Dr. Himanshi Shelat (addressed hereinafter as HS), is a highly acclaimed Gujarati short story writer and has also contributed to other literary forms such as novel, novella, memoir and non-fiction prose. In addition, she is also a noted critic, translator and a translation critic. In this interview with Viraj Desai (addressed hereinafter as VD), she answers questions on various aspects of translation and translation criticism and shares her views on being translated into English and the contemporary undercurrents of the translation practice in Gujarati literature. The interview took place at her residence in Abrama, Valsad on 29th November 2020.
VD: When I think of your literary personality, I see three aspects of it: you are a translator, a translation critic and an acclaimed and widely translated author. So, my questions would be surrounding these three aspects of your literary personality and my first question to you is that: in the contemporary times, how crucial is it to represent Gujarati literature and culture in English translation? In what ways can it contribute towards the enrichment of both-Gujarati and English?
HS: This is an age of translations because translations are available from various languages. Whether we talk about the literatures of the regional languages of India or the languages of the World- the best of the literary pieces are available to us because of translation. It is because of translation that we get to read works of Spanish and French Literature and of the regional languages. For example, we read Kannada Literature or Marathi literature in Gujarati. Marathi is more familiar to Gujarati readers so people may read the original Marathi works but than if you don’t know a language-especially the languages of the South (India), like Kannada or Malayalam which are not very familiar (to the Gujarati readers), you have to go to translations. Even Bengali to some extent isn’t familiar to Gujarati readers because of the script. So, some languages are difficult because of the script and when translated to your mother tongue, it becomes easier for you to reach out to all such languages. It becomes possible to reach the best literature available in the World. So, I personally feel that translation is important because it enriches your literature and your literature, when it goes out through translation, can enrich the literature of the other language(s). It is definitely a very significant process through which you can reach the best that is available. Hence, translation is important. Or else, our creative strength will never be known to the world, as it has happened to Gujarati. The best of Gujarati literature has not reached outside Gujarat. It is so because we do not have many master translators, we do not have people who have good command over English language. So, they do not/ dare not translate some of the things. Or they hesitate. And obviously, when things are not translated, they will never reach outside a language. So, the best of the short stories, the best of the novels, the best of the poetry…it never goes out of Gujarat. People have stopped somewhere…say at Umashankar Joshi, or at the most, Suresh Joshi- they don’t know what is beyond these names, what is being written recently. And if one goes through, for example, the volumes of Indian Literature published by Sahitya Akademi, it is very easy for you to find out that our best is not known anywhere. Refer to the short-stories (in translation) published by Sahitya Akademi’s journal, their standard and compare it with the beautiful stories published in our magazines, like Navneet Samarpan, Parab, or others, the best of journals that we have in Gujarat. It’s a pity that our best doesn’t reach out.
VD: Do you think it is very important for Gujarati literature to get translated into English because it is a global language? How does it help Gujarati literature?
HS: Yes, because if the best of Gujarat reaches out then Gujarati also gains in that process. It is a give-and-take. This interaction stops somewhere because we do not go out and also, we do not read things that come from other regions or countries because we (Gujarati) have closed ourselves. When translations are not available than it is a close, familiar affair. You write in your language, you read in your language. You never go out, you never read the best of other literatures. Say for example, the Gujarati readers, those people who are not well conversant with English language, do not read much of the English masterpieces. Similarly, they are less likely to know about the literature of the regional languages such as Tamil or Kannada and thus, translations take you to other languages. When Gujarati is being translated into English or another language then it would automatically reach their region, language, and culture. So, you are inclined to read something from their language as well. That’s how an interaction begins and when you do not do that then it stops somewhere. As it has stopped already in Gujarati. We have stopped somewhere because we are not being translated into other languages, at the most Hindi or Marathi, that’s it, definitely not in English.
VD: You said that a translator’s role is very important, his/her choices are very important- what does a translator choose to translate or whether he chooses or not, is important. So, then how do you think his/her choices affect the cultural representation through translation?
HS: When you translate the best of your literature, you are representing the best of your language/region-culturally, socially, and sometimes, even politically. So, the complete scenario that is reflected in the best of your literature reaches other languages through translation. But if you select very mediocre works- not excellent at all but the popular ones then there’s a problem with that representation. A translator may deem a work important because of its popularity and may consider translating it. Such a thing may happen if he/she is not very familiar with Gujarati literature or if he/she is a translator from some other language- someone who knows Gujarati language well but is not very familiar with Gujarati Literature itself. Instead of choosing a masterpiece, he/she may choose a popular work finding it worth translating. And if you are reaching other languages or cultures outside Gujarat through such mediocre works then the representation of your language through such works will be a very poor one.
