208 Voicing the Margins: A Perspective on Translation and Literary History in Ganesh Devy’s Thought

Assignment - 4 Title :“Voicing the Margins: A Perspective on Translation and Literary History in Ganesh Devy’s Thought”

Personal Details Name:- Nanda Chavada N. Batch:- M.A. Sem 4 (2023-2025) Enrollment Number:-5108230012 E-mail:- nandachavada@gmail.com Roll Number:- 19 Assignment Details Paper name: Comparative Literature & Translation Studies Paper code: 22415 Topic:- “Voicing the Margins: A Perspective on Translation and Literary History in Ganesh Devy’s Thought” Submitted to:- Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, MKBU, Bhavnagar Date of Submission:- 17/04/2025 Table of Contents: Abstract Key Words Introduction Understanding Translation Studies in the Indian Context Historical Overview of Translation in India Ganesh Devy: Language, Power, and the Subaltern Voice Analysis of the Article: “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View” The Concept of ‘Ghettoization’ in Indian Literature Translation as Resistance: Postcolonial and Indigenous Perspectives Critical Reflections on Devy’s Contribution to Indian Literary Discourse Conclusion Works Cited

Abstract

This paper explores Ganesh Devy's critical perspective on translation within the broader context of Indian literary history. Devy argues that translation is not merely a linguistic activity but a powerful cultural and political practice that shapes identities and narratives. Focusing on his essay “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View,” the paper examines the historical role of translation in constructing literary canons in India, particularly under colonial and postcolonial frameworks. Devy highlights the marginalization of tribal and oral literatures, critiquing the ghettoization process that confines these voices to the periphery of literary discourse. Through a decolonized approach to translation, the paper advocates for recognizing the value of indigenous languages and oral traditions, positing translation as both a form of resistance and a means of reclaiming subaltern identities. Ultimately, this study seeks to reimagine translation as a political act that fosters inclusivity and justice within Indian literary landscapes.

Keywords Translation Studies, Indian Literature,Marginal Voices,Colonialism,Postcolonial Theory Ghettoization,Linguistic Justice,Oral Traditions,Subaltern Studies.

Introduction:

Translation is not just a linguistic act but a cultural and political one that influences how societies shape their identity and history. In a linguistically diverse country like India, translation has played a key role in constructing literary narratives. In his essay “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View,” Ganesh Devy critiques how colonial translation practices imposed English as a dominant language, marginalizing indigenous and tribal voices. He argues that translation has contributed both to the suppression and survival of marginalized literatures, raising crucial questions about whose voices are included in literary history. Devy’s perspective calls for a decolonized approach to translation—one that values oral traditions and linguistic diversity. This assignment analyzes Devy’s views, focusing on themes of orality, power, marginality, and the ethical responsibilities of translation in shaping Indian literary discourse. Understanding Translation Studies in the Indian Context

Translation Studies, as an academic discipline, investigates the theory and practice of translation from interdisciplinary perspectives—linguistic, cultural, philosophical, and political. In postcolonial societies like India, translation cannot be seen merely as a linguistic exercise. It is deeply intertwined with colonial legacies, language politics, and questions of identity and representation. Ganesh Devy’s intervention in this field is particularly valuable because he brings to the fore aspects of translation that are often ignored in Eurocentric models of translation theory.

India is home to over 1,600 languages, with 22 officially recognized in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. This multilingual context makes translation an everyday necessity and an inevitable part of literary production. However, Devy argues that despite this diversity, translation practices in India have often reinforced linguistic hierarchies, particularly privileging English and a few dominant Indian languages like Hindi or Bengali, while marginalizing tribal and oral languages.

Devy critiques the way translation in India has often been governed by literary institutions and state bodies that decide which texts are worth translating. These decisions are not value-neutral; they are shaped by ideologies of nationalism, modernity, and marketability. For instance, texts in tribal languages or those rooted in oral traditions are rarely translated or published, rendering entire communities invisible in the literary landscape.

He emphasizes that a truly Indian approach to translation should acknowledge the country’s oral traditions, performative storytelling, and indigenous epistemologies. According to Devy, such an approach would require a break from colonial models of translation that are focused on textual fidelity and instead move towards a culturally situated and politically conscious model.

Moreover, Devy challenges the binary of source and target languages, arguing that in multilingual societies like India, languages are in constant interaction, influencing and enriching one another. Translation, therefore, is not a one-way transfer but a dialogic process. He calls for a redefinition of Translation Studies that accommodates the lived realities of multilingualism, hybridity, and resistance in the Indian context.

Historical Overview of Translation in India

The history of translation in India is as old and layered as the subcontinent itself. From ancient times, India has witnessed the continuous movement of texts, ideas, and philosophies across regions, languages, and cultures. Translation has historically functioned not just as a linguistic bridge but as a means of preserving and transmitting cultural and spiritual knowledge. However, as Ganesh Devy argues in “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View,” the trajectory of translation took a significant turn during the colonial period, which deeply affected the way Indian literary history was shaped. In pre-colonial India, translation was an organic cultural practice. Religious and philosophical texts such as the Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Bhagavad Gita were retold, reinterpreted, and translated across regions in various languages and dialects. These were not mere word-for-word translations but creative adaptations shaped by local traditions and performance practices. Translation was seen as a form of cultural continuity, a way to localize universal values and narratives for diverse communities.

However, the advent of colonial rule introduced a fundamentally different model of translation—one that was bureaucratic, institutionalized, and rooted in Western concepts of textuality and authority. The British used translation as a tool of administration and control. Indian texts were translated into English not to appreciate their cultural richness but to classify, govern, and “civilize” the colonized. This shift, as Devy notes, altered the role of translation from cultural expression to cultural domination.

Devy particularly critiques how colonial translation practices created a literary canon that excluded oral and tribal literatures. The British focus on written texts meant that rich oral traditions, which formed the backbone of many Indian communities, were ignored or devalued. These practices continued post-Independence, as the newly formed Indian state inherited the colonial framework and applied it to national identity-building through selective translation efforts.

Thus, the historical overview of translation in India reveals a transformation—from a decentralized and inclusive tradition to a centralized and hierarchical system under colonial rule. Devy’s insights urge us to revisit this history with a critical eye, recognizing the losses and distortions that came with it, and to reclaim translation as a more democratic and inclusive cultural practice.

Ganesh Devy: Language, Power, and the Subaltern Voice

Ganesh Devy’s work is deeply rooted in questions of linguistic justice, cultural memory, and the politics of voice. In his essay “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View,” Devy reveals how the construction of Indian literary history has systematically excluded the voices of marginalized communities, especially those who exist outside the boundaries of textualized and mainstream languages. For Devy, language is not merely a medium of communication but a repository of cultural memory, identity, and resistance.

Devy challenges the hierarchical structure of Indian languages that emerged under colonial influence and continued in the postcolonial nation-state. English, imposed during British rule, was granted intellectual supremacy, while many indigenous, tribal, and oral languages were sidelined. This imbalance created a “linguistic divide” that was mirrored in the literary landscape. Only the languages recognized by literary institutions were considered worthy of translation and preservation, whereas the languages of subaltern groups were rendered invisible.

In this context, Devy views translation as a political act—an act that can either uphold the status quo or disrupt it. He argues that by choosing which texts and which languages to translate, institutions exercise power over which communities are heard and which are silenced. This exclusion of non-textual and oral traditions from literary history is not accidental; it reflects deeper social inequalities and colonial continuities.

Devy’s notion of the “subaltern voice” is not limited to class-based oppression but extends to those whose languages are not represented in mainstream literature. These include tribal groups, oral communities, and speakers of endangered dialects. He contends that to truly decolonize Indian literary history, translation must serve these voices—not as an act of assimilation into dominant cultures, but as an act of cultural affirmation and resistance.

Furthermore, Devy’s work reminds us that empowering the subaltern voice in translation is not only about linguistic inclusion but also about challenging epistemologies that privilege written over oral, dominant over marginal, and global over local. He calls for a shift in how we define literature, history, and translation itself—toward inclusivity, plurality, and justice.

Analysis of the Article: “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View”

Ganesh Devy’s essay “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View” offers a sharp and nuanced critique of how translation has shaped the construction of Indian literary history under colonial and postcolonial systems. Central to his argument is the idea that translation in India has historically been more than a linguistic practice—it has been a powerful instrument of control, categorization, and exclusion. Devy urges readers to reconsider the foundational assumptions of Indian literary historiography.

One of Devy’s core assertions is that “translation has been instrumental in defining Indian literature” (Devy 182). However, this definition has not been inclusive of all literary forms or voices. He observes that the colonial administrators constructed a literary canon by translating selected Sanskrit, Persian, and regional texts into English, while ignoring vast bodies of oral literature, tribal traditions, and performative storytelling. This selective translation, he argues, contributed to the “ghettoization” of Indian literature—a recurring term in his essay that critiques the marginalization of non-textual traditions.

Devy also challenges the binary assumption that literature must be textual to be worthy of historical documentation. He writes,

“The assumption that only the written word is capable of containing knowledge has meant a consistent exclusion of oral traditions from the literary” (Devy 184).

This powerful observation not only highlights the epistemological bias in literary historiography but also draws attention to the erasure of entire knowledge systems that have survived through performance, memory, and voice.

Another important aspect of the article is Devy’s interrogation of language hierarchies. He states, “The colonial construction of Indian literary history privileged a few classical and colonial languages while rendering many others invisible” (Devy 183). This continues today through educational curricula, publishing practices, and government-supported translation projects that tend to favor dominant Indian languages and English.

By using the term “ghettoization,” Devy critiques how regional and tribal literatures are often treated as exotic or folkloric—worthy of anthropological interest but not literary merit. He questions this positioning, asking whether literary value is inherently tied to the language of power and prestige. The essay therefore becomes a call to reimagine translation not just as a bridge between languages but as a radical practice of cultural inclusion.

Ultimately, Devy’s article is a bold attempt to question and revise the dominant paradigms of Indian literary history. His insistence on recognizing oral, tribal, and regional voices invites a new understanding of translation—not just as a tool of language, but as a tool of justice.

The Concept of ‘Ghettoization’ in Indian Literature One of the most striking and recurring concepts in Ganesh Devy’s essay “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View” is the “ghettoization” of Indian literature. By this, Devy refers to the process by which certain literatures—especially those originating from tribal, oral, and minority language traditions—are pushed to the margins and denied recognition in mainstream literary discourse. He critiques both colonial and postcolonial translation practices that have contributed to this exclusion. Devy argues that colonial translation efforts privileged languages like Sanskrit, Persian, and later, regional high-languages such as Hindi or Bengali, while overlooking “the voices of the speech communities that had no written script” (Devy 184). As a result, literature that did not fit the classical or colonial mold was either ignored or treated as folklore, stripping it of its literary status. These marginalized texts and languages were metaphorically placed in “ghettos”—confined, visible only through the lens of exoticism, and cut off from the mainstream literary canon. He writes,

“Translation in the Indian context has not only acted as a bridge between languages, but also as a wall—keeping some literary cultures in, and some permanently out” (Devy 186).

This dual role of translation—as both inclusionary and exclusionary—reveals its deeper political function. Far from being neutral, translation becomes a tool that shapes which voices are legitimized and which are silenced.

The use of the term “ghettoization” is significant because it evokes images of enforced boundaries, systematic neglect, and institutional control. According to Devy, “Many literary histories prepared during colonial times or even post-independence have continued to exclude entire linguistic cultures because their texts were not translated or were considered untranslatable” (Devy 185). This, he suggests, leads to a partial and distorted view of India’s literary heritage.

In Devy’s view, reversing this ghettoization requires an ethically responsible model of translation—one that recognizes the value of oral and marginalized literary forms and integrates them into the broader literary narrative. He urges translators and scholars to engage not only with texts but with communities and contexts, respecting the cultural specificities that mainstream translation often erases. Translation as Resistance: Postcolonial and Indigenous Perspectives While Ganesh Devy critiques translation as a colonial instrument of exclusion, he also powerfully reclaims its potential as a tool of resistance and cultural survival. In his essay “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View,” Devy offers a dual vision—he exposes how translation was historically used to reinforce dominant narratives, but also how it can now be repurposed to recover erased voices and reclaim subaltern identities.

In postcolonial India, translation holds the potential to challenge the legacy of colonial epistemologies. Devy writes, “A redefinition of Indian literary history must begin with a redefinition of what we consider literature, language, and translation” (Devy 188). This statement underlines his broader project: to decolonize Indian literary history by restoring indigenous and oral traditions to their rightful place. Translation, if done with sensitivity and political awareness, can serve this process. Devy does not propose abandoning translation altogether. Rather, he advocates for a radical shift in how translation is practiced and theorized. In contrast to colonial translation, which prioritized intelligibility to the Western gaze, Devy urges a locally grounded, community-based approach that affirms the value of indigenous knowledge systems. He encourages translators to move beyond fidelity to text and focus instead on faithfulness to cultural context—the sounds, rhythms, emotions, and worldview embedded in a language.

He also emphasizes that in India's multilingual and multivocal reality, translation must move laterally, between regional and tribal languages, instead of vertically—from “low” languages to “high” languages like English. Devy believes that horizontal translation within India's own linguistic map can help dismantle the hierarchies entrenched by colonialism and nationalism alike.

Furthermore, Devy subtly aligns his position with indigenous resistance movements across the world. He recognizes that for many marginalized communities, preserving their language and literature through translation is a way of resisting erasure and asserting identity. Thus, translation becomes not just a literary act, but a political intervention—a form of reclaiming voice, visibility, and dignity.

Critical Reflections on Devy’s Contribution to Indian Literary Discourse

Ganesh Devy’s contribution to Indian literary discourse is both profound and transformative. In his essay “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View,” he critiques the colonial foundations of Indian literary historiography and calls for a more inclusive framework that recognizes oral, tribal, and marginalized traditions. Devy challenges dominant definitions of literature and urges scholars to rethink whose voices are translated and preserved. His work stands out for its grounding in both theory and activism, especially through projects like the People’s Linguistic Survey of India. Importantly, Devy does not idealize oral cultures but seeks their meaningful integration into contemporary literary spaces. His vision, rooted in the Indian linguistic context, offers a powerful alternative to Eurocentric translation theories, aligning with global voices like Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o while maintaining a uniquely Indian perspective. Ultimately, Devy invites us to reimagine literature as a truly diverse, democratic, and dialogic space. Conclusion: Ganesh Devy’s essay “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View” encourages a critical rethinking of how Indian literary history has been shaped through translation. He highlights how translation has often reinforced language hierarchies and excluded tribal and oral traditions, leading to what he calls the “ghettoization” of Indian literature. Devy argues for a decolonized and community-sensitive model of translation that values marginalized voices and linguistic diversity. His insights go beyond theory, drawing from real-world linguistic activism and cultural realities. Ultimately, Devy redefines translation as a political and ethical act—one that can transform literature into a more inclusive and just space. He calls upon scholars to recognize oral traditions as legitimate literary expressions rather than peripheral folklore. Devy’s emphasis on linguistic plurality challenges both colonial legacies and modern literary gatekeeping. His work envisions translation as a dialogic space, where neglected narratives can be revived and recontextualized. By urging a shift from elite literary norms to people-centered knowledge, Devy expands the moral responsibility of translation. In doing so, he invites a future where Indian literary history is as diverse and dynamic as its languages and people. Works Cited

Devy, Ganesh. “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View.” In Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice, edited by Susan Bassnett and Harish Trivedi, Routledge, 2012, pp. 182–188.