The Idea of Indian Literature: Gender, Genre, and Comparative Method

The Idea of Indian Literature: Gender, Genre, and Comparative MethodUC Irvine FlashPoints
Title The Idea of Indian Literature: Gender, Genre, and Comparative Method
Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7ch193mg
ISBN 978-0-8101-45016
eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California
Th e Idea of Indian Literature
Th e FlashPoints series is devoted to books that consider literature beyond strictly na- tional and disciplinary frameworks and that are distinguished both by their historical grounding and by their theoretical and conceptual strength. Our books engage theory without losing touch with history and work historically without falling into uncriti- cal positivism. FlashPoints aims for a broad audience within the humanities and the social sciences concerned with moments of cultural emergence and transformation. In a Benjaminian mode, FlashPoints is interested in how literature contributes to forming new constellations of culture and history and in how such formations func- tion critically and politically in the present. Series titles are available online at http:// escholarship.org/uc/fl ashpoints.
series editors: Ali Behdad (Comparative Literature and English, UCLA), Editor Emeritus; Judith Butler (Rhetoric and Comparative Literature, UC Berkeley), Editor Emerita; Michelle Clayton (Hispanic Studies and Comparative Literature, Brown Uni- versity); Edward Dimendberg (Film and Media Studies, Visual Studies, and European Languages and Studies, UC Irvine), Founding Editor; Catherine Gallagher (English, UC Berkeley), Editor Emerita; Nouri Gana (Comparative Literature and Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, UCLA); Susan Gillman (Literature, UC Santa Cruz), Coor- dinator; Jody Greene (Literature, UC Santa Cruz); Richard Terdiman (Literature, UC Santa Cruz), Founding Editor
A complete list of titles begins on page 275.
Th e Idea of Indian Literature Gender, Genre, and Comparative Method
Preetha Mani
Northwestern University Press www.nupress.northwestern.edu
Printed in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data
Names: Mani, Preetha, author. Title: Th e idea of Indian literature : gender, genre, and comparative method / Preetha Mani. Other titles: FlashPoints (Evanston, Ill.) Description: Evanston, Illinoia : Northwestern University Press, 2022. |  Series:
FlashPoints | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifi ers: LCCN 2022006348 | ISBN 9780810144996 (paperback) | ISBN 9780810145009
(cloth) | ISBN 9780810145016 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Indic literature— 20th century— History and criticism. |  Short stories,
Hindi— History and criticism. | Short stories, Tamil— History and criticism. | Women in literature.
Classifi cation: LCC PK5423 .M36 2022 | DDC 891.471— dc23/eng/20220215 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022006348
Contents
Introduction: Th e Idea of Indian Literature 3
Chapter 1. Comparative Worldings: Th e Case of Indian Literatures 33
Chapter 2. Citations of Sympathy: How the Hindi and Tamil Short Story Gained Preeminence 65
Chapter 3. Modernist Realism: Th e Literary Historical Imperative of Postindependence Indian Literatures 95
Chapter 4. Empathetic Connections: Communalism, Caste, and Feminine Desire in Postindependence Hindi and Tamil Short Stories 125
Chapter 5. Th e Right to Write: Authorizing Feminine Desire in the Hindi and Tamil Canons 161
Conclusion: Ten Th eses on the Idea of Indian Literature 193
Notes 197
Bibliography 241
Index 267
vii
Acknowledgments
“Gripping my pen with all my might was the only way I felt I could keep hold of the reigns over my character. Still, they slipped out of my hands like always,” says the narrator of Mannu Bhandari’s short story “Mai Hr Ga” (I lost, 1955) as she struggles to mold her protagonist to fi t her plot. Th is is how it sometimes seems when writing a fi rst book. So, I am extremely fortunate to have received the generosity and support— both scholarly and personal— of so many people while undertaking this project. From the very beginning, Vasudha Dalmia and George Hart have been steadfast in their confi dence in me, even before I knew what my scholarship would become. Th is book owes immensely to the questions they have stimulated, care for language they have instilled, and fi elds of study they have ardently built. I am indebted to Kausalya Hart, Usha Jain, Mrs. Jayanthi, Mrs. Soundra Ko- hila, Neelam ji, Dr. Bharathy Rajulu, Swami ji, and Vidhu ji— my Hindi and Tamil language teachers without whose good will, dedication, and patience this work would not have been possible. Nancy Bauer and Jonathan Strong helped me to hear the writerly voice that set me on my path. Th e librarians at the Institut Français de Pondichéry (IFP), Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Roja Muthiah Research Library (RMRL), and Sahitya Akademi happily opened their archives, so full of treasures. R. Narenthiran at the IFP and G. Sundar at RMRL went to especially great lengths to help me locate issues of old journals. My heartfelt thanks to them all.
