In the face of globalisation and its economic/cultural repercussions in recent years, certain attitudes have taken shape. Of these, one of the most significant can be perceived as defensive, to an extent, a resistance movement to retain ones cultural exclusivity and look for inspiration in regional literature and folklore rather than towards the west or our classical heritage, i.e mainly Sanskrit literature. Broadly speaking, this is nativism or Desivad which has been put forward as an alternative ideology, not only in literature, but philosophy, sociology and other social sciences.
In 1995, the Sahitya Akademi and the Centre for Creative writing and Publication (IIT, Kanpur) jointly organised a seminar on Desivad in Indian Literature. Nativism: Essays in Criticisms, edited by Makarand Paranjape, is a selection of the papers presented at the seminar along with some others.
Apart from the two well known advocates of nativism, Balchandra Nemade and G N Devy, there are many others. This is what makes the discussion lively to critics as well.
Desivad is not just limited to India. To quote from Paranjapes preface: Nativism is a part of a worldwide phenomenon of cultural nationalism and self-assertion in which colonised and other marginalised literary cultures have begun to vociferate their differences from Euro-American, universalist critical discourses. However, a well-defined and objective attitude needs to be worked out. As K Satchinandan rightly points out, nativism can degenerate into another form of rustic revivalism and an uncritical valorisation of feudal values....
G N Devy, one of Desivads staunchest advocates, also feels that without self-discipline and self-search on the part of its practitioners, it could become ... a militant and closed ideology. In his essay Defining the Premises: Nativism and its Ambivalences, Satchinandan says: The modern Indian languages have a complex inter-relationship, more complex than European languages. The relationships between Tamil and Malayalam, Oriya and Bengali, Sanskrit and Indian languages or Hindi and the many languages that have constituted it historically yet remain independent in differential relation to Hindi: these are all much more complex and intimate than, say, German and French. It is a very interesting point, important too in the Indian context, and one wishes he had argued it in greater linguistic/literary detail. One quite agrees with him as he concludes that the nativist deconstruction of Indian tradition must take note of cultural plurality within the nations boundaries and intertextuality within culture and constantly make an effort to be ...more future-oriented than past-oriented and in some sense post-modern rather than obscurantist.
Talking of obscurantism, one fails to see how the term parishkruti can be substituted for nativism. The editorial note is not enough, the writer should have been asked to clarify his usage of the term, or at least give the reader some idea as to its origin and usage in the context of contemporary Gujarati short fiction.
The book is divided into four sections: introduction, backgrounds, debates and practice. The section on debates is the most thought provoking, particularly Prasannas essay A Critique of Nativism in Contemporary Indian Theatre. He argues convincingly against nativism on the basis of his experience in theatre and feels that it has a restrictive influence on the dramatists creativity. To quote: Indian literature and Indian texts have grown enough to have their own forms of expression that somebody can call them magical or Brahmanical realism maybe, or Dalit realism but I dont think that we should be so eager so suddenly to call it Desivad and think that we have solved the problem of modernism.
In the course of this short review it is not possible to refer to all the papers, let alone discuss them. I have not read any of Devys works and Debjani Gangulys essay G N Devy: The Nativist as Postcolonial Critic raises certain points which nativists should consider seriously. Since the movement has taken on the responsibility of deconstructing our bhasa traditions from both colonialist (European) and mainstream (Sanskrit) historiographies, it has a very restrictive and reductive approach towards the multi-cultural and multilingual ethos that influences Indian literature.
Not having gone deeply into the pros and cons of nativism, one is not in a position to make judgemental statements about it. It appears to be a reaction against the emphasis on colonial transactions and its influence on criticism, an oscillation, which has not yet reached an equilibrium, but cannot be ignored.Nativism: Essays in Criticism
Edited by Makarand Paranjape Sahitya Academy, 1997 Rs 100/256 pages