VD: The other question that stems from this argument is that in case of Gujarati literature in English translation, the masterpieces from the past are yet to be translated into English, except some selected works of Jhaverchand Meghani, Dhumketu, Govardhanram Tripathi, etc. So, on one hand, the classics are yet to be translated, as you said, and, on the other, translating the contemporary works is equally important. In that case, how important is it for translators to strike that balance, between translating both- the classics yet to be translated and the contemporary works, which are very crucial to the contemporary cultural and political representation? Do you feel that balance is somewhere missing in context of Gujarati literature in translation?
HS: Yes, one can say that this balance is missing. But before reaching for the bulk of the modern Gujarati literature, one has to first go to the classics of the prolific writers which are not yet translated. The history of Gujarati literature can be best represented by all those works- the classics. They (classics) take you to that history of Gujarat which is not known to even many Gujarati readers, forget the readers outside Gujarat. So, first the masterpieces are to be translated and then you have to come to the medieval part of your literary history and then to the present.
VD: As a writer and a translator, do you think that certain things should be kept in mind by a translator while translating your works? If yes, then what are those?
HS: If somebody is translating my stories than the soul of the story should not be missed, that is of utmost priority. The soul of the story should be preserved. And hence, he/she has to first find the soul of the story- what I intend to say through that. If that is found than other things would follow. Other than that, there won’t be much of a problem because my stories are generally very translatable as they aren’t written in very difficult language. And the subtlety of the language itself- what is said in the original in Gujarati, should be preserved. Sometimes it’s a very short sentence but a very poignant, very meaningful one. And in translating that, nothing should be lost. Its subtlety should not be lost. These are my basic requirements- the soul and the subtlety.
VD: Since you have been a faculty of English language and literature, and you have translated yourself into English, what has been your overall reaction towards the English translations of your works?
HS: There are probably some ten stories translated by different people and a volume, Aṁdhārī Galī māṁ Safed Tapkāṁ as Frozen Whites in a Dark Alley by Late Mr. Vinod Meghani. He (Meghani) translated and retranslated till I was satisfied. Because that was his way of doing things. He would work very hard. He worked very closely with Dhruv Bhatt as well while translating Samudrāntike. So, I am very satisfied with that translation because it was done in front of me, literally. Other translations are good, too. When they (translators) would translate a story, they would come and read it in front of me, take corrections from me, discuss it with me and then publish them. A couple of them have also been translated by me.
VD: On that note, what are your views on self-translation?
HS: I always hesitate in translating my stories. Because as a writer when I translate any of my own works, I feel free to change certain things since it is written by me- it is my story. I feel I am free to make some changes. Now, that freedom can be dangerous. Because nobody is going to keep a check on me. As a creator, you are likely to take certain liberties that you should not take. You should cling to the original. That idea escapes my mind at times when I translate my own works. That is why generally I do not translate my own works. I am always afraid of taking a lot of liberties which is not good.
VD: Sujit Mukherjee has discussed translation as new writing or translation and transcreation. In light of such a view of translation, what value have your translators added to your work? Has there been a value addition to your works in the process of translation?
HS: Yes, of course. The first thing that a translation makes possible is that I am read by people who do not know Gujarati. Whatever that you wanted to say through your stories, in your language, is being read by someone who does not know your language. So, my ideas, my thoughts, my emotions are reaching other languages, other readers. This simple thing itself is kind of a value addition. It is the same way I reach Mahashweta Devi. I cannot read Mahashweta Devi in Bengali. I met Mahashweta Devi in English and that was wonderful.
VD: More than often, what happens is that a translated work is hardly recognised as a translation by the readers. People perceive the work as belonging to a particular genre- a novel, a poem, a play but rarely as a translation. That awareness is not there in readers and even in the academia at times. How important is it to change this notion in order to garner translation with the recognition that it deserves?
HS: Yes, it is true. I personally feel that a translation is also a creation in itself. To find a proper equivalent word in the target language, to understand its nuances, and then to use it- is it not creation? It is a part of the creative process itself. For example, when Tagore’s Navavarsha is translated as Mor Bani Thangaat Kare, it becomes Jhaverchand Meghani’s poem, it ceases to be Tagore’s poem then. You always feel that it is a separate entity. So, a translation can take a different shape altogether.