Conversations over continents and years enabled this book to grow. To map the meandering discussions about Tamil literature and everything else
viii Acknowledgments
that I have had with Kannan M. of the IFP would be to chart new constel- lations. He and Anupama have housed, nourished, and loved me uncondi- tionally. Francesca Orsini welcomed me into her vibrant world of scholarly investigation, gently prodding me to look more closely and question more openheartedly. Her warmth and inquisitiveness, depth and breadth of schol- arship, and strong sense of commitment to friends, colleagues, and students inspire my approach to literature. Dilip Kumar in Chennai willingly shared his trove of stories and books. Lakshmi Holmstrom sparked my interest in Tamil literature and helped me to navigate the trials and pleasures of trans- lation. I miss her quiet tenderness, constant refl ectiveness, and fi erce devo- tion to exploring the inner lives of Tamil women. I was too late to meet most of the writers I examine in this book and so hold all the more dearly to the long chats I had with Rajendra Yadav in Darya Ganj and Mannu Bhandari in Hauz Khas. I hope this book captures some of the world of which they were a part. Laura Brueck has been a more stalwart advocate, thoughtful reader, and fun- loving friend than I could have ever hoped for. Rahul Parson and Greg Goulding set off on the long road with me and steadfastly accompa- nied me the whole way— always with compassion and at times from miles away. Kamal Kapadia and Matthias Fripp made me their family and held my hand through many ups and downs. So many others provided crucial input: A. R. Venkatachalapathy, Lalit Batra, Allison Busch, C. S. Lakshmi, Sharad Chari, Supriya Chaudhuri, Supriya Chotani, Jennifer Clare, Frank Cody, Whitney Cox, Aparna Dharwadker, Vinay Dharwadker, Jennifer Dubrow, E. Annamalai, Sascha Ebeling, Swarnavel Eswaran, Toral Gajara- wala, Corin Golding, Nikhil Govind, Charu Gupta, Hans Harder, Udaya Kumar, David Lunn, Carlos Mena, Farina Mir, Pritipuspa Mishra, Sujata Mody, Janaki Nair, Costas Nakassis, Shobna Nijhawan, Geeta Patel, Robert Phillips, Alok Rai, Sara Rai, Bhavani Raman, Pritpal Randhawa, S. Shankar, Kumkum Sangari, Simona Sawhney, Rena Searle, Taylor Sherman, Snehal Shingavi, Neelam Srivastava, Rajeswari Sunder Rajan, Ashwini Tambe, Tor- sten Tschacher, V. Arasu, and V. Geetha. I am eternally grateful to each and every one.
Friends and colleagues at Rutgers have given me rich intellectual sus- tenance and cheery camaraderie. I have depended on Sylvia Chan- Malik, Chie Ikeya, Suzy Kim, Christian Lammerts, and Rick Lee in more ways than I thought could be possible. My debts to Chie and Christian strain the imagi- nation. Jessica Birkenholtz, Anjali Nerlekar, and Meheli Sen read many por- tions of this book with utmost care and enthusiasm, providing me with the encouragement and wise perspective I needed to push through. Th ey sus- tained me otherwise, too, with food, drink, and merriment when I needed
Acknowledgments ix
these the most. It is rare, I think, to fi nd such a kindred spirit as I have found in Anjali. She is a cornerstone in myriad ways. Ousseina Alidou, Charles Haberl, Alamin Mazrui, Jorge Marcone, Andrew Parker, Samah Selim, Janet Walker, and Rebecca Walkowitz have been compassionate mentors, fi erce advocates, and intellectual role models whose footsteps I endeavor to follow. My colleagues in African, Middle Eastern, and South Asian Lan- guages and Literatures (AMESALL) have extended me great kindness, making the department feel like home. I am especially lucky for the friend- ship and sincere advice of Karen Bishop, Indrani Chatterjee, Andrew Gold- stone, Sumit Guha, Dorothy Hodgson, David Hughes, Sneha Khaund, Efe Khayyat, Triveni Kuchi, Mazen Labban, Mukti Lakhi Mangharam, Melanie McDermott, Nida Sajid, Laura Schneider, and Rick Schroeder. Hudson Mc- Fann swooped in at the last minute with selfl essness and grace to help tie up loose ends. To all, my deepest gratitude.
Th is project benefi ted from faculty fellowships at the Rutgers Institute for Research on Women in 2013– 14 and the Rutgers Center for Cultural Anal- ysis in 2019– 20. I am also grateful for feedback from the participants of the “Indian Literature as Comparative Literature” workshops at Rutgers in 2013 and the IFP in 2014, the “Literary Sentiments” conferences at Heidelberg in 2016 and Northwestern in 2017, the “Hindi/Urdu Arts and Literature” conferences at Princeton in 2015 and 2018, and the Chicago Tamil Forum in 2019. Many of this book’s arguments were presented at the Fredrich Schle- gel Graduate School of Literary Studies, Nehru Memorial Museum and Li- brary, Northwestern University, Penn State University, Postcolonial Print Cultures Network, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of California, Berkeley, University of California, Davis, University of Texas at Austin, and Yale University. Th is book was made possible due to generous fi nancial support from the American Council of Learned Societies, Amer- ican Institute for Indian Studies, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Rutgers Center for Cultural Analysis, Rutgers Global, Rutgers Institute for Research on Women, and Rutgers Research Council. It is my pleasure and privilege to thank them here.
