Movie Review: Gandhi Godse- Ek Yudh

Hello readers! This blog reviews the recent movie ‘Gandhi Godse- Ek Yudh’ directed by Rajkumar Santoshi and inspired by Asghar Wajahat’s play ‘Godse@gandhi.com’.

GANDHI Vs GODSE

Godse@gandhi.com

Asghar Wajahat is a well-known storyteller and playwright in India who writes about social and political issues. He challenges society's norms and beliefs by asking tough questions through his writings. In his play, Gandhi and Godse, the story begins with Gandhi and Godse both in jail on charges of treason. Godse had tried to kill Gandhi. The play explores the idea of dialogue and how it can help us understand one another.

The play shows how Gandhi wanted to understand Godse's hatred towards him and the conflicts within Godse's mind. He believed that through dialogue, he could achieve this understanding. Despite the seriousness and length of their conversations, Gandhi's dialogue with Godse is easy to understand and connects deeply with the readers. The play does not promote any violence or extreme beliefs. Gandhi and Godse both value the Gita, but their interpretations of it are very different. The play highlights the dangers of ideologies like Hindutva, which divides people and causes communal tensions. It also raises important issues like democracy and development in India.

In today's socio-political context, where communalism and divisive politics are still prevalent, the play's message is relevant. It encourages people to engage in dialogue and debate to understand each other's perspectives and build a more united and inclusive society. The play talks about important issues that are relevant to our society today, like communal problems, development, and democracy. The story mainly revolves around a conversation between Gandhi and Godse. Godse had tried to kill Gandhi, but he survived and decides to visit Godse in prison. The play is all about their dialogue, and how it is important to have conversations to achieve something. Gandhi wants to know why Godse hates him and hopes that Godse will listen to him too. The play also shows that Hindutva and Hinduism are not the same things.

It's fascinating to think about how two individuals can have such opposing views despite reading the same book. The play also highlights how divisive ideologies like Hindutva only serve to create animosity and division among people. It encourages us to engage in healthy debates and discussions to find solutions to issues such as communalism and communal elections, which we should strive to eliminate from our society.

Gandi Godse- Ek Yudh

Gandhi Godse – Ek Yudh is a recent Indian-Hindi history film that explores the fascinating possibility of what might have happened if Mahatma Gandhi had survived his assassination attempt and subsequently decided to forgive his attacker, Nathuram Godse. The film, written and directed by Rajkumar Santoshi, and produced by Manila Santoshi, stars Deepak Antani (Mahatma Gandhi) and Chinmay Mandlekar (Nathuram Godse) in the lead roles.

However, the system highlights Godse's writing and manipulates public sentiment against Gandhi, who is seen as causing disruptions within the government. This leads to Gandhi's arrest, which he insists on serving with Godse. During their time in prison, the two engage in multiple debates, arguments, and even confrontations. The film explores whether this "war of ideologies" between Gandhi and Godse can resolve their differences.

Controversy surrounded the film's context, and Rajkumar Santoshi reportedly received threats, leading him to seek police protection. Nonetheless, the film offers a thought-provoking exploration of what could have happened if Gandhi had lived and how that might have impacted the history of India. The movie begins with the India-Pakistan Partition and the communal violence that ensued. It quickly establishes the Hindu and Sikh populations’ gripe against Gandhi for their suffering. Hindu Nationalist Nathuram Godse’s anger and Bapu’s assassination also follow soon enough. However, the film’s pace dips after that, based on prominent Hindi scholar Asghar Wajahat’s play, and the narrative drags all of the first halves to set the context. It covers some crucial events, such as Gandhi’s fast unto death for Hindu-Muslim peace and the conditions to end it.

The film explores the ideas and actions of its protagonists, but their debates and arguments may not be exciting enough for some viewers. The story also touches upon social issues like untouchability, casteism, and economic exploitation, and shows how narratives can be manipulated to influence public opinion.

Rajkumar Santoshi's film is releasing around the same time as Shah Rukh Khan's comeback movie, Pathaan, and it faces several challenges. The film imagines a world where Mahatma Gandhi forgives his assassin, Nathuram Godse, and engages in an ideological war with him. While the film tries to counter Godse's extremist beliefs, it doesn't fully address his ideology. The movie portrays Godse as immature and gullible, willing to believe anything about Muslims to justify his hatred of Gandhi.

Review

The film Gandhi vs Godse is a noteworthy adaptation of a theater play penned by Asghar Wajahat. With Louis Gianetti's adaptation approach, the movie can be regarded as a faithful representation of the play, as it has made necessary changes while adapting the story to the screen. The play commences with Gandhi being released from the hospital and expressing his desire to visit Godse in prison, while the movie opens with the communal riots that followed the nation's partition and Independence.

In contrast to the play, the film provides a historical context leading up to Gandhi's assassination, which sets the stage for the second half of the movie, which narrates a fictional account of the actual events. The movie delves into the aftermath of the partition, where Gandhi was widely held accountable for the division of the nation. Additionally, the film depicts Gandhi's 'Fast unto death' for peace in the nation, under specific conditions. Overall, the movie successfully captures the essence of the play while making changes necessary for cinematic storytelling. The added historical context and fictional narrative provide a broader understanding of the events leading up to Gandhi's assassination and the political climate of the time.

In addition to being a faithful adaptation of the play, Gandhi vs Godse includes added characters such as Ambedkar and Bose, who were only mentioned by name in the original script. These characters play a significant role in the movie and contribute to the overarching themes and messages of the film. The movie portrays Ambedkar as an advocate for equality between the upper and lower classes and prioritizing the Constitution over religious texts. This characterization provides an additional layer of depth to the movie's exploration of social and political issues. Furthermore, the film also adds a scene in detail that was not present in the play. For instance, the movie depicts the conflict between the government's plan to cut down forests for industrial and road development, which Gandhi opposes. This conflict highlights Gandhi's commitment to ‘Gram Swaraj’, or village self-rule, as opposed to centralized government control.

The play Gandhi vs Godse primarily centers around the clash of two opposing ideologies - that of Gandhi and Godse. The play primarily focuses on the conversations between the two and juxtaposes them with the story of Shushma and Naveen, which is intertwined with Gandhi's celibacy ideology. The play critically examines Gandhi's celibacy doctrine and portrays it as flawed. However, the movie also touches upon this theme, but the storyline of Sushma and Nirav is relatively underdeveloped compared to the play. On the other hand, the movie delves into several other concepts like neo-colonialism, women's colonialism, and eco-criticism. These themes are not as prominent in the play and provide the movie with a broader canvas to explore the political and social issues of the time. Moreover, when Gandhi talks about dissolving the Congress party in the movie, his ideas are lucid and well-defined, which adds to the movie's overall clarity of messaging.

Gandhi's ideology was centered around the empowerment of the citizens of the nation, especially those in rural areas. He believed in helping people rather than ruling them, and this is evident in his establishment of Gram Swaraj in a village in Bihar. The movie "Gandhi vs Godse" effectively portrays Gandhi's vision of empowering the people, with several scenes showing him helping villagers and standing up against the upper-class people who held lower-class individuals in contempt.

