K. Srilata - Women's writing, self-respect movement and the politics of feminist translation(1).pdf

(156 KB) Pobierz
Looking for other stories: women's writing, Self-Respect movement and the politics of feminist translations
Inter-AsiaCulturalStudies,Volume3,Number3,2002
Lookingforotherstories:women’swriting,Self-Respect
movementandthepoliticsoffeministtranslations
K.SRILATA
‘So,isyourbookgoingtobecalled WomenWritinginIndiaVol3? ’ 1 someonejoked,while
interviewingmeforthepostoflecturerinEnglishatapremieracademicinstitution.Hewas
referringtomyforthcomingtranslationofwomen’swritingfromtheSelf-Respectmovement,
ananti-castemovementlaunchedbyPeriyarE.V.RamasamiNaickerin1926. 2 ‘Doyouhave
onlywomenwritersinthiscollection ? Can’tamanwritewiththesamedepthofinsightabout
women’slives?JustlookatTagore!Whatissospecialaboutthiswomen’swriting?Amancan
beafeministtoo!’hiscollegue,alsoonthesamepanel,chippedin.
Thepanel’shostilitydisguisedashumourandtheirinvocationofthemalefeministapart,
twootherfactorsstruckmeassignallingsomethingimportant.First,thereseemedtobean
underlyingassumptionthat‘women’swriting’wasthedomainof‘thosefeminists’,notof‘us
folksfromliteraturedepartments’.Second,therewasarefusaltograntliteraryvalueto
women’swriting,evenasitspoliticaledgewassoughttobeaccomodated,passedoffasajoke.
Thiswasaneffectivewayofbrushinguncomfortablequestionsaside,questionsthatmightwell
threatentheveryfabricof‘GreatLiterature’.
Formehowever,thisincidentpushedtotheforegroundtheproblemofdisciplinarybarriers
whichoneassumedhaddiedaquietdeathsometenyearsago,aproblemthatneverthelesshad
continuedtosurfacethroughthedurationofmyprojectatoddmoments,publiclyaswellas
privately.Thedesireto‘slot’,todecideonceandforallwhereapieceofwritingbelongedor
whereitcamefromwas,Idiscovered,verymuchacreatureofthepresent.Wasabooksuch
astheoneIhadbeenworkingon—aneditedtranslationofwomen’swritingfromthe
Self-Respectmovementcalled TheOtherHalfoftheCoconut:WomenWritingSelf-RespectHistory
(Srilataforthcoming)—bestdescribedasaworkoftranslation,acollectionofwomen’swriting
and,therefore,aliterarytextinsomeways,or,asdocumentsofSelf-Respecthistory—
documentswhichwouldsimultaneouslyaddtoandhopefully,alter,existinghistoriesofthe
Self-Respectmovement? 3
Ontheonehand,workingwithintherubricsof‘women’swriting’,‘literature’and
‘translation’imposeditsown,fairlyobviousstructurallimitations.Whiletheinterviewpanel
hadseenmeasaliteraturestudentwhohadgonestrayingintowomen’swritinginsteadof
beingconcernedabout‘realliterature’,publishersandgrant-makingagenciestendedtoslotmy
workasa‘translation’.ThecurrentmarketabilityoftranslatedliteraturesfromregionalIndian
languagesintoEnglish,of‘Indianwriting’mighthavehadsomethingtodowiththis.ButI
couldseehowmyownparticularprojectwasjustnotgoingto Ž tintotherubricof‘Indian
Writing’.Whileofcourseitwasnotincorrecttodescribemeasatranslator,Ididseetherisks
involvedinslottingmyworkasatranslation.Ononeendofthespectrumofcourse,most
peopleconsideredtranslationasanactivitythatwasalow-levelkindofanexercise—amere
questionofsubstitutingonewordforanotherandrequiringnotmuchmorethanaknowledge
oftwolanguages.Evenwherepeoplewerealittlemorewillingtotaketranslationseriously,
asmorethanjustamechanicalact,theystillsawtheprimaryresponsibilityofthetranslatoras
oneofproducingifnotafaithfultranslationbutnecessarilyanaestheticallypleasurabletext
thatwaspalatabletothosereadingitinthe‘target’language.Inotherwords,itwas
ISSN1464-9373Print/ISSN1469-8447Online/02/030437–12Ó2002Taylor&FrancisLtd
DOI:10.1080/1464937022000037543
8141380.001.png
438 K.Srilata
unthinkablethatyoucouldtranslatewithadifferentagendainmind,translate,forinstance,as
afeminist.Thatwouldhavebeensacrilege.Forthen,aesthetics,asde Ž nedbytheliterary
establishment, � ewoutofthewindow.IfoundthatIwassoonmiredindiscussionsonwhether
ornotmytranslationwasafaithfulone.SomeexpertsevensuggestedthatIpublishthe
originaltextsidebysidewiththeEnglishversion.Iimaginedscholarlylookinggentlemenwith
magnifyinglensesporingovermytranslationandmarkingunacceptablewordsorphrasesin
redinkandIshuddered.Myidentityasafeministinterestedinrediscoveringandreinterpret-
ingabodyofwomen’swritingthathadbeenlosttotheworldwasbrushedunceremoniously
underthecarpet.Mymandatewastoproduceagoodtranslation,wordforword(the
assumptionwasthatlanguagewastransparentandtheoriginaltextstableintermsof
meaning).Inorderthattheexpertscoulddouble-checkIhadtofaithfullysubmittheoriginals
aswell!Irealisedthatawordlike‘translation’asitwascommonlyused,hadanicelyneutral,
apoliticaledgetoitespeciallyforpublishers.Inherbook SitingTranslation:History,Post-Struc-
turalismandtheColonialContext ,TejaswiniNiranjana(1992)hasusedBenjamin’sworktoargue
thatthetaskofthetranslatoristorevealtheorginal’sinstability,thefragmentednatureofthe
textitself.Shequestionstheoverwhelmingpreoccupationwiththeissueof Ž delitytothesource
versusreadabilityinthetargetlanguageandpointsoutthatmostscholarsconcernedwith
translationtakeitforgrantedthattheconceptsofreality,knowledgeandrepresentationare
unproblematic.
Toreturntotheanectodotalhowever,whenIinsistedthatmysenseofresponsibilitytothe
originalwasdifferent,thatIwantedtoincludethesetextsintheSelf-Respectcanon,iftherewas
suchathing,toalterexistingSelf-RespecthistoriesthatwerelargelyPeriyar-centric, 4 thatIsaw
mybookasafeministpoliticalinterventioninsomeways,Iwasmetwithblank,uncompre-
hendinglooks.
Thingswereonlyslightlybetterwhenmyworkwasreadbypeoplecomfortablewiththe
ideaof‘women’swriting’.Rightlyorwrongly,thistermstillcarriedwithitastrongsenseof
theliterary.Notallthepiecesinmycollectionwereliteraryinthenarrowsenseoftheterm,
ifby‘literary’wemean‘thatwhichhasacertainaestheticsensibility’.Forinstance,a
considerableportionofthe Ž rstsectionwasdevotedtojournalarticlesandspeeches—
conventionalhistoricalsources,ifyoulike.Therestofthecollectionwascomprisedof Ž ction
andshortstories.ImbuedastheywerewithSelf-RespectpoliticalideologyandEnlightenment
notionsofprogressandliberation,someofthespeechesandessayswhichItranslatedsuchas
Jayasekari’s‘WomenintheSocialistWorld’,Neelavathi’s‘Rituals’,‘IsWidowhoodaQuestion
ofFate?’,‘WillEducatedWomenTaketheInitiative?’,‘IstheBlissofFreedomNotForUs?’and
‘WomenFolkandSelf-RespectPrinciples’,Maragathavalli’s‘TheProgressofWomen’,‘The
Women’sMovement’and‘TheSufferingsoftheAdidravidas’lackedthelightnessoftouch
whichcharacterisedthemore‘literary’pieces—Kamalakshi’s‘WhatisinStoreForUs?’and
‘TheRitualofGarudaSevai’,Janaki’s‘TheSkiesWon’tBringForthRain’,‘HalfaCoconut’,‘A
BundleofGrass’and‘WhichGrewBigger—theRingortheBody’.Consider,forinstance,the
followingpassagefromanautobiographicalpiecetitled‘ ThengaiMoodi ’(HalfaCoconut)by
Janaki:
Subbammal,myneighbourmusthavebeenabouttwentyeight.Iwasayoungbrideof
nineteen.Ihadjoinedmyhusbandsomesixmonthsago.Ihadnomother-in-law.
Subbammalhadkeptmeconstantcompanyinmynewhome.Thetwoofuswould
Ž nishourchoresandthensitdowntogethertoweavebasketsforourbetelleaves.
Sometimes,wewouldcleanourriceandthepulsestogether.Butthereweredayswhen
wewouldnotdoverymuch—justsitaroundexchanginggossip.Ononesuchday,we
heardthesoundofcrackersgoingoffatadistance.( Kumaran ,July–August1930,Vol.
9,No.1)
Lookingforotherstories 439
Theinformaltoneofthepieceandthefactthatthewriterdrawsontheexperientiallendsa
certainintimacytothework.Thisintimacygiveswaytohard-hittingargumentsanddebatein
TrichiNeelavathi’s‘ VidhavaigallAvaduThalaividiya ?’(Iswidowhoodaquestionoffate?)asthe
extractbelowshows:
Indiaisnotoriousforadvocatingonejusticeformenandanotherforwomen.Our
orthodoxfellowmen,itappears,arecraftyataccordingdifferentialtreatmenttothe
sexes.Womenaredeemedlowlyatbirth.Itisnotverysurprisingtherefore,thatthelaw
treatsthemwithcontempt.Ourpeopleareasobsessedwith‘fate’astheyarewithgods
andtemples.Theyclaimthateverythinghappensinaccordancewiththedictatesof
one’s‘talaividhi’orfate,thatnothingcanhappencontrarytothisforce,thatfatewill
overridewhateverwe,asintelligentbeingsmightattempttodo.Thisoneword
‘talaividhi’hasruinedmanyalife.IftheBrahminsprotest,‘Religionhasbeenattacked!’
attheslightesthintoftrouble,ourpeopleinvoke‘fate’foreverything.Thisthingcalled
fatehasforcedusintoslavery.AsSelf-Respecters,wehaveto Ž ghtthisparticular
obsessionbeforetacklinganyother.Ourwomenarelabelledwidowsandforcedtosit
inacornerwhentheylosetheirhusbands.Theydonotgettoeattastyfood.Theyare
notallowedtoweargoodclothes.Theyarenotevenpermittedtoenjoythebreeze!
Theirlivesarecompletelycircumscribed.Thereislittlespaceforhappinessorpleasure
intheirlives.Griefandyearning,thatistheirlotatalltimes!Theirliveshaveahellish
qualityaboutthem.Theyareforcedtohidetheirfacesfromtheworld.Allaroundthem
isgaietyandhappiness.Buttheycannotpartakeofeither.(Neelavathi1930)
Inundertakingaprojectofthiskind,aprojectwhichinvolvedthemappingofwomen’s
political,literaryandpersonalhistoriesinrelationtotheSelf-Respectmovement—Ihadto
dealwithessentially‘disparate’sources.Ifjournalsbelongedtothedustyarchivessobeloved
ofhistorians,novelsbelongedtomyinterviewpanelinterrogators.LocatedasIwasinthe
disciplineofliterature,myownpersonalsenseofadventurecamefrompokingaboutinthe
archives.Yet,Iunderstoodequallytheimportanceoftheliteraryprojectforthehistorical
project—thenecessityofreadingtheliteraryforproducingafeministhistoryofthe
Self-Respectmovement.
DespiteMarxist,feministandpost-structuralistcritiquesoftheliterarycanonandofthe
notionofliterarinessitself,Idiscoveredthata‘translator’acquiredsomemeasureofre-
spectabilityonlyifheorshetranslatedwhatwasconventionallyunderstoodtobeliterary.
Translationitselfasa Ž eldisclaimedbythedisciplineofliterature.Therefore,itcarriesthe
burdenofhavingtodealwiththeliterary.Asonemalecriticputit,‘Whatisthepointof
translatinganythingifitisnotbeautiful?Someofthepiecesinyourcollectionhavetoomany
roughedges.’ 5 Myloyalty,however,wasnotsomuchtothenarrowlyde Ž neddisciplinary
boundariesof‘literature’buttoSelf-Respecthistoryandtoafeministshapingofwomen’s
writing.Forme,thesetextsweresomeofthemissingpiecesinthepuzzleofSelf-Respect
history.
Self-Respectliteraturehadalwaysstakedforitselfaspecialterritory.First,thebulkof
Self-RespectwritingappearedinSelf-Respectjournalslike KudiArasu (TheRepublic), Puratchi
(Revolution)and Kumaran .Thegenreofthejournalisinitselfseenasoutsidetheambitof
respectableliteraryproduction.Inthecaseofthenon-BrahminSelf-Respectjournal,sucha
perceptioniscompoundedbythenotionthatitisa‘party’or‘propaganda’journal.Self-Respect
journalswerealsosigni Ž cantlydifferentfromothermainstreamjournalsandnewspapersofthe
time.Unlikeupper-castejournalsofthetimelike Sudesamitran ,whicharemarkedas‘main-
stream’and‘nationalist’,theSelf-Respectjournalismarkedas‘separatist’.Whatwehaveto
bearinmindisthatthedifferencesbetweenthetwokindsofjournals—mainstreamand
440 K.Srilata
Self-Respectariseoutofacarefullyconsideredanddeliberatefashioningofthelatterby
Self-RespectleaderslikePeriyar.
Oneofthemostsigni Ž cantthrustsoftheSouthIndianDravidianmovement,especiallyin
itsSelf-Respectphase,wasthecreationofaspeci Ž callyTamilDravidianpressasacounterto
theupper-castenationalist‘mainstream’presstowhichnewspaperssuchas Sudesamitran and
TheHindu belonged.Thecreationofanon-Brahminpresswaspartofamuchlargerpolitical
processbywhichanon-Brahmin‘Tamil’identitywasfashioned.Thisnewidentityrestednot
merelyonlanguagebutalsoonculture,religionandindigenousmedicine.Withthelaunchof
anumberofSelf-Respectjournals, KudiArasu (1925)and Puratchi (1933)beingamongthemost
prominent,theSelf-Respectmovementcreatedanon-Brahminpublicsphereforthe Ž rsttime.