At Northwestern University Press, Susan Gilman’s support of this proj- ect has been constant and unfl agging. I am immensely grateful for her faith in my work and her sage counsel. I thank Gianna Mosser, Trevor Perri, Maia Rigas, Patrick Samuel, and Faith Wilson Stein for so graciously guiding me through the publishing process. Portions of chapters 2, 3, and 5 appeared in South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, Comparative Literature, and Comparative Studies of South Asia, Afr ica, and the Middle East. I appreciate their permission to reprint this material here. I also extend sincere thanks
x Acknowledgments
to Ashok Maheshwari of Rajkamal Prakashan and the uncredited artist of the January 1963 issue of Na Kahniym for use of their image on my book cover.
My greatest debt is to my family, a debt in the face of which words fl oun- der. Venk, Usha, Priya, and Sunita Mani may have puzzled to understand my scholarship, but this never stopped them from wholeheartedly tending to everything else in my life so that I could continue the work I was doing. Nancy and Lory Ghertner have lavished me with love and nurtured me un- ceasingly. Zoë Ghertner has been my sister and Robin Ghertner and Kenny Warren my brothers. Steven Baldi is a steady fellow. Gina, Arjan, Gabriel, and Jaimal Ghertner and Lee Baldi give me so much glee. Ameya Mani Ghertner arrived, and Zubin Mani Ghertner followed soon aft er, making this project a more wonderous adventure than I anticipated, infusing my writing with the possibilities of worlds I am yet to imagine. Apart from me, only Asher Ghertner knows what has gone into composing this book. He has lived with it as long as I have, listened to every idea, read every draft , and believed in it when I have faltered. Th is book is for him and for our shared, wide-open future.
xi
Note on Translation and Transliteration
All translations from Hindi and Tamil in this book are mine. Some passages have been translated before, and some have not. I use my own translations because, as many have argued before me, translation is an intimate and pro- found act of interpretation. It is the primary means through which I have learned from the thinkers I discuss in this book.
In transliterating Hindi and Tamil words, I have followed the Ameri- can Library Association– Library of Congress (ALA- LC) standards for ro- manization. Exceptions to this are place names, caste names, and personal names. For all of these, I have retained their popular spellings in Roman letters without diacritics.
Th e Idea of Indian Literature
3
Introduction
Th e Idea of Indian Literature
Th e idea of an Indian literature, though fairly old, is yet to emerge as a distinct literary concept.
— Sisir Kumar Das, “Th e Idea of an Indian Literature”
In 1981 Sujit Mukherjee— writer, editor, translator, cricketer, and scholar of comparative literature in India— published Th e Idea of an Indian Literature, a compilation of English- language essays by various thinkers on the subject. Th e volume discloses how Indian literature arose as a new preoccupation in the nineteenth century, particularly among Orientalists and precisely when Indian languages entered into sustained interaction with English. Rather than accomplishing its self- proclaimed task to uncover “the un- derlying concept” of Indian literature, the volume documents how Indian literature remained an ambiguous, contested, and shift ing category— with persistently troubled ties to English— throughout the nineteenth and twen- tieth centuries.1
For the scholars that Mukherjee excerpts, the primary conundrum is that the very term “Indian literature” undermines the triangulation of language, literature, and nation that the eighteenth- century philological revolution in Europe had put in place.2 Whereas individual literatures mapped onto dis- tinct language communities in Anglo- European traditions, the multilingual makeup of the subcontinent meant that Indian literature could not be linked to just one language: “I cannot say that [my lectures] are to treat the history of ‘Indian literature’; for then I should have to consider the whole body of
4 Introduction
Indian languages,” German Indologist Albrecht Weber refl ects in the 1852 piece with which Mukherjee’s anthology begins.3 To resolve this dilemma, Weber turns to Sanskrit as the Indian literature par excellence. Others in the volume, such as linguists Robert Caldwell and George Grierson, con- ceptualize Indian literature around the shared life of the living vernaculars. Still others, like philosopher and nationalist Sri Aurobindo and founder of Indian sociology Dhurjati Prasad Mukerji, emphasize the connecting motif of Hindu spirituality. Mukherjee himself concludes that Indian literature, a fi eld yet to be realized, depends solely on the “bold and imaginative specu- lation” that it even exists.4 Th e idea of Indian literature, it thus would seem, is the idea of Indian literature’s possibility at all.
