Abstract: With the problem of linguistic and cultural translation gaining predominance in post-colonial studies, my presentation will try to evaluate practical issues and problems related to translation primarily in four categories. The first is when the author himself/herself acts as the translator of his/her own text. References to Alka Sarogi’s Sahitya Akademi award winning novel Kalikatha: Via Bypass and Amit Chaudhuri’s fiction will support this section. Translating a work like Joginder Paul’s Khwabrau (Sleepwalkers) by someone closely related to the author forms the focus of the second category. The third category comprises of different versions of translating the same text by academics and freelancers. Different versions of Rajinder Singh Bedi’s short story “Laajwanti”, and Jibananada Das’s “Banalata Sen” will be discussed in this section. To focus upon the fourth and final category, I will use cinematic translations of adapted texts – Mahasweta Devi’s Hazaar Churashir Ma and the film as well as theatrical adaptation of her short story Rudaali. My presentation will end with the contention that since there are no immediate solutions in sight, there is nothing called an ‘ideal’translator.

       I begin with a comment by Walter Benjamin that Homi Bhaba quotes at the head of a chapter in his The Location of Culture: “Translation passes through continua of transformation, not abstract ideas of identity and similarity”, (Walter Benjamin 1994:214) which implies a language that is performative and active, or literary translation, where the language is formulative or enunciatory, the transformational process cannot (or possibly, doesn't want to) ensure a sense of belonging. The separated texuality of the translated text is proposed by, among others, the new signifying and stylizing practices, and a new order of expression that create a lot of ground between the ur-text and the finished product. A translation does not want to remain a mere mirror image of the original in a different language; it always aspires to appropriate elements of a new textuality, to assume a new identity and to transcend strict similarities with the ur-text. Both of these images are abstract activities, but are now subsumed under a new language game - that of growth, not simply transformation. This 'growth' is largely a product of reading (or misreading) of culture in which the reader brings his own ingrained ideas and cultural perceptions. The texuality of the translated text, in that sense, is a composite in which a cross-cultural dialogue marks a space of complicity and conformation.

      Even if we agree with all these propositions, a basic question remains unanswered, viz. who is an 'ideal' translator? With the problem of linguistic and cultural translation gaining prominence in postcolonial studies, this paper attempts to evaluate practical issues and problems related to translation of his/her own text. References to Rabindranath Tagore's own translation of Gitanjali (Song Offerings) in 1912, and ninety years later, Alka Saraogi's Sahitya Akademi award winning novel Kalikatha: Via Bypass illustrate this category.

      Given that English, the only language into which Rabindranath Tagore translated his own work, was the language of his colonial masters, any evaluation of his work as a translator is essentially a 'colonial discourse'. But the extraordinary circumstances under which the poet started translating his own songs need to be recapitulated here (Farida Majid 2001:85-100). In 1912, the intelligentsia of Bengal decided to rectify the neglect of their greatest poet by celebrating his fiftieth birthday in the Town Hall of Calcutta (a very rare honour for a non-white in those days). After a string of other jubilee celebrations, the poet felt physically and emotionally exhausted and decided to have his vacation in England. He was due to set sail from Calcutta on March 19th, but being taken ill the night before, he retired to his family estate in East Bengal for rest and recovery. It was there that he began to translate some of his Gitanjali songs into English. In a letter to his niece, a year later, he wrote:

That I cannot write English is such a patent fact that I never had even the vanity to feel ashamed of it … I had not the energy to sit down and write anything new. So I took up the poems of Gitanjali and set myself to translate them one by one. (Krishna Kripalini 1980:221)

      As Majid rightly points out, one should keep in mind the fact that these were not 'poems' as such in terms of Tagore's entire canon.1 (Majid: 100). Being the verbal parts of short musical compositions, their brevity was a factor singularly suitable for a novice translator's enterprise under the circumstances. In the West, however, this simplicity was conveniently seen as "the beauty and freshness of his Oriental thought”, not as a distillation achieved by consummate artistry.

      From the time he was well enough to travel and his arrival in London a few months later, Tagore had filled an exercise book with English renditions of the Gitanjali songs. He presented it to William Rothenstein who later showed it to A.C. Bradley and W.B. Yeats. When India Society decided to publish a private edition of the book, Yeats was obviously chosen to be the editor and to write the preface. We are all aware of how the relationship between Tagore and Yeats soured. They parted ways and the very same man who was all praise for the Indian bard and was largely instrumental in introducing him to the western audience, wrote to Rothenstein in May 1935:

“Damn Tagore! ...he thought it more important to see and know English than to be a great poet, he brought out sentimental rubbish and wrecked his reputation, Tagore does not know English, no Indian knows English. Nobody can write with music and style in a language not learned in childhood and ever since the language of his thought”.

     I quote so many well-known historical facts just to emphasize that the crux of all these interrelated matters lies in Tagore as a translator of his own work. Like many Bengalis of his time, and judging from his letters and speeches, Tagore had a good command of English. There are occasional phrases and lines in his own rendition that capture the spirit of the original and are striking in English. Yet, Gitanjali is still a work of translation, which was made in the isolation of Tagore's village-estate in Bengal, with no other purpose than sharing some of his favourite songs with friends he would meet on his forthcoming trips abroad. There are inaccuracies and mis-translations in Gitanjali, but the apparent lack of any extra-literary motive make these mistakes tolerable in the days when there was no serious challenge to the assumption that literary translation is an inexact art, and when mistranslations of Oriental literature were even welcome (as in the case of Edward Fitzgerald's The Rubbaiyat of Omar Khayyam) as a creative activity of a sort.