Thiswasindexedbythesigni Ž cantlylargenumbersofnon-Brahminandoften,speci Ž cally
Self-Respectjournalswhichwerepublishedatthetime.PeriyarlauchedtheTamilweekly Kudi
Arasu on2May1925,atErode.Thisweeklywasspeci Ž callydirectedatthosenon-Brahmin
groupswhichhadnotbeenreachedbytheJusticeparty’s Dravidan .Eventhough KudiArasu
wasprimarilyajournaloftheSelf-Respectmovement,italsogaveprominencetotheJustice
Party’snews.Signi Ž cantly,thereleaseofthisweeklycoincidedwiththebirthoftheSelf-Re-
spectmovement.By1925,theSelf-RespectleaderPeriyarhadbeguntofeeltheneedfora
journalwhichwouldre � ecttheinterestsofthenon-Brahminpeoples.Hewrites:
Despitethefactthatourlandhassomanygreatandintelligentpeople,theyremain
unknowntothepublic.ThisisbecauseTamilianslackajournalthatiseffectiveand
truthful.EvenMahatmaGandhihastoaskaBrahminorreadaBrahminjournalifhe
wantstolearnaboutthegreatnessofTamilians.…Whatcanwesayaboutasituation
inwhichthemajoritycommunityofnon-Brahminshasnomeansbywhichtocommuni-
cateitsnewsandideas?(Periyar1925)
Recognizingthelackofanon-Brahminjournalwhichwouldeffectivelyvoicetheinterestsof
non-Brahmins,PeriyarsoughttotransformtheTamiljournalscenebywrestingsomeofthe
controlawayfromtheupper-casteswhocontrolledthemajorportionofthepressintheearly
partofthetwentiethcentury.Systematicallythen,henurturedtheSelf-Respect,non-Brahmin
journals,positioningthem visa`vis ‘Brahmin’journalswhichheconstructedaseithermisrepre-
sentingorotherwiseinadequatetotheneedsoftheDravidianpeople.Thisdeliberatecreation
ofaspacefornon-Brahminliterature,thisinsistencethatnon-Brahminliteraturehadtore � ect
theconcernsofthenon-Brahmincommunities,necessitatedtheuseofdifferentgenresof
writingsuchastheessayandtheautobiography.Often,thenewwritingthatemergedwas
totallycontrarytotheconventionalliteraryaesthetic.Ifthisprocesswasinevitableasfaras
journalliteratureisconcerned,itisalmostequallyapparentinatextlikeMoovalurRamarathi-
nammal’s(1936) DasigalMosavalai —anovelwhereSelf-Respectpropagandaisinterwoven
withthe Ž ctive. 6
If,asfeminists,wewishtounderstandSelf-Respecthistorydifferently,toviewitthrough
theeyesofwomenwhowerecloselyidenti Ž edwiththepoliticsofthemovement,conventional
historiesandthesubstantialbodyofworkbyPeriyarwillsimplynotsuf Ž ce.Thesenarratives
willneverquitecapturethe‘structuresoffeeling’whichcharacterisethelivesofwomen
self-respectersduringthoseexciting,turbulentyears. 7 Thisanthologygrewoutofmygradual
recognitionthatwecompletelylackthematerialbasisasitwereforaprojectthatissimply
beggingtobedone:thewritingofa women’s historyoftheSelf-Respectmovement.By
‘women’shistory’,Imeanahistorywhichprovidesafullerandmoremeaningfulaccountof
theparticipationofwomenintheSelf-Respectmovement,enablingintheprocess,aricherand
perhapsaltogetherdifferentunderstandingofitsgenderpolitics.Thesetranslationsthenwere
motivatedbyadesiretomapthecriticalvoicesofwomenSelf-Respecters,voicesthathave
remainedunheardwithinthecontextofpoliticalaswellasscholarlyspacesoverwhichthe
Lookingforotherstories 441
Ž gureofPeriyarhasloomedsolarge.Suchamappingiscrucial,Ibelieve,ifwewishto
understandthecomplexitiesofwomen’sagencyinthemovement.Equallycrucial,however,is
acritiqueofthewaysinwhichSelf-Respecthistorieshavebeenwritten(mostlywithan
exclusivefocusonPeriyar’sthought,workandvision),ofthemannerinwhichPeriyarhimself
isreadandrepresented.
Whiletranslationandarchivalwork,Ibelieve,iscentraltothefeministenterpriseof
retrievingwomen’swork,translatingasafeministhasalsomeanttranslatingwithaneyetothe
texts’quirksandtoitslayeredsub-texts.Thishasoftenyieldedunexpectedresultssothatoften
atextthatIhadpickedbecauseitwasaSelf-Respecttextturnedouttohaveotheragendas.It
isonesuchtextthatIwouldliketoexaminehere.
