article 2 page 1

This article is predicated on the assumption that the cultural history of a society can be constructed by examining the translated texts of the culture in question. On the face of it, this seems to be assuming too much, but in the context of medieval Orissa, this is probably both necessary and possible. This is necessary because of the paucity, and sometimes, of the contradictory nature, of historical material available on the subject to provide any coherent vision of cultural/linguistic evolution in Orissa. Since there is a definite and identifiable trajectory of translational practice in medieval Orissa, a genealogy of that practice can serve as a supplement to the available cultural historiography. Moreover, this is possible because translational practice in medieval Orissa can be translated as the index of socio-political forces in operation in the society.

         While translating translational practice into indices of culture and political economy, we are aware of the very late emergence of what Daniel Simeoni (2002) calls the ‘sociological eye’ in Translation Studies, an epistemic displacement of attention that contextualizes translation activity rather than making a normative analysis of the same. We also hold with Simeoni that translations primarily are a fact of social praxis and a major component of social communication mirroring the ideological, argumentative or rhetorical principles with which the translators function and the tradition of construction and understanding of their nations in which they are implicated. In at least two essays on the translation scene in Orissa (Pattanaik 2000, Dash & Pattanaik 2002), such ideological nature of the translation enterprise has been analyzed and the role of competing ideologies that are implicated in national/linguistic identity formation laid bare. The former presents a model of the ways in which translation had been used in Orissa as a tool of cultural affirmation in the past and articulates the apprehensions about surrendering those cultural gains by uncritical submission to the structures of colonial hegemony governing translational practices in the contemporary times. The second essay, which is more important in the context of the present essay, goes deeper into the analysis of the so-called cultural affirmation generated by the translational practice in medieval Orissa. It identifies four successive moments in the history of medieval Orissa: the denial of translation, subversion through translation, collusion through translation, and finally competition through translation. Various forms of hegemony trying to control the discursive site and the distribution of knowledge and power among caste and religious groups within the Orissan society were seen as the cause of those distinctive moments in the history of translational practice in medieval Orissa. The complexity of the translation scene, it was argued, was because of the complexity of the social matrix, which gave rise to those translations. The present essay seeks to test these insights by placing them against the texts actually translated (both manuscripts and published texts), and the various ideologies that were in operation in the society during that time.
         If we agree with Dasgupta (Dasgupta 2000) that cognitive accountability is a condition of modernity and that translation is a necessary means through which knowledge is tested, recontextualised and submitted to critical scrutiny, then the earliest modern moment in the written discourse involving Orissa could be Sarala Das’s translation/appropriation of Sanskrit texts Mahabharata, Ramayana and Chandi Purana in the 15^th century. With these texts, Oriya emerged as one of the dominant languages and it became a key constituent in the Oriya national identity-formation. During the following fifty years, various literary genres including prose literature were articulated in this language. The major prose texts of the period were Rudra Sudhanidhi by Narayana Abadhuta Swami, Brahma Gita, Ganesha Bibhuti and Gyana Chudamani by Balaram Das and Tula Bhina by Jagannath Das. That prose texts with such sophisticated conceptual thinking could be articulated in the Oriya language of that time is proof of the democratization of the episteme. This kind of democratization of discourse was possible because of the pressures of the Muslim presence. In order to protect their spheres of influence the Hindu ruling elite consisting of the Kshyatriya and the Brahmin castes tried to democratize some religious tenets and accommodate the subalterns in their fold. This resulted in the Bhakti cult, which in turn generated some religious diffusion and the translational process. The restrictions to the domain of knowledge and power (Dash and Pattanaik 2002) were automatically diluted and people belonging to various castes and religions participated in the production, consumption, transmission and diffusion of knowledge. The sphere of influence, and the extent of acceptance of the Oriya language was such that, even when the political formation that enabled this kind of emergence of language-based national identity collapsed after about hundred years, the language continued to unite people culturally. The resilience and accomodative capacities of Oriya enabled it to become one of the ideological formations that controlled the apparatuses of the states where the language was used.
         Dash and Pattanaik (2002) discusses how the Oriya language had a rather dormant existence for around four hundred years after its emergence from Purva Magadhi. Though it was used widely in colloquial transactions and stray rock-edicts, there were not many written texts. Only after Sarala Das’s translations/transcriptions (the word ‘translation’ has been used here in its wider significance), voluminous written texts were produced in this language. We must remember here that Sarala’s writings were in fact the cultural manifestation of a socio-political process, which sought to undermine the Brahminical/Sanskrit stranglehold over power-knowledge. The discourse generated by such a process, in its turn, brought about a reversal of social hierarchies. The knowledge, and so the power accruing from it which was hitherto under the control of the elites and the elite language Sanskrit was now under the appropriating grasp of the emerging castes and social groups. Translational praxis played a pivotal role in the process of appropriation and mutilation of earlier hegemonies and leveling down of the social playing field. In this context, the study of translational praxis as the index of socio-cultural dynamics is relevant and rewarding.
Translated Texts
Although the first translations are credited to Sarala Das, those are not translations in the sense in which we understand ‘translation’ today. Those are more a mutilation and reworking of the original texts (the ideological implications of such an exercise will be dealt with later). Translation, as it is understood today, began in the early sixteenth century with Balaram Das. From that time until the colonial translations (those by European missionaries, the natives and the bureaucratic variety) around hundred translated texts have been identified, out of which most are in the form of palm-leaf manuscripts. (A detailed list of the translated texts published/discovered so far is given at the end of this paper).

