Current Issue  Volume 3  No 1&2  Mar & Oct 2006

Mail

Excepting the translation of some ancient Indian classics and treatises into Western languages, most of the translations were into Indian languages, and those selected for translation from Western languages (e.g English) to Indian languages were such works as would serve the colonizer’s purposes. While English translations of Khayyam’s Rubbayat and some of the Indian literary classics were attempted to eroticize the Orient to the West, the translations by William Carey and company of the Bible into 16 Indian language in the 1880s were motivated more by religious expansionist intentions than by the ‘catholicity’ of Christianity. Translations from English to Indian languages in subsequent years crushed the Indian creative sensibility, though there is no denying the fact that these translations helped in introducing some new literary trends and movements into Indian literature.

The Asiatic Society was an Orientalist Institute, but not in the Saidean sense, for it did not always act as the handmaid of colonization. The Orientalists, or Indologists to be precise, of the early period from 1757 to 1825, and their translational operations (associated with the Society at least by the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth century) were inspired by admiration for the Indian’s cultural heritage. The translation of the Vedas, Upanishads, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Gita, Manusmruti and Abhigyanashakuntalam among other translations by scholars associated with the Society and others – introduced Indian knowledge systems to Europe. This process of translation from Indian languages to European languages enriched Europe’s knowledge about India as a new land with knowledge systems different from its own. The establishment of Chairs of Sanskrit in major universities of Europe, by the first quarter of the 19^th century was not a mere coincidence but a result of the orientation of Europe towards India through Orientalism.

The nineteenth century witnessed a strengthening of translation activities into Hindi, the Brijbhasha language, to be precise. Lalloolal translated Hitopadesh as Rajneeti in 1802, and the dialogue between the sage Shukdev and King Parikshit as Kalyavankatha and Kimiya-e Shaadat (1817 edn.). Translation of the Bhagavat by Sevaram Mishra and of the Siddhasiddhanta was also attempted in the first half of the 19^th century, which was marked by the growth of prose in Brij. Quite a few non-literary texts on religion, poetics, medicine, rituals, astronomy, geography and mathematics were translated into prose mixed with verse. This influenced the language of translation, as may be discerned in Lallolal’s translation of Hitopadesh. The vartik and tika traditions continued, and these could be considered as additions to the categories of translation in the loose sense of the term. Also worth noting are the translations of Ved Vyas’s Mahabharata and Kalidas’s Rutusamhar by Sabal Singh Chauhan (1661-1724) and the tika of the Gitabhashamrata of Ramanuji Bhagvandas (1698), Gita Prashna by Swami Navrang in the eighteenth century, Nazar Anandram’s Parmanand –Pravodh Tika (1704), Krishna Chakravarty’s Bhagavad-Gita Bhashya, and Hari Vallabh Das’s Gitabhashya Tika in verse and prose. Tulsidas’s Ramacharitmanas, Bihari’s Satsai and Keshav’s Rasikpriya, Ramchandrika, Kavipriya and Vairagyashatak also earned the attention of tikakars or commentators. Though tika is not translation in the strict sense of the term, it is translation with latitude - usually in the same linguistic group. These commentaries can be put in the following categories as translation from Sanskrit to the Brij dialect –i.e, commentaries from one dialect to another in the same language group (e.g. from Avadhi to Brij).

             Tikanuvad (= translation with commentaries) of different texts in the Riti period were also attempted, for example Bhashaupanishad, Bhashapadmapurana, Bhashayogavashishtha, Mallinathcharitavachanika, Sudrashti Tarangini Vachanika, and Hitopadeshvachanika. Bhashaupanishad is a Persian translation of 22 Upanishads, including Taiteriopanishad. The manuscript of this 1719 translation is preserved in the Asiatic Society, Calcutta. The translation of Daulatram Jain’s Ramakatha as Bhashapadmapurana or Padmapuran Vachanika from Prakrit to Khariboli, profusely mixed with Rajasthani and Brijbhasha, is worth noting. The interaction between Khariboli and Persian continued in this period, i.e. in the first quarter of the 18^th century, as can be seen in Paras Bhag, a translation of Keemia Shaadat by Sevapanthi Addanshah and Kriparam from Persian to Khariboli. Some of the translations from Sanskrit include Gitanuvad, of doubtful authorship but generally ascribed to Birbal (1723 edn.) and Suryasidhanta, a translation of the Sanskrit text of astrology of the same title by Pandit Kamodananda Mishra from Sanskrit in 1782. In general, texts from medicine, astrology, religious and spiritual scriptures, geography, history, philosophy and narratives from Sanskrit and Persian were more commentaries than true translation.

Pandit Yogadhyan Mishra translated Hatimtaee, a famous Kissa which is a narrative dealing with the world of magic and fantasy in 1838; Tarinicharan Mitra translated Purush-Parikshasangraha dealing with human attributes in 1813; and Dayashankar, the younger brother of Laloolal, translated Daybhag, a text dealing with inheritance of property in 1832. Quite a few Sufi and Islamic religious texts were translated into Dakhini Hindi, which is dominated by Urdu and is closer to Khariboli in word-form and sentence construction. Significant contributions include a translation of Miran Yakoobi’s Shamaylul Atakia and Dalaylul Atakia, Mohammad – Valiullah Kadari’s translation of Mariftussuluk and also of translation of Saiyad Shah Mohammad Kadiri’s Risala-e-Vajoodiya, Shahmir’s Asararuttauhid and Abdul Hamid’s Risalae Tasavvuf. Quite a few texts by anonymous authors that were translated in this period are narratives – e.g., Tutinama, Anware Suheli, and Kissa-e-Gulo Hurmuz. Sittae Samasiya and Risala Zarre Saken are medical texts translated into Dakhini Hindi. Some of the translations were attempted in consonance with an attitude towards Hindi that was, to a large extent, shaped by the language policy of the rulers. Sadal Mishra’s translations of Nachiketopakhyana and Adhyatma Ramayana are its examples. At Sir John Gilchrist instance, Mishra translated the latter work as Ramcharitra in about 320 pages. He wrote:

 “The most kind reservoir of all human attributes Mr. Gilchrist Sir resolved to render Sanskrit texts into Bhasha. One day he asked me to render the Adhyatma Ramayana in a language that would have Persian and Arabic words in it. So I started using Khariboli for my purpose” (cited in Ganapatichandra Gupta Vol. II. 737).

Along with original compositions, the Bharatendu period (1850-1885) in the second half of the nineteenth century was marked by sustained translation from Sanskrit and English, the latter activity an offshoot of colonization. Raja Laxman Sigh (1826-96) translated Kalidas’s Raghuvansh and his epic poem Meghdoot in simple yet poetic Brijbhasha in Savaiya metre. Bharatendu himself translated a Narad Bhakti Sutra and Shandilya’s Bhaktisutra as Tadeeya Sarvaswa in 1874 with greater focus on sense than on linguistic considerations. Babu Totaram (1848-1902) translated Valmiki’s Ramayana as Ram Ramayana from Sanskrit to Hindi. In this period, works by the fifth-century poet and dramatist Kalidasa were translated repeatedly from Sanskrit. Thakur Jag Mohan Singh’s translations of Kalidasa’s Ritusamharam (1876) and Meghdoot (1883) deserve our attention, for he consciously prioritized preservation of sense over literal translation and indirectly tried to adopt translation strategies such as deletion and addition in terms of sense. Lala Sitaram ‘Bhoop’ (1858-1937) translated Meghdoot (1833), the play Kumarasambhavam (1884), the play Raghuvamsham (1885-92) and Ritusamharam (1893) without achieving the effect of Jag Mohan Singh. The major difference between the translations of the two was that the former used tatsama (Sanskrit) phraseology and Kavitta and Savaiya metres, whereas the latter used Doha, Chaupai and Ghanakshari metres. Apart from these, ‘Bhoop’ translated verses nos. 73 to 85 from the “Adisarga” of Ved Vyas’s the Mahabharata as Devyani and also Kapil Muni’s Sankhyasutra from Sanskrit to Hindi, although he did not publish it. He also translated Byron’s The Prisoner of Shilon as Shilon Ka Bandi. Among English works, Oliver Goldsmith’s Hamlet and the poem Deserted Village were translated as Ekantvasi Yogi (1886) and Oojad Gram (1889) by Shridhar Pathak into Brijbhasha-mixed Khariboli. Pathak also translated Goldsmith’s poem The Traveller as Shranta Pathika. The credit for initiating the process of translating English works into Hindi thus goes to the Bharatendu period.

