Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 424 views

    The Ekalavya Relation: Modernist Locals' Anti-Modernist Response (S)

    Uploaded by

    Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay
    2007. “.”tOrjomar tOrjoni ba ekalObber buRoANul” Das, A. ed. baNlay binirman, Obinirman.(pp. 306-23) Kolkata: ObobhaS. Revised version of 2004.”tOrjomar tOrjoni ba ekaObber buRoANul” Jijnasa. XXIV:2(pp.150-64) 2002. “The Ekalavya Relation : Translation and Colonialism.” A UGC-Sponsored Seminar on “Translation and Colonialism”. Maharani Kasiswari College, Kolkata. (INVITED) 2001. “The Ekalavya Relation.” 3rd. International Conference on South Asian Languages -III, Hyderabad Central University,4-6 January, 2001 In the great Indian epic Mahabharata, the legendary hero with so-called “tribal” origin, Eklavya, after being refused by the royal preceptor Dronacharya, the military-trainer, made himself well equipped in the art of archery through dedicated practice in front of a clay-model of Dronacharya. However, he had to pay gurudaksina (‘paying the preceptor’, from whose absence he learnt the techne of archary) to Dronacharya by cutting his right thumb that acts as a liver to shoot the arrow. In this way, Dronacharya succeeded to retain the royal dominance of his royal disciples and to erase subaltern mastery. Sudhindranath Dutta (30.10.1901-25.06.1960), a Bengali poet cum theoretician, in his introduction to the Bengali translation of English, German and French verses (the collection is named as ‘’Protiddhoni’’ meaning “echo”), compared the relationship between “original” Source Language Text and its “translated” Target Language Text to the relationship between Dronacharya and Eklavya. This Eklavya-relation, as stipulated here, is almost like Shakespeare’s Aerial-Prospero relation, where Prospero is speaking through the voice of Aerial. Eklavya, as it was told in the Mahabharata, cannot do without the icon of Dronacharya. It is a ‘simple’ case of donor-receptor relationship? Following Dasgupta’s (1993) discourse reception theory, one may hypothetically paraphrase such situation as: Dronacharya is the donor and the Eklavya is the receptor and obviously there was no reciprocal exchange in between these two. Now the question is: in the context of translation may we erase the ‘original’ icon of Dronacharya? When translating, is anyone licensed to kill the author without being colonized by the original author(-ity)? Does the act of translation leads to subversive as well as disruptive performance? Taking cue from this Dronacharya-Eklavya relation, from now on, the Source Language Text will be called Dronacharya-Text (henceforth DT) and Target Language Text as Eklavya-Text (henceforth ET. This metaphor of a subalternity in the context of translation inaugurates problems that are to be dealt here in reference to two other contemporaries of Sudhindranath Dutta, viz. Buddhadeb Basu (30.11.1908-18.03.1974) and Abu Sayeed Ayyub (?-?-1906-21.12.82). Firstly, if we follow this metaphor thoroughly, we have to confirm, epistemologically speaking, that this dominator-dominated relationship always sustains in case of any translation: subaltern ET always(?) suffers and dominant DT unknowingly enjoys the sacrifice of ET. However, we cannot take this simplified story as truism. It inaugurates another question: When a White Man (sexism intended) is translating colony’s text, does the same hierarchy of relations between DT and ET persist? Are we being allowed to write a context-free formulae or matheme like this DT=(f) ET ? Secondly, any person can establish a context-free functional equation with another person without inhibiting him-/herself about respective cultures. However, in this seemingly simple equation, colonial politics appears without invitation with a few question marks of its own. Thus one might have to talk about context-sensitive hierarchical relationship shunning off such simple equation. Thirdly, when an accomplished scholar-poet, after years of concentrated dedication to one single goal, ruefully accepted in the introduction of his/her work that s/he failed to capture the essence of the originals, that he was only able to play

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    The Ekalavya Relation: Modernist Locals' Anti-Modernist Response (S)

