TheDaak review

By Akankshya Mishra

Translation as Resistance: The Role of Translation in Shaping Malayalam Literary Tradition by E. V. Ramakrishnan is part of the collection titled Decentering Translation Studies: India and Beyond, published by Benjamins Translation Library in 2009. In this paper, E.V. Ramakrishnan explores how translation serves as a means to diverge from the dominant Sanskritic and Tamil traditions while simultaneously subverting them. Additionally, translation is crucial in defining Kerala’s unique cultural identity. The topic of resisting linguistic hegemony is crucial in the current political situation. This collection of papers originated from workshops held between 2004 and 2005, that explored indigenous and Asian traditions in translation. 

The author, E.V. Ramakrishnan, is a renowned bilingual writer from Kerala, focusing on literary criticism, comparative Indian literature, Translation Studies, Postcolonial Studies and South Asian  Studies. 

Introduction to the Article  

The author delves into a series of theoretical considerations in exploring translation’s critical role in shaping the Malayalam literary tradition. These encompass the transformative power intrinsic to translation, the dialogic nature of cultural exchanges, translation’s capacity to counteract hegemonic influences, and its ability to engender entirely new literary genres. The essay maintains an academic and analytical tone, catering to a scholarly readership and draws upon terminologies derived from diverse fields such as translation studies, cultural studies, literary criticism and Malayalam and Kannada literature. The author introduces Malayalam terminologies, providing prior definitions or subsequent explanations in English, enhancing reader comprehension. The inclusion of footnotes, clarifying the various older literary forms of Kerala,  is a commendable feature of the essay as it facilitates easy reading for readers unfamiliar with Russian formalism and Classical Malayalam literature. 

Nonetheless, it demands a prerequisite understanding of Bakhtin’s concepts like dialogism,  polyphony and the “carnivalesque”. The term “carnivalesque” originates from the root word carnival, evoking vibrant celebrations marked by a lively atmosphere. It conjures images of exuberant crowds, vivid colours, extravagant costumes and Rabelaisian humour. This carnivalesque tone and setting inherently possesses a deeply subversive nature, intentionally suspending prevailing seriousness, hierarchical structures and societal norms. Polyphony, or the existence of multiple consciousnesses, doesn’t necessarily imply more than one character; it could involve multiple consciousnesses within the author’s voice. Dialogism, conversely, refers to the process of meaning-making through the interaction between two entities, often between the reader/listener and the text.

 The author extensively employs Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism as a critical lens to analyse how the Malayalam literary tradition uses resistance through translation. This examination is substantiated with references to seminal works by scholars such as Macura(1990), Freeman (2003), and Bakhtin(1984), as well as primary and secondary texts on Malayalam  literary traditions, including contributions by Chandrasekharan(2001) and Paniker(1999). This essay will be of particular interest to those exploring Kerala’s cultural and literary  history, the subversion of caste dynamics within the region, and the transformative potential of  translation in reshaping the socio-cultural power dynamics within the state of Kerala.

Summary 

The paper’s central argument revolves around the transformative power of translation in  shaping a distinct regional identity for Malayalam and Kerala. This transformation is achieved by  assimilating foreign cultures and texts, and recontextualising them to resonate with the local  context. In this context, translation is not merely a linguistic exercise but a means of bringing  Aryan-Dravidian languages and cultures into a dialogic relationship, challenging the entrenched  caste and class hierarchies through narrative storytelling while asserting a new local identity.  

The author’s argument is reinforced by their reference to Vladimir Macura’s essay titled Culture as  Translation which posits that translation possesses “an expropriative function”, leading to the  emergence of “cultural phenomena through analogy”(Ramakrishnan). This foundational idea lays the groundwork for the author’s exploration of three primary texts: 

Firstly,  Krishnagatha by Cherusseri, a fifteenth-century Malayalam classic that serves as a  translation of the Bhagavatha Purana; secondly, Ezuthachan’s interpretation of the Adhyatma Ramayana and, finally,  Kunchan Nambiar’s innovative creation, the Tullal genre, exemplified by works like Sabhapravesam and Synamanthakam. 

Cherusseri employs the melodious metrical pattern known as Manjari, which has its roots in  folk songs. He skillfully integrates Sanskritic elements into the Malayalam language. In contrast,  Ezuthachan utilises the Manipravalamm mode, a hybrid literary language that blends Sanskrit and  Tamil, creating a standardised medium for classical-age poetry. Furthermore, Ezuthachan’s  innovation is evident in his introduction of kilippattu, a poetic style featuring an interlocutor as a  parrot(Ramakrishnan 2009: 36). This unique approach bridges the gap between the poet and the reader.  This poetic innovation demonstrates Ezuthachan’s willingness to make classical discourse more  accessible and engaging to the specific audience of the ordinary folks of Kerala. Furthermore,  incorporating a parrot as an interlocutor bears cultural significance, given the historical context where parrots were utilised in divination and fortune-telling practices. 

Kunchan Nambiar employs satire, ridicule and carnivalized language in his performative  poetry, rendering Manipravalamm accessible and inclusive to a broader audience, especially  ordinary people. His Manipravalamm, characterised by the interplay of Sanskrit and Malayalam, as noted by Ramakrishnan (2009: 38), results in a mutually illuminating linguistic fusion. This  transformative attempt culminates in Manipravalamm becoming a vivacious and invigorating  medium, speaking directly to a diverse speech community, including those marginalised within  the Sanskritic tradition due to their varying social classes and castes. This transformation locates  their lived experiences at the epicentre of the translated epics. It establishes a new power dynamic  by facilitating a dialogue between two distinct worldviews, cultures, languages and the caste  divisions of Brahmans and Avarnas. Additionally, Nambiar introduces a new genre, Tullal, to  disrupt temples’ traditional centrality and insularity in disseminating Sanskrit discourse. 

In his analysis of these texts, Ramakrishnan uncovers many techniques employed by translators to fulfil their transformative goals. These strategies encompass a broad range of semiotic and  linguistic adjustments. One particularly significant approach is the practice of localisation, which  seamlessly incorporates non-canonical elements into the text. This localisation process involves  linguistic adjustments through Manipravalam, and cultural adaptations that situate characters and  settings within the context of Kerala. This process legitimises peripheral lives and realms, and significantly expands the realm of representation. 

Moreover, translators engage in cultural adaptation, and infuse languages, worlds, and cultures  with a dialogic function. This dynamic interplay between diverse linguistic and cultural elements plays a pivotal role in recontextualising the translated works, aligning them more closely with the local context. This dialogic function is achieved through various means, including retellings,  adaptations, use of humour,  incorporation of folk rhythmic meters in narrative poetry,  creation of innovative genres, and the subversion of the Sanskrit language by utilising the  Manipravalamm mode, which is predominantly Dravidian in its lexicon. 

Together, these various strategies demonstrate the inventiveness of the translators, and emphasise  the greater relevance of translation as a vehicle for both cultural preservation and social transformation. 

Assimilation as Resistance: Blending Cultural Threads in Translation 

A fundamental aspect of translation as a form of resistance is the process of assimilation.  In this context, assimilation involves integrating local elements into the exclusive domain of Sanskritic discourse, traditions and literary forms. These local elements may include folk  traditions, dances or meters significant in the Avarna or non-Brahman communities. As articulated  by Ramakrishnan in two sections of his article, this assimilation serves a dual purpose. Firstly, it  seeks to incorporate non-canonical worldviews and non-elitist philosophies as an act  of resistance. Secondly, it endeavours to merge two distinct worlds, Tamil and Sanskrit, into the literary framework of Manipravalam. 

In Cherusseri’s Krishnagatha, one observes the interweaving of local and folk experience  forms into the narrative through Manjari. This act of resistance brings the ‘high’ Sanskritic discourse into dialogue with the poetic traditions of the folk. Ramakrishnan argues that legitimising  non-canonical lives, worlds and worldviews is achieved by centralising them within the text. To illustrate this point, he cites an example from Krishnagatha where humour expresses the snake’s  astonishment upon hearing the flautist Krishna using the word “ushan.” This humour is an act of  resistance, as it intentionally disrupts the seriousness typically associated with Sanskritic discourse in its retelling of mythology. 

Thus, the assimilation of Sanskritic discourse and folk meters, along with the assimilation of  languages and the worldviews embedded in them, are pivotal manifestations of the transformative  power of translation as a mode of resistance and cultural synthesis. 