Moreover, the movie goes beyond just the ideological battle between Gandhi and Godse and provides historical context to India's situation during the partition. The film accurately captures the main themes of the play, while also adding several detailed scenes that help viewers better understand the historical vision of India during this time.

Both the play and movie present the thoughts and ideologies of Gandhi and Godse, without taking a stance toward either. The end is hopeful and open, allowing the audience to form their own views. Throughout the story, we witness Gandhi's stubbornness and egoism in his philosophy. However, when Godse shows him a mirror, Gandhi realizes the need for change and begins to do so. Similarly, Godse also tries to understand the truth behind Gandhi's every step and decision are taken for the nation. Although there are no monologues that suggest their changes, their actions and expressions, coupled with the use of silence in the movie, effectively express the change in characters.

In the movie, after Godse, three upper-class people from a working congress committee are appointed to kill Gandhi. However, in the end, Godse saves Gandhi. This addition is not from the play but from the director's own creativity. Both the play and movie end with Gandhi and Godse, after coming out of jail, moving away from the troops, and going together in a different direction. This suggests that although Gandhi and Godse had differing ideologies, they were both clear about their beliefs and stuck to them.

As the film progresses, it becomes clear that Gandhi and Godse are used as metaphors to initiate a dialogue on the idea of India that was diminished during the country's partition. The film aims to experiment with the bitter truths of the divide rather than brush it under the carpet of euphemisms. It seeks to find a middle ground rather than taking sides. In this parallel universe, the film attempts to humanize and critique Gandhi, a figure often placed on a pedestal. While it also challenges Godse's Islamophobia and raises questions about Gandhi's celibacy, it flattens their contrasting political positions into a mere difference of temperament that could be solved through dialogue.

However, this approach undermines the frightening persistence of the ideology at stake. To suggest that after spending time together in a jail cell, Godse would go as far as saving Gandhi from another assassination attempt is a naive belief that violence is a part of human nature, which can easily be reformed. This ignores how oppression operates on a systematic level, and how it can only be eradicated through structural change. While the film encourages dialogue and understanding, it must also acknowledge the complexities and realities of the situation. Gandhi and Godse cannot simply be reduced to individual beliefs or temperaments but must be understood within the context of their times and the systemic issues they represent. Only then can a meaningful dialogue be initiated, and real change be achieved.

In an interview with INDIA TODAY the director said that highlighting the version of Nathuram Godse does not mean he approves of his deed which still holds importance in today’s history. “No, I don’t approve of any of that. But I think the incident took place in 1948 and now it is nearly 75 years. Still, I feel we are scared to hear his point of view. And if this happens, then something is definitely wrong. I think, if you ask the younger generation, they would all like to know. And from Godse’s point of view, we see history as to what kind of equation he had in 1948.

When asked whether he is trying to justify the act of Nsthuram Godse. The director replied, “No, why to justify it? The judge did not justify and did not agree with Godse. He was sentenced and hanged. So why will I justify it today? I am only bringing the truth about what Godse spoke.

Does any one of them win in the end? It is more like they figure out each other’s flaws, and learn about themselves better. In the film, Gandhi is no Mahatma and Godse is no villain, they are rather humanized with their own virtues and flaws. However, the biggest issue that comes from a treatment like this is that the plot is oversimplified, and the movie turns rather preachy and bland. try to prove their ideas by emphasizing the same thing again and again. The former wants peace, the latter a Hindu Rashtra. To think that deep-rooted ideologies, that could prompt a man to take a step as big as attempting to assassinate a national figure or another to sit for indefinite fasts, could be changed in a matter of few days with discussions and eye rolls implies too much dilution and naivety. The conviction required to pull off a film of this stature was also missing.

In my personal opinion, the view presented in the film was most needed in the contemporary period when there is an attempt to villainize Gandhi and upgrade the ideologies of Godse and Hindu Rashtra. It is essential to read and understand history before sharing any idea. Gandhi was stubborn, and he was forced to take certain actions, but if not for him, then who would have taken such brave steps against the Britishers? He was an educated intellectual and was respected by the Englishmen. This indicates that he had something significant in him. However, he was also human, and everyone has their share of bad deeds. As an audience, while reading the play and watching the movie, I felt that Gandhi had deep roots in his ideologies, whereas Godse was stuck only to one idea of Hindu Rashtra. However, I must acknowledge that I have not read any history books, so my opinion may not be entirely accurate.

Today, we still witness slogans like 'Go to Pakistan' and the blame game surrounding Gandhi, along with an extremist idea of Hindu Rashtra. Therefore, R. Santoshi's film was made at the right time when there was a need for clarification of thoughts and doctrines. It is necessary to understand the complexities of history and not reduce individuals to mere stereotypes or symbols. Only then can we initiate meaningful dialogue and move towards progress and change.

Here are some reviews of the movie.

The Hindu- ‘Gandhi Godse: Ek Yudh’ movie review: A timely dialogue on the idea of India

Scroll. in- ‘Gandhi Godse – Ek Yudh’ review: Sincere, plodding effort to debunk WhatsApp myths about the Mahatma

India Today- Director Rajkumar Santoshi says 'We are scared to hear Godse's...

Forbes.com- Indian Writer Asgar Wajahat: Journey Of Godse@Gandhi.com Began At Vinoba Bhave’s Ashram

CLTS: Shifting Centers and Emerging Margins: Translation and Shaping or Modernist Poetic Discourse in Indian Poetry by E.V. Ramakrishnan

Shifting Centers and Emerging Margins: Translation and Shaping or Modernist Poetic Discourse in Indian Poetry

E.V. Ramakrishnan

[Reading and comprehending original articles by scholars can be a daunting task, and I found it especially challenging while preparing for my exam. To alleviate this stress, I have simplified the article based on my understanding and with the assistance of ChatGPT. I have attempted to present the information in simple and easy-to-understand language. This blog is geared toward exam preparation and aims to provide a clear understanding of the article's core ideas and concepts. However, it's important to note that if you want to gain a deep understanding of the topic, reading the original article is highly recommended. CLICK HERE FOR BLOG I (it has quotes in the language of the original article)]

Introduction

This chapter explores how translations of modern Western poets such as Baudelaire, Rilke, Eliot, and Yeats contributed to the development of modernist poetry in India between 1950 and 1970. These translations allowed Indian poets to break away from prevailing literary norms and modes and to experiment with new styles and ways of thinking. Many major Indian poets, such as Buddhadeb Bose, Agyeya, Gopalakrishna Adiga, Dilip Chitre, and Ayyappa Paniker, were also translators who used 'foreignizing' translations to disrupt cultural codes and legitimize experimental writing styles. Little magazines played a critical role in disseminating these translations and opening up the poetic discourse. As the contradictions within the "high" modernist mode deepened in the politically turbulent 1960s, translations of African and Latin American poetry provided a critique of its elitism and complicity with nationalist discourses. Translation acted as a critical, creative, and performative act in the evolution of a new poetic during the modernist phase of Indian poetry.