    Uploaded by

    Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay
    424 views10 pages
    2007. “.”tOrjomar tOrjoni ba ekalObber buRoANul” Das, A. ed. baNlay binirman, Obinirman.(pp. 306-23) Kolkata: ObobhaS. Revised version of 2004.”tOrjomar tOrjoni ba ekaObber buRoANul” Jijnasa. XXIV:2(pp.150-64) 2002. “The Ekalavya Relation : Translation and Colonialism.” A UGC-Sponsored Seminar on “Translation and Colonialism”. Maharani Kasiswari College, Kolkata. (INVITED) 2001. “The Ekalavya Relation.” 3rd. International Conference on South Asian Languages -III, Hyderabad Central University,4-6 January, 2001 In the great Indian epic Mahabharata, the legendary hero with so-called “tribal” origin, Eklavya, after being refused by the royal preceptor Dronacharya, the military-trainer, made himself well equipped in the art of archery through dedicated practice in front of a clay-model of Dronacharya. However, he had to pay gurudaksina (‘paying the preceptor’, from whose absence he learnt the techne of archary) to Dronacharya by cutting his right thumb that acts as a liver to shoot the arrow. In this way, Dronacharya succeeded to retain the royal dominance of his royal disciples and to erase subaltern mastery. Sudhindranath Dutta (30.10.1901-25.06.1960), a Bengali poet cum theoretician, in his introduction to the Bengali translation of English, German and French verses (the collection is named as ‘’Protiddhoni’’ meaning “echo”), compared the relationship between “original” Source Language Text and its “translated” Target Language Text to the relationship between Dronacharya and Eklavya. This Eklavya-relation, as stipulated here, is almost like Shakespeare’s Aerial-Prospero relation, where Prospero is speaking through the voice of Aerial. Eklavya, as it was told in the Mahabharata, cannot do without the icon of Dronacharya. It is a ‘simple’ case of donor-receptor relationship? Following Dasgupta’s (1993) discourse reception theory, one may hypothetically paraphrase such situation as: Dronacharya is the donor and the Eklavya is the receptor and obviously there was no reciprocal exchange in between these two. Now the question is: in the context of translation may we erase the ‘original’ icon of Dronacharya? When translating, is anyone licensed to kill the author without being colonized by the original author(-ity)? Does the act of translation leads to subversive as well as disruptive performance? Taking cue from this Dronacharya-Eklavya relation, from now on, the Source Language Text will be called Dronacharya-Text (henceforth DT) and Target Language Text as Eklavya-Text (henceforth ET. This metaphor of a subalternity in the context of translation inaugurates problems that are to be dealt here in reference to two other contemporaries of Sudhindranath Dutta, viz. Buddhadeb Basu (30.11.1908-18.03.1974) and Abu Sayeed Ayyub (?-?-1906-21.12.82). Firstly, if we follow this metaphor thoroughly, we have to confirm, epistemologically speaking, that this dominator-dominated relationship always sustains in case of any translation: subaltern ET always(?) suffers and dominant DT unknowingly enjoys the sacrifice of ET. However, we cannot take this simplified story as truism. It inaugurates another question: When a White Man (sexism intended) is translating colony’s text, does the same hierarchy of relations between DT and ET persist? Are we being allowed to write a context-free formulae or matheme like this DT=(f) ET ? Secondly, any person can establish a context-free functional equation with another person without inhibiting him-/herself about respective cultures. However, in this seemingly simple equation, colonial politics appears without invitation with a few question marks of its own. Thus one might have to talk about context-sensitive hierarchical relationship shunning off such simple equation. Thirdly, when an accomplished scholar-poet, after years of concentrated dedication to one single goal, ruefully accepted in the introduction of his/her work that s/he failed to capture the essence of the originals, that he was only able to play

