article 1 page 1

The paper attempts to lay out the role of translation on interhuman space at various times and places in the world in general and in the Indian situation in particular. Renaissances in various parts of the world were a function of translation into those languages. Translation has an undoubted place in the history of ideas and the history of translation is the history of human civilization and (mis) understanding.The paper goes on to talk about the Indian situation in particular, both endotropic (=one Indian language into another) and exotropic(= Indian language into English).It elucidates the originary moments of translation in Indian history and concludes that translation, the impressionable interface that it is of cultural traffic, is a great tool of intercultural synergy.

         The history of translation is the history of human civilization and understanding, and sometimes of misunderstanding. Stories travel from culture to culture, and their transmission through translation takes innumerable forms. The classic case is said to be that of our own Panchatantra. In an evocative essay, Amitav Ghosh (1994) has the following to say about Panchatantra:

“These stories too have no settings to speak of, except the notion of a forest. Yet the Panchatantra is reckoned by some to be second only to the Bible in the extent of its global diffusion. Compiled in India early in the first millennium, it passed into Arabic through a sixth century Persian translation, engendering some of the best known of middle eastern fables, including parts of the Thousand and One Nights. The stories were handed on to the Slavic languages through Greek, then from Hebrew to Latin, a version in the latter appearing in 1270. Through Latin they passed into German and Italian. …[T]hese stories left their mark on collections as different as those of La Fontaine and the Grimm brothers, and today they are inseparably part of a global heritage.” ¹

         Moments of significant change in the history and civilization of any people can be seen to be characterised by increased activity in the field of translation. The European Renaissance was made possible through the massive translation by Arab Muslims from the work of the Hellenic tradition. In the case of India, though there is no consensus about the originary moment of Indian Renaissance – whether there was an Indian Renaissance at all in the European sense, and if there was one, whether it happened simultaneously in different languages and literatures of India or at different times, there is no disagreement about the fact that there was a kind of general awakening throughout India in the nineteenth century and that was made possible through extensive translation of European and mainly English works in different languages, not only of literature but also of social sciences, philosophy, ethics and morality etc. Translation has a special meaning for the people of north-eastIndia because in some literatures of the north east, the originary moment of literature is the moment of translation too. For example, in the case of Mizo it did not have a script before the European missionaries devised a script to translate evangelical literature into Mizo. Raymond Schwab (1984) in his book, The Oriental Renaissance, has shown how a new kind of awareness took place and curiosity about the Orient aroused in the West through the translation of Persian texts from Sadi, Rumi, Omar Khayyam and others on the one hand, and Vedic and Sanskrit texts from India on the other.

In the Indian tradition we have an exalted notion of translators. We do not designate Tulsidas, Krittivas, Pampa or Kamban as ‘translators’ of our great epics but as great poets per se. However, in India, if we leave out the re-telling of the stories of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata in regional languages, the first significant translations, to my knowledge, took place at the time of Emperor Akbar. In his efforts to promote understanding among religions and promote interfaith dialogue, Akbar sponsored debates among scholars of different religions and encouraged the translation of Sanskrit, Turkish and Arabic texts into Persian by setting up a Maktabkhana or translation bureau. Persian translation of Sanskrit texts included Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagvad-gita, Bhagavat Purana, Atharva Veda, Yoga Vashisht etc. The translations carried out in this phase can be characterised as a dialogue of civilizations. Prince Dara Shikoh (1615-1659), a profoundly learned scholar himself, not only promoted this trend but made it his life-long mission. His interest in comparative understanding of Hinduism and Islam prompted him to take assistance from the Pandits of Banaras with the translation of fifty Upanishads into fluent Persian. It was completed in 1657 and given the title Sirri-Akbar or Sirri Asrar (The Great Secret). This text was translated into English by Nathaniel Halhead (1751-1830) in the colonial period, and into French and Latin by Anqetil Duperron, the famous translator and scholar of Zend Avesta. In the preface to the Sirri-Akbar Dara Shikoh explains how, for some time, he was upset by assertions of radical differences between Islam and the religious practices of the Hindus. He began looking for a common truth between Muslims and Hindus. As Muslims have a revealed Book which determines their world view, he was looking for the divine word in the Hindu religion and thus the translation of the Upanishads came to his mind. As is evident, the primary pivot of Dara Shikoh’s translation project was synthesis – spiritual, intellectual, social -- which would give us some clue about the choice of text(s) and the strategies employed in the translation. His own book, Majmua Al-bahrain, written in 1654-55, seems to work out in considerable detail the terms of this synthesis, painstakingly exploring equivalences and terminology between the Sufi philosophical system of the Unity of Being (Wahdatul wajood) and the Vedanta (The Asiatic Society of Kolkata took the initiative to have it translated into English by Mahfuzul Haq in 1929). Dara Shikoh’s project required that he must ignore asymmetry and cultural specificity, but there were others who were only too aware of the pitfalls of such projects. An interesting example is provided by Mulla Badayuni who was ordained by Akbar to translate the Ramayana into Persian. The mulla, a staunch believer, hated the command of the emperor, but had to carry it out, a task which a contemporary scholar has described as a kind of spiritual punishment to him. Not only was it repugnant to his religious beliefs, he found the task of transposing a polytheistic worldview on a fiercely monotheistic one particularly daunting. The concept of divinity being shared by a host of gods and goddesses is not only unfamiliar in the Islamic worldview, but is a cardinal sin. There were fierce debates among scholars of translation as to whether it was appropriate to translate Allah into Ishwar or Bhagwan, rasool into avtar or yugpurush, Ram into Raheem, and so on, because in these cases one was not simply translating Arabic into Sanskrit or vice versa but also making statements of equivalence between concepts whose semantic universe was widely divergent and the cultural difference that gave rise to such concepts almost unbridgeable. Faced with the royal command Mulla Badayuni did translate the sacred book all the while hating himself for doing the job. It will make a subject of interesting research as to how he negotiated this dichotomy between his translatorial ethics and the task at hand. This also reminds one of the experiences of Eugene A. Nida, of the American Bible society and a reputed translation scholar, about the difficulty of translating the Biblical concept of trinity in cultures and languages that do not have this concept of Godhood.

The next great moment for translation inIndia, and specifically in the context of North Indian languages happened during the heyday of British colonialism. It started when Fort William College was established in Calcutta in 1800 and the Scotsman, John Gilchrist became its principal. He, along with his munshis, set themselves the task of putting together in simple Hindustani works in Persian and Sanskrit like Gulistan, Qissa Chahar Darveish, Qissa Gul-I-Bakawali, Dastan Amir Hamza, Singhasan Baattisi, Qissa Alif Laila o Laila. Though this was done ostensibly for the instruction and acculturation of the British officers who came to India to rule the country, the easy accessibility and lucidity of the prose made these works of romances extremely popular, and they were translated and retold in many Indian languages making a deep impact on their literatures. G.N. Devy, as indeed other literary historians in India like Sisir Kumar Das also credits Persian and other Islamic languages with facilitating the rise of indigenous languages. Devy says, “The emergence of bhasha literatures coincided with, even if it was not entirely caused by, a succession of Islamic rules in India. The Islamic rulers – Arabs, Turks, Mughals – brought with them new cultural concerns to India, and provided these currents legitimacy through liberal political patronage. The languages – Arabic and Persian, mainly, and Urdu which developed indigenously under their influence – brought new modes of writing poetry and music. The intimate contact with Islamic cultures created for the bhasha literatures new possibilities of continuous development” (Devy 1995) These possibilities were realised through translation and adaptation. Two prose romances, Qissa Chahar Darvesh and Qissa Gul Bakawali were very popular across many Indian languages. In an essay on Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s emergence as an architect of Bangla prose, Tagore remarks, “…with his emergence the darkness and stagnation that gripped Bangla literature disappeared, and disappeared the legacy of Vijay Basanta and Gul-i-Bakawali, those escapist romances…” (cited in Mukherjee 2003:27, my translation). The impact of the literatures of the Middle East was inevitable given the long and sustained Indo-Muslim encounter which is certainly one of the most significant civilisational encounters in history, making possible the emergence of personalities like Ram Mohan Roy, a truly multi-lingual scholar, who wrote with equal felicity in several languages including Arabic and Persian. He wrote his first book in Persian, and its introduction in Arabic. The Persianate literary values and themes suffused Indian literature till the middle of the nineteenth century but it is a matter of speculation as to how lasting that impact was, because it seemed to have disappeared as rapidly. Moreover, apart from institutional sites there were very few individual efforts to translate, absorb and assimilate the literature of the Middle East. Sisir Kumar Das, the historian of Indian literature, compares the Indo-Muslim literary encounter with the Euro-Muslim encounter in Spain, more specifically in Andalusia, and points out that while Perso-Arab intervention in Spain and prolific translation of Arabic works into Spanish had its lasting impact manifested in the provincial poetry and the emergence of the troubadours, no similar impact can be discernible in India. This makes him speculate whether the Indian mind, at that point of time, was less open to translation and assimilation from alien sources. In an essay written in Bangla for the journal Desh he writes: “Foreigners had come to India, many of whom had learnt Sanskrit, translated from Sanskrit into their own languages. But Indians had hardly shown any interest in foreign languages or literatures. Translation has taken place from Sanskrit and Pali into Tibetan, Chinese, Arabic and Persian. The Greeks had come to India and ruled in the north-west of India for one hundred and fifty years, and from this confluence the Gandhar art emerged … but one does not know of any learned Brahmin who learnt Greek or read the poetry of Homer or reflected on the philosophy of Plato. This happened in Indian culture time and again” (Das 1994:34, my translation). He further remarks that even in matters of translation from Sanskrit into Indian languages, people have shown interest in works with a religious intent. Taking the instance of Bangla literature he points out that though the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and Gita were translated from Sanskrit into Bangla, no one showed much interest in translating say, Shakuntala, Uttar Ram Charita, Mudra Rakshas, Mrichchakatik, Meghdut or Kumar Sambhav.

TOP | NEXT

Copyright © CIIL and The Author 2006