Translation played a crucial role in the development of modernism in Indian languages. It helped to introduce new poetic forms to Indian readers while also challenging existing aesthetic norms. The emergence of Indian modernist poetry was a response to the socio-political changes occurring in the country, including the communal riots and killings following Partition, the perceived failure of the Nehruvian project of modernity, and the erosion of idealism that had previously inspired writers committed to socialist realism and Romantic nationalism. These seismic forces shaped the dynamics of Indian culture and demanded change. Translation allowed Indian poets to bridge the gap between the new poetic forms and the expectations of the native reader, making modernism more accessible and relevant to Indian audiences.

The term 'translation' in this chapter refers to a range of cultural practices, from critical commentary to intertextual creation. André Lefevere's concept of translation as refraction/rewriting is used to argue that 'refractions' found in less obvious forms of criticism, commentary, historiography, teaching, anthologies, and plays are also instances of translation. For example, an essay on T. S. Eliot in Bengali or a critique in Malayalam on the poetic practices of Vallathol Narayana Menon can be described as 'translational' writings as they carry across modes and models from an alien Western tradition to interrogate the self-sufficiency of an entrenched poetic. Modernism in India differed from that in the West but fulfilled a function in the socio-cultural contexts of Indian languages by transforming the relations between the text and the reader, and the modes of writing and reading. Modernist writers selectively assimilated an alien poetic that could be regressive or subversive depending on the context and the content. Conservative and radical dissident poets alike belonged to the larger modernist tradition, accommodating diverse political ideologies and innovative experimental styles.

PART I

In India, the term 'modernity' refers to a period of significant changes brought about by colonialism, capitalism, industrialization, and Western models of education. This period also saw the emergence of institutions that formed a normative subjectivity with cosmopolitan and individualist worldviews. This new form of modernity had a major impact on Indian society and culture, leading to a separation between what was considered 'modern' and 'pre-modern'. However, this view can be contested, but it's clear that the 'modern' period redefined the way literature was expressed and cultural ideas were transmitted.

The idea of modernity in India was influenced by colonialism and imperialism. It shaped literary and cultural movements from the 19th-century reformist movement to the mid-20th-century modernist movement. The modernist movement in India was a response to the disruptions caused by colonial modernity. The breach of established traditions resulted in a crisis that needed creative solutions by borrowing from foreign traditions. Modernist writers sought to create texts that were self-referential and self-validating, which is rooted in an aesthetic ideology that supported colonialism. However, the modernist sensibility in Indian languages was essentially oppositional, challenging the prevailing ideology of nationalism, which had become the ideology of the newly formed nation-state. Experimental writings during the modernist period ranged from anarchist/avant-garde to formalist/conventional styles.

PART II

The term 'modernism' refers to a literary/artistic movement characterized by experimentation and rejection of traditional styles. In Europe, it was an elitist movement that excluded local and national claims, but modernism in India was different. Due to India's postcolonial location, Indian modernism rejected imperial aspirations and instead embraced regional cosmopolitan traditions. It was oppositional in content and questioned the colonial legacies of nationalism. While Indian modernism was also elitist and formalistic, it was distrustful of popular culture.

The modernist movement in India, which began in the mid-twentieth century, is not often recognized as part of the global modernist movement that originated in Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, some critics argue that non-Western modernisms are not just a derivative version of European modernism and that we should look at the modernist movements that emerged in non-Western societies to better understand the nature of modernism. This will require careful consideration of the different socio-political contexts and ideological differences between Western modernism and Indian modernism. Critics such as Simon Gikandi, Susan Friedman, Laura Doyle, Laura Winkiel, and Rebecca L. Walkonwitz have all criticized Eurocentric accounts of modernism and argued for a more dialogic approach that takes into account the circulation of ideas, indigenous contexts of reception, and strategies of contestation and articulation that shaped Indian modernism.

PART III 

In India, the reception of Western modernist ideas was influenced by the social and political changes happening in the country during its transition to a nation-state. Each regional language had its own unique history and internal configuration, so it's difficult to make broad statements about modernism in India. The way modernism was expressed in Bengali literature, for example, was different from how it was expressed in Kannada literature. In Bengali, modernism was a way to move away from the influence of Rabindranath Tagore, while in Kannada, it was a response to the Brahminical and non-Brahminical social dynamic. Caste, ethnicity, progress, freedom, individualism, region, and nation were all important themes in Indian modernist literature. Unlike in Bengali literature, there was no father figure like Tagore in Kannada or Malayalam modernism.

PART IV

Translation plays an important role in understanding the complex artistic and ideological aspects that shaped modernism in Indian literature. To explore this, we will examine the works of three modernist authors from three different Indian literary traditions - Sudhindranath Dutta (Bengali), B. S. Mardhekar (Marathi), and Ayyappa Paniker (Malayalam). These authors help us understand the chronological progression of modernism across Indian literature. The modernist movement in Bengali started in the 1930s and continued into the 1940s and 1950s. In Marathi, it emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. Malayalam's literary sensibility transformed into modernism in the 1960s, with its influence gradually declining by the late 1970s. However, by that time, it had redefined the relationship between content and form in all literary forms.

Translation played a vital role in the development of modernist poetry in Indian literature. Sudhindranath Dutta, B.S. Mardhekar, and Ayyappa Paniker were three modernist authors who wrote essays in English as well as their native languages, explaining their new poetic style and preparing readers for it. Sudhindranath Dutta translated the works of Stéphane Mallarmé and Paul Valéry into Bengali, while Buddhadeb Bose translated Charles Baudelaire and other poets. Ayyappa Paniker translated European poets into Malayalam, and B.S. Mardhekar's Arts and the Man was a treatise that legitimized modernist practice. These authors had a deep understanding of Western philosophy and literary traditions and wrote critical studies that validated the emergence of new poetry. It's important to note that their discursive prose on poetry form needs to be seen as part of an attempt to translate modernism into Indian terms.

PART V

Sudhindranath Dutta wrote essays about the importance of poetry and the power of words. He believed that poetry is essential to all societies and that even unsophisticated and primitive people appreciate it. He discussed the ideas of Aristotle, Plato, Voltaire, Byron, Mallarmé, and Yeats, showing his understanding of Western thought. Although he considered himself a pragmatist, Dutta thought that only those with a poetic mind could make connections that reason cannot.

Dutta argued that poetry should have a greater role in life than reason alone, rejecting the Enlightenment idea that reason is the most important aspect of modern society. He believed that writers have a progressive role in society and emphasized the role played by the masses in creating a literary tradition. In one essay, he agreed with Virginia Woolf that creative artists must sometimes seek refuge in the "Ivory Tower," which means that writers must have a place to create without being judged too harshly. Dutta did not believe in a hermetic aesthetic or formalism, however. Instead, he believed that writers must pass the pragmatic test of the people to create meaningful and lasting works. He wrote, "Not the introspecting intellectuals, but the enduring masses are the guardians of tradition and directors of progress; and whatever be the caliber of the experimenter unless he passes the pragmatic test of his people, the facts he would establish are febrile dreams, and the truths he would loudly proclaim are a maniac's fancies."

