1

TRANSLATION: THE `RENAISSANCE' PARDIGM

The period of Indian cultural history so often called `renaissance' is, unlike its Western counterpart, associated

with not-too-pleasant experience of colonialism. Yet it occupies a prominent role in the intellectual and

cultural history of this country for the reason that it is the period of intense identity crises which provoked

certain questions, the answers for which are even debated till today. The growth of modern pedagogical

institutions was directly responsible for the great intellectual churning that resulted in production of many of

contemporary toxins and elixirs that circulate in the body of the modern India. This period is associated with

the rise and development of many reform movements and evolution of many nationalisms. Both reformers and

nationalists ranged from radical revivalists to those who glorified the West. One does not have to go very far to

find similar figures on the contemporary intellectual stage. The ambivalence towards the other and towards

one's own self was rooted in the feeling of alienation from one's own culture that haunted the Western educated

elite who dominated the period. This period is also associated with the growth and development of certain

discursive paradigms and structures of arguments which dominate the intellectual debates till today. For

instance, the most important paradigm was the perception of the Indian self and the Western other in terms of

oppositional framework of `inferior/ superior', `spiritual/materialistic' and so on. This discursive paradigm was

intimately associated with the quest for the definition for `true' and `authentic' India and it has deeply shaped

cultural practices since the nineteenth century. All this is of course well known. The focus of my paper

however will be on how this `episteme' molded the practice of translation of what is termed as `Indian',

especially into English, till today. All through out this paper I have used the terms like `renaissance' and `India'

within quotes to indicate that these terms are not unequivocal and unproblematic.

Translation is a decision-making process and its social, cultural and political context influences the decisions at

all the stages. From the selection of source language, source language text, author, period of its composition,

its poetics to the selection of linguistic strategies and aesthetic techniques, all the decisions are influenced by

the literary system of the translating culture. This system is a part of totality of other discursive systems.
 2

Before commenting of translation activity and theoretical beliefs in `renaissance' and post-renaissance period, I

will discuss very briefly the history of translation in India.

Although renderings of fragments of text from one language to another were common enough in the ancient

India, the practice of turning an entire text from one language to another was not very widespread. Prof.

Bholanath Tiwari (1972) has commented extensively on this aspect. Sanskrit and dominant Prakrits were not

were very receptive to texts from other languages. The extremely pertinent question about why these languages

lacked receptivity can be a topic for separate conference. Rise of Buddhism in the first millenium and its

spread across many countries and cultures saw many of the canonical Buddhist texts and non-Buddhist text

translated into many Asian languages. This also gave rise to lexicography and creation of bilingual

dictionaries. These were highly accurate renderings and they have contributed substantially to the growth and

development of these Asian languages (Sunitikumar Pathak 1978, BN Mukherjee 1978). Translation has

always been an inseparable part of proselytizing missions and the example of the Bible translation is well

known. In addition, it has always played a crucial role in evolution of languages.

In the second millenium, the practice of turning epics, puranas, and other literary texts from Sanskrit into the

modern Indian languages have played a substantial part in their development. The spread of the bhakti

movement is associated with the increasing emphasis on linguistic identity. These rewritings were more of

adaptations and `imitations ' in Drydenian sense, rather than faithful renderings. The equivalent, which they

sought, was not linguistic or textual but spiritual. To use Dr. Devy's apt phrase, it was the whole `language of

spirituality' which was translated. The activity of rewriting the Sanskrit texts into the regional languages

ranged from commentaries `teeka', `bhashya' to more faithful renderings. The primary aim of such renderings

was not to produce a `faithful copy' of the originals but to empower even the illiterate and the oppressed. The

act itself was symbolic like the act of opening up of the sanctum sanctorum of the temple in the last century to

the people who were denied access to it. In fact, it was the `opening up' of the language of spirituality. Akho, a

brilliant seventeenth century Gujarati poet and philosopher, retorted to the people who insisted on using

Sanskrit as the language of philosophy by saying, ` Why do you cling to a language, knave! Only he who

triumphs in the battle is called brave!' Elsewhere he says that one interprets Sanskrit using Prakrit (regional
 3

language) in the way one has to open a tied stack of firewood for it has no meaning as a stack (128). The

Muslim rulers too were greatly interested in spiritual and technical texts on medicine, astrology, mathematics

and warfare available in Sanskrit. Surprisingly, the rulers who are accused of fanaticism and bigotry showed a

great deal of interest in Indian texts and translated many of these into Persian and Arabic. In comparison, the

`Sanskritic' culture, so often praised for its broad minded outlook was hardly receptive to the best in other

cultures.

While it was the greed for wealth, lust for power, and the desire to spread the Christian Faith that brought the

white man to the subcontinent, the alternative realities that he had to encounter, intrigued him, fascinated him,

repulsed him. This outlook is not dead even today. The act of translation was one of the ways in which he

could attempt to make sense of the vast geographical and diversiform cultural landscape that sprawled in front

of him. While Orientalism was an attempt to translate the bafflingly complex plurality and heterogeneity of the

East by using the Western frames of reference, the Missionary activity was an attempt to translate Western

Christianity into the native religious vocabulary.

Orientalism as understood today, mainly due to the incisive analysis by Edward Said (1978) was an attempt to

translate the East in such way so as to assist and justify the ideology of colonization. Indological and orientalist

translation activity gained momentum from seventeenth century onwards. The characteristic feature of the

Orientalist translations, was that they promoted the idea of `The Glorious India that was' in contrast to the

fallen and barbaric country that lay in front of the alien rulers. The image of the `spiritual' and the

`supercivilized' India had to be manufactured in order to establish kinship with the colonized nation without

doing any damage to the colonizer's sense of superiority and this was managed by fabricating a designer

`Golden India' that had ceased to exist one thousand years ago. As Tejaswini Niranjana correctly notes,

translation is a particular mode of representation and the orientalists translation` reinforces hegemonic versions

of the colonized, helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls representations or objects without

history '(1992:3).
 4

On the other hand, the missionaries were more interested in the living indigenous languages. The missionary

activity, which included translating the Bible and other books into the modern Indian languages, preparing

grammars and developing prose in these languages had a deep impact on their evolution. In order to highlight

the two ways of the West in looking at Indian social and cultural scenario, one can profitably contrast the

`missionary' attitude and approach to Indian language and culture with the Orientalist. While the former

emphasizes the practical realities and living languages, the latter wallows in a distant past, neither without an

ulterior motive.

As the education in English became widespread, the Orientalist and Indological translations inspired the

English educated Indians. Raja Ram Mohun Roy (1772-1833) was among the earliest scholars to translate the

Upanishads into English. Romesh Chander Dutt (1848-1909) translated the great Epics (1898) and the

Rigveda into English verse. Popular novels by Walter Scott or Wilkie Collins were translated into Indian

languages and they have played a major role in the development of the modern novel in India. Shakespeare

was a particular favourite and translations from his plays exist in almost all the major languages of India. Like

RC Dutt and Raja Ram Mohan Roy, many other Indian scholars translated from the Sanskrit classics into

English. Commenting on the differences between the medieval translation and renderings from Sanskrit, Devy

notes correctly that the medieval translation aimed at `liberating the society, whereas the colonial translations

were merely reactionary. They came either as a reaction to the colonial situation that had hurt the national pride

of India or as imitations of Indological translation of Sanskrit works by scholars like Sir William Jones, Max

Muller and others (150)'.

However, it would be a mistake to consider these translations as merely reactionary and derivative. They were

products of a pressing cultural need- the need to discover what is `truly Indian' and assert it in the face of

humiliating experience of colonialism. Although what `truly Indian' means has changed a lot for us today, this

quest for self-identity combined with the urge to assert it, has not concluded. During the period termed as

`renaissance' the translations of the texts considered `truly Indian' were the canonical Sanskrit texts like the

epics, plays of Kalidasa and so on. The `Indian tradition' for our renaissance scholars meant `pan-Indian

Sanskritic tradition that is also called the `margiya' tradition, which is in contrast to the `desi' or local
 5

traditions. Besides, emphasis on the pan-Indian traditions was a part of nationalist strategy to unite the country.

It was necessary to show that in spite of differences we have an underlying unity. The unity vs. diversity

discursive paradigm is very operative till today. While the nativists emphasize the differences, the nationalists

emphasize the unity of diverse cultural traditions.

