আত্মজা ও একটি করবী গাছ

Evaluation of the Translation
The Daughter and the Oleander
(আত্মজা ও একটি করবী গাছ)
Kalpana Bhardhan’s translation of
Hasan Azizul Huq’s “ আত্মজা ও
একটি করবী গাছ” (The Daughter
and the Oleander) maintains a
good “readability” at the expense
of “authenticity”. In this translation
the translator does not try to
“foreignize” her work since she
attempts to “domesticate” the
source text. In doing so, though
she succeeds in tracing the flat
course of the original, she
sacrifices the aesthetic (or
rhetoric) beauty subtly present in
it. In this consideration, the role of
the translator, here, is not that of a
person who surrenders himself or
herself completely to the original
and feels the urge to translate it
as the indication of love, but of a
person who tries to implement his
or her ideology in the translation.
The translator takes all sort of
freedom to make her product
palatable to her “target audience”.
She carelessly or intentionally
exercises omission, addition,
misplacement and modification in
her translation. This evaluation is
an attempt to dissect all these
activities at word, phrase, sentence
and rhetoric levels. To avoid
unnecessary details and the
monotony of repetition, the focus
of this evaluation has been set on
some general processes and
elements that shape this particular
act of translation.
From the very beginning, the
translator reveals her tendency of
paraphrasing or explaining most of
the difficult or unique expression
of the original so that her readers
understand everything without a
second thought. This tendency
spoils the preciseness and
intensity of the original. The
phrase “শীতকাল” in the first line
of the first paragraph is translated
as “winter night”. Apparently this
choice of word has no problem.
But a close study reveals the
intention of the translator. The
addition of “night” is an attempt to
clarify the setting of the story. The
translator tries to preset the image
of night in the mind of the readers
from the very beginning while the
author develops the image
throughout his description. Thus
the translation evokes a little
thought since the readers are
provided with extra information
which should have been
discovered after a close study.
However, the translator continues
giving her readers extra
information. In the same line of the
first paragraph, Huq allots no
words for the moon other than
“ফুটে আছে নারকেল গাছের মাথায়”.
But Kalpana invents “a lifeless
cold bloom above the fronds of the
coconut tree”. The second
sentence of the paragraph
“বাতাসে একটা বড় কলার
পাতা একবার বুক দেখায় একবার পিঠ
দেখায়” wonderfully personifies a
large banana leaf. But “In the
slight wind, a large banana leaf
turns slowly, heavily, showing its
topside and its underside, back
and forth” spoils the art of the
beautiful image. Moreover, it adds
something explanatory to the
translation. Again, the utter
darkness has been personified in
the expression “অন্ধকার-ভূত
অন্ধকার কেঁপে কেঁপে ওঠে”. It is
translated as “ The sudden noise
seems to send a shiver in the
ghostly patches of darkness in the
deserted cold night”. Here, “seem”
and some other explanatory words
weaken the poetic effect of the
original. The translator, throughout
the translation, shows this kind of
tendency.
The division of the first paragraph
into four separate parts is
unnecessary. The first paragraph
of the source text is the setting of
the short story. It presents us a
generalized description of a village
and its environment seen at winter
night. The translator should have
maintained a single paragraph like
the original one.
The beginning of the third
paragraph in translation sees
Inam, one of the three characters
of the story, walking “up the bridge
over the still water”. But the
source paragraph starts showing
Inam’s presence on the bridge
from where he tries to get a picture
of his face reflected on water. The
figurative action of a branch of the
jackfruit tree(কাঁঠালগাছের
পুবদিকের ডাল হাত
নাড়িয়ে ডাকতেই থাকে বিচ্ছিরি)
is also absent in the translation.
The translator divides the fourth
paragraph into eight small ones.
Since there is a number of
dialogues between the characters,
introducing two paragraphs (one
for description, other for dialogue)
would have been better. It is not
too significant a matter. The
interesting thing of this paragraph
is the translator’s failure to convey
the exact geographical picture
present in the original. Here,“বিল”
is translated as “dry river” which
offer a misleading picture. Instead
of “dry river” “marshland” or
“swampland” is close to the
meaning of “বিল”. Again, the
translation of the expression
“বিনিয়ে বিনিয়ে” is omitted. But
it is a good idiomatic expression of
the original. The next line “আর
আশ্চর্য একটা পাখিও ডাকছিলনা” is
misinterpreted as “strangely, it
doesn’t seem to disturb any of the
birds sleeping in the trees…” (“it”
refers to Konika’s song)
The translation of the fifth
paragraph also fails to uphold the
vivid description of the original.
“ঝপ করে মাছ লাফিয়ে উঠল
কাজীদের পুকুরে আর বেড়ার ফাঁক
দিয়ে দেখা গেল খা-দের
বাড়িতে ধান সেদ্ধ হচ্ছে উঠোনে” is
broken into two separate
sentences. But the translator does
not maintain authenticity. In the
first part the fish is the agent of
the action and the second part is
passive. The translator introduces
“they” as the subject of both parts
and adds “pass”, “hear and “see”
as the verb of the subject. This
oversimplification spoils the
appeal of the original. The
domestication of the translator
continues. In the translation of the
sentence “নাকে ধুলো লাগতেই রূখু
গন্ধ পাওয়া যায়”, the translator
uses “Inam” as the agent of the
action “smell”. But smelling of
dust might be felt by any of the
characters. There is no indication
in the original that this action
brings back the past memory of
Inam. But the translator translates
“ইনামের বিকালের কথা মনে পড়ে”
as “It brings back the memory of
the afternoon”. The word “ফিঙে”
present in Inam’s flashback is
loosely translated as “the little
birds” which does not specify the
bird narrated in the original. The
phrase “black drongo” might have
been used instead. “ফিঙে” itself
can be used in Italized letters like
neem, kash, jaam, loochi etc.
Long sentences in the translation
of the sixth paragraph interrupt the
poetic flow of the source text. The
story of the old woman in
Chadmoni’s house loses its track
because of the choice of a long
and complex sentence. Small
sentences could have conveyed
the exact flow of the original. The
last clause of the paragraph is
mistranslated by the use of the
pharase “as if”. Here Inam thinks,
doesn’t seem thoughtful.
The translation of the seventh
paragraph as usual misses the
beauty of the original. The
beautiful personification of the
original (জাপটে ধরে অন্ধকার) in
the second line is absent in the
translation. Instead of using
“darkness” as subject Kalpana
uses “they” and make the sentence
passive one. This passivity of
sentence gives us information but
doesn’t represent the artistic
beauty of the source text. Again,
the explanatory translation of the
last line of the paragraph spoils
the aesthetic ambiguity of the
original. The original line is
“নারকেল চুরি করে বিক্রি করলে হয়-
কিন্ত ভাতের চালের অভাবে উপোস
করে থাকতে বড় কষ্ট”. Here, the
relation between coconut and rice
is that the family sells coconut and
buys rice to live on. So Inam does
not want to steal coconut as it is
difficult to live without rice. This is
the intended meaning which
should not explicitly be presented
in the translation like the original.
The second sentence of the eighth
paragraph “মাথার উপর বাদিকের
লতা ডান দিকে চলে গেছে জাল
বুনতে বুনতে” is translated as
“Overhead, the vines have spread
their tangled web from one side to
the other”. To express the exact
image the translator should have
used “from left side to the right
side” instead of “from one side to
the other”. Actually, the translator
thinks this minute details
unnecessary. But the use of exact
direction gives us a vivid image of
the vines and their webs. Again,
the regret of Feku in the last line of
the paragraph is not exactly
reflected in the translation.
“জমি নেই খাটি, ট্যাহা নেই
ব্যবসা করি-কী কলাডা করবানে?”
can be translated as “I’ve no land
to cultivate, no money to start a
business. What else on earth can I
do?” But the Translator translates
the line as “work on land one
doesn’t have? Start a business
with no money? What can I do?’’
In this translation the meaning of
“কলাডা” is not used. But it is a
key word to express the regret of
the character.
“……strangely different from the
singing and cooing they do all
day” is a brain-child of the
translatator in the translation of the
ninth paragraph. The original
informs us that the birds don’t
sing, but produce a muffled
sound. The translator, on his own
accord, tries to define the sound
produced by the birds. Again,
“পরিচয় জিজ্ঞেস
করলে রাস্তা থেকে হেঁকে জবাব
দেয়, পাল মশাই’’ is mistranslated
as “…but he always announces
himself as ‘Mr Pal’ when he goes
to someone’s place”. Here, “when
he goes to someone’s place” is an
absurd addition. But
“ওরা গেছে পঞ্চাশে” is wisely
translated as “…they left East
Pakistan for India in fifties”. As
this line alludes to a historical
event, a little elaboration is
needed for the translation.
Kalpana maintains the same
characteristic of a flat language
also in the tenth paragraph.
Mentioning all these “fauity”
translations the evaluation will be
a monotonous repetition. But the
misrepresentation of the image of
light is worth mentioning. “লাল
আলো আসছে কাঠের রড-
লাগানো জানলা দিয়ে” is
translated as “the faint red glow of
dimmed lantern makes the window
and its bars visible”. In the
original, the visibility of the window
and its bars is not picturized.
Rather the coming of dimmed light
through the window is the image of
the line. One interesting word
selection of the translator is
“rupee” to mean “ট্যাহা”. It
certainly reveals the ideology of
the translator. There are some
other mistranslations in this
paragraph. Among them
“মূহুর্তে সোনালি হাত সামনের
আবছায়ায় ভেসে উঠে” is worth
mentioning. It is translated as “
Inam sees in his mind the golden
brown arms, its downy sheen light
up by the dim light”. “The golden
brown hand” is not the imagination
of Inam. It’s the picture of a flesh
and blood who is seen through the
window as if inviting him to fulfill
his desire.
The eleventh paragraph is
carelessly translated. The first line,
“ভিতরে কালো রঙের চৌকাঠ
পড়ে আছে”, is unnecessarily
elaborated as “Inside, the age-
blackened planks of a bed frame
lie bare, without a bed”. “ইনামের
ইচ্ছা হলো একটা নল দিয়ে সাফ
করে দেয় ফুটোটা” is translated in a
way that conveys a wrong
message. Here, “wish” is more
appropriate instead of “want” to
depict the intention of the
character. Again, to translate “বড়
মেয়েটা” the translator uses “my
daughter” which does not give us
a clear picture of the family.
The last paragraph of the text is
comparatively well translated. The
translator, here, tries to simplify
some ambiguities of the source
text. The original does not reveal
who sobs and who laughs. But the
translator imagines that the old
woman sobs. However, we cannot
be sure of the doer(s) of the
actions. The daughter for her
inevitable helplessness may sob.
But she, most probably, laughs
thinking that there is no use of
sobbing, or to entertain her paying
lovers. The male characters may
also laugh. However, the action is
not clear in the source text. But
the translator tries to simplify it.
The translation ends with this kind
of simplification.
If translation is the most intimate
act of reading, we will surely
blame Kalpana Bhardhan not for
spending sufficient time to develop
a possible intimacy with the
original text. In the critical point of
view, the translation fails to be the
“after life” of the original. But it is
surely a pleasant reading for the
readers who are accustomed to
readymade entertainment.