Sudhindranath Dutta was critical of the Anglicists, who he believed failed to emancipate the Indian people from the illusions created by colonialism. He praised artist Jamini Roy for creating a universal style of representation by incorporating elements of traditional Indian art. Dutta recognized the complexities faced by Indian modernists in their pursuit of cosmopolitan and universal values without completely rejecting tradition.

In his radio talk on T.S. Eliot, Dutta highlighted Eliot's commitment to tradition, which he believed was revolutionary. He also stated that Eliot's ideal must be widely accepted if civilization is to survive the threat of atomic war. However, Dutta's endorsement of Eliot's worldview must be seen in relation to his critique of contemporary Indian society.

Dutta believed that modernism in India was part of a larger decolonizing project, which did not blindly celebrate Western values or the European avant-garde.

Sudhindranath Dutta wrote a famous poem called "The Camel-Bird" which shows his critical spirit and desire to reinvent tradition from a cosmopolitan perspective. The poem is about the crisis of perception and how it can only be remedied by completely reinventing oneself.

In the poem, the bird is presented as vulnerable and unable to defend itself against the hunter. This vulnerability represents the crisis of perception that Dutta is trying to address. The poem suggests that in order to overcome this crisis, one must be willing to completely reinvent oneself.

In Sudhindranath Dutta's poem "The Camel-Bird," the poet and the bird find themselves in a landscape of ruins where they have no access to the traditions of the past. The poet is alienated in the present and feels disconnected from the past, leading him to retreat into his wounded self and devise his own strategies for survival. The poem speaks to the larger condition of inertia that a colonized community is condemned to, embodying the quest for humanity in a brutalized world and the recovery of a sense of community in a world of isolated individuals.

While the poem's voice of anguish is personal and intimate, it bears testimony to a larger burden of the quest for meaning and identity in a world haunted by violence and servility. Dutta's modernist approach moves beyond the personal to address the condition of the community as a whole.

PART VI 

B.S. Mardhekar was a Marathi poet who transformed the direction of Marathi poetry by introducing new ideas and styles. He was aware of the Marathi poetic tradition from its beginnings and wrote a treatise on aesthetics called "Arts and the Man" in London in 1937, and "Two Lectures on the Aesthetic of Literature" in Bombay (Mumbai) in 1944. He argued for a modernist aesthetic in Marathi poetry. Another modernist Marathi poet, P.S. Rege, was also influenced by modernist poets like Eliot during his time in London in the 1930s. Mardhekar and Rege both looked back to the roots of Marathi poetic traditions, such as the saint poets Tukaram and Ramdas, to reinvent them for a modern audience. This movement has parallels to what Eliot and Pound did with the reinterpretation of Provencal poets, Guido Cavalcanti, Dante, and the Metaphysical poets in their time, but the comparison can only be taken so far.

B. S. Mardhekar was a Marathi poet who transformed Marathi poetry through his vision, form, and content. He was deeply aware of the Marathi poetic tradition from its beginnings and published a treatise on aesthetics called Arts and the Man in London in 1937. Mardhekar reinvented the saint poets like Tukaram and Ramdas for a modern audience, which was also done by P. S. Rege, another major modernist Marathi poet. Both Mardhekar and Rege were influenced by modernist poets like Eliot. Mardhekar's creative reclamation of tradition was a response to the disruption of moral order in his culture, and he had to invent a language to articulate this fragmentation. His poetry was deliberately obscure and his devastating irony was a means of negotiating the contradictions that threatened to rip apart his sense of himself as a social being. Mardhekar's poetic line carried echoes of saint poets like Tukaram, creating a self-reflexive idiom. This enabled him to embody the moral squalor of contemporary society even as he invoked an order of the sacred rooted in tradition. Mardhekar's modernity had indigenous roots because he lived in a society that had an internal discourse of modernity, beginning with Jyotiba Phule in the nineteenth century and extending to Bhimrao Ambedkar in the twentieth.

Mardhekar used irony and self-reflexivity in his poetry to create a new kind of reader who would approach the world with a critical eye. His poetry was a response to the fragmentation of moral order in his culture, and he had to invent a new language to express it. In his most famous poem, 'Mice in the Wet Barrel Died', he uses language to convey a sense of anguish that is reminiscent of the suffering of saint poets. The poem begins with lines that describe the miserable existence of the mice:

In Mardhekar's poem 'Mice in the Wet Barrel Died', the metaphor of mice is used to represent the morbid and malevolent aspects of modern life. The poem describes the blind struggle for survival in a hostile world and the existential horror of urban life. It contains physical details of decrepitude and degeneration, with the rats dying and hiccupping in the barrel. The poem was initially met with disapproval and even parodies when it was first published in Marathi, but it later became an iconic modernist poem in Marathi literature. The line "sadness has poisonous eyes made of glass" captures the haunting malignancy of modern existence and is particularly striking due to the dislocation of the word order in the original. Irony and self-reflexivity are employed by Mardhekar to constitute a new reader by freeing them from their habits of viewing the world and promoting a self-critical attitude towards the material content of art and life.

Mardhekar was a subversive poet who used irony and self-reflexivity to challenge the reader's perceptions. He often used language in unconventional ways to create new meanings and explore the moral decay of modern society. In his famous poem 'Mice in the Wet Barrel Died', he uses the metaphor of mice to represent the wretched and malevolent nature of modern life. The poem was initially met with disapproval but is now recognized as an iconic modernist work in Marathi literature.

Mardhekar also used the archaic and formal diction of the saint poets of the medieval period and juxtaposed it with everyday English words to create a collage of images. In his poem 'Although the Lights', he uses words like 'punctured', 'pumps', 'rubber', and 'pumps' in unusual collocations to suggest a process of dissolution. Mardhekar's irreverent address to God and his use of two separate words for 'tongue' in Marathi suggest his subversive nature. His poetry is a response to the disruption of moral order in his culture and addresses the existential angst, psychological disorientation, and political disillusionment he experienced in the urban turbulence of Bombay.

In this poem, Mardhekar portrays the dehumanized urban landscape through stark and vivid metaphors. He uses a modernist technique of relying on "governing images" to create a non-discursive and non-narrative structure. The poem's central image of darkness and despair is developed through metaphors of rubber tires and dogs, which evolve according to their own imaginative logic. This poem is an example of how Mardhekar brings modernist techniques to Marathi literature.