Th is book contends that the idea of Indian literature is constituted by the irresolvable question of language’s relationship to literature— rather than by specifi c concepts, texts, or languages. Th is idea is therefore indetermi- nate, propositional, and presented through a multitude of mismatched de- sires that aspire to bypass language, while conjoining literature and nation. Th e idea of Indian literature was spurred by nineteenth- century processes of vernacularization, which produced new relationships among Indian lan- guages and between them and English. It arose from the paradox that a sin- gle literature could be written in multiple, distinct languages.
Th e Idea of Indian Literature explores the persistence of this paradox through an examination of how Hindi writers based in North India and Tamil writers based in Madras (now Chennai) used the short story to give purchase to the idea of Indian literature between the 1930s and 1960s, both in conversation and in confl ict with English. Hindi, with its contentious history of Hinduization and opposition to Urdu and English, has long em- bodied questions of national belonging.5 Tamil, by contrast, epitomizes the anti- Brahmin and secessionist propensities of the region.6 For the writers I discuss in this book, the idea of Indian literature served as a means of con- testing the fraught linguistic divisions that twentieth- century Hindi and Tamil ethnolinguistic movements sought to sediment. It off ered a platform for their eff orts to make the boundaries of language more malleable and to create understandings of community based on literary, rather than linguis- tic, norms.
At the same time, I examine how, at critical junctures in the late colo- nial and early postcolonial periods, Hindi and Tamil writers produced new, nonaligning conceptions of Indian literature precisely when debates over national language were renewed. For them, the question of language simul- taneously raised the question of literature, and literature became a means for tackling— and sometimes bracketing— language. While the possibility of
Th e Idea of Indian Literature 5
Hindi becoming the national language seemed imminent to many by the 1930s, it also positioned Hindi and Tamil writers unequally vis- à- vis the nation and forced them to grapple with the schism between language and literature in divergent ways. For this reason, even as Hindi and Tamil writ- ers jointly imagined a pan- Indian literature, their speculations about what it could mean were profoundly shaped by questions of identity and belong- ing that were unique to the Hindi- and Tamil- speaking regions. Th is book’s comparison of these writers reveals how Indian literature could be neither one nor many.7
Th e paradox of Indian literature extends into contemporary Indian lit- erary studies, which— as Aijaz Ahmad famously observed three decades ago— pivots around the problem of comparative methodology.8 How can a pan- Indian literature also account for the singularities of the many subcon- tinental languages? Some scholars have developed aggregative models of Indian literature that confer circumscribed regional literary histories with parallel and equal status.9 Others have postulated frameworks for highlight- ing literary commonalities and interactions across linguistic spheres.10 More recent scholarship elaborates paradigms of degreed cultural autonomy, co- constitution and cross- fertilization, and multilingualism as a “structuring and generative principle.”11 All these approaches have advanced important insights for understanding the complex, multilingual makeup of Indian lit- erary fi elds and for productively problematizing the notion of Indian liter- ature itself.
Nonetheless, the idea of Indian literature endures, and the tension be- tween the monolingual disposition of regional language movements, on one hand, and diverse multilingual histories and networks, on the other, remains its formative feature. Th is is precisely the tension that a comparison of Hindi and Tamil literature presents. Although well read in two or more languages— and oft en translating prolifi cally between them— the Hindi and Tamil writers I discuss in this book consciously invested in promoting the development of their respective literary fi elds. Th eir commitment to work- ing primarily in Hindi and Tamil necessarily, if also contrarily, linked their writing with regionalist positions. It placed these writers at a tangent to na- tionalist and internationalist politics aimed at superseding ethnolinguistic diff erence, even as they viewed themselves as contributors to subcontinen- tal and global literary circulations. Th is contradictory position, Th e Idea of Indian Literature shows, was a consequence of evolving processes of vernac- ularization. Th is book argues that Indian literature was an idea that Hindi and Tamil writers could wield to productively challenge the condition of vernacularity to which their literatures had been assigned and in reaction to which regional and national language politics had emerged.
6 Introduction
The Ver nacul ar
Examining the rise of regional- language literary cultures in South Asia, Sheldon Pollock links vernacularization to specifi c political shift s occurring at the beginning of the second millennium. Vernacularization, in his view, is defi ned by the appropriation of cosmopolitan Sanskrit literary conventions to impart less- traveled regional languages with a literariness that they had previously been denied.12 Emphasizing its democratizing impulse to elevate the language of commoners into the language of the public sphere, Chris- tian Novetzke further identifi es vernacularization as a demarcated time pe- riod spanning the fi ft h to the seventeenth centuries.13 Alexander Beecroft extends this periodization to worldwide literary developments that to- gether constitute what he calls a “vernacular literary…