It would be illuminating to consider various positions and views held by the `renaissance' translators

themselves. So in this paper, I will consider some major `renaissance' figures, who were extremely influential

thinkers and reputed translators. The first is a noted Marathi essayist, scholar, and translator Vishnushashtri

Chiploonkar (1850-1882). His essay` Bhashantar' appeared in Nibandhmala, book 1, and twelfth issue in

December 1874. This essay is one of the earliest theoretical writings on translation in Indian languages and so

of immense importance to the historian of translation in our country. Chiploonkar's chief concern is to defend

of Marathi language against unjust comparisons with English as was common during the period and to plead

for developing Marathi into language of knowledge. He knew that in order to emerge as a language of

knowledge it should be equipped with technical vocabulary. Hence, he gives as much importance to technical

translations as to the translation of literary texts. Chiploonkar believes that technical texts are easier to

translate than the literary ones. He comments on a very important aspect of translation of technical texts:

finding Marathi equivalents for technical terms in English. He recommends generous use of Sanskrit and

cautions that the technical equivalents in Marathi should not be too familiar and colloquial. On the other hand,

while discussing literary translation he presents rather conventional ideas about translation. Enumerating

qualities of a good translator, Chiploonkar says that apart from having bilingual competence, the translator

should be able to fully comprehend the content of the source language and pour it into another and he should

be of same temperament as that of the writer of the original Classifying poetry into two distinct types, namely,

hathkavita `obstinate poetry' or poetry written with artificial violence to language and prasadikkavita or the

one with spontaneity, naturalness and beauty, Chiploonkar states that the latter is more difficult to translate as it

has come from heightened inspiration and hence it cannot happen again. He compares Sir William Jones'

efforts to translate Shakuntala with transferring of perfume from one sealed bottle to another without letting it

evaporate. It echoes Sir John Denham's statement that `Poesie into Poesie; and Poesie is of so subtile a spirit,

that in pouring out of one Language into another, it will all evaporate; and if a new spirit is not added in the
 6

transfusion, there will remain nothing but caput mortuum' (Susan Bassnet, 1980:59). Whether this intertextual

link is a conscious allusion or otherwise is not clear. However, such intertextual connections characterize

colonial and postcolonial discourses. Chiploonkar goes on to defend Marathi against the criticism that it is a

poorer language compared to English by saying, `just as the fact that some food items grow there (in the West)

and do not grow here (in India) does not make our country pauper, in same way the fact that certain ideas and

thoughts are unknown here does not make our country a poorer one.' It is interesting to note how the

nationalistic resistance to cultural domination during colonial rule manifests itself in the attitude of translation.

Chiploonkar's poetics is very much romantic in extolling the virtues of uniqueness, spontaneity and naturalness

in a poem and his politics is nationalistic in the face of colonial oppression. Elsewhere, Chiploonkar has

remarked that the dearth of translations into Sanskrit was due to the fact that it was extremely rich and had no

need to take anything from other languages and that the word bhashantar did not exist in classical Sanskrit

simply because Indians then had all the knowledge available in Sanskrit and did not have any need for

translations (Vasant Bapat, 48). The glorification of Sanskrit and Sanskritic heritage and discrediting other

languages exposes the casteist outlook of a certain form of nationalism represented by Chiploonkar.

Chiploonkar is considered among the more orthodox, or to use a Marathi term `Sanatani' (staus-quoist

opposing fundamental transformation of Indian society) of the renaissance intellectuals. Nevertheless,

Chiploonkar remains one of the most important among early translation theorists and interestingly he does not

emphasize the idea of faithful vs. free translation as some later theorists.

Some twenty-five years later, another great scholar and translator R.C.Dutt in the Translator's Epilogues of his

translations of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata writes that the main advantage of following his plan of

selecting and translating the complete passages which narrate the leading incidents and connecting them with

short notes, `the story is told not by the translator in his own way, but by the poet himself' (1972, 161). He

repeatedly emphasizes this point saying that he wants to preserve the voice of `the ancient poet of India', and

not of the translator. He wants his act to be that of self-effacement: ` Not only are the incidents narrated in the

same order as the original, but they are told in the style of the poet as far as possible. Even the similes and

metaphors and figures of speech are all or mostly adopted from the original; the translator has not ventured

either to adopt his own distinct style of narration, or to improve on the style of the original with his own
 7

decorations' (326). One of his intentions behind translating the Mahabharata is to recover the old Epic, `spoilt

by unlimited expansion' and to determine the `real epic' (325). The act of translation becomes an act of

discovering a pure virginal past, a project that was also undertaken by another great `renaissance' figures, Sri

Aurobindo. Sri Aurobindo has put forward the idea that the original Mahabharata consisting of some 24,000

verses, could be disengaged from ` the original epic of Krishna of the island from the enlargements, accretions

and additions made by Vyshampain, Ugrosravas & innumerable other writers' (1991,3). Sri Aurobindo

undertakes a selective translation of the epic, a textual criticism, and defend it against some European `lynx-

eyed theorists' who claim that the Mahabharata is, `a rude ballad epic worked up, doctored and defaced by

those wicked Brahmins; who are made responsible for all the literary and other enormities which have been

discovered by the bushelful, and not by European lynxes alone- in our literature and civilization.'(5). He

becomes all the more aggressive in attacking the educated Indians who have their `own deficiencies in dealing

with Vyasa' as they are partly brought up on `elaborate art of Kalidasa' and partly on `somewhat gaudy,

expensive & meretricious spirit of English poetry. Like Englishmen they are taught to profess a sort of official

admiration for Shakespeare and Milton but with them as with the majority of Englishmen the poets they really

steep themselves in are Shelley, Tennyson & Byron and to a less degree Keats & perhaps Spenser.' For Sri

Aurobindo, the manner of these poets, `lax, voluptuous, artificial, all outward glitter and colour, but inwardly

poor of spirit and wanting in genuine mastery and the true poetical excellence (is) bad school for the

appreciation of such a severe & perfect work as Vyasa's. For Vyasa is the most masculine of writers' (34-35).

The polemical attack on the educated Indian in its satire reminds us of similar attacks by Chiploonkar in some

other issues of Nibandhmala on the English educated reformers. Interestingly, the accusation that the West-

ward looking Western educated elite in India lack enough masculinity to comprehend Vyasa reflects some of

beliefs about gender constructs and their use in the polemics such as these. Sri Aurobindo frequently translated

many portions of the epic during the period between 1893 and 1907. One can see that Sri Aurobindo,

Chiploonkar and R.C Dutt share some of the common cultural concerns that characterize the historical period.

The main concern is to show that that Indians are by no means culturally inferior to the West. RC Dutt remarks

that the ancient Hindus gave the` first systems of true philosophy' and that the epics `their great works of

imagination' will be placed `without hesitation by the side of Homer by critics who survey the world's

literatures from a lofty stand point, and judge impartially of the wares turned out by the hand of man in all
 8

parts of the globe' (332). The thinkers like Sri Aurobindo and Chiploonkar were sharply critical of those

English educated Indians who, overwhelmed by the glitter of the Western culture lost their own sense of

identity. The act of translation becomes an act of assertion of cultural identity in the face of degrading colonial

experience. The comment made by Devy referred earlier that these translation were merely reactionary sounds

interesting when his own critical position comes close to Chiploonkar's or Sri Aurobindo's. His well-known

attacks on the English studies are reminiscent of Sri Aurobindo's attack mentioned above. The idea that

colonial experience resulted in a cultural amnesia goes back to the `renaissance' discourse and indeed one of

very frequently recurring theme in writings till today.

While RC Dutt attempted to efface his own identity as a translator and allow `the ancient poet' to speak

through the transparency of languages, we find Sri Aurobindo directly dealing with the famous translator's

deadlocks of `free' vs. `literal' translation and `fidelity' vs. `betrayal'. He writes in the year 1934, ` A translator

is not necessarily bound to the exact word and letter of the original he chooses; he can make his own poet out

of it if he likes, and that is what is very often don. This is all the more legitimate since we find that literal

translations more completely betray than those that are reasonably free-turning do life into death and poetic

power into poverty and flatness' (1972: 141). Ayyapa Paniker's assertion that `the anxiety of authenticity' did

not haunt the pre-colonial translators and that it has been an obsession ever since becomes quite significant

here (1996:34-45). The whole anxiety of authenticity regarding cultural and national identity is a product of

colonial experience. Indeed, nativism and post-colonial mimicry are the two faces of the same coin of colonial

history. This schizoid character of Indian cultural practice is due to this harrowing experience of colonialism.

Tejaswini Niranjana's remark, " In a post-colonial context the problematic of translation becomes a significant

site for raising questions of representation, power, and historicity. The context is one of contesting and

contested stories attempting to account for, to recount, the asymmetry and inequality of relations between

peoples, races, languages' (1) becomes very vital even in the period of colonial rule. Translation is definitely a

political act. In colonial period, the political context has greatly influenced the theory and practice of

translation. Harish Trivedi has demonstrated how translation of Anatole France's Thais by Premchand was

distinctly a political act in the sense that it selected a text which was not part of the literature of the colonial
 9

power and that it attempted a sort of liberation of Indian literature from the tutelage of the imperially-inducted

master literature, English (407). One can see that translation made by Indians were more of `freedom struggles'

and at the same time they were attempts to overcome their own alienation from what they thought to be `truly

Indian'. Yet, the models that they followed were Indological and Orientalist. Their notion of `truly Indian' was

the Western notion. These contradictions lay at the heart of `renaissance' translation. While it is true that the

modern Indian translators into English especially of pre-modern literature have always sought to overcome

these contradictions, one wonders how far they have succeeded.

Harish Trivedi has termed the types of translations into English, which have pre-colonial texts as source text as

`neo-Orientalist' or `post-orientalist' (1996: 52). Under this category we can include the translations of

translators as different as AK Ramanujan, Barbara Miller Stoller, Wendy Doniger 'O Flatthery and Arun

Kolatkar. Tejaswini Niranjana attacks the Indian translators of bhakti literature like Ramanujan for, `

Attempting to assimilate Saivite poetry to the discourses of Christianity or of a post-Romantic New Criticism,

these translators reproduce some of the nineteenth-century native responses to colonialism. Accepting the

premises of a universalist history, they try to show how the vacanas are always already Christian, or "

modernist," and therefore worthy of the West's attention.'(1992:180). This is a charge that deserves serious

consideration, and even if one has reservation about its bluntness one has to accept the fact that some of the

`renaissance' attitudes do still exist in contemporary translations of bhakti literature into English. One finds a

similar charge leveled against Rabindranath's auto-translation of `Gitanjali' by Mahasweta Sengupa (1996).

She points out giving numerous examples, of how Rabindranath took immense liberties with his own Bengali

originals in order to refashion his Bengali songs to suit the English sensibility. He modified, omitted, and

rewrote his poems in the manner of the Orientalists to cater to his Western audience.

It should be emphasized that in contrast to the case of the earlier generation of writers like Sri Aurobindo or

P.Lal, for whom the source language was chiefly Sanskrit and later on, the modernist bilingual poets like Dilip

Chitre, A.K.Ramanujan, R. Parthashastry, and Arun Kolatkar, translate mainly from their first language. The

focus of these translators has been largely on medieval bhakti literature. Rabindranath Tagore's translation of

Kabir and Sri Aurobindo's translation of Vidyapati are the antecedents of these type of translations. However, a
 10

significant point is that of shifting notion of what is meant by `truly Indian'. In case of the older generations,

Indianness meant pan-Indian Sanskritic heritage and in case of modernists, Indianness means pre-colonial

heritage in modern Indian languages. Translation becomes one of the inevitable and creative contrivances of

giving oneself the sense of belonging and a nationality. Translation is deployed by the bilingual poet translators

as a strategy to de-colonize their souls by translating what is considered as `truly Indian'. A noted poet and

translator P. Lal has made a very significant comment about this strategic function of translation: `I soon

realized that an excessive absorption in the milieu and tradition of English was divorcing me from the values

that I found all round me as an experiencing Indian, so I undertook the translation of Indian-in practice, mostly

Hindu-sacred texts, in the hope that the intimacy that only translation can give would enable me to know better

what the Indian "myth" was, how it invigorated Indian literature, and what values one would pick up from it

that would be of use to me as an " Indian" human being and as an Indian using a so called foreign language,

English, for the purposes of writing poetry. ' (Cited by St. Pierre, 1997:143-144). In this light one can

understand Dilip Chitre's remark, ` I have been working in a haunted shop rattled and shaken by the spirits of

other literatures unknown to my ancestors ...Europe has already haunted my house...I have to build a bridge

within myself between India and Europe or else I become a fragmented person.' (Cited by Devy, 1993:151-

152). The whole notion of building a bridge between one's native ethos and the West is crucial one in

`renaissance' and the postcolonial cultural discourse.

AK Ramanujan had the great ambition to translate non-native reader into a native one as one of the main

motivation behind translation. Yet he too acknowledged that ` Every one's own tradition is not one' birthright;

it has to be earned, repossessed. The old bards earned it by apprenticing themselves to the masters. One

chooses and translates a part of one's past to make it present to oneself and may be to others.'(Cited in

Dharwadkar, 1999:122-123). Translation becomes a strategy to give oneself one's roots.