PART VII

Ayyappa Paniker was a poet, critic, and translator who wrote in Malayalam. He started as a Romantic poet but later became a Modernist poet. He wrote a long poetic sequence called Kurukshetram in 1960. He introduced world poetry to Malayalam readers through translations published in his little magazine Kerala Kavita. He encouraged Malayalam poets to reject prosody in favor of rhythmic free verse, which he believed was more important than form and prosody. In his critical interventions, Paniker attacked the lack of intellectual rigor, dubious political attitudes, and adherence to worn-out idioms and stale diction of canonical figure Vallathol Narayana Menon. He argued that a writer needs to integrate their personal and public selves into an emotional apprehension of the totality of relative truths about the world. Paniker believed that the ideology of the poet is embodied in the syntactic structure of the poem. Modernist poets have to reject the allegorical and the didactic and articulate their complex awareness of the relation between form and content. The experimental poetry of the modernists used imagist, suggestive free verse that affirmed that each poem has its authentic form that cannot be approximated to a meter, which functions independently of content. M. Govindan was a poet-critic closely associated with the modernist movement in Malayalam from its beginning. He patronized young writers such as Paniker through his avant-garde journal Sameeksha. Govindan advocated a return to the Dravidian sources of Malayalam poetry, which he believed could rejuvenate its syntax and rhythm through a robust earthliness that had been curbed by the scholastic Sanskritic tradition.

Kurukshetram is a poem written by Ayyappa Paniker consisting of five sections and 294 lines. The poem begins with an epigraph from the Bhagavad Gita, which sets the tone for a high moral and critical stance toward contemporary society. The opening lines of the poem express a decline in moral values and the disruption of the organic rhythms of society, similar to Eliot's The Waste Land.

The Bhagavad Gita is an ancient Hindu scripture that teaches the importance of fulfilling one's duties in life. Eliot's The Waste Land is a modernist poem that explores the spiritual and cultural decay of Western civilization after World War I. Paniker's Kurukshetram is influenced by both the Bhagavad Gita and The Waste Land. The poem uses the epic story of the Mahabharata as a metaphor for contemporary society's moral and cultural decline. The poem explores the themes of individualism, societal decay, and the struggle for human values. The poem is written in free verse and is considered one of the most significant works in modern Malayalam poetry.

The title of Ayyappa Paniker's poem, 'Kurukshetram', refers to the place where the epic battle of the Mahabharata took place. The poem explores contemporary life through broken images and redemptive memories that recur through the metaphor of a dream. The poem uses evocative rhythms to create a sense of disquiet that cannot be easily defined. The self is seen as a site of struggle and conflict, but modern men and women are denied the tragic dignity of epic heroes. The triviality of everyday life drowns out their yearnings for transcendence. Paniker uses a metaphor of devotees tearing out their eyes to fix them with spectacles of faith to describe the overwhelming pain of dreams, desire, and despair. The entangled wisdom of 'philosophies' seems unreal against the labyrinth of daily life. The poet describes contemporary society as a marketplace where people come to bargain, buy, and sell. The poem explores themes of individualism, societal decay, and the struggle for human values. The poem is written in free verse and is considered one of the most significant works in modern Malayalam poetry.

The second section of Kurukshetram is a more personal and introspective part of the poem, moving away from the public images of the first section. It expresses an internal conflict that cannot be simply defined as moral or ethical. The structure of the poem defies conventional representation and speaks to deeper parts of the mind. The poet recalls memories of a harmonious community, but this vision is fleeting and gives way to a more negative outlook. The poem addresses the struggles of the self and the futility of existence in the face of dreams, desires, and despair.

The third section of Kurukshetram goes back to the world of public conflicts. In this section, the poet invokes mythical characters like Sugriva, Vibhishana, Vashistha, Lord Ram, Arjuna, and Oedipus. However, modern men and women have lost the ability to access the wisdom that is contained in these myths and are now fragmented and dehumanized figures. The self, being in a violated space, is unable to fully understand itself.

The fourth section of the poem criticizes the false promises of faith and politics and encourages individuals to turn to their inner resources to confront the void and reaffirm their sense of self. However, this resolve is short-lived as mindless violence dominates the final section of the poem, with the failed prophet Gandhi at its center. Despite this, the poet also turns to their dream as a beacon of life, using the image of Brahma, the creator of life, to represent the desire to be reborn and reimagine the world. The poem does not offer a clear vision, but rather a desire to use imagination to create a new world.

PART VIII 

Conclusion

It's important to understand that the writers discussed in this context - Salman Rushdie, Kamala Das, and K. Ayyappa Paniker - have roots in indigenous traditions and routes of modernity. They come from postcolonial societies that have already critiqued Western modernity and developed alternative traditions of modernity. This enables them to selectively incorporate Western modernity on their own terms. They translate modernity and modernism through the lens of postcolonial modernities, which involves an internal dialectic and external dialogic.

It's important to understand how the three writers discussed above, who belong to postcolonial societies, have indigenous roots/routes of modernity and modernism. They have access to intellectual resources of alternative traditions of modernity that are bred in their native context, allowing them to selectively assimilate resources of Western modernity on their own terms. They have a dialogic relationship with Western modernism, negotiating its modes of representation without surrendering to its ideological baggage. They are critical outsiders to their own culture, critical of its provincial nature while relating to its cosmopolitan worldviews. They value the internal critique of Western modernity but distrust the grand narratives bred by the same powers of resistance. Translation answers something deep within their ambivalent existence, allowing them to be 'within' their speech community and 'without' it at the same time, as it embodies their complex relationship with a fragmented society. Their bilingual sensibility demands a mode of expression that can transition between native and alien traditions.

In India, the modernist subject was fragmented and fractured due to the impact of colonial modernity. This created a new social imagination and a desire within individuals. Modernist poetry reflected this inner world of desire and was expressed through a language filled with disquiet and angst. The translation was a way for the displaced self of modernity to locate itself in a language that was both private and public. For modernists, language became the only reality they could relate to, and self-knowledge was achieved through epiphanies. Western modernism allowed for a moment of self-reflection that was postcolonial in essence. This self-reflection was possible because of an interior mode of being that questioned the limits of freedom.

I hope this blog is helpful if any queries please comment.

CLTS: On Translating a Tamil Poetry by A.K. Ramanujan

On Translating a Tamil Poetry

A.K. Ramanujan

[Reading and comprehending original articles by scholars can be a daunting task, and I found it especially challenging while preparing for my exam. To alleviate this stress, I have simplified the article based on my understanding and with the assistance of ChatGPT. I have attempted to present the information in simple and easy-to-understand language. This blog is geared toward exam preparation and aims to provide a clear understanding of the article's core ideas and concepts. However, it's important to note that if you want to gain a deep understanding of the topic, reading the original article is highly recommended. CLICK HERE FOR BLOG I (it has quotes in the language of the original article)]

PART I

Introduction to Tamil Literature and History

How do you translate a poem from a different culture and language? I translate poems from Tamil which were written over 2000 years ago in a region of South India. Tamil is a Dravidian language that was not influenced by the other classical language of India, Sanskrit, which was popular at the same time. Tamil's contemporaries were Sanskrit in India, Greek and Latin in Europe, Hebrew in the Middle East, and Chinese in the Far East. There are over 2000 Tamil poems of different lengths, written by over 400 poets and arranged in nine collections. Despite politics, wars, changes in taste and religion, and challenges like crumbling palm leaves, errors and poverty of scribes, and the damage caused by insects, heat, cold, water, and fire, these poems have survived until today.

