian Knowledge Systems as meaningful frameworks for literary criticism, pedagical practices, and interdisciplinary research.

The seminar featured several distinguished scholars who discussed diverse aspects of IKS, including Indian philosophy, aesthetics, language traditions, translation studies, ecology, and feminist reinterpretations. Through these discussions, participants gained deeper insight into how Indian epistemologies can enrich English Studies by making it more culturally rooted, inclusive, and intellectually diverse. The sessions collectively emphasized decolonization, interdisciplinary learning, and the importance of integrating indigenous perspectives into academic discourse.

Plenary Session by

Dr. Dushyant Nimavat’s lecture provided a strong conceptual understanding of Indian Knowledge Systems by presenting them as diverse, evolving, and critically engaging traditions rather than as a single uniform body of knowledge. He argued that IKS includes multiple philosophical schools, regional practices, and intellectual traditions developed across centuries.

A major focus of his session was the need to avoid simplistic comparisons between Indian and Western systems of knowledge. Instead of claiming superiority for either side, he emphasized a balanced scholarly approach based on evidence, critical thinking, and rigorous inquiry. This perspective discourages both blind glorification and complete rejection of indigenous traditions.

He also examined the colonial roots of India’s current education system. According to him, although India achieved political independence, its educational structure continued to follow colonial frameworks, leaving little room for indigenous intellectual traditions. His discussion reflected broader debates about decolonization and epistemic justice in higher education.

Referring to , Dr. Nimavat explained that pre-colonial India had a rich and decentralized educational system which colonial narratives often ignored or distorted. However, he stressed that such historical claims must always be critically verified through scholarly research.

Another important aspect of his lecture was his discussion of research methodologies. He pointed out that applying Western theories mechanically to Indian texts may produce culturally inadequate interpretations. For example, Western feminist theories may fail to fully capture indigenous social and cultural realities. Therefore, he proposed that IKS should function as a complementary methodology capable of producing culturally grounded interpretations.

By referring to , he highlighted the necessity of developing indigenous research tools that challenge Western epistemological dominance. He also connected his ideas with the , which encourages the inclusion of Indian knowledge traditions within mainstream education.

Overall, Dr. Nimavat’s session encouraged a critical yet constructive understanding of IKS as a framework that can enrich academic research while preserving intellectual rigor and cultural relevance.

Plenary Session by

Dr. Kalyani Vallath’s lecture explored Dravidian Knowledge Systems, especially classical Tamil poetics, and demonstrated their significance for modern literary studies. She argued that knowledge systems should not be separated into rigid categories because literature, ecology, philosophy, and culture are deeply interconnected.

The central concept discussed in her lecture was the Thinai system found in the and Sangam literature. Thinai organizes human emotions and experiences according to specific natural landscapes, thereby creating a close relationship between ecology and psychology.

Dr. Vallath explained the distinction between Akam (inner and personal experiences) and Puram (public and external experiences), which together create a comprehensive literary framework. She further discussed the five landscapes—Kurinji, Mullai, Marudam, Neithal, and Palai—each associated with particular emotional conditions such as love, patience, separation, longing, and conflict.

One of the most significant ideas in her lecture was that Thinai is not confined to ancient Tamil literature alone. According to her, this framework can also be applied to Sanskrit texts, Western literature, modern poetry, cinema, and theatre. This demonstrates the global relevance and adaptability of Indian literary aesthetics.

She also compared Thinai with other literary theories such as Rasa Theory, Romanticism, Symbolism, Modernism, Ecocriticism, and ’s archetypal criticism. Through this comparative approach, she showed that Indian aesthetic theories possess intellectual depth comparable to internationally recognized critical frameworks.

Another important aspect of her lecture was its ecological relevance. By linking human emotions with natural landscapes, Thinai offers important insights for ecocriticism and environmental humanities, especially in the context of present ecological crises.

In conclusion, Dr. Vallath demonstrated how indigenous frameworks like Thinai can serve as effective tools for comparative literature, ecological studies, and interdisciplinary research.

Plenary Session by

Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay focused on the necessity of restructuring English Studies in India through the integration of Indian Knowledge Systems. He began by discussing the colonial origins of English education in India, particularly policies such as , which promoted Western values and Eurocentric education.

He argued that this colonial legacy continues to influence English Studies, often resulting in passive learning methods similar to what calls the “banking model” of education.

To challenge this framework, Dr. Chattopadhyay proposed that IKS should function not merely as additional content but as an alternative interpretative framework. He highlighted several Indian traditions such as Nyaya, Vedanta, Rasa Theory, and Dhvani Theory as sophisticated methods for literary analysis.

For instance, Nyaya provides logical tools for interpretation, Vedanta examines metaphysical questions, Rasa Theory explores aesthetic experience, and Dhvani Theory focuses on suggestion and implied meaning in literature. By comparing these approaches with Western theories like psychoanalysis and deconstruction, he showed that Indian frameworks are equally capable of critical analysis.

He also proposed dialogic learning inspired by the , where education involves questioning, dialogue, and active participation rather than rote memorization.

Additionally, he recommended practical academic reforms such as revising curricula, incorporating comparative studies, integrating IKS into research methodology, and promoting interdisciplinary approaches.

Overall, Dr. Chattopadhyay emphasized that integrating IKS into English Studies can support decolonization, critical thinking, and intellectual inclusivity.