     If ‘ability’ or ‘command’ of English were in question, one would not be wrong to accept improvements in Tagore's translating endeavours after the Gitanjali experience. Though there are indications of improved English in his letter to Rothenstein over this period, yet we find that things went from bad to worse in his subsequent translations. In one of his letters Tagore stated:

 “Please thank Yeats once again on my behalf for the help that he rendered to my poems in their perilous adventure of a foreign reincarnation and assure him that I at least never underestimate the value of his literary comradeship. Latterly I have written and published both prose and poetry in English, mostly translations, unaided by any friendly help, but this again I have done in order to express my ideas, not for gaining any reputation for my mastery in the use of a language which can never be mine”.

       The sincerity of this admission becomes suspect since Rothenstein, in fact, was being inundated with poems and translations, which Tagore kept sending him with a single-minded willfulness. Edward Thompson also accused Tagore of badly truncating his greater poems and inserting in his English translations "pretty-pretty nonsense that was not in the original at all”. According to Thompson, Tagore's treatment of the Western public amounts to an insult to its intelligence, as he had managed to quarrel with everyone who criticized his English so far. Tagore claimed that being a Christian missionary, Thompson was incapable of understanding his idea of the jiban-debata.

     Moving on to a similar phenomenon in very recent times, the problem of self-translation manifests itself in a different form. Narrated in a chronological fashion, Alka Saraogi's novel Kalikatha-Via Bypass (Alka Saraogi 2002) gives us a brilliant picture of the Marwari business community that migrated from Rajasthan and made their second home in Calcutta. The novel was originally written in Hindi and later translated into English by the author herself within a short span of time. In the introduction of the translated version, she claimed that she had "rewritten" most of it and in the acknowledgements section admitted that her self-translation was faulty, and she had "little confidence in [her] Hinglish”. Though there is no perfect way of translating a text, one expected a little more finesse on the part of Saraogi, especially when she was confident that it was she who would be able to do justice to her novel. In spite of the help that she had received from her unnamed friend, it remains a great lapse on the part of the publishers to print the English version without correcting several grammatical errors and faulty literal translations. Phrases like "the weekly schedule of the his classes” (173), "the British have broken the back of Bengal”" (202), "Kishore Babu was put in mind of a three -month-old foetus” (247); "Perhaps it her fate” (242); or "making a flag out of the front of your sari” (264) definitely lowers the charm of reading a Sahitya Akademi award-winning novel. Thus, as both these cases illustrate, the notion that the original writer is the best translator of his or her own work remains a myth.

 II

        Translating a work like Joginder Paul's Sleepwalkers by someone closely related to the author forms the focus of the second category. First published as Khwabrau in Urdu in Lahore in 1990, this novella was made available to Indian readers in its Indian edition in 1991. An excellent translation into English by Sunil Trivedi and Sukrita Paul Kumar now makes it possible for the non-Urdu speaking reader appreciate the story. Apart from being a labour of love, what moves the reader most is probably the theme of the story, which harps upon the universal ideas of pain, anguish and trauma of separation following the partition of India. Briefly speaking, it tells the story of one Deewane Maulavi Sahab, who migrated from Lucknow to Karachi like the other mohajirs after the partition but transported the entire city "within the fold of their hearts”. While some of the other mohajirs are shocked into insanity, the protagonist does not feel the pain of separation because he is a sleepwalker and finds security in the world of dreams. Other call him mad, but it is his madness that helps him keep his sanity.

     Apart from the gripping storyline what appeals to the readers is the epilogue entitled "On Writing Sleepwalkers” where Paul himself provides the background of conceiving such a tale. A visit to Lahore in the mid-eighties made Joginder Paul realize that "the situation itself is the meaning that inspired [him] to attempt the novella”. He candidly admits, "Suffer did I no less than Deewane Maulavi Sahab, the suffering having driven the old man out of his wits, and me to an insane pursuit of premature sanity”. Personal experience of the writer therefore made the translation of the feelings of the protagonist much more authentic. Again, the universality of the theme of the story is also reiterated when the author narrates how a German Indologist burst into tears after reading the story, managing to say between sobs, "But this is my story. This is the story of all of us living on either side of the Berlin wall”. Though the wall has come down, the mental barriers still remain. Such a theme probably also helps to transcend the limitations of translation.

III

       The third category comprises different versions of translating the same text by academics and freelancers. To illustrate my point I focus upon different translated versions of Sadaat Hasan Manto's famous Urdu short story "Toba Tek Singh” and Jibanananda Das's eponymous poem "Banalata Sen”. A comparative study of selected portions from the three translated versions of the Manto story reveals interesting details as the translation depends a lot on the qualification and background of the translator. Whereas the first version done by Tahira Naqvi (Alok Bhalla 1994) in 1994 is more condensed, with simple, direct sentences (with Naqvi, settled in the United States herself, probably having the western readers as her target), the second translation done by Khalid Hasan (Rushdie 1997) in 1997 is more textual. The translator here seeks out more culture-specific words to remain as faithful to the original as possible. For example, instead of using just 'sweets' in the earlier version, he mentions 'rice crispies'. When M.Asaduddin (Ravikant & Saini 2001) ventured to translate the same story in 2001, he was already aware of the drawbacks of the earlier versions and therefore added a detailed explanation with notes at the end of his work. I quote from this note: