top of page

By:

Dr. Kailash Atkare

24 June 2025 at 1:30:23 pm

Fakira in Translation: Preserving a Revolutionary Legacy

The sublime ideology of translation is aptly expressed by R. Parthasarathy, who describes translation as the oxygen of language, and by Walter Benjamin, who states that translation is not merely a matter of words but of making culture intelligible. This philosophy is exemplified by the eminent translator, distinguished academician, administrator, and humanist Prof. Dr. Baliram Gaikwad through his artistic English translation of Fakira, the groundbreaking Marathi novel by Sahitya Ratna...

Fakira in Translation: Preserving a Revolutionary Legacy

The sublime ideology of translation is aptly expressed by R. Parthasarathy, who describes translation as the oxygen of language, and by Walter Benjamin, who states that translation is not merely a matter of words but of making culture intelligible. This philosophy is exemplified by the eminent translator, distinguished academician, administrator, and humanist Prof. Dr. Baliram Gaikwad through his artistic English translation of Fakira, the groundbreaking Marathi novel by Sahitya Ratna Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe. India has a rich tradition of translation, deeply rooted in its multilingual and multicultural fabric. Mulk Raj Anand explored this tradition in his essay The Importance of English, presenting a perspective free from colonialism. This view aptly justifies the translation of Fakira. Annabhau Sathe was a great social revolutionary, writer, reformer, and people's activist, educated in the school of experience. Fakira, his magnum opus, portrays both an individual and a symbol of resistance against systemic oppression. The narrative traces Fakira's transformation from a victim of caste-based exploitation into a rebel challenging the feudal and colonial order, echoing the spirit of social justice movements inspired by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Deeply rooted in the lived realities of marginalised communities, particularly the Dalit experience in colonial India, Fakira stands as a groundbreaking work. It narrates the class and caste struggle of a hero committed to the welfare of ordinary people while unfolding a saga of social, political, economic, and spiritual awakening through a humanitarian approach. The novel reflects Dr. Ambedkar's philosophy, his struggle against slavery and untouchability, and the spirit of rebellion. Through Fakira, Sathe upholds moral integrity, a strong code of ethics, respect for women, social values, justice, courageous leadership, and the pursuit of freedom. One memorable episode illustrates these ideals. During a raid to seize hoarded wealth, a frightened woman pleads, "Take whatever wealth you want, but please do not dishonour my daughter." Fakira replies, "I am not that kind of man. We are not here to touch anyone's honour. We only take what is unjustly hoarded. Your daughter is like our own sister." Translation is a challenging undertaking, and Dr. Baliram Gaikwad has done full justice to Fakira. By crossing linguistic and regional boundaries, he has made this remarkable work accessible to readers worldwide without diluting its cultural specificity. Translating a work so deeply rooted in regional idiom, folklore, and socio-political context is no easy task. The translator successfully retains the earthy texture of Sathe's prose. Artistic creation, translational finesse, and aesthetic values—the pillars of translation—are reflected throughout his work, enabling readers to experience the emotional intensity and narrative vigour of the original. The rustic dialogues are translated with sensitivity, preserving both authenticity and clarity. The novel stands as a counter-narrative to mainstream literary traditions that have historically marginalised voices from the lower strata of society. Fakira is not merely a character but a collective consciousness representing the aspirations and struggles of an oppressed community. By exposing caste discrimination, poverty, and injustice, the novel challenges romanticised notions of rural life and may be regarded as a precursor to the assertive voice of Dalit literature in modern Indian writing. Although certain nuances of Marathi—its rhythm, cultural connotations, and oral storytