article 9 page 1

Nabanita Sengupta teaches English literature at Hiralal Mazumdar Memorial College, Dakshineshwar, University of Calcutta, as a Guest Lecturer. She is also pursuing M.Phil in English at the University of Calcutta. She has completed her graduation with honours and postgraduation in English from the University of Delhi, Ramjas College and Hindu College respectively. Her postal address is Ramkrishna Sarada Road, P.O: Natagarh, Kolkata: 700113.

Abstract

Tejaswini Niranjana suggests that translation both shapes and takes shape 'within the asymmetrical relations of power that operates under colonialism'. By suggesting this she rightly brings colonialism, translation and power politics together. Imperialist mission, which was essentially a play for power control went hand in hand with the project of translation and could not have been effectively carried out for over two centuries without it. Beginning with Niranjana's premise then shows that translation has to perform the dual role of shaping the colonial enterprise as well as being shaped by it. Translation has been used as a tool for invasion, specifically of the minds, by the imperialists. But even here there is a paradox inherent in its purpose. Though it has been undertaken by the West to further their colonial cause, often it has been seen that the translations from the West have brought about waves of nationalism as well as modernism in the literature of the colonial countries. This paper attempts to study the relationship that existed between Orientalism and translation in China the country of the Far East, technically beyond the Empire; and India, the most important colony of the English in the Near East. The difference in the nature of imperialism in the countries of the Far East, who were never a direct colony of any Western power, and that of India also reveal a difference in the attitude of the West in the projects of translation that they undertook. Translations from Sanskrit that were undertaken had a very practical purpose behind them while most of the translations from Chinese and Japanese were taken up for the lure of their exoticism to the Western readers. Proximity with India also accounts for a greater and more organised enterprise of translations from Sanskrit into English than those from the other two languages, at least initially. In spite of certain differences in the attitude of the West in undertaking the translations of the literature of these countries, this entire activity has been given a common platform in the Oriental discourse by the snobbery of the West. Hence at the heart of such acts of translation the 'lack' in the native languages is always stressed upon and they are rendered deficient when compared with those of the West. Translations by the Christian missionaries mark the beginning of the epoch of translation in all these three countries. In fact it signifies the beginning of Western invasion as well as the enterprise of Oriental translation. The translation of popular literature is an affair of the modern times when the Western interest in colonialism started waning. This broadened the outlook of the Western litterateurs and they started looking towards the East for the sake of their interest in those cultures. Another important characteristic common to all these three linguistic communities is the impact of Western translation upon their literatures. A profusion of Western popular literature available in translation in these languages has led to the beginning of modernization in these literatures. The great impact of Western literature upon these cultures has been much more than the influence of the East on the Western literary traditions. The reason for it can be attributed to the constant and well-organized efforts by the West to maintain the hegemony of its discourse in the colonial East. Hence a study of the process of translation with respect to these three colonial countries and their relationship with the West proves that in spite of the difference in their political situations, the features of such translations remained more or less the same.

Tejaswini Niranjana suggests that translation both shapes and takes shape 'within the asymmetrical relation of power that operates under colonialism' (cited in Bassnett and Trivedi 1999: 3). In this paper I shall endeavour to show how this lop-sided cultural encounter associated with imperialism created the scope for translation even as it affected the translational strategies in the days of the early British Imperialists by drawing references from the two Asian countries where imperialism was effective in different degrees and modalities, viz. India, the most important colony of the British Empire, and China, a semi-colonial state where Britain's colonial ambition was thwarted more successfully.

The Chinese conception of the centrality of their Empire and the arrogance with which they tried to maintain it was a challenge to the West's construction of the myth of its racial superiority over the East. British colonial history speaks of a number of their futile attempts to enter the Chinese territory. In 1759, James Flint, a British emissary to the Chinese Emperor was arrested and imprisoned for breaking the Quing regulations, and amongst other charges, for having learnt Chinese! Again, in 1792-93, another British emissary, this time from King George the third, was sent back from China, unsuccessful in his attempt to gain an entry into the Chinese territory, with an answer that smacked of arrogance and racial pride. The emperor answered to the British Crown as:

"We have never valued ingenuous articles nor do we have the slightest need of your country's manufactures, therefore O King, as regards to your request to send someone to remain at the capital, which it is not in harmony with the regulations of the Celestial Empire - we also feel very much that it is of no advantage to your country"

(Spence 1990: 122).

This answer to the British Emperor shows the extent to which the Chinese preferred isolation from the West denying the Western powers their traditional initial foothold into any country, which is trade and commerce. Many such evidences of insularity practiced by China are present in Chinese history, which can be identified as a result of their extreme racial pride and a strong central government. On the other hand, the fall of the Mughals and the almost non-existence of a cohesive political structure made India easily accessible to the British Imperial power. Not facing any strong and unified opposition then, the English merchants, and later, the Crown could easily establish their hegemonic rule here.

This difference in the political status of the British Imperialists in India and China is deeply reflected in their attitudes towards the English translations from the Indian and the English translations from the Chinese languages. The nature and quality of the translations lead us to the conclusion that there is no engagement with the Chinese culture in the same sense as there is with the Indian culture, as I have tried to show here.

The British imperialists had a very practical purpose behind translating Indian classics - the necessity to know the colonized in order to rule them more effectively. Hence as early as 1776, Governor-general Warren Hastings commissioned a group of Indian pundits to translate from the Dharmasastras which, he was informed were the law-books, into Persian and which was then retranslated into English by Halhead, one of the Orientalists. Thus began an epoch of the Western interest in the Indian classics. The first direct translation from Sanskrit to English was of the Bhagwadgita by Charles Wilkins (Wilkins 1785). The then Governor-General, Hastings, arranged for its publication and wrote a letter of introduction to it, which amply focuses on the nature and purpose behind such an endeavor. Wilkins also translated the fables from the Hitopadésa. William Jones translated a number of Sanskrit works into English, for example, Kalidasa's Sakuntala (1789), translations from the Laws of Manu (1794), etc. Many other Orientalists followed suit.

TOP | NEXT