Plenary Session by

Ashok Sachdeva’s lecture examined the influence of Indian philosophy on British and American literary traditions. He challenged the common assumption that intellectual influence only moved from the West to the East. Instead, he argued that Indian philosophical concepts significantly shaped Western literary thought during the period known as the Oriental Renaissance.

He discussed ideas such as Vedanta, Maya, Karma, Moksha, detachment, and cyclical time, explaining how these concepts appealed to Western writers searching for spiritual alternatives to materialism and rigid religious systems.

Sachdeva analyzed several literary figures to demonstrate this influence. He explained that ’s spiritual relationship with nature resembles Vedantic ideas of unity between the self and the universe. Similarly, ’s emphasis on illusion and impermanence reflects the concept of Maya.

He also discussed modernist writers such as and , whose works incorporate Indian philosophical influences. Eliot’s and include references to the Upanishads, while Yeats drew inspiration from Indian mysticism and cyclical theories of time.

American transcendentalists such as , , and were also deeply influenced by texts like the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads.

A particularly engaging comparison in his lecture was between and . Both characters experience moral conflict, but while Hamlet remains trapped in indecision, Arjuna achieves clarity through Krishna’s philosophical guidance in the Bhagavad Gita.

In conclusion, Sachdeva emphasized that Indian philosophy has played a significant role in shaping global literary traditions and should be recognized as an important intellectual influence on world literature.

Plenary Session by

Professor Atanu Bhattacharya’s session explored the role of language in Indian Knowledge Systems. He argued that traditional Indian thought considers language not merely as a communicative tool but as a medium for producing and transmitting knowledge.

He rejected the idea that Indian intellectual traditions experienced a complete rupture over time. Instead, he described them as a continuous flow of knowledge evolving through Sanskrit texts, Bhakti literature, and regional languages.

A central focus of his lecture was the role of Sanskrit as a foundational language for philosophy, literature, and science. At the same time, he noted that regional languages developed through interaction with Sanskrit, creating a multilingual intellectual tradition.

Bhattacharya emphasized that traditional Indian language education integrated literature, storytelling, poetry, and drama into learning. Unlike modern systems that separate language from culture, traditional pedagogy treated them as interconnected.

His discussion of was particularly important. He explained that Panini’s grammar system was not simply technical but highly generative and context-sensitive, anticipating certain aspects of ’s generative grammar.

He also highlighted important features of Indian language pedagogy, including oral traditions, memorization, multilingual competence, and contextual interpretation.

At the same time, he criticized colonial institutions such as for reducing language learning to administrative utility and separating language from literature and knowledge.

In conclusion, Bhattacharya advocated a return to holistic language practices that reconnect language, literature, and intellectual inquiry.

Plenary Session by

Sachin Ketkar’s lecture focused on translation as an essential process for preserving and transmitting Indian Knowledge Systems. He argued that translation is not secondary or inferior but an intellectual activity that enables knowledge to travel across linguistic and cultural boundaries.

He pointed out that many Indians cannot access foundational texts like the Vedas, Upanishads, or Panini’s writings in their original languages, making translation necessary for cultural continuity.

Ketkar challenged the conventional idea of exact equivalence in translation. According to him, culturally specific concepts such as dharma, guru, or sari cannot be perfectly translated into another language. He argued that the demand for perfect equivalence is rooted in colonial approaches to language.

Drawing on modern translation theory, he described translation as interpretation and cultural production rather than mechanical reproduction. Every translation reflects the translator’s historical and ideological context.

He illustrated this through the works of and . Aurobindo interpreted the Vedas spiritually and philosophically, while Ramanujan adapted Indian texts into modern literary styles influenced by modernism.

Ketkar also argued that texts do not possess fixed meanings. Instead, meanings evolve across time and contexts, making translation an ongoing process of reinterpretation and knowledge creation.

In conclusion, his lecture redefined translation as a creative and intellectual practice central to the preservation and revitalization of Indian Knowledge Systems.

Plenary Session by

Dr. Amrita Das’s lecture examined divine femininity in Indian traditions through the theoretical perspective of . Her session connected Western feminist thought with Hindu spiritual traditions to explore women’s identity, embodiment, and empowerment.

She began by criticizing Western religious traditions for lacking strong feminine divine representations. In contrast, Hindu traditions provide powerful goddess figures representing creativity, nurturing, destruction, and spiritual energy.

Using Irigaray’s concepts, Dr. Das discussed themes such as embodiment, self-love, breath, and maternal genealogy. She argued that both Irigaray’s philosophy and Hindu goddess traditions view the female body and feminine experience as important sources of identity and knowledge.

One innovative aspect of her lecture was her interpretation of breath and air as symbols of freedom and spiritual continuity. In both Hindu philosophy and Irigaray’s theory, breath signifies life, transcendence, and self-realization.

She also analyzed contemporary literary texts such as and , which reinterpret mythology from women’s perspectives and foreground female experiences.

Another major theme was maternal genealogy, which emphasizes relationships among mothers, daughters, and female ancestors. According to Dr. Das, these relationships challenge patriarchal systems that erase female continuity and solidarity.

In conclusion, Dr. Das argued that Hindu goddess traditions offer valuable alternative frameworks for feminist thought. By combining these traditions with contemporary theory, scholars can develop more culturally inclusive approaches to gender, identity, and literature.