The focus of this paper is not on the history of Tamil literature but on the challenging task of translating classical Tamil poems into modern English. Translating poems is difficult because it is almost impossible to convey the full meaning and beauty of the original poem in another language. Even the famous poet Robert Frost once said that poetry is lost in translation. However, despite this challenge, we can still try to practice translation and improve our skills. Sometimes the challenge of translation seems impossible, and this feeling of impossibility can inspire us to try even harder. This feeling is similar to the phrase 'Despair upon Impossibility' from a poem by Marvell. To be more specific, the 'impossibility' of translation comes from the difficulty of capturing the full meaning and beauty of the original poem in another language.

Translating a Tamil Poetry

When translating a poem, we need to decide how to divide it into smaller parts that we can work on. One way to start is to focus on the sounds of the language. However, Tamil and English have very different sound systems. Tamil has six nasal consonants, while English only has three, and Tamil has different types of vowels and consonants that English does not have. These differences make it challenging to translate the poem's sounds from Tamil to English. Phonology, or the study of the sounds of language, is a complex system that is unique to each language. It is impossible to recreate the sounds of one language exactly in another language, even if they are related. We may be able to map the sounds from one language to another, but we cannot reproduce them perfectly. If we focus too much on mimicking the sounds, we may lose other important elements of the poem, such as its grammar and meaning. A poem is unique and identical only to itself, and it is challenging to capture its full essence in another language.

Translating poetry from one language to another is a difficult task, and there are many challenges involved. One of the first issues to consider is the sound system of the original language, which can be quite different from English. For example, Tamil has six nasal consonants, while English only has three, and Tamil has long and short vowels while English has diphthongs and glides. Additionally, Tamil has double consonants that occur in English only across phrases, and Tamil words do not end in stops like English words can. These differences make it impossible to translate the phonology of one language into that of another. Another issue is translating the metrical systems of the original language. Metre is a second-order organization of the sound system, and it can be difficult to translate. Tamil meter depends on the presence of long vowels and double consonants and on closed and open syllables defined by these vowels and consonants. Counting feet and combinations in Tamil is done differently than in English, and there are no exact equivalents in English for Tamil's metrical system. Rhyme also poses a challenge in translation, as different languages have different traditions for rhyming. English has a long tradition of end rhymes, while Tamil has a long tradition of second-syllable consonant rhymes.

Overall, translating poetry involves many challenges, including differences in sound systems, meter, and rhyming traditions. While it is possible to map one system onto another, it is impossible to reproduce it exactly. Translators must make choices about what elements of the original poem to prioritize in order to create a translation that is faithful to the original while also capturing its essence in the new language.

In Tamil, there are no verbs that function as copulas to connect two nouns in the present tense. For example, in English, we say 'Tom is a teacher', but in Tamil, this would be expressed differently. Tamil also does not have degrees of comparison in adjectives, like 'sweet, sweeter, sweetest', nor does it have articles like a, an, the. However, Tamil can express the same meanings as these grammatical devices through various other means. Grammatical structures and rules determine what can be said directly and what can be left unsaid. In some languages, like French, every noun has a gender that must be specified, while English does not have this constraint. The lies and ambiguities of one language are not necessarily the same as those of another, due to these grammatical differences. For example, an English speaker may have to specify the gender of a friend when speaking French, but this is not necessary for English.

In Tamil, there are no words that mean "is" in sentences like "Tom is a teacher" like we have in English. They also don't have different degrees of adjectives like we do in English, such as "sweet, sweeter, sweetest," and they don't use articles like "a, an, the." Instead, they use different ways to express these ideas. The way a language's grammar is structured affects what can be said directly and what is left unsaid. For example, in French, every noun has a gender and this affects the way things are described, while in English, gender is not always specified. Each language has its own unique way of expressing ideas, and this can create differences and misunderstandings between languages.

The anthropologist Evans-Pritchard observed that translating European arguments for atheism into the Azande language would actually sound like arguments for God in Azande. This shows that a literal word-for-word translation is impossible and that only a free translation can work. The Tamil language has a mostly left-branching syntax, meaning phrases are organized in a mirror image of English sentences. For example, the date "the 19th of June, 1988" would be translated into "1988, June, 19" in Tamil. This is because Tamil uses postpositions instead of prepositions, and adjectival clauses come before nominal phrases, among other differences. Other left-branching languages include Turkish, Japanese, and Welsh. American English, particularly in Time magazine, has also been influenced by left-branching languages. Or The way different languages express ideas is not always the same. For example, Tamil does not use copula verbs like "is" in English to make statements like "Tom is a teacher". Instead, Tamil expresses this idea using other words. Similarly, Tamil does not have degrees of comparison in adjectives like "sweet, sweeter, sweetest" in English, and does not use articles like "a, an, the". Translations cannot always be "literal" or "word for word" because different languages have different grammar rules and syntax. Tamil, for example, mostly uses left-branching syntax, where the order of words in a sentence is reversed compared to English. So, when translating something like "the 19th of June, 1988", it would be written as "1988, June, 19" in Tamil. Tamil also uses postpositions instead of prepositions, adjectival clauses before nominal phrases, and verbs at the end of sentences instead of in the middle. This differs from English and other languages like Turkish, Japanese, and Welsh, which also use left-branching syntax. Even the style of Time magazine's American English, which is influenced by languages like German and Yiddish, tends to lean towards left-branching syntax.

In English, it is not common to use left-branching sentences. Left-branching sentences are when the first part of the sentence is longer and more complex than the second part. However, some writers use left-branching sentences to create a special effect in their writing. For example, poets like Hopkins and Dylan Thomas used left-branching sentences in their poetry to make it more powerful and interesting. Hopkins and Thomas were both Welsh and the Welsh language uses left-branching sentences more often than English does. However, in their poetry, they used left-branching sentences along with other types of English sentences to create a unique style.

In Tamil poetry, left-branching sentences are not unusual or strange, but a natural part of everyday speech. This means that you cannot use the same sentence structure as in English to translate Tamil. You have to use the sentence structure that is common in the target language. If the sentence structure in the original language is unique, you have to find a way to make it unique in the translated version too.

When translating poetry, the translator faces a challenge when the sentence structure of the original language is very different from the target language. The goal is to keep the original structure and meaning of the poem while making it sound natural and understandable in the target language. The translator uses various techniques such as indentation and spacing to mimic the original's syntactic suspense without making the English version sound strange. For example, if the original poem has a single, long sentence that unifies its patterns, the translator tries to imitate this management even in relatively simple examples.

In short, the translator's job is to carefully choose the best words in the best order to convey the original meaning and style of the poem in the target language, while also making it sound natural and understandable to the readers.

