Analysing
Russian Translation of Munshi Premchand’s “Shatranj ke Khiladi”
-A. Charumati Ramdas
XX
Century witnessed vigorous growth of translation activity in the erstwhile
Soviet Union. Especially after the Second World War, almost all famous Russian and
Soviet writers like Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Gorky, Sholokhov,
Rasputin, Ch. Aitmatov etc. were translated into all major Indian languages.
Similarly, Indian stalwarts like Rabindranath Tagore, Munshi Premchand,
Upendranath Ashk, Sadat Hasan Manto, Bhishma Sahni and many others were translated
into Russian. Even the Indian classics – Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagwad Gita
have been translated into Russian.
While
the translations of Russian works were done by the Indians – mostly through
English – those of Indian works were done by the Russians.
The
text under question is taken from the collection of translations of Munshi
Premchand’s short stories, published by Khudozhestvennaya Literatura,
Leningrad, in 1979 to mark the birth centenary of the great Indian writer. The
collection consists of translations of one short novel, 26 stories and 5 essays
on literature. The translations were done from Hindi and Urdu into Russian by
Ms N.Tolstaya, D.Goldman, N.Gurov, V.Balin, S.Serebriany, M.Salganik.
Yu.Lavrienko. The strory under consideration ‘Shatranj ke Khiladi’, was
translated from Hindi into Russian by N.Tolstaya.
An
attempt is made here to see how faithful the translation is to the source text
– stylistically and linguistically, and how the culture-specific items are
translated into Russian.
But
before answering the question ‘whether it is a correct translation’, let us see
‘for whom’ as Nida asks, is this translation and also ‘by whom’ it is done?
The
answer to the first question is obvious : the translation was done for Russian
readers with a view to acquainting them with the works of the famous Indian writer
and simultaneously presenting glimpses of the socio-political and cultural life
of pre-1857 India, to be precise – of Lucknow of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah.
Do
the readers get the correct message; does the translation reflect the subtle
nuances of the source text? Has the translator succeeded in ‘reproducing in
receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message
in terms of meaning and in terms of style? (Nida). We will try to find answers
these questions by undertaking a contrastive analysis of the source text and the
target text.
To
begin with, let me introduce the translator. The translator, Ms N.Tolstaya, is
a Russian, for whom the source text is either L2 or L3, while the target
language, i.e. Russian, is her mother tongue, i.e. L1. Quite possibly Tolstaya
must have spent some time in India and must have been familiar with the life of
modern Indian cities – but not, however, with the life style of Lucknow, that
too during Wajid Ali Shah’s reign, where gaiety was at its peak.
Let
us have a glimpse of the story. It was written in 1924. With the expanding
influence of the East India Company in the backdrop, Shatranj ke
Khiladi reflects the self-centered behavior of Lucknowites and their
indifferent behavior towards the burning socio-political problems of the
country.
Mir
and Mirza are Zamindars and are so fond of playing chess that they don’t bother
at all about their families, about their wives, about their estates, about the
impending danger of the East India Company gobbling up the kingdom of Lucknow.
The ruler, Wajid Ali Shah, equally an idler, used to indulge only in fun,
frolic, gay-making … there was just no money left in the state treasury, so he
used to borrow money from the East India Company and spend it pleasures of
life, merry making, womanizing etc.
When
Mir and Mirza are forced to play chess outside their houses, they chose to play
in the ruins of a mosque on the other bank of the river Gomti. Fear of being
called into the ranks of Army prevents them from moving freely in Lucknow…and
hence they used to start very early in the morning to the ruined mosque and
come back only after sunset. During the game, they would indulge in all sorts
of clever tricks, argue a lot, but all this did not prevent them from
continuing the game day after day.
One
afternoon they see the British army marching towards Lucknow, but they do not
bother to think why the army was heading towards Lucknow. After a few hours the
army returns with Wajid Ali Shah, who is taken captive…even then they continue
playing chess.
After
some time an argument erupts between the two and both of them start fighting
with their swords and ultimately kill each other. Premchand concludes the story
by commenting that though these chess players did not bother to save the honour
of their Nawab, they sacrificed their lives for the sake of kings of chess.
Beautiful
short story with lots of satirical expressions, local dialect, proverbs,
colloquial expressions; and to convey the flavor of the original was not all
that easy. Dialogues, which are abundantly used, play an important role in the
development of the plot, in depicting the characters of various persons,
expressing writer’s own assessment of situation. It is here that the translator
faces a big challenge.
The
story is divided into four parts. The first part begins with the description of
socio-political atmosphere of Lucknow, of Mir Sahib and Mirza spending their
time in playing chess, of Mir’s wife getting angry at him and throwing the chess
coins out of drawing room. The scene then shifts to Mirza’s house in part II of
the story, which ends with the ouster of the two players to the ruins of
Lucknow across Gomti. In part IV the two layers witness Nawab Wajid Ali Shah’s
arrest and remain indifferent, but they kill each other in order to save their
own prestige.
Let
us now have a look at the target text:
The
title of the Russian text is Игроки в Шахматы – an
exact translation of the source text. But the very first paragraph has proved
problematic to the translator. The story begins with the sentence वाजिद अली शाह का
समय था, a very short sentence translated like this:
Это случилось в городе Лакхнау , столице Аудха, во времена наваба Ваджид Али Шаха, which
means “It happened in the city of Lucknow, capital of Audh, during the time of
Wajid Ali Shah”. As we can see there is neither any mention of Lucknow, nor
given any characteristic of Lucknow in the Source Text. “It happened…” is also
extra.
The
following two sentences are लखनऊ विलासिता के रंग में डूबा था.
छोटे-बड़े, अमीर-गरीब सभी विलासिता में डूबे हुए थे.
In
the target text these two sentences are rendered as:
В ту пору горожанами владела одна страсть – все от мала
до велика, бедняк и богач, наперегонки спешили насладиться жизню, ощутить её
пряный вкус, забыться в пьяном угаре развлечений.
If translated back into Hindi the target
text would read as:
उस समय नागरिकों पर हवस सवार थी: सभी, छोटे से बड़े, गरीब और अमीर लगातार
जीवन का आनन्द उठाने के लिए, उसकी लज़्ज़त चखने के लिए मनबहलाव के मद में खो जाने को
तत्पर थे.
It is easily seen that there is no trace of
ST, it has been completely changed. The translator could not find a word for विलासिता,
which is not simply मनबहलाव/मनोरंजन.
The next sentence is कोई नृत्य और गान
की मजलिस सजाता था, तो कोई अफ़ीम की पीनक ही में मज़े लेता था.
Target text renders it as: одни развлекались на пирушках с певицами и танцовщицами,
другие находили удовольствие в том, чтобы одурманить себя опиумом; дни былы до
краев заполнены увеселениями и забавами.
This means “ Some enjoyed get-togethers
with singers and dancers, others found happiness in getting intoxicated by
opium; the days were filled to the brim with fun and amusement.” We
can see that an extra sentences has been added to the ST. Moreover the expression
fun and amusement have diluted the sense of the sentence in ST.
This avocation was related to विलासिता, which
is a negative quality, while amusement refers to the plain, harmless
enjoyment without a negative connotation attached to it.
The next sentence of the TT is made even
more complicated and taken far away from the ST:
राजकर्मचारी विषय-वासना में, कविगण प्रेम और विरह के वर्णन में, कारीगर
कलाबत्तू और चिकन बनाने में, व्यवसायी सुरमे, इत्र, मिस्सी और उबटन का रोज़गार करने
में व्यस्त थे.
As we can see there is only one predicate
in the sentence, which combines the activities of four subjects and that is व्यस्त थे.