            In 1863 Raja Laxman Singh translated Kalidas’s Abhigyana shakuntalam which became popular for two reasons -­­- the subconscious engagement during the age with Shankuntala’s exotic and Dhushyanta’s amnesiac story, and the advocacy of purity of language to which Laxman Singh subscribed and practised as well. In this period, apart from Kalidasa, the poet Bhavabhuti was another favourite with the translators of Sanskrit literature. Their works were translated again in this period, showing dissatisfaction with earlier versions. After Raja Laxman Singh’s translation of Abhigyana shakuntalam attention was drawn to other works as well. Nandalal Viswanath Dubey also tried to translate the play in 1888, and Lala Sitaram translated Klidasa’s play Malvikagnimitra in 1898. Devdutta Tiwari, Nandalal Vishwanath Dubey and Lala Sitaram translated Bhavabhooti’s Uttar Ramcharita in 1871, 1886 and 1897 respectively. Sitaram translated Bhavabhooti’s play Malatimadhava and Mahavircharita in 1898 and 1897. Lala Shaligram also rendered Maltimadhava in 1881. Shitalaprasad and Ayodhyaprasad Chaudhari translated Krishnamitra’s Prabandhachandrodaya in 1879 and 1885 respectively, while Gadadhar Bhatta translated King Shudraka’s play Mrchhakatikam in 1880. Important Sanskrit plays translated in this period included Harsha’s Ratnavali (translated by Devadutta in 1872 and by Balmukunda Singh in 1898) and Bhattnarayana’s Venisanhara (translated by Jawalaprasad Singh in 1897). The period, i.e. the second half of the 19^th century, is marked by a few tendencies. Most of the translators were creative writers who wanted to enrich their languages with translations. The texts chosen for translations included Sanskrit texts, particularly epics and plays along with English works and even from Bhasha literatures like Bengali and Marathi.

Among other plays, Bharatendu translated the Sanskrit play Chaurpanchashika into Hindi from its Bangla translation in 1868, Ratnavali from Sanskrit in 1868, Pakhand Vikhandan (a translation of the Act III of Krishna Mishra’s Pravandhchandrodaya) in 1872, Dhanjayavyaya (a translation of Act III of the Sanskrit play of the same title by Kanchankavi) in 1873, Karpoor Manjari (a translation of Vishakhdutta’s play) in 1878. Bharatendu also translated Shakespeare’s Merchnt of Venice as Durlabh Bandhu in 1880. The Parsi drama companies staged Shakespeare’s plays, and this gave impetus to translation. Arya translated Merchant of Venice as Venice ka Vyapari in 1888, Munshi Imdad Ali rendered Comedy of Errors as Bhramjalak in 1885, while Lala Sitaram rendered it as Bhoolbhulaiya in 1885. Other translations of Shakespeare’s plays were As you Like It as Manbhavan by Purohit Gopinath in 1896, Romeo and Juliet as Premlila by Purohit Gopinath in 1877, and Macbeth as Sahsendra Sahas by Mathuraprasad Upadhyaya in 1893. Babu Totram translated Joseph Addison’s tragedy Cato as Kratanta in 1879. This trend of translating English plays signalled the importance of English through colonial encounter, and it gave a new direction to Hindi drama, which had availed itself primarily of Sanskrit and folk dramatic traditions. From Bangla, Michael Madhusudan Dutt’s plays -- e.g. Padmavati (translated in 1878 by Balkrishna Bhatt), Sharmishtha (in 1880 by Ramcharan Shukla) and Krishnamurari (in 1899 by Ramkrishna Verma) – were translated along with Manmohan Bahu’s Sati (in 1880 by Uditnaranyan Lal), Rajakishore Dev’s Padmavati (in 1889 by Ramkrishna Verma) and Dwarakanath Ganguli’s Veer Nari in 1899 by Ramkrishna.

            Apart from Bangla plays, novels in Bangla by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee (1833–94), Rameshchandra Dutta (1848-1909) and Tarkanath Ganguli (1845–1907) were also translated.  Notable translations include Gadadhar Singh’s translation of Rameshchandra Dutt’s Bangavijeta (1886) and Bankim’s Durgesh nandini (1882), Pratap Narayan Mishra’s translation of Bankim Chandra’s Raj Singh, Indira, Radharani, and Yugalanguriya, Radhacharan Goswami’s translation of Damodar Mukherjee’s Mranmayee and Munshi Haritnarayanlal’s translation of Swarnkumar’s Deep Nirvan.Apart from these, Ramkrishna Verma’s translation of Chittorchatki in 1895, Kartikprasad Khatri’s Ila (1896), and Jaya Madhumalti and Gopal Das Gahamari’s Chaturchanchala (1893), Bhanumati (1894) and Naye Babu (1895) deserve to be noted here, for these translators did not mention the names of the source authors. Gopal Das Gahamari’s translations in particular and others in general can be put in the category of translation-cum-adaptation.

 

PREV | TOP | NEXT

Copyright © CIIL and The Author 2006