Language has many parts that are difficult to translate, such as the lexicon (vocabulary) and the meaning of words. This is because words are culturally specific and loaded with meaning. For example, words that refer to flora, fauna, caste distinctions, kinship systems, body parts, and even numbers are culturally loaded. Words are also enmeshed in other words, forming collocations and sets that are unique to each language. These collocations and sets create metaphors and multiple meanings that are difficult to translate into another language, such as Tamil. Even when two languages have similar terms, such as father, mother, brother, and mother-in-law, the system of relations and traditional feelings about each relative is culturally sensitive and part of the expressive repertoire of poets and novelists. This means that translators must be careful to capture not only the literal meaning of words but also their cultural context to convey the full meaning of a text in another language.

Tamil Poetic Tradition

The classical Tamil poetic tradition has a way of classifying reality that it uses to create poetry. It divides the Tamil area into five different landscapes, each with its own forms of life including trees, animals, tribes, customs, arts, and instruments. Each landscape is associated with a mood or phase of love or war and is named after a tree or flower that grows there. These landscapes also have a time of day and season associated with them. The poets use these landscapes and their contents as a symbolic code to express their ideas. For example, the first poem we cited is about the mountains and is associated with the plant kurinji, which represents the mood of first love and the lovers' secret sexual union. In the war poems, the same landscape is used for a night attack on a fort set in the hills.

The Tamil poetic tradition has a system of classification based on the five landscapes of the Tamil area - hills, seashores, agricultural areas, wastelands, and pastoral fields. Each landscape is associated with a mood or phase of love or war and is named after a tree or flower of that region. Love and war poems are classified similarly, and there are associations between them, forming a web of genres, landscapes, moods, and themes. Love and war become metaphors for each other in some poems.

Scholars have observed that the classical Tamil poetic tradition has a language within a language. This language includes not only the Tamil language itself, but also the landscapes, genres, themes, and allusions used in the poetry. The five landscapes of the Tamil region, with all their natural and cultural contents, form a symbolic code for the poetry and are associated with specific moods, times of day, seasons, and even specific trees or flowers. Love and war are also interconnected in this poetry, forming a web of associations across genres and landscapes. Translating such poetry involves not only translating the Tamil language but also this entire intricate system of intertextual references. It is a language that allows for an "infinite use of finite means", as Wilhelm Humboldt put it.

PART II

The poem is not addressed to a mother but to a girlfriend. The phrase in Tamil is long and important: it describes the water left in the holes of the land, which is low and covered with leaves and has been made dirty by animals drinking from it. In my English translation, I simplified this to "the leftover water in his land, low in the waterholes, covered with leaves, and muddied by animals."

In my English translation, I left out the word 'drinking' because it was already implied by the word 'waterhole' in English. In the Tamil original, the phrase 'leaf holes' refers to 'waterholes covered with leaves'. I expanded this phrase in my translation to make it clear and explicit, as the original meaning may not be immediately clear to an English reader. So in my translation, I wrote "the leftover water in his land, low in the waterholes, covered with leaves, and muddied by animals."

In my English translation, I tried to preserve the order and structure of the themes, not just the order of individual words. The word 'iniya' in Tamil is very important as it balances the two themes in the poem: the speaker's childhood memories of milk and honey, and the pleasure of the muddied waterholes. Since this word is so important, I placed it at the beginning of the sentence in my translation, even though it meant inverting the usual word order. If I had put 'sweeter than' in the middle of the poem, it would have weakened the suspense and drama of the ending. To create a sense of balance and weight, I also arranged the lines and spaces symmetrically, with the line about the leftover water in the land in the middle, set off by spaces.

According to the old commentaries, the poem's mood (or bodily state) is one of great wonder (perumitam), and its purpose is to speak of the goodness of life (talkkai nalam kūrutaly).

The ten poems in the Ainkurunuru anthology are part of a hundred love poems by a great poet named Kapilar. These poems are all about the hillside landscape, but each one has its own unique design and meaning. The love poems in akam (interior love poems) contrast with the war poems in Puram (exterior poems), but they share the same landscapes. The love poems are sometimes parodied or played with in comic poems and poems about poems. Over time, these poems have influenced religious poetry, where human love and conflict become metaphors for man's relations with the divine. The relationships of lover and beloved, poet and patron, and bard and hero are translated to poet-saint and god.

Each poem is connected to a larger group, including landscapes, genres, and themes. This interconnection forms patterns of similarities and differences. A translator must convey these relationships while translating the poem.

PART III

The translation is a very difficult task that seems almost impossible to accomplish. However, there are at least four things, or beliefs, that can help a translator make it possible:

Universals-

Universals are basic rules or patterns that are shared by all languages. Without these universals, it would be impossible to learn other languages, translate between them, or compare them. Universals help us understand the structure of language, including things like sound systems, grammar, and meaning. They also help us understand literary works and common themes across cultures, like love or war. Although universals are not necessarily absolute truths, they are important tools that allow us to study and understand language and literature.

Interorised contexts-

Even though poems have specific cultural details, they can also give us insight into the entire culture of a society. For example, we can learn about the culture of ancient Tamils through their poetry. Commentaries and other writings can also help us understand the context and meaning of the poetry, such as the types of characters, themes, and situations that are common in society. To help us understand poetry, we can use grammar books, like the oldest Tamil grammar book called Tolkäppiyam, which helps to explain the language and meaning of the poetry. When we translate a classical Tamil poem, we are also translating the cultural context that surrounds the poem. This can include commentaries and other writings that help to explain the meaning of the poem. Even if we disagree with these commentaries, they help us to understand the terms of the argument. In other words, the meaning of the poem is not just in the words themselves, but also in the cultural context that surrounds it.

Systematicity-

The way that figures, genres, and characters interconnect in a group of poems can help us understand the world created by the poems. When translating, we don't just translate individual poems, but groups of poems that work together to create a larger world of meaning. Even if we don't translate every poem in a group, we choose poems that fit together and help to illuminate each other, showing allusions, contrasts, and larger patterns. This selection of poems becomes a way of representing the world of poetry. Intertextuality, or the way that different texts relate to each other, is not a problem but rather a solution to understanding poetry. We can learn from the arrangements of Tamil poetry, as well as from poets like Yeats, Blake, and Baudelaire, who also used arrangement to create meaning in their work.

Structural mimicry-

Despite the larger context of translating groups of poems, the primary task of a translator is to translate individual poems. The unique structures and figures created within each poem are the most important aspects for the translator to understand. These structures and figures comprise the language, rhetoric, and poetics specific to that poem. When translating, the goal is not to translate individual words but rather to mimic the relationships between phrases, sentences, and rhythms in the original poem. It's not just about matching the meter or grammar, but also about capturing the overall patterns and structures of the poem.

Conclusion

Translating is like using a metaphor to 'carry across' the meaning of a text. Translators must re-enact and interpret the original work, which may involve changing and adjusting. Some aspects of the original work may not be translatable at all. While a sense of rhythm can be conveyed, the exact sound of the words in the original language may not be possible to replicate. Translating textures is even more challenging than structures, and maintaining the linear order of the original text can be difficult. Poetry is created at all these levels, so translating poetry requires a similar level of attention to detail. That's why only another poem can truly translate a poem.

