The Konkani language, spoken primarily along India’s western coast in regions like Goa, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Kerala, embodies a rich network of cultural, historical, and linguistic diversity. With roots tracing back centuries, Konkani has been shaped by influences from Portuguese colonialism, regional migrations, and religious communities. Today, it is written in multiple scripts—Devanagari, Roman (Romi), Kannada, Malayalam, and even Perso-arabic —and spoken in various dialects influenced by caste, religion, and geography. This pluralism, however, has not been without conflict. The process of “Nagrization”—the standardization of Konkani in the Devanagari (Nagri) script—represents a pivotal moment in its modern history, particularly in Goa, where it became the official language in 1987.
Drawing on philosophical frameworks, this article explores Nagrization as an instance of dialectical sublation, akin to Hegel’s Aufhebung, where contradictions are resolved into a higher synthesis. In contrast, the advocacy for a “plural Konkani” aligns with dialogical sublation ( coined by me) , emphasizing ongoing relational exchange, much like Martin Buber’s I-Thou philosophy. Finally, we examine whether these processes resonate with Theodor Adorno’s negative dialectics , which critiques forced resolutions and champions unresolved tensions.
Nagrization as Dialectical Sublation
In Hegelian dialectics, sublation (Aufhebung) involves the negation of a thesis by its antithesis, leading to a synthesis that preserves and elevates elements of both while transcending their limitations. This process is not mere compromise but a logical progression toward a more comprehensive whole.
Nagrization can be interpreted through this lens. Historically, Konkani in Goa was predominantly written in the Roman script, a legacy of Portuguese colonial rule that lasted over 450 years. This “thesis” represented a fluid, accessible form of the language, used in literature, religious texts, and daily communication, but fragmented by regional variations and lack of standardization. The “antithesis” emerged post-1961, after Goa’s liberation from Portuguese rule and integration into India. Proponents of Devanagari—often aligned with Hindu-majority communities and nationalist sentiments—pushed for its adoption to align Konkani with other Indo-Aryan languages like Hindi and Marathi, arguing it provided a “pure” and unified script. This movement culminated in the Konkani language agitations (1961–1987), which demanded official recognition.
The synthesis: In 1987, Devanagari Konkani was declared Goa’s official language, and in 1992, it was included in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. This sublation negated the reign of the Roman script (and other variants) by imposing a standardized form, yet preserved Konkani’s essence as an Indo-Aryan language. It elevated the language to a “higher” status—granting access to state resources, education, and literature—while resolving the contradiction between fragmentation and unity. However, critics argue this was a “forced” synthesis, creating a “schizo Konkani” that alienated Roman-script users, primarily from Christian communities, and suppressed pluralism. In dialectical terms, Nagrization mirrors Hegel’s historical progress, where cultural evolution marches toward a teleological unity, but at the cost of marginalizing dissenting voices.
Plural Konkani as Dialogical Sublation
Shifting from Hegel’s logic-driven dialectics, dialogical sublation draws from relational philosophies, particularly Martin Buber’s emphasis on dialogue as the core of human existence. In Buber’s I and Thou (1923), true encounter occurs in the “I-Thou” relation—a dialogical space where individuals meet as whole beings, mutually transforming each other without objectification. This contrasts with “I-It” monologues, where one treats the other as a mere object. Dialogical sublation, then, involves an open-ended process of exchange, leading to a shared understanding that preserves distinctness rather than enforcing a singular resolution.
Plural Konkani embodies this approach. Advocates argue for recognizing all scripts and dialects—Devanagari, Roman, Kannada, etc.—as equal, allowing them to coexist and enrich one another. For instance, campaigns for “Equality in Diversity” push back against Devanagari exclusivity in education and grants. This pluralism acknowledges Konkani’s rhizomatic roots: dialects vary by region (e.g., Goan vs. Mangalorean) and community (Hindu, Christian, Muslim), with scripts reflecting historical influences like Kannada rule or Portuguese evangelism.
In dialogical terms, plural Konkani fosters an I-Thou encounter among linguistic variants. Roman-script literature dialogues with Devanagari texts, transforming the language through mutual recognition—e.g., music and oral traditions uniting disparate dialects across scripts. Unlike Nagrization’s synthesis, this sublation is relational and ethical: it elevates Konkani by preserving tensions, allowing for ongoing growth without erasure. As Buber might say, it creates a “dialogical existence” where the language lives through intersubjective bonds, not imposed hierarchies. The user’s suggestion that this “may be close to Matrin Buber” (likely a reference to Martin Buber) aligns perfectly, as plural Konkani prioritizes dialogue over monologue, echoing Buber’s philosophy of mutual transformation.
Proximity to Negative Dialectics
Theodor Adorno’s Negative Dialectics (1966) critiques Hegel’s positive dialectics for forcing contradictions into artificial syntheses, which he sees as violent to the particularity of objects. Instead, negative dialectics insists on “non-identity”—keeping contradictions open, resisting totalizing systems, and highlighting the suffering caused by forced unity.
Is the Konkani case close to this? Nagrization, as dialectical sublation, diverges sharply: it imposes a synthesis (Devanagari standardization) that critics decry as “scripto-centricity,” a colonial legacy sidelining plural roots. This mirrors Adorno’s critique of Enlightenment reason, where systematization does violence to diversity.
Plural Konkani, however, resonates more closely with negative dialectics. By rejecting a final resolution and embracing unresolved tensions—e.g., the ongoing Roman-Devanagari controversy—it maintains non-identity among scripts and dialects. This dialogical approach avoids the “positive” elevation of one form, instead fostering a critical space where contradictions persist, much like Adorno’s emphasis on fragmentation to resist domination. While Buber’s dialogism adds an ethical, relational layer, the refusal of synthesis in plural Konkani aligns with Adorno’s negativity, suggesting a hybrid proximity: dialogical yet negatively dialectical.
Nagrization exemplifies dialectical sublation’s drive toward unity, transforming Konkani’s fragmented past into an official, elevated form—but at the expense of pluralism. Plural Konkani, conversely, enacts dialogical sublation, drawing on Buber’s relational philosophy to nurture mutual encounters among diverse variants. This not only preserves the language’s vitality but also edges toward Adorno’s negative dialectics by sustaining contradictions without closure. In an era of cultural globalization, embracing plural Konkani could ensure the language’s survival, turning philosophical insight into linguistic practice. As debates rage on in Goa, the choice between synthesis and dialogue will define Konkani’s future.