St. Pierre aptly observes that such an attitude, ` arises out of a desire to ground oneself more fully into the

Indian source culture.' Translation becomes, as it became for the western educated Indian translators in the

time of `renaissance', a strategy to decolonize ones' soul. It becomes a technique for inventing a tradition,

identity and a technique of assertion of that identity. Even today in the context of globalization which has
 11

resulted in cultural colonialism, it becomes a means of resistance. Moreover like `renaissance' translations, it

has contradictions and ambivalence at its core. The search for `true India 'or authentic cultural identity is a

prominent theme of Indian translations into English. That identity could be `Margiya' or `desi', it could be

`brahminical' or folk, it could be considered to be embodied in Sanskritic literature or in the literature of the

bhashas, in the modern Indian languages or tribal languages, the quest for this identity has deeply influenced

the theory and practice of translation in India. As many discursive paradigms of the period termed as

`renaissance' have endured till date, they play a significant role in shaping many attitudes as are reflected in

translation activity till date. This paper traced genealogy of important postures and attitudes behind the

translation of `Indian' literary text into English, focussing on the inconstant notion what is meant by `Indian'.

Whether this continuity is because of cultural colonialism persisting in a different avatar or because the history

of modernity in India cannot be separated from the history of colonialism, or due to both is the question that is

worth contemplating. Lest I be misunderstood, I do not want to convey that I believe that `modernity' in India

is derivative, or subservient. I have only approached the subject from a historical perspective.

REFERENCES

Akho Akha Ni Kavyakrutiyo. Khand I. Chappa. Jesalpura, Shivlal. (ed.). Ahmedabad: Sahitya Sanshodhan
Prakashan, 1995

A.K Singh, (ed.) Translation: Its theory and Practice. New Delhi: Creative Books, 1996

Anuradha Dingwaney, and Carol Maier. (eds.) Between Languages and Cultures: Translation and cross-
cultural Texts. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 1996

Ayyapaa K Paniker, `The Anxiety of Authenticity: Reflections on Literary translations ' in A.K.Singh (ed.)
1996, 36-45

B.N Mukherjee, ` Central Asia including northern Afghanistan' Indian literatures abroad. In S.K.Chatterjee
(ed.) 1978

Bholanath Tiwari, Anuvad Vigyan. Delhi: Shabdakar, 1972

Edward.W. Said, Orientalism. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1978

G.N. Devy, In Another Tongue: Essays on Indian English Literature. Madras: Macmillan India, 1993, 117-152

Harish Trivedi ` India, England, France, A (Post-) Colonial Translational Triangle' in S.Ramakrishna ed., 407

Harish Trivedi. The Politics of Post-Colonial Translation' in AK Singh ed. 1996, 52

 12

Mahasweta Sengupta. `Translation, colonialism, and poetics: Rabindranath Tagore in two worlds' in
Dingwaney and Maier (eds.)

Paul St-Pierre `Translation in a Plurilingual Post Colonial Context: India' in S.Ramakrishna (ed.). 1997,135-
145

RC Dutt, The Ramayana and the Mahabharata: Condensed into English Verse, Dent: London, 1972

SK Chatterjee, (ed.). The Cultural Heritage of India. Vol.V. Calcutta: The Ramkrishna Mission, 1978.

S.Ramakrishna (ed.). Translation and Multilingualism. PostColonial Contexts, Delhi: Pencraft International,
1997.

Sri Aurobindo, Letters on Poetry, Literature and Art, Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry, 1972, 141-142

Sri Aurobindo, On the Mahabharata, Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondichery, 1991

Sunitikumar Pathak, `Tibet, Mangolia, Siberia.' Indian Literatures Abroad. In S.K.Chatterjee (ed.), 1978

Susan Bassnett, Translation Studies. London and NY: Methuen, 1980.

Susan Bassnett and Harish Trivedi.(eds.) Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice. London and NY:
Routledge, 1999

Tejaswini Niranjana, Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Hyderabad:
Orient Longman, 1995

Vinay.Dharwadker, `Postcolonial cosmopolitanism: a note on A.K.Ramanujan's theory and practice of criticism

and translation'. Indian Literature 37(2) (1994): 91-7

Vishnushashtri Chiploonkar ` Bhashantar' Nibandhmala, book 1, and twelfth issue in December 1874

Y D Phadke, VK Chiploonkar, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 1982