VD: Surely. However, the kind of appreciation and identity garnered to Mor Bani Thangaat Kare and the way it became Jhaverchand Meghani’s work, was an exception. But for most of the other works that reach us through translation, we rarely recognise them as translations. Do you think that basic awareness- that a work has reached us through translation, is crucial for the readers?
HS: It is absolutely necessary. For that, the publishing houses have to make an effort, they have to highlight the translator’s presence. It (translation) is not just a mechanical work. And to fulfil that, you need a translator who himself/herself is an expert, who is creative- these are not ordinary things but are special abilities. And these abilities are not possessed by one and all. Knowing a language is not enough. If you translate with the help of a dictionary, that is not enough. You have to pay attention to the lucidity, the flow, the power of narration- all these things get reflected only when you get best of the translators. And that is why that recognition should be given to translators by the academia, the critics and the publishing houses and last but not the least, by the reader.
VD: That takes me to my next question- do you think the critics, or the criticism of translation can help in getting translators the recognition they deserve? How?
HS: Of course, they can. But first of all, we need to have a well-established practice of translation criticism in Gujarati literature. Where is the criticism of the best of our works? How can it be there since most of our scholars are no longer there- they have passed away, and those who are alive are tired and aged. It is not possible for them to provide such meticulous criticism regularly. A larger part of the present generation is not interested in criticism, exceptions put aside. You criticise someone and see their reaction. They would not like it at all. You criticize a book, pinpoint its demerits and see the reactions on the social media. So, the serious pursuit of literature, language, criticism, academics is missing in general. The common tendency in today’s times is to shine out and, in this madness, you cannot expect anybody to pursue anything seriously. Like everything else, there is an absence of the criticism of translation as well.
VD: There is an obvious lack of criticism in general, as you say, and in that there is a certainly a lack of the criticism of translation. How do you think Gujarati has suffered due to that lacuna?
HS: Yes, Gujarati has suffered because we have accepted all kinds of mediocrity in translation. Go through randomly chosen three of four books of translations of Gujarati works and you will find that they are worth discarding, let alone publishing. One would discard them in the very first reading. And such poorly translated works are now published, distributed and have reached the readers. In the West, publication houses have editorial boards who examine a translation thoroughly, would omit and correct parts of it, and only when they are satisfied with it, they’ll publish it. They will opine about the worth of the translations. In our language, the problem is that the editors do not pay attention to translations in case of seasoned practitioners. Nobody would bother to look into the quality of such translations. We do not have the tendency to examine translations, especially by already established translators or litterateurs.
VD: In the critique of Balvant Jani’s translation of A Doll’s House, you have noted that, “we are generally apathetic towards studying and scrutinising translations. The inclination towards the same is very less. Resultantly, we often tend to accept the amateur (works).”[1] (Shelat) Can you further elaborate on what do you mean by “amateur” or kāchu in the context of translation from/into Gujarati?
HS: Yes. For example, in finding a proper equivalent to the source language word, a translator has so many options. To find out the best meaning out of all those meanings is the discipline of translation. Finding the contextual meaning is crucial. The patience, hard work and intention to do so is not there- so that is kāchu (amateur).
VD: In the case of Gujarati, one general observation is that when a translator is interested in translating contemporary writers, the writers are so grateful just for the fact that someone is interested in translating their works that they seldom look at ability of a translator to translate or the quality of the translations they come up with. Such attitude largely stems up from a lack of dedicated and able translators. Do you think this lack of such translators is the reason behind such a mediocrity in Gujarati literature in translation?
HS: Yes, it is. A writer will be very much obliged to a translator interested in translating his/her work. But getting translated should not be the aim of a writer. When you write, you write for your set of readers. Each writer has a set of readers, his/her target audience. A writer writes for them. He/she knows their sensitivity, their comprehension level, their way of grappling with different issues. It is not that a writer is being read by all the readers of Gujarati. No, it isn’t so. It is a very small group of readers that one is writing for. So, a writer’s work being translated by someone can cause a writer satisfaction, but a writer should not be overwhelmed by the fact that someone is ready to translate their work. Simply because that is not your (a writer’s) primary intention.
VD: In many European languages, it so happens that a writer of a certain merit has a choice in terms of translators. It is the writer who chooses translators to translate his/her works at times. In Gujarati, it is exactly the opposite in most of the cases. Writers here do not have that liberty or authority.
HS: This is a condition only limited to Gujarat. For example, in Tamil or Kannada, such a thing does not happen. It happens in Gujarat because we have turned away from the English language itself. English departments are there in every university in Gujarat and there are at least a couple of people in each department capable of undertaking such work (translations) but they do not do it very frequently. Otherwise, it should be a part of their academic activity. Being a Department of English in a university in Gujarat, the general sense of responsibility of putting the literature of the region in English is missing. So, that too is a problem.
VD: Moving ahead, I have a couple of questions for you in the context of your role as a translation critic. According to you, who can be a more suitable critic of a translation-someone who only knows the target language or someone who knows both-the target and the source languages?
HS: The one well-versed with both the languages. It is very essential for a critic to know both the languages.
VD: When one looks at the reviews of translations in Gujarati, the focus is more on the original text, as Shri Raman Soni has rightly noted. How important do you think it is to keep in mind the aspect of translation when reviewing a translation?
HS: When reviewing a translation, you should only have the translation in mind. You are reaching that work through translation so it is translation that should be at the centre, and not the original text. You can certainly compare it with the original text to understand how the original is preserved in translation. Nina Bhavnagari, while commenting on translations undertaken by me, has focused only on translation. That is how it should be.
VD: In your stories, there is a frequent use of dialects and accents. It certainly enriches and provides an authenticity to your work. So, how important is it for a translator to preserve that variety or the nuances of the language while translating?
HS: It is always difficult to capture the essence of the dialect. But then you can have some variations in the English language itself. Incorrect use of the tense, incorrect use of the word itself, and using disjointed sentences or phrases- one can try all these things. These are the possible variations and with the help of that you can create your own language.
VD: As a translator, what is your concept of a ‘good translation’?
HS: One that captures and preserves the spirit of the original work. That is the first condition. And for that, a translator has to read and re-read and imbibe the original. Then only you can venture into translating, not otherwise. Then comes the use of the language. The kind of the language that a translator chooses in order to translate. Whether a translator is well-equipped or not, whether he/she has the required discipline or not- one has to think about all that before translating. A translation should be as lucid, flowing, and powerful as the original. It should not seem like a translation. It should read like the original. That is the real test of the translation. For example, some of Mahashweta Devi’s Gujarati translations are so horrible that you feel sad about that fact that a particular person translated Mahashweta Devi. And then if you go to the English translations of Mahashweta Devi then you’ll be pleased because Mahashweta Devi knew English and she would’ve definitely read those translations, but she did not know Gujarati. So, that is the difference.
VD: In your opinion, is translation a skill that can be taught through training or is it an art? Or a fine balance of both?
HS: It is a fine balance of both. It is an art as well as a skill. One can learn and master certain things (about translation); so that is the skill part of it. And then when you cross that and reach a higher level-then it becomes an art.
VD: So then, if we say that skill is a very important part of translation, how important is it to train translators? And how can it improve the quality of the translations that are being produced in Gujarati in the contemporary times?
HS: The first step is to take stock of the mistakes that a translator has already made. That means re-examining the already published translations. A person keen to learn should sit with at least ten such works and go through those translations, find out all the errors, blemishes, and everything that is there. This exercise may help one to understand what should be avoided while translating a work. So, it is absolutely necessary.
VD: You said that in order to train themselves, young translators should go to the already translated works, look at the merits and demerits of those translations. So, do you think that the criticisms of translations can help those people better in such an exercise?
HS: Yes, surely. That is if these critical issues are raised properly. If so, they may have a better perspective by going through such critiques.
VD: When you translate, what are some of the key aspects of translation that you keep in mind?
HS: First is that it should exactly match what the writer means, as far as possible. What he/she intends to convey. The translator should be able to convey that in the language he/she is translating into. There shouldn’t be any confusion regarding the meaning that the original writer has in his/her mind. The writer’ creative experience should get translated.
VD: You said that a translation should preserve the meaning of the original text. In light of that statement, how does a translator strike a balance between creativity and fidelity towards the source text/ author? Is translation ‘new writing’[2] or ‘a faithful representation of the source text in the target language’?
HS: Fidelity is crucial because if you forget the fidelity than it will become the translator’s work. And the original writer will be pushed back. That should never happen because the original is the original. We have to keep that in mind. And what you are doing is just presenting the author’s creative power to your language and representing him/her because you want his/her work to be known. You should be very clear about your intentions- for a particular work to reach out. When you are trying to represent something then what is already present in the original work can never be forgotten. Because you are re-creating and not creating. And while re-creating, the original should never be out of sight. So, it is a very fine balance.
VD: Do you see the advent of machine translation and online translation tools such tools having an impact on translation practices in Gujarati?
