Aggregating language literatures into an ‘Indian’ object requires new non-comparatist theoretical principles

Evidence

The other, relatively more sober versipn of an ‘Indian Literature’ is the one that is in fact composed of discrete language-literature traditions, so that the word ‘Indian’ is superimposed upon diverse texts drawn, say, from the various periods of the development of Dogri and Bengali and Marathi, much as anything written in any corner of Africa is immediately slotted into something called ‘African Literature’ In the routine manifestations of this latter version, the unity of the object called ‘Indian Literature’ appears to be an effect of geography and the nation-state. At its best, though, this second version does make a great deal of sense, in so far as only by assembling the documents and literary histories of the different languages and literatures of India would it be possible actually to examine and historicize their overlaps, if we are to see at all whether or not they do add up to a unified history, however diverse in irs constituent units. In other words, it is only by passing through the comparatist method that a knowledge of the unity can be obtained. The empirical value of such work, therefore, is enormous. What is often lacking, however, is the sense that a shift from Marathi or Bengali or Urdu to ‘Indian’ is both aggregative and qualitative, and that the shift from quantity to quality, from mass to composition, requires altogether different kinds of conceptual apparatuses and theoretical principles of narrativization. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 1150

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the two senses of ‘Indian Literature’ and the theoretical demand a genuine unified knowledge would place on method.
• XREF: Connects to Ahmad’s broader insistence that ‘third world literature’ and ‘Indian Literature’ aggregates erase material/class structures — reads against Jameson’s third-world allegory essay. — connects to: Print standardization fragmented formerly fluid multilingual literary communities — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 1108; Aggregating discrete literatures into ‘Indian’ is a qualitative, not additive shift — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 1150; European-style national-literature categories distort India’s actual interlingual literary relations — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 1095 (+9 more)

Broader Connections

• Aggregating discrete literatures into ‘Indian’ is a qualitative, not additive shift #expands (0.88) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 1150
• Comparing Hindi and Urdu to French and English distorts Indian literary relations #exemplifies (0.84) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 490
• European-style national-literature categories distort India’s actual interlingual literary relations #corroborates (0.82) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 1095
• Enumerative national literature categories derive their unity from geography, not composition #corroborates (0.79) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 1150
• A grounded Indian literary history must trace material dialectics of unity and difference #corroborates (0.78) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 1164
• Indian literature’s unity is an effect of geography and the nation-state #complicates (0.77) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 512
• World literature theory fits macro-trends but cannot capture each text’s distinct form #corroborates (0.76) — Peter Morey, Islamophobia and the Novel, 54
• Local oral literatures resist absorption into any unified Third World Literature category #complicates (0.75) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 318
• Structural linguistic asymmetry makes the third-world text unknowable to metropolitan theorists #corroborates (0.74) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 376
• Text-centric Orientalism could not abstract from words to a general Oriental mentality #corroborates (0.73) — Timothy Mitchell, Colonising Egypt, 441
• A narrative form enforcing Indian bit-parts is structurally a falsehood #complicates (0.72)