         We must clarify here that the list given at the end is not exhaustive, since the search and discovery of fresh evidence of manuscripts is still in process. It has been prepared taking into account the evidence and information available so far in state museums and manuscript collections in university libraries. Moreover, the dating of the manuscripts not accompanied by puspika (colophon) might not be accurate for several reasons. First, except for the writer-translators who were also kings, rulers, and some major writers like Balaram Das, Jagannath Das and Dhananjaya Bhanja, it has not been possible to trace the genealogy of most of the writers. Secondly, several writer-translators share the same names, which are often the names of the major writers/translators, which adds to the confusion. However, it can be claimed with certainty that all the translated texts mentioned here belong to a period before European colonization and were produced within fifty years before or after the dates mentioned against them.

Development of Translational Practice from 16^th to early 19^th Century

The long list of translated texts both in print and in manuscript form mentioned above proves that translational practice in medieval Orissa was an important cultural activity. Compared with the translations during this period, translational activity between 11^th century (when written Oriya discourse consolidated itself) and early 15^th century is almost negligible. That a literary tradition, which remained almost dormant during a four-hundred year time-span, should proliferate in such a manner during the next three hundred and fifty years indicates that a cultural upheaval of sorts had taken place in the interregnum. This cultural upheaval is related to the rise of a nascent language-based patriotism around Kapilendra Dev’s consolidation of political power. While analyzing this cultural phenomenon K.C. Panigrahi (1986:289) states:


A love for the Oriya language, literature and culture was therefore an inevitable consequence of the new ferment created by the strong and vigorous rule of Kapilesvara. Since the topmost of castes, particularly the Brahmins were still the devotees of Sanskrit literature and had perhaps an aversion to the spoken language and its literature, a man from the lower rung of the social ladder came forward to accept the challenge of the time. After Sarala Das all castes shook off their prejudice against Oriya Literature and conjointly contributed to its growth .

Language-based patriotism was not only consolidated by the direct intervention of a great literary genius like Sarala Das, but also by the indirect influence of the language policy adopted by the emperor Kapilendra Dev. The Ganga rulers of Orissa had so far adopted a mixed-language policy in their royal proclamations. However, Kapilendra issued proclamations only in Oriya (Sahu 1968:7). Such championing of the language by the ruling power created a base for the subsequent growth of the Oriya language, literature and nationalism. Thus, it is clear that literary/translational discourse during the medieval times is grounded on an identifiable social and political context. What follows is an analysis of this context that gave rise to the variety and volume of translated texts in medieval Orissa.

TOP | NEXT

Copyright © CIIL and The Author 2006