Translating poetry is a delicate balancing act. The translator must be loyal to both the original language and the language of the translation. It is like walking on a tightrope. The translator is like an artist who has sworn to represent the original poem as faithfully as possible. Sometimes, the translation may not be an exact representation, but it can still carry the essence of the poem. This is similar to the story of the Chinese emperor who wanted a tunnel to be bored through a mountain. If the two tunnels met in the middle, there would be one tunnel. But if they didn't, there would be two tunnels. Similarly, if the translation is not perfect, but still captures the essence of the poem, there will be two poems instead of one.

I hope this blog is helpful if any queries please comment.

CLTS: Translation and Literary History: An Indian View by Ganesh Devy

Translation and Literary History: An Indian View

Ganesh Devy

[Reading and comprehending original articles by scholars can be a daunting task, and I found it especially challenging while preparing for my exam. To alleviate this stress, I have simplified the article based on my understanding and with the assistance of ChatGPT. I have attempted to present the information in simple and easy-to-understand language. This blog is geared toward exam preparation and aims to provide a clear understanding of the article's core ideas and concepts. However, it's important to note that if you want to gain a deep understanding of the topic, reading the original article is highly recommended. CLICK HERE FOR BLOG I (it has quotes in the language of the original article)]

Introduction

The translation is like a text that is always in exile, never able to fully return to its origin. This idea comes from Western philosophy, where the translation is seen as a fall from the original, similar to the biblical story of exile. Because of this belief, literary translations are not always given the same importance as original works. Western culture values individuality, so they see translations as an intrusion of something different. This can be pleasurable up to a point, but not beyond that. This way of thinking makes it difficult for European literary historians to understand the origins of literary traditions. Scholars J. Hillis Miller and others have written about this idea.

The translation of the Bible into English was a very important event in the history of the English style, and it was also connected to the Protestant Christian faith. This translation helped to recover the original spirit of Christianity. Even earlier, the famous writer Chaucer was translating the style of another writer named Boccaccio into English when he wrote his famous Canterbury Tales. Later, writers like Dryden and Pope used translation to help create a sense of order in their writing. Other European languages, such as German and French, also had similar attempts at using translation to improve their literacy.

Translation has become very important in the last 200 years for communicating literary movements across different languages. For example, the tradition of Anglo-Irish literature, which includes famous writers like Shaw, Yeats, Joyce, Beckett, and Heaney, began with the translation of Irish works into English in the late 1700s. Indian English Literature also developed in a similar way, with conventions of writing influenced by translations during the 18th and 19th centuries. Many of these writers were also skilled translators themselves. Settler colonies like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand also have impressive literary traditions that developed through the "translation" of settlers to new locations. In post-colonial writing, translation has played a crucial role in creativity, as seen in former Spanish colonies in South America and former colonies in Africa. Literary movements and traditions often have their origins in acts of translation.

The importance of translation in literary traditions cannot be denied, yet there hasn't been much thought put into the aesthetics of translation. Critics have not taken a clear position on whether translations belong to the history of the same language or an independent tradition. This has made translation study a difficult activity that focuses on conveying the original meaning in the altered structure. Linguistic developments that relate to meaning and structure are based on monolingual data, and therefore not sufficient to understand translation. Roman Jakobson has proposed a threefold classification of translations, but even he acknowledges that a complete semantic equivalence is not possible, and only creative translations are possible. Formalistic poetics also considers every act of creation as unique. However, it is important to acknowledge that synonymy within one language system is not the same as between two different languages. Historical linguistics can help explain linguistic changes and shows that differences within a single language are mainly semantic, while differences between closely related languages are predominantly phonetic. Therefore, it is technically possible to have synonyms between two related languages.

Structural linguistics sees language as a system of signs that gains meaning through its relation to the entire system to which it belongs. This theory is skeptical of translation because it tries to extract meaning from one system of signs and apply it to another. However, language is open and constantly admitting new signs and significance, and bilingual users like translators rend it open further. Translation can be seen as a merger of sign systems, exploiting the potential openness of language systems. A theory of interlingual synonymy and literary historiography can be developed by conceptualizing a community of "translating consciousness." This idea suggests that the translating consciousness can bring together materially different sign systems as it shifts significance from one verbal form to another. This theory is supported by scholars such as Roman Jakobson, who proposed a threefold classification of translations and believed that poetry is untranslatable.

In many Third World countries, there are communities of people who use multiple languages, and translation between these languages is a common practice. This is different from the approach of foreign language acquisition, which assumes a chronological gap and a hierarchy of value between languages. Linguistic theories like Chomsky's focus on semantic universals but only apply to monolingual situations. The concept of synonymy, which assumes that words in different languages have the same meaning, is inadequate to explain translation in these multilingual contexts. Structural linguistics, which emphasizes the systemic nature of language, also fails to acknowledge the existence of non-systemic or extra-systemic significance. As a result, there is a need for a linguistic theory based on a multilingual perspective or on translation practice.

J.C. Catford wrote a book called "A Linguistic Theory of Translation" in which he explains that any theory of translation must emerge from linguistics because translation is a linguistic act. He believes that translation involves substituting a text in one language for a text in another language, and any theory of translation must draw upon a theory of language. Catford's ideas are related to the development of linguistics in Europe, which has connections with Orientalism and anthropology. European historical linguistics depended heavily on Orientalism, while comparative literature implies that between two related languages, there are areas of significance that are shared. Translation can be seen as an attempt to bring a given language system as close as possible to the areas of significance that it shares with another given language or language.

The translation problem is not only about language, but also about aesthetics and ideology, and it has a significant impact on literary history. Literary translation is not just a copying of a text in another language; it is the copying of a specific system of signs within a language into a corresponding system in another related language. The translation is not merely transferring meaning or signs. After translation, the original work remains unchanged. The translation is an attempt to revitalize the original work in a different language and time period. Like literary texts, which belong to their original period and style but also exist in successive periods, translation both approximates and transcends the original work.

The problems in studying literary translation are similar to those in studying literary history. They both deal with the relationship between origins and sequence. However, the issue of origin has not been adequately addressed in either field. Literary communities with a 'translating consciousness' may have to approach the question of the origins of literary traditions differently. Indian literary communities have this translating consciousness, and it is evident from the fact that many modern Indian literatures were founded on acts of translation by scholars such as Jayadeva, Hemcandra, Michael Madhusudan Dutta, H.N. Apte, and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can consider Indian metaphysics when thinking about translation. In Indian philosophy, the soul can migrate from one body to another without losing any of its essential significance. This belief shapes Indian literary theory and the relationship between form and essence. In this view, literary significance is ahistorical and not subject to the laws of temporality. Therefore, elements of plot, stories, and characters can be used again and again by new generations of writers because Indian literary theory does not place a strong emphasis on originality. Instead, the writer's capacity to transform, translate, restate, and revitalize the original is considered the true test of literary excellence. As such, Indian literary traditions are essentially traditions of translation.

I hope this blog is helpful if any queries please comment.