HS: I don’t think such things are going to have any influence at all on literary translation because those who really understand the beauty of the language or the spirit of literature, would never enter into such things. For example, I would never read anything like that. I would prefer a work by someone who is well-known for his skills as a translator. Such a translation; and not a Google Translate one, will be chosen by me for reading. Such a mechanical process (with the help of online translation tools) is not translation at all. Brining subtlety in translation takes a lot of time and effort.
VD: Do you think that stringent criticism can help a translator in shaping his career on a better way?
HS: Surely. Late. Mr. Vinod Meghani; after translating Irving Stone’s Lust for Life as SaDagtā Surajmukhī, rejected his first draft. The whole book was withdrawn post publication because he was not satisfied with that at all. So, he translated it again. Then it was the second edition which was published and distributed again. Thus, there are people who can criticise themselves.
VD: But what about the people who cannot criticise themselves? Or who cannot see their flaws? Do you think Translation Criticism can help those people?
HS: Definitely. But it can only help those who are willing to accept their limitations. That is the most important thing. But for someone who is least bothered about whatever type of criticism is written, criticism stands irrelevant or inexistent at times.
VD: The West largely perceives translation as a transfer of the source text from the source language to the target language. Whereas in the Indian context, translation is anuvād- a subsequent discourse.[3] The former sees a translator as sort of a mediator in the process of the linguistic transfer called translation. The latter sees it as a co-creator, adding to the meaning of the source text? Which one of these is a better approach towards the role of a translator? Why?
HS: I prefer the approach that considers a translator’s role as someone adding a meaning to the original. That is a better approach. Because you are more sensitive towards the creativity of the original. In the first approach, you are not very sensitive to the creative powers of the writer or the original text. But in the second one, you are open to that, you can understand the process itself with admiration. The admiration for the original text would be there hence you have chosen to translate it. That sense of admiration and sensitivity would add a meaning to the work.
VD: And one last question: Late. Bhagwatikumar Sharma once noted that, “The regret of this flow of translation being one-way would be there in our hearts. It is a reality that excellent works of Gujarati Literature have not reached other languages to the extent that they should have. Owing to that, not only the readers of other languages have remained deprived of Gujarati Literature but also there seems to be a lacuna in the degree to which Gujarati Literature must have been recognised at the national level.” Now, such guilt is there but have there been any efforts directed towards overcoming such a guilt?
HS: No, we haven’t. That’s what I pointed out earlier. The general apathy of the academia and litterateurs towards translating Gujarati literature is a harsh reality. It’s true that we do not find very good and eager publishers in Gujarat who will publish English translations of Gujarati works. But in order to approach publishers, a properly translated, checked and examined work should be ready. Even writers do not get together anymore in order to undertake such tasks frequently. A couple of years back, I suggested Shirish Panchal few that writers can get together, choose some ten or twelve short stories and translate them into English. And we produce such thorough translations of some masterpieces that the question of rejection does not arise. In a group of 5-6 translators, even if each translator can translate two stories each then there can be a volume with 10-12 translation of Gujarati short stories. People show willingness in the beginning but nothing fruitful comes out of it eventually. Because such a task is a team effort, people have to come together. The way we worked at Katha Vividha, that volume which was published by Sahitya Akademi. That was such an excellent experience where ten of us sat together for two days. I had sent two to four stories to each translator and asked them to come prepared with translations. And then we sat, went through the translations one by one, examined them thoroughly and they had to re-translate those works again based on the suggestions that came up and prepare the final draft within a month. Then they sent it to us, we compiled it and sent it to Sahitya Akademi for publication. That work turned out to be excellent, beautifully done. So, if people are ready to sit together for that sort of a thing then look at the concrete results that can be produced. But for that, you have to work hard. People are now rarely willing to work hard, sit together and discuss.
References:
- Shelat, Himanshi. “Anuvad samiksha: A Doll’s House- Henrik Ibsen, Anuvad Balvant Jani.” Anuvad-Vichar ane Anuvad-Prakriya (Translation: Theory and Practice), edited by Raman Soni, Pratyaksha Prakashan, 2018, p. 176.
- Mukherjee, Sujit. Translation as Discovery and Other Essays on Indian Literature in English Translation. 2. ed, Orient Blackswan Private Limited, 2012.
- Singh, Avadhesh Kumar. “Translation: Its Nature and Strategies.” Translation: Its Theory and Practice, edited by Avadhesh Kumar Singh, Creative Books, 1996.