Konkani, an Indo-Aryan language spoken by over 2.5 million people along India’s Konkan coast—from Goa and Maharashtra to Karnataka and Kerala—embodies a rich tapestry of cultural and linguistic diversity. Emerging from ancient roots close to Sanskrit, Konkani has evolved through migrations, colonial encounters, and regional influences, resulting in a mosaic of dialects such as Antruz Maharashtri, Bardeskari, and Karwari, each infused with local flavors like Marathi, Tulu, or Malayalam. Its vitality lies not in uniformity but in this multiplicity, expressed through oral traditions like folk songs (dhalo), theater (tiatr), and proverbs, as well as written forms in diverse scripts: Devanagari, Roman, Kannada, Malayalam, and even Perso-Arabic. Yet, this vitality is under siege from scripto-centric thinking, a hegemonic approach that prioritizes a single script as the “true” embodiment of the language, ungrounding its dynamic, relational life. Drawing on the ontology of difference—a philosophical framework that posits difference as the foundational force of being—this article explores how embracing Konkani’s plural differences can liberate it from such constraints, restoring its cultural fertility.
The Ontology of Difference: Philosophy as Affirmation of Multiplicity
The ontology of difference, rooted in the works of Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida, reframes reality not as a hierarchy of identities but as a generative field of differences-in-themselves. For Deleuze, difference is primary and affirmative, preceding identity; it is the “repetition of difference” that produces becoming, flux, and immanence, rejecting negation or opposition in favor of relational intensities. Derrida’s différance extends this by highlighting how meaning emerges through deferral and differentiation, challenging logocentrism—the privileging of a fixed, present origin—and revealing traces of absence within presence. In linguistic and cultural contexts, this ontology invites us to view languages not as static objects but as assemblages of practices, where diversity (in dialects, scripts, and usages) constitutes their essence rather than a deviation from an ideal form.
Applied to cultural multiplicity, differential ontology critiques essentialism, which seeks to reduce varied expressions to a singular “authentic” core. Instead, it celebrates the rhizomatic—non-hierarchical, connective—nature of identities, much like a network of roots spreading underground. For minority languages like Konkani, this means affirming its hybridity as a strength: its dialects as differential repetitions of shared sonic and semantic intensities, and its scripts as traces of historical encounters (Portuguese colonialism for Roman, Dravidian influences for Kannada). Far from fragmentation, these differences generate vitality, enabling Konkani to adapt, syncretize, and thrive in multilingual ecologies.
Konkani Through the Lens of Difference: A Language of Multiplicities
Konkani’s history exemplifies differential ontology in action. Originating in the Konkan region around the 7th-8th centuries CE, it splintered into dialects due to migrations prompted by invasions, trade, and colonial rule—such as the Portuguese Inquisition in the 16th century, which displaced communities to Karnataka and Kerala, birthing script variations tied to host cultures. Today, Goan Catholics often use Roman script for tiatr plays and hymns, while Saraswat Brahmins favor Devanagari for literary works, and Mangalorean Catholics employ Kannada script for religious texts. These are not mere accidents but constitutive differences: each script encodes unique materialities—Roman’s phonetic adaptability for Konkani’s nasal sounds, Devanagari’s syllabic depth for Sanskrit loanwords—creating a language that is performatively alive through oral-written interplay.
In Deleuzian terms, Konkani’s dialects and scripts form a “plane of immanence,” where differences produce intensities like the rhythmic cadences of Bardeskari folk tales or the code-switching in Karwari conversations. This ontology reveals Konkani’s vitality as emergent from relationality: not a fixed essence but a becoming, haunted by its material traces—old manuscripts in Perso-Arabic from Muslim traders, digital forums blending Roman and Devanagari. Embracing this multiplicity fosters cultural liberation, allowing Konkani speakers to walk freely through linguistic landscapes, unburdened by imposed unities.
Scripto-Centric Thinking: The Hegemonic Machine Ungrounding Vitality
Scripto-centric thinking inverts this ontology by subordinating difference to identity, positing a single script as the sacred vessel of linguistic purity. In Konkani’s case, this manifests as “Nagrization”—the elevation of Devanagari as the official script under Goa’s 1987 Official Language Act, driven by upper-caste Saraswat Brahmin elites seeking cultural dominance. Rooted in a Brahmanical libidinal economy, it frames other scripts as inferior or “polluted,” echoing colonial logics of standardization while masking caste hierarchies. Philosophically, this aligns with Derrida’s critique of specters: Devanagari becomes a deferred phantom of unity, justifying the erasure of present pluralities.
The ungrounding of Konkani’s vitality is profound. By mandating Devanagari for education and media, scripto-centrism marginalizes Roman-script communities, leading to defunded academies, glitchy digital representations (e.g., Unicode biases), and suppressed multilingual publications. Oral traditions—once fluid across dialects—ossify into scripted forms, disconnecting youth from embodied practices like tiatr, where Roman spontaneity thrives. This homogenization silences subaltern voices, fostering linguistic alienation and reducing Konkani to a “zero-dimensional void,” stripped of its generative fertility. As differences are negated, the language’s adaptive power wanes, threatened by dominant neighbors like Marathi and Hindi, accelerating endangerment.
Toward De-Scripting: Restoring Vitality Through Difference
To reground Konkani’s vitality, we must de-script: liberate it from scripto-centric fetters by affirming its ontology of difference. This involves policy shifts—multi-script education, digital inclusivity—and cultural practices that valorize oral multiplicities, like community workshops blending dialects and scripts. Philosophically, it echoes Deleuze’s call for affirmation: let Konkani’s differences proliferate, weaving a resilient cultural fabric. In doing so, Konkani not only survives but flourishes, a testament to the power of difference over imposed identity.