But the target text is rendered as:
Правительственные
чиновники изобретали доседь никому не ведомые празднества, поэты изощрялись в
сочинении упоительных любовных стихов, ремесленники – кустары ткали серебряную
и золотую парчу, расшивали пёстрыми шёлками дорогие тонкие ткани, парфюмеры
приготовили сурьму для подкрашивания век, ароматические мази и притирания.
Translated back into ST this sentence would
read as:
राजकर्मचारी निठल्लेपन के ऐसे आविष्कार करते जो अब तक किसी को ज्ञात न
थे, कवि प्यार भरी दिलकश कविताएँ करने में व्यस्त थे, कारीगर – चाँदी और सोने के
तार कातते, चटख रेशमी धागों से महंगे पतले कपड़े पर कढ़ाई करते, इत्रसाज़ों ने पलकों
को रंगने के लिए सुरमा बनाया, सुगन्धित उबटन और मिस्सी बनाई.
We can see that many changes have taken
place in this sentence in the Target Text:
·
विषय वासना is страсть which
is rendered as ‘invented various hitherto unknown forms of idleness;
·
कारीगर has been rendered
by two synonymous nouns ремесленники
– кустары.
Any one of them would have been sufficient. But कलाबत्तू और चिकन
are not rendered by a single noun each, but the translator has explained the
meaning of both these words there itself. Retaining these culture specific
words as they are and explaining them in the footnotes would have been better.
Same is the case with सुरमा – its function is
also described.
·
The verb приготовили means
prepared once, while here the sense indicates repeated action. Hence the use of
imperfective приготавливали
would have been better.
A little later, there is a sentence
describing the game of chess – the opinion of the servants.
बड़ा मनहूस खेल है. घर को तबाह कर देता है. ख़ुदा न करे, किसी को इसकी चाट
पड़े; आदमी दीन-दुनिया किसी के काम का नहीं रहता; न घर का, न घाट का; बुरा रोग है.
It is translated as Этой мерзкой игры, которая только губит
людей, избави господи к ней приохотиться: привяжется, что болезнь заразная,
проку от такого человека никакого – и сам потонет и других потопит!
Here मनहूस खेल is rendered as мерзкая игра which
means नीच (mean) – and not मनहूस.
मनहूस is one that brings bad luck. Instead of घर को तबाह कर देता
है Tolstaya has written которая только губит людей (which
only ruins people – जो लोगों को सिर्फ बरबाद करता है.) The
last part of the sentence too is problematic. избави господи… which,
if translated back into Hindi would read as भगवान उसकी लत से
बचाए: छूत की बीमारी की तरह चिपक जाएगा, ऐसे आदमी का कोई फ़ायदा नहीं है, ख़ुद भी
डूबेगा और दूसरों को भी डुबाएगा!
न घर का न घाट का has been translated as ख़ुद भी डूबेगा और
दूसरों को भी डुबाएगा! – which is misinformation about the
text. Premchand does not call chess – a contagious disease, and I feel that
proverb is translated only because of this छूत की बीमारी.
Now and then the translator has been
rendering additional (but not out of context) information e.g. मिर्ज़ा की बेगम को इससे
इतना द्वेष था... is translated as супруга Мирзи до того ненавидела эту богопротивную
игру!
Instead of इससे Tolstaya
has used the word богопротивный,
which means opposed to God or ‘atheist’; better she
could have rendered it as её.
When Mirza’s wife gets angry that Mirza is
not coming for lunch in spite of her repeated appeals, she tells the servant ले जाकर खाना सिर
पर पटक दो.
In the target text this sentence has become
иди,
сунь
ему
еду
под
нос
-जाओ, खाना नाक में घुसेड़ आओ
– which are not equivalent. Further, when the servant comes to Mirza, the
situation is like this - लौंड़ी गई तो मिर्ज़ा ने कहा – चल, अभी आते हैं.
This sentence describes an action (a
dialogue) taking place between Mirza and the maid servant. The target text renders it as Девушка ушла, а вернувшись доложила:
Господин просил передать, что сейчас придёт.
Back into Hindi the situation would become like this लड़की गई और वापस आकर बोली: साहब ने यह अर्ज़ करने
को कहा है कि अभी आएँगे.
As we can see, the direct speech has been
converted into the indirect speech here, and also the scene of action is
shifted to that between the servant maid and Mirza’s wife.
The next sentence is that of Mirza’s wife
getting headache and Mirza not going to the doctor in spite of her repeated
pleas. Mirza comments, क्या ऐसा दम लबों पर है? It
is a metaphoric expression which means “is she dying? Is she about to die?” but
in Russian this is rendered as Ну вот, приспичило ей which
would mean “Here, she is in a mood!” (लो, उनको तलब आ गई) which
is changing the entire meaning and scenario of that moment. When Mir advises
him to go to the doctor, Mirza who was about to check-mate to Mir in just two
moves retorts, “जी हाँ, चला क्यों न जाऊँ! दो किश्तों में आपकी
मात होती है.
There is irony in this sentence (Yes, why
should not I go!) which is expressed by exclamation mark. This sentence is
connected with the following sentence दो किश्तों में आपकी मात होती है.
Read together, these sentence convey so
many meanings: “In just two moves you are going to be checkmated.” So Mirza is
suggesting that Mir would want him to leave, so that either the game is
disrupted or he gets a chance to meddle with the coins (which Mirza always
suspected of Mir). But in the Target Text the sentence reads as Разве я отказываюсь? Вот только поставлю вам мат...
(Am I refusing? Let me first defeat you – क्या मैं इनकार कर
रहा हूँ? बस, आपको मात दे दूँ...)
The whole pinch, the whole irony is lost
and the meaning has also changed. Further, Mirza says, वह चाल सोची है कि
आपके मुहरे धरे रहें और मात हो जाए.
But it has been translated as Ваш король падет первым под ударом моего ферзя (आपका राजा पहले
गिरेगा मेरी रानी के वार से.)
Obviously the target text is far away from
the source text.
Mir further tells Mirza आप जाकर सुन आइए (Go
and listen!) is translated as Поспешите за лекарством (Go rush for the
medicine!). We can see that this sentence has no connection with the source
text.
The fight between Mirza and his wife is at
its peak. Begum says जाने क्यों नहीं देते, मेरा ही खून पिए, जो उसे
रोके. अच्छा, उसे रोका, मुझे रोको तो जानूँ? And Mirza retorts -
मेरी ही मैयत देखे, जो उधर जाए.
Beautiful metaphorical sentences with a
fine touch of colloquial. It is very difficult to translate them. Let us see
how Tolstaya has tackled with them: Ах, вы её не пускаете? Вы мне назло делаете? Извести меня решили, не иначе! Извольте,
Я сама пойду! Translated back into Hindi this would read as आह, तुम उसे जाने न दोगे? तुम मेरा नुकसान कर रहे
हो? मुझे सताने का इरादा है, और क्या! लो, मैं ख़ुद ही जाऊँगी! Again just no connection
between the source text and target text. Mirza’s answer to Begum is also
translated in an absurd way Если не послушаешь меня, клянусь, живым меня больше не увидишь! (अगर मेरी बात न
मानी, तो कसम खाता हूँ कि मुझे ज़िन्दा न पाओगी).
The translation is full of such examples.
It is not possible to discuss all of them here, but the impression that a Russian
reader gets is not what a reader of the source text would get. It looks more
like a ‘story-telling’ rather than a translation.
The aim here is not to point out the
defects of the translation. May be there were certain compulsions or other reasons
which resulted in the present outcome. The exercise of introducing Premchand to
Russian readers has definitely not achieved its goal.
It would be better to take up the project
again and do full justice to the great Indian writer.
********