    Original Title

    The Ekalavya Relation: Modernist Locals’ Anti-Modernist Response(S)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    2007. “.”tOrjomar tOrjoni ba ekalObber buRoANul” Das, A. ed. baNlay binirman, Obinirman.(pp. 306-23) Kolkata: ObobhaS. Revised version of 2004.”tOrjomar tOrjoni ba ekaObber buRoANul” Jijnasa. XXIV:2(pp.150-64) 2002. “The Ekalavya Relation : Translation and Colonialism.” A UGC-Sponsored Seminar on “Translation and Colonialism”. Maharani Kasiswari College, Kolkata. (INVITED) 2001. “The Ekalavya Relation.” 3rd. International Conference on South Asian Languages -III, Hyderabad Central University,4-6 January, 2001 In the great Indian epic Mahabharata, the legendary hero with so-called “tribal” origin, Eklavya, after being refused by the royal preceptor Dronacharya, the military-trainer, made himself well equipped in the art of archery through dedicated practice in front of a clay-model of Dronacharya. However, he had to pay gurudaksina (‘paying the preceptor’, from whose absence he learnt the techne of archary) to Dronacharya by cutting his right thumb that acts as a liver to shoot the arrow. In this way, Dronacharya succeeded to retain the royal dominance of his royal disciples and to erase subaltern mastery. Sudhindranath Dutta (30.10.1901-25.06.1960), a Bengali poet cum theoretician, in his introduction to the Bengali translation of English, German and French verses (the collection is named as ‘’Protiddhoni’’ meaning “echo”), compared the relationship between “original” Source Language Text and its “translated” Target Language Text to the relationship between Dronacharya and Eklavya. This Eklavya-relation, as stipulated here, is almost like Shakespeare’s Aerial-Prospero relation, where Prospero is speaking through the voice of Aerial. Eklavya, as it was told in the Mahabharata, cannot do without the icon of Dronacharya. It is a ‘simple’ case of donor-receptor relationship? Following Dasgupta’s (1993) discourse reception theory, one may hypothetically paraphrase such situation as: Dronacharya is the donor and the Eklavya is the receptor and obviously there was no reciprocal exchange in between these two. Now the question is: in the context of translation may we erase the ‘original’ icon of Dronacharya? When translating, is anyone licensed to kill the author without being colonized by the original author(-ity)? Does the act of translation leads to subversive as well as disruptive performance? Taking cue from this Dronacharya-Eklavya relation, from now on, the Source Language Text will be called Dronacharya-Text (henceforth DT) and Target Language Text as Eklavya-Text (henceforth ET. This metaphor of a subalternity in the context of translation inaugurates problems that are to be dealt here in reference to two other contemporaries of Sudhindranath Dutta, viz. Buddhadeb Basu (30.11.1908-18.03.1974) and Abu Sayeed Ayyub (?-?-1906-21.12.82). Firstly, if we follow this metaphor thoroughly, we have to confirm, epistemologically speaking, that this dominator-dominated relationship always sustains in case of any translation: subaltern ET always(?) suffers and dominant DT unknowingly enjoys the sacrifice of ET. However, we cannot take this simplified story as truism. It inaugurates another question: When a White Man (sexism intended) is translating colony’s text, does the same hierarchy of relations between DT and ET persist? Are we being allowed to write a context-free formulae or matheme like this DT=(f) ET ? Secondly, any person can establish a context-free functional equation with another person without inhibiting him-/herself about respective cultures. However, in this seemingly simple equation, colonial politics appears without invitation with a few question marks of its own. Thus one might have to talk about context-sensitive hierarchical relationship shunning off such simple equation. Thirdly, when an accomplished scholar-poet, after years of concentrated dedication to one single goal, ruefully accepted in the introduction of his/her work that s/he failed to capture the essence of the originals, that he was only able to play

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Flag for inappropriate content
    424 views10 pages

    The Ekalavya Relation: Modernist Locals' Anti-Modernist Response (S)

    Uploaded by

    Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay
    2007. “.”tOrjomar tOrjoni ba ekalObber buRoANul” Das, A. ed. baNlay binirman, Obinirman.(pp. 306-23) Kolkata: ObobhaS. Revised version of 2004.”tOrjomar tOrjoni ba ekaObber buRoANul” Jijnasa. XXIV:2(pp.150-64) 2002. “The Ekalavya Relation : Translation and Colonialism.” A UGC-Sponsored Seminar on “Translation and Colonialism”. Maharani Kasiswari College, Kolkata. (INVITED) 2001. “The Ekalavya Relation.” 3rd. International Conference on South Asian Languages -III, Hyderabad Central University,4-6 January, 2001 In the great Indian epic Mahabharata, the legendary hero with so-called “tribal” origin, Eklavya, after being refused by the royal preceptor Dronacharya, the military-trainer, made himself well equipped in the art of archery through dedicated practice in front of a clay-model of Dronacharya. However, he had to pay gurudaksina (‘paying the preceptor’, from whose absence he learnt the techne of archary) to Dronacharya by cutting his right thumb that acts as a liver to shoot the arrow. In this way, Dronacharya succeeded to retain the royal dominance of his royal disciples and to erase subaltern mastery. Sudhindranath Dutta (30.10.1901-25.06.1960), a Bengali poet cum theoretician, in his introduction to the Bengali translation of English, German and French verses (the collection is named as ‘’Protiddhoni’’ meaning “echo”), compared the relationship between “original” Source Language Text and its “translated” Target Language Text to the relationship between Dronacharya and Eklavya. This Eklavya-relation, as stipulated here, is almost like Shakespeare’s Aerial-Prospero relation, where Prospero is speaking through the voice of Aerial. Eklavya, as it was told in the Mahabharata, cannot do without the icon of Dronacharya. It is a ‘simple’ case of donor-receptor relationship? Following Dasgupta’s (1993) discourse reception theory, one may hypothetically paraphrase such situation as: Dronacharya is the donor and the Eklavya is the receptor and obviously there was no reciprocal exchange in between these two. Now the question is: in the context of translation may we erase the ‘original’ icon of Dronacharya? When translating, is anyone licensed to kill the author without being colonized by the original author(-ity)? Does the act of translation leads to subversive as well as disruptive performance? Taking cue from this Dronacharya-Eklavya relation, from now on, the Source Language Text will be called Dronacharya-Text (henceforth DT) and Target Language Text as Eklavya-Text (henceforth ET. This metaphor of a subalternity in the context of translation inaugurates problems that are to be dealt here in reference to two other contemporaries of Sudhindranath Dutta, viz. Buddhadeb Basu (30.11.1908-18.03.1974) and Abu Sayeed Ayyub (?-?-1906-21.12.82). Firstly, if we follow this metaphor thoroughly, we have to confirm, epistemologically speaking, that this dominator-dominated relationship always sustains in case of any translation: subaltern ET always(?) suffers and dominant DT unknowingly enjoys the sacrifice of ET. However, we cannot take this simplified story as truism. It inaugurates another question: When a White Man (sexism intended) is translating colony’s text, does the same hierarchy of relations between DT and ET persist? Are we being allowed to write a context-free formulae or matheme like this DT=(f) ET ? Secondly, any person can establish a context-free functional equation with another person without inhibiting him-/herself about respective cultures. However, in this seemingly simple equation, colonial politics appears without invitation with a few question marks of its own. Thus one might have to talk about context-sensitive hierarchical relationship shunning off such simple equation. Thirdly, when an accomplished scholar-poet, after years of concentrated dedication to one single goal, ruefully accepted in the introduction of his/her work that s/he failed to capture the essence of the originals, that he was only able to play

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    USTs Vat A GAA Tel Bea CH AT ATS me aT aietris acae come) yeaa femame cere oncatt ab, wer MOET BAIR SRG, SOT Ae SI ATES ACMA TS AT THE eis we (afar comenga ER, ye¢8) eg. LRG] GATES FRIES BA’, ‘Ter’, ‘origin’~as esa Daa sism wee AG TR ae Wal fies aaTR AY See wee ST fe as fea cafecS Sol caret wats— @ SN exe free wets ‘aes PRAM ACU AI, eww FE oer AT A? VIS Gua Tea oT Tae fam organ wafts ARRoe SE BF CIS GE CSN AAT FAS THR HT FE BR SRY GRR aT cre arcare fae aq sera wes] scared YAM FS (snes) SAO am afer ameady cor ae apians Cla eel “Sebce afSe< ht ART THA. OH | TH wea wel 7 Va ses Rey s Tea oe Rae wide fe eee wets faera? ASE tee oo TH ate Sie— era See ay res Wes a Arar al yest farts’ wr ae aif SIGN “wef? aaR Ce Ut RASZ Ga HS UH (TE UH gS’ AVR “OPH BLA TIS asa TES 2) ‘efsehy wx, OT CON oT sow aan Ger, eT TERT HINORTS | MRT SIS co fereS Hee Bier aR (cara Fat weal TI Se caf FaT Tne ASA WE GaN TES AMER’ eI), wI US SOR SH? AA SARS UH GNA BSN eet CTA Cl ital Sil Ts SE CHATS, Gla FA A A FA eT awa? fee Bees ACU TER 6 THe zw, afeeehra YR Grae PIP] Cae oO Pace YT vas vay Beef ce OF 08 watais wR a ceeicard qOe TIE asin /aina ole) eaieo (RSS Te Sas aele et ABET cies BIE Oat POLS FAAS VI ATG TAF SHIT SFE TSO TCH maRRreR- ef HEM Sal OT FAIS FA CSR CAR | CEPI, AAA CA Source Language Text-@ Ge ‘Gidirtaae’ (cae) Rows Sl Target Language Text-@ WF “Sta-Aa (44%) ROA! Olas CHP GAR ae FNS (GM = f (43) hetahre 7-74 Aa fos vratb TIA Se ATW ¢ OF FAA HHT TAC WAT | HATS T Pica woINTET BIA SICAL aH Als Css airorw, Agios meMEe Soft eax wale eat sprit fas Sibi ecaee cer Peeves aig Fe oH Cra Fea aT free Ga er as HRA err ai ice ARH HSA aa cae Be SPT yard aay Satis aeifSs—| aR Seas aT or FSI Fas FHS, TUS BAT OF GLAS, KH OEE NE ATE A Wee GM, SE AMS WIA LEAT AOS ANCA 8 ANMTS-A ATA HAT yin we-crsiera aie 6 Aaa We aera ont fee CahaPis UAT Te ahahs deaifed RH AM BIS Aad GHIA = f [44] FA AT Soret? ae NETS CB Sw Fewiada P aso] Se Wa? AN AT GR, Orica waiead foe fares FIGS Win Sat Bee TS?

    You might also like