Givenitsstereotypicalportrayalofthe devadasis as‘fallen’and‘evil’women,Moovalur
Ramamrithammal’s DasigalMosavalai or TheDasis’sWickedSnares publishedin1936ismost
oftenreadasastraight-forwardSelf-Respecttextwithaclearpoliticalagenda.Muchofthe
impetusforthenovelcomesfromMoovalur’sownstanceinfavouroftheabolitionofthe
devadasi system.Beforeweproceed,therefore,itmightbeinstructivetolookatthehistoryof
the devadasi abolitionbill.In1913,thecolonialgovernmenthadproposedabilltoabolishthe
devadasi system.Thisbill,however,wasrejectedonthegroundsthatnoclearguidelineshad
beenprovidedtorehabilitateformerdevadasis.In1922,HariSinghGourresurrectedthis
pre-wardebateonchangingthepenalcodetopunishpeoplewhoemployedminorgirls
asprostitutesundertheguiseofreligiouspractice.TheCentralLegislativeAssemblythen
passedtheGovernmentofIndiaAct18of1924.Thisact,whichmainlyaffectedMadrasand
Bombay,protectedgirlsundertheageof18fromemploymentasprostitutesintemplesif
itwereascertainedthattheywerenotreligiousdancers.Anotherbillwhichsoughtto raise the
ageoftemple-dedication( pottukattu ceremony)forgirlsfromthedevadasicommunitywas
introducedintheCentralLegislature.Thisbillbecamelawin1925.InNovember1927,
MuthulakshmiReddirecommendedintheMadrasLegislaturethatthecustomofservingthe
templesbeabolishedoutright.Herbillpertainedonlytothosedevadasiswhoheld inams —
giftsoflandbyformerkingseitherintheformofoutrightownershipwithrightstorevenues,
orasalienatedlandrevenues.Inreturnforthese inams ,devadasiswererequiredtoperform
certainservicestothetempleswhichemployedthem.Reddi’sbillfreedthese inam -holding
devadasisofthestipulationoftempleservicewhilepermittingthemaccesstolandrevenues.
Reddifoundhoweverthatsuchabill,inpertainingonlyto inam -holdingdevadasis,didnot
coverthosedevadasicommunitieswhichnolongerservedtemplesandmerelypractised
prostitution.WhilethisbillwaspassedastheMadrasHinduReligiousEndowmentsActV
in1929,Reddialsointroducedanotherbillinthesameyearthatsoughttocompletely
abolish pottukattu (theceremonybywhichgirlswererituallydedicatedtoGodandwhich,
Reddibelieved,onlyluredgirlstoprostitution).TheBilltoPreventtheDedicationofWomen
toHinduTemplesinthePresidencyofMadraswasopposedbymanyorthodoxBrahmins
andseniorCongressmensuchasS.Satyamurthy.TheJusticitesdidnotbackitwholeheartedly
either.ThosewhoopposeditarguedthatthebillwentagainstthespiritoftheSastras.
PeriyardefendedthebillandpointedoutthattheSastrashadalreadybeendishonouredwhen
thelawraisingtheageoftemplededicationwaspassed.Accordingtothesastras, pottukattu
wasanywaynotpermittedforwomenwhohadattainedpuberty.TheSelf-Respecterscon-
demnedthedevadasisystemontwogrounds:one,thatthedasiswereforcedtoleaddegrading
livesofsexualslaveryandthatthesystemencouragedimmoralbehaviouronthepartof
manypeopleand,two,thatthesystemwasaresultofanupper-caste,Brahminicalpatriarchy
whichcondemnedaparticularnon-Brahmincastetoprostitution.WhilePeriyarhimselfwas
notprescriptiveaboutfemalemoralityandchastity(infact,hearguedagainstsocialdictates
whichemphasisedtheimportanceofchastityinwomenwhileexcusinganyamountof
immoralityinmen),manyotherswhowereinfavourofabolishingthe devadasi system
(MoovalurRamamrithammalwasoneamongthem)expressedtheirhorroratthelicentiousness

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin