Article 6 Page1

V.B.Tharakeshwar is Lecturer, Department of Translation Studies at Kannada University, Hampi. He has published research articles both in Kannada and English. He also translates between Kannada and English. He has carried out many research projects related to issues of Colonialism, Nationalism and Translation, the Emergence of Modern Kannada Literature, Rethinking the "Crisis" in English Studies. Currently he is doing a research project on "Pre-colonial Notions of Translation in Kannada". His postal address is: Department of Translation Studies, Kannada University-Hampi, Vidyaranya, Hospet-583 276, Karnataka.

Abstract

Looking at early Kannada literary texts like Kaviraja Maarga and Vikramarjuna Vijaya (10th century), this paper tries to argue that employing binaries such as western/indian, colonial/indigenous, Kannada/Sanskrit would not do.Such early texts have to be placed in the context of the emerging writing culture (textual production) in the region, the uses to which it was put (economy, polity, religion), the question of patronage, the religious order of the day apart from subjecting it to a comparison with the source texts so as to figure out the function that they perform in the target culture. The paper identifies the existing pitfalls in theorizing pre-colonial translation practices and suggests that the complex matrix in which the practice is embedded has to be unearthed in further research in this area.

It has been thought over the last two decades that in pre-colonial times, India had a different notion of "bringing" texts into Indian languages from "classical languages" such as Sanskrit, Prakrit etc., from the one that exists today. People who posit such an argument also inform us that it was a "dynamic notion of translation" compared to the one that is prevalent today, which is "western" and "colonial". It has been pointed out by several critics/scholars that the writers, who "rewrote" Sanskrit texts in Kannada, have transformed the "original text" to "suit the politics of Kannada" which was trying to negotiate the "hegemony of Sanskrit".1

In this paper I argue that employing binaries such as Kannada-Sanskrit, orient/occident are not terribly useful in getting to know the interface between the phenomenon of translation and what drove it.We need instead to look at the social context in which these translations took place to unearth the complex process that is set in motion when two "language-cultures"2 meet on an uneven plane, and at an uneven place. Further, I look at some of the pre-colonial translations into Kannada, trying to place them in the "social space" of that period. I use the word "social space" to mean the socio-political context of the period. What helps us to understand translations is not the metanarrative but something that drives the translation, something that creates the translation in the first place, and at the same time gets transformed by the "translation". That is, not only are translations conditioned by socio-political spaces but translations themselves produce socio-political spaces or modify the existing ones. In the first section of the paper I look at a text that is the oldest available text in Kannada. It is called Kaviraja Marga. It is a text of poetis.The story of Mahabharatha has been retold in Kannada by many a writer.The first available retelling of the epic in Kannada is Pampa Bharatham or Vikramarjuna Vijayam of the 10th century.3 This text is analyzed in the second section. In the last section I make some remarks that would facilitate further research in this area.

Many literary traditions have begun with translations.4 Translations mark the beginning of literature in the Kannada language too. The first available written text in Kannada is Kaviraja Marga (The Way of the King of Poets, 814 -877 A.D., henceforth KRM). This is treated as a work of rhetoric/poetics in Kannada, and is heavily indebted to Dandi's Sanskrit work Kavyadarsha (The Mirror of Literature). Some even call it a translation of Kavyadarsha. However it has been noted by scholars that this work differs from the Sanskrit one in many ways. This difference would account for the changes that a treatise on literature undergoes as it travels from one language to another and from one social space to another.5

The first poem in KRM is a salutation poem (Seetharamaiah, 1994: (I:1) 73). In Dandi's Kavyadarsha the salutation to Saraswathi, the god of learning, comes in the beginning. In KRM this becomes the third poem. The first two poems of KRM indirectly praise King Nrupatunga by praising Lord Vishnu (Seetharamaiah 1994: (I: 2 & 3) 73).6 Praising the king by equating him with a god or gods is something that we don't find in Sanskrit texts. This is one of the vital differences between Sanskrit texts and Kannada texts of this period. In Sanskrit human beings, whether kings or ordinary beings, are not equated with God. But the Jaina poets of this period in Kannada make it a custom to equate the king with God, whom they salute at the beginning of the text. Commenting on this aspect, Kurtakoti, a Kannada critic, says that this is not surprising because Jains don't believe in God and they consider the king himself as a god (Kurtakoti 1995:v).7 Kurtakoti's argument is hard to accept, as praising the king by equating him with God is not a simple issue of praising the king instead of God, but is more complex. Jainism is not an atheistic religion like Buddhism, so it is hard to accept that "instead" of God they praised the king. Interestingly, the texts that they are translating/rewriting belong to a "Vedic religion".8

The pantheon of gods that we find in certain texts like Mahabharatha and such other Puranic texts has inspired the texts which are supposed to be part of "Sanskrit Literature" in general.9 God Vishnu with whom King Nrupatunga is equated is part of such a milieu. Nrupatunga was a Vaishnava, but Srivijaya the poet was supposed to be a Jaina.

The situatedness of a Vaishnava king and a Jaina poet on the same scene is a very curious one. Jaina poets were supposed to translate Vaishnava texts as commissioned by the king, or on their own took up that task to curry favors with the Vaishnava King. It is normally suggested that to obtain the king's favor or as expression of their regard to the kindness bestowed by the king, these writers praised the king by using such ambiguous words which equivocally denote both king and God. Elevating the king to the status of a god is not seen as dishonor to the god.

Similarly Dandi's first poem, which becomes the third poem in KRM, the author translates in such a way that it is not against the tenets of Jaina belief, for example deleting reference to Brahma in the poem. Invocation of goddess Saraswati at the beginning of the epic is not an old custom in Sanskrit literature. It doesn't happen in Mahabharatha or in Kalidasa's plays. It must be a later development. While translating Dandi's poem into Kannada, the author of KRM adds a few adjectives to Goddess Saraswati: "madhura aaraavochite, chatura ruchira padarachane". Here we see a sense of tenderness associated with Saraswathi and Kaavya: in a sense, feminization of (epic) literature is happening here.

It has been remarked (Pollock, 1998: 21) that one could talk not just of the cosmopolis of languages like Sanskrit but even vernacularization took the form of a cosmopolis, and Pollock calls it 'making the global local' or calling the vernacular thus formed "the cosmopolitan vernacular". Here the imperial political space that Sanskrit had created for itself across South Asia was replicated at a different level of empire using the vernacular. Sanskrit was normally used before this period all over South Asia in Epigraphy to praise the king, while local languages were used, if at all, to document business transactions. This kind of division of linguistic labour that existed during this period is termed "hyperglossia" by Pollock (Pollock 1998:11)10. With the vernacularization process, vernacular languages also sought to become the language of literature and the language that could be used for praising the gods. So with this process they replicated the Sanskrit model in the vernacular. It is not that the hyperglossia or diglossia of Sanskrit and Kannada discontinued with the vernacularization process. It indeed continued. The literary composition in Kannada presupposed literacy in Sanskrit. It in fact followed Sanskrit texts, but adapted it to local needs. What these "local needs" were need to be pinpointed by analyzing the differences that we find in the Kannada texts to understand the socio-political space that existed and which itself was shaped by these translations.

TOP | NEXT