Retellings and Contextualization: The Transformative Power of Translation 

Ramakrishnan contends that even in cases where translation draws upon Sanskritic discourse, such as in the case of Krishnagatha, it manages to recontextualise characters and settings by  embracing the folk tradition of Manjari characterised by its distinctive melodic metre.  Additionally, the essay examines Nambiar’s Sabhapravesam, a work that references Kathakali  dancers and embeds them within a narrative set in Krishna’s era. This intricate blend illustrates how translation functions as a conduit for the infusion of contemporary elements, thereby  underscoring its capacity to assert a unique cultural identity. 

This skilful blending gives classic stories fresh life, and highlights their function for fostering a  particular cultural identity. 

Another example of this contextualisation through translation is in Paniker’s translation of  the Krishnagatha, where Cherusseri skilfully incorporates instances from the lives of oppressed  people, such as those without quilts during severe rains(Ramakrishnan 33). This work reflects 

Bakhtin’s notion of polyphony or the existence of multiple consciousnesses. This inclusion is crucial since it strengthens the portrayal of perspectives and consciousness outside Krishna’s life.  

Dialogic Function and Polyglossia in Translation 

The concept of dialogism, as articulated by Bakhtin, takes centre stage in Ramakrishnan’s  analysis across three distinct contexts: 

1. It manifests in the dialogic relationship between the folk poetic tradition, utilising ‘Manjari,‘  and the pre-existing Sanskritic discourse. 

2. This dialogic interplay emerges in the interaction between Sanskrit and Tamil, ultimately  creating Manipravalamm, a dialogue fostering an Aryan-Dravidian synthesis. Here,  translation functions as the bridge uniting these divergent linguistic worlds. 

3. Ramakrishnan extensively explores this concept in examining Kunchan Nambiar’s Ottan  Tullal, particularly in Nambiar’s translation of the Syamanthakam episode from Lord  Krishna’s life. 

As interpreted by Ramakrishnan, Nambiar’s translation transcends the confines of a mere  presentation of wedding decor or arrangements. Instead, it unfolds as a multi-layered narrative,  delving into various facets such as the involvement of diverse Brahmanical sections and the  intricate accommodations required to meet their demands. Nambiar’s commentary on the necessity  of boxes for Kathakali dancers, adds another layer of complexity (Ramakrishnan, 2009: 39). 

Within Nambiar’s translation, a complex web of perspectives and considerations emerges,  infusing the narrative with a profound dialogic function. This extends beyond mere linguistic  transformation; it breathes life into foreign words and distinct consciousnesses, including those of  Kathakali dancers and contemporary critics of Namputris, contributing significantly to the intricate  process of signification and meaning-making within the text, transcending the original author’s  intent. 

Ramakrishnan compellingly illustrates how a text can be read and interpreted dialogically through  acts of translation and adaptation. This perspective allows readers and interpreters to venture beyond the boundaries set by the original author, unearthing nuanced and multifaceted meanings  concealed within the text. Nambiar’s work is a prime example of how this dialogic approach to translation enriches the reading experience, unveiling the intricate mosaic of voices and  perspectives concealed within. 

While Ramakrishnan refrains from explicitly employing the term “polyglossia” in his  analysis of Manipravalamm, his examination effectively encapsulates the essence of this concept.  This intentional omission of jargon embraces a more inclusive approach to cater to a broader  readership. In Manipravalamm compositions, the coexistence of multiple languages, particularly Sanskrit and Malayalam, reveals a dynamic and living interaction. This linguistic interplay, predominantly observed in the Manipravalamm mode, underscores this literary tradition’s unique  and vibrant nature. 

In Manipravalam compositions, Malayalam does not exist in isolation but is deeply  informed by the spectral influence of Sanskrit. This influence permeates the language, resulting in  a linguistic landscape where Sanskrit and Malayalam harmoniously coexist. This phenomenon attests to the ‘polyglossic’ nature of Manipravalam, where multiple linguistic elements converge and intermingle, giving rise to a distinctive and vibrant literary tradition. 

Ramakrishnan argues that Kunchan Nambiar’s use of a “carnivalesque” language allows  for the subversion of social norms and hierarchies. The term “carnivalesque”, derived from the word carnival, evokes images of a vibrant celebration marked by exuberant crowds, vivid colours,  extravagant costumes and Rabelaisian humour. Naturally, this “carnivalesque” tone and setting  possess a deeply subversive nature, as they intentionally suspend the prevailing seriousness,  hierarchical structures, and societal norms typically rigorously enforced. Ramakrishnan’s assertion  holds true within this context. 

In the realm of literary works, such as Nambiar’s adaptations, this “carnivalesque” spirit  serves as a platform for satire and criticism. Notably, ecclesiastical figures like Indra in  Ahalyamoksham and Arjuna in Santhanagopalam become subjects of ridicule and biting satire  (Śarmmā 49). For instance, the traditional narrative from the Ramayana, where Indra interferes with Sage Gautam’s penance, is transformed in Nambiar’s “Ahalyamoksham Tullal.” Indra’s lust is overtly emphasised in this rendition, deviating significantly from the original account  (Śarmmā 49). While in the conventional Ramayana, Indra loses his testicles and they are replaced  by those of a goat, in Nambiar’s Tullal version, a striking transformation occurs: “one thousand  phalli appear on Indra’s body” (Śarmmā 40).

This creative adaptation serves a dual purpose. On the one hand, it accentuates the vices of  sexual immorality humorously and exaggeratedly, creating a visually ridiculous spectacle that  captures the audience’s attention. On the other hand, it deliberately incites a riotous response  among the audience, embodying the “carnivalesque” spirit. 

Legitimisation through Translation 

In Foucault’s Discourse on Language, those whose speech deviated from the established  familiar discourse of society were typically labelled as ‘mad’ (Foucault 1972: 217). Their words were often  dismissed as meaningless and void of truth, yet paradoxically, they were also imbued with a  perceived power to reveal hidden truths inaccessible to the ‘wise’. This duality in the perception of madness, where the mad person’s speech was simultaneously discredited and seen as potentially  revelatory, lays the foundation for understanding the transformative power of translation employed  by Kunchan Nambiar. 

With its capacity to carnivalise language and subvert conventional norms, translation gave  Nambiar a platform to disseminate profound truths about power dynamics, hierarchy and the  deeply rooted caste and class conflicts in Kerala. In Foucault’s analysis, it is essential to note that  the madman assumed a role akin to that of a masked truth-teller within a theatrical context. His  words were considered mere noise outside this performative space, but within the theatre, he  played the role of the “masked truth.” 

Drawing a parallel to Nambiar’s art form, in Ottan Tullal, one observes a similar  theatricality. Ottan Tullal is a vibrant, colourful and performative mode of storytelling, replete  with vivid costumes, gestures, poses, music and instruments. This theatricality carnivalizes the Sanskrit text, transforming it into a lively spectacle that engages the audience’s senses. Within this  performative space, Nambiar, like the madman in Foucault’s theatre, has the opportunity to convey profound truths about society. 

Fundamentally, Ottan Tullal becomes the medium through which Nambiar is “credited”  for his words, just as the madman was acknowledged within the theatre(Foucault 1972, 217). Within this  “carnivalesque” and performative space, Nambiar dispels the truth about societal dynamics by using  translation to transcend conventional language barriers and communicate essential messages to the  audience. Thus, the transformative power of translation and the theatricality of Ottan  Tullal converge to create a space where Nambiar’s truths can be both revealed and acknowledged,  much like the role of the madman in the “theatre of madness” described by Foucault. 

The “Carnivalesque” Tradition of Pala Performance: A Comparative Analysis with Tullal 

Like the Tullal tradition, the Pala performance genre embodies a “carnivalesque” presentation of devotional poetry, converging various artistic elements such as poetry, oratory,  dance, drama, music and comical contemporization. Typically staged during the nocturnal  hours, Pala, like Tullal, embraces a raucous form of buffoonery. Analogous to Tullal, Pala represents a fusion of Aryan-Dravidian cultural synthesis, drawing upon literary sources from  Sanskrit, Odia, Hindi, Telugu, and Bangla. Additionally, the spirit of mirth, reminiscent of Tullal,  permeates the essence of Pala. 

The Pala performance typically involves two primary characters: the Gayaka and the Vidushaka. The Gayaka assumes the role of both the troupe leader and explicator of slokas from  Sanskritic literature. In contrast, the Vidushaka embodies the archetype of the class clown, posing  inane queries, misconstruing verses, and satirising individuals and customs. The role of the  Vidushaka, however, assumes a pivotal significance, as his absurd questions and antics compel the  Gayaka to extemporaneously elucidate intricate themes akin to explaining them to a layperson. 

An illustrative example lies in the Gayaka‘s enactment of Harischandra, inquiring about  his wife’s desired parting gift, with the Vidushaka assuming the role of the wife and facetiously  requesting a plate of “dahivada” (Patra 46). This transposition of the audience into the contemporary milieu, anchoring the text within the present time and space, intertwines “carnivalesque” Rabelaisian humour with the elevated characters and slokas. This phenomenon  equally applies to Tullal, which endeavours to contemporise epics by infusing satirical elements. 

Conclusion 

Ramakrishnan’s scholarship illuminates the pivotal role of translation in shaping distinct  regional identities and fostering intercultural dialogue. The essay delves into the works of  Cherusseri, Ezuthachan, and Nambiar, exploring themes like assimilation, innovative genres, and  humour’s disruptive power in established discourse. The essay also emphasises translation’s  dialogic nature, a space where diverse voices converge to enhance the reading experience. The “emergence  of the new poetic language” Manipravalam, and the creation of the unique literary form known as  Ottan Thullal, can be related to the concept of “translated literature actively shaping the literary polysystem” of the Malayalam language(Zohar 193). 

Furthermore, the “carnivalesque” tradition in Pala performance, akin to Tullal, showcases  how translation transports audiences to contemporary settings, bridging past and present. This  fusion of Rabelaisian humour with sacred texts enlivens these traditions. 

         The various roles that translation plays are highlighted by investigating it as a means of resistance, cultural preservation and social transformation. The essay skillfully navigates multiple facets of this dynamic process, as evidenced by the various sections like “Locating Translation as Resistance in Malayalam and Odia,” “Assimilation as Resistance: Blending Cultural Threads in Translation,” “Retellings and Contextualization: The Transformative Power of Translation,” “Dialogic Function and Polyglossia in Translation” and “Legitimization through Translation.” In addition, Tullal’s comparative study of Pala Performance’s “carnivalesque” tradition offers a nuanced viewpoint that deepens our comprehension of the varied and multifaceted nature of translation in the studied literary and cultural contexts.

References  

Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhaĭlovich. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. 1984. 

Bandlamudi, Lakshmi, and E. V. Ramakrishnan. “Introduction : Intellectual Traditions of Indiain  Dialogue With Mikhail Bakhtin: Pluralism, Dogma and Dialogue Through History.”  Bakhtinian Explorations of Indian Culture, Springer, 2018, pp. 1–19.  doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6313-8. 

Chandrasekharan, M. R. (2001). “Introduction” to Cherusseri’s Krishnagatha(pp 9-92) Calicut: National Publishing Company. 

Deblasia. Bakhtin, Mikhail – Filosofia: An Encyclopedia of Russian Thought. 29 Mar. 2019,  filosofia.dickinson.edu/encyclopedia/bakhtin-mikhail. 

Even-Zohar, Itamar. “The Position Of Translated Literature Within The Literary Polysystem.”  The Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti, Routledge eBooks, 2021,  pp. 192–97. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429280641.

Freeman, R. (2003). Genre and Society: The Literary Culture of Pre-modern Kerala [eBook]. In S. Pollock (Ed.), Literary cultures in History (pp. 437–502). University of California Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520926738

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge: And the Discourse on Language. Translated  by Sheridan Smith, Vintage, 1972. “In Theory Bakhtin: Dialogism, Polyphony and Heteroglossia.” Ceasefire Magazine, 11 Jan.  2012, ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-bakhtin-1. 

Macura, V. (1990). Culture in Translation. In S. Bassnett & A. Andre Lefevere ( (Eds.), Translation, History and Culture (pp. 64–70). London and New York: Pinter Publications.

Malayalam Resource Centre. “Thullal.” Malayalam Resource Centre, http://www.malayalamresourcecentre.org/Mrc/culture/artforms/thullal/thullal.html. Accessed 8  Oct. 2023. 

Paniker, A. K. (1999). Medieval Indian Literature: An Anthology. (Sahitya Akademi, Ed.; Vol. 3). Sahitya Akademi.

Patra, Umesh. “Tracing the History and Evolution of Pala.” Lokaratna, edited by Folklore  Foundation, vol. X, 2347–6427, 2017,  http://www.academia.edu/50011872/Tracing_the_History_and_Evolution_of_Pala. 

Ramakrishnan. “Translation as Resistance : The Role of Translation in the Making of Malayalam  Literary Tradition.” Decentering Translation Studies: India and Beyond, edited by Judy  Wakabayashi and Rita Kothari, John Benjamins Publishing, 2009. 

Śarmmā, Vi. Es. Kunchan Nampyar. Sahitya Akademi, 2000.