Abstract: Subaltern Studies as history from the lower rungs of society is marked by a freedom from the restrictions imposed by the nation state. Gramsci speaks of the subaltern’s incapability to think of the nation. Once it becomes possible for the subaltern to imagine the state, he transcends the conditions of subalternity. It is interesting in this context to note that subaltern writings are read in translations either in English or in the dominant regional language. As the liberal humanist, bourgeois values of the modern nation state seep into subaltern languages, they either get translated and appropriated or is subverted and rejected. The latter is a conscious political act in the discursive field of language, which gives a distinct speaking voice to the subalterns whose attempt at linguistic freedom becomes an act of post-colonial insurgency. In the former case there is an inscription of the nation into subaltern consciousness and vice versa. Subaltern translations of the lingo of nationalism thus become an act of cultural displacement. Claiming the nation in language also means being claimed by the nation. This paper seeks to study how nationalism and the concept of the nation state get translated in subaltern writings in regional languages in the process of translating/mediating the very condition of subalternity. It purports to compare two texts in Malayalam, Narayan’s Kocharethi and K.J. Baby’s Mavelimanrom, both of which attempt a subaltern re-imagining of the Indian State from the margins. Mavelimanrom consists of dispersed moments and fragments of history of the Adiyor tribe of Wayanad. It attempts to create an imagined community in subaltern language and memory. Kocharethy, on the other hand, encloses a space of transition from the colonial to the post-colonial within the imagined boundaries of the nation state. A comparison of these two texts would be an exercise in contrast of the “sheer heterogeneity of decolonised space” and an exploration of the subtle nuances of the problem raised in subaltern translations of the nation.

A literary text validates a language, the writing or reading of which entails a subject positioning. A consciousness of subject positions and voices can re-empower languages, deconstruct histories, and create new texts of more dense dialogical accomplishment. Part of the project of post-colonial theory would be to push literary texts into this shifting arena of discursiveness, thus enabling new stands of counter narratives and counter contexts to shape themselves and complicate binarist histories. This could be the reason why post-colonial theory assigns so much significance to the act of translation, which is seen not as a peaceful dialogue among equals but as a cultural and political practice, appropriating or resisting ideological discourses, constructing or subverting canons thus exposing the derivativeness and heterogeneity of both linguistic and cultural materials.

This paper analyses two subaltern narratives, one of which displays a consciousness of the social hierarchies of dominant narratives of power and the need to implement discursive strategies to resist translations and thus evolve what Deleuze and Guattari would call 'a line of escape’, while the other, in contrast, fails to tap on linguistic and cultural differences of the target culture, thus being implicated and performing the vanishing act of the subaltern, indicating the translatability of the subaltern identity into the master language of the nation.

             Mavelimanrom (1991) by K.J. Baby is a novel in Malayalam, consisting of dispersed moments and fragments of history of the Adiyor tribe of Wayanad. It documents a moment of their past, thus allowing the Adiyors to speak and talk back to the powers that marginalized them, by searching for hidden past, fragmentary testimonials and lost moments, the novel seeks to restore the integrity of indigenous histories that appear naturally in non-linear, oral, symbolic, vernacular forms.

             It is an attempt to create an imaginary community in subaltern language and memory. By reviving customs, rituals, myth and folklore Mavelimanrom attempts to configure an imaginary homeland for the 'Adiyor's. (In the tale narrated by the tribe elder Jevarapperumon to Ira, the woeful plight of their homeland unfolds itself).

            'Monrom’ denotes a tribe with reference to its spatial location. This narration of an alternative space is also a repudiation of the hegemonic structure of the 'nation' imposed on the subalterns. The imagined utopia of Mavelimanrom problematizes the other imagined nation of ' India ', simultaneously resisting and questioning all discourses narrating the nation. The text, thus, at one level, grapples with the problem of 'colonial historiography’ and 'cultural amnesia’ that critics like G.N. Devy lament, which are inherent in the construction of nation states. Mavelimanrom seeks to redeem the subalterns of this amnesia and to remind the reading subject that there is no essential, historical, homogenized Indianness.

           Mavelimanrom could be called an exercise in what Lyotard calls 'anamnesis’ or a psychoanalytic procedure, which requires the patients to “elaborate their current problems by freely associating apparently inconsequential details with past situations - allowing them to uncover hidden meanings in their lives and their behaviours”. Through this psychotherapy in and of memory the subaltern subject attempts a cultural, historical and psychological recuperation. Language becomes the painful medium of remembering, of confronting the ghosts of the past, to exorcise them in the present.

The novel is marked by a consciousness of the nationalist agenda to undermine and marginalize the subaltern resistance to British colonialism. The story unfolds during the time of territorial imperialism, when the East India Company had joined hands with feudalism to reinstate new modes of discrimination and power over subject populations. The novel begins with the leasing of a slave 'Kaippadan' to a new Master Subbayyapattar by his old feudal Lord Ambu Nair. One can read the re-empowering of old feudal systems within the imperial economy of the East India Company's exploitative agenda. Mavelimanrom attempts to give agency to the subaltern by rejecting the grand narratives of both imperialism and nationalism. By providing alternating ways of imagining/imaging community it destabilizes the nationalist project. It attempts a renewal of images of the past through a discourse of the native subject as inscribed in histories of insurgency against colonial rule and as inscripted in popular memory and oral traditions. Since the insurrection of the Adiyors and Kurichiars of Wayanad was not a calculated political move for forging the energies of nation building, it does not find mention in elite discourses of anti-colonial movements or official archives. The insurgency of Pazhassi Raja finds special mention in the text as a breach between popular dissidence and imperial power. Whereas official history propagated the fact that a Kurichiyan betrayed Pazhassi, it was recorded later on that he was sold out by the feudal lords to the East India Company, which led to his downfall and execution, in A. Sreedhara Menon's A Survey of Kerala History.  The revolt of Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja is written under the chapter title "The Challenge to British Supremacy”. Pazhassi Raja was a king of the Kottayam Royal family who organized serious revolts against the British in Malabar in the late 18^th century on account of their misdirected revenue policy. In the Pazhassi Revolt of 1793 - 1797 Pazhassi Raja scored a decisive victory over the British who suffered a critical loss of men and material and a truce was called for as a matter of political expediency. The second Revolt took place from 1800 - 1805 and this time the Raja was assisted by the Kurichiyar leader Talakkal Chandu. The war took the nature of guerilla warfare waged in the jungles of Wayanad. In 1804, Talakkal Chandu, the Kurichiyar hero was captured. On 30^th November 1805 the Raja was shot dead by the British.

 Mavelimanrom contests these nationalist histories which by privileging role of Pazhassi Raja, never acknowledged native dissent and signs of resistance. Spivak points out, "if the story of the rise of nationalist resistance to imperialism is to be disclosed coherently, it is the role of the indigenous subaltern that must be strategically excluded”. Thus it is that there is an attempt to erase from history the valiant struggles of the Kurichiars under Pazhassi Raja. Mavelimanrom attempts to dismantle this notion of Nationalism as "the only discourse credited with emancipators possibilities” in the imperialist theatre and to write back into history "the subaltern examples of resistances throughout imperialist and pre-imperialist centuries”.

 It illustrates the politicality of literature in a post-colonial context whereby the author reworks a historical moment to resist colonialism and its effects, and contests through language its discourses and hierarchies. Kaippadan and Ira's flight is marked by a desire to escape the landscape of oppression ('thampuranpadam' or the lord's fields) crossing hegemonic boundaries and structures that create unequal relations of power.

                       Mavelimanrom records the history of subalterns subjected to humiliation, cruelty and death.  Theirs is a different version of identity, which has been elided over in history and it is this slippage that the text addresses. By delving on the subaltern craving for identity, expressed in a different language of experience and subjectivity, the text insists upon a representation of their quest in terms of political and personal power. Thus the novel becomes an attempt to revive the mythology of a people without history, or whose history was being threatened with erasure even from memory.

             Placed in the context of the Hegelian master slave dialectics, the novel attempts to turn the gaze of the master on himself. The moment of reverting the Other's gaze is also a moment of recognition of the consciousness from knowing on self as the translated self to knowledge of the self as untranslatable. The concept of 'manrom’ defines a special construct where the will to liberty overpowers even the will to life, a space where the slave de-codifies the masters secret, the secret of the 'Other's' look, which moulds the 'self' to its state of servitude. The spatial and temporal construct of the 'manrom’ thus cannot but repudiate colonialism's narratives of power and its project of civilizing the native, the theoretical underpinning of which is a resistance to the overarching narratives of nationalism. Nations and nationalisms are also constituted within a colonial grammar. Mavelimanrom in its efforts to imagine a pre-colonial moment of history thus has to preclude the seepages of the imaginary essence of the nation, in short to resist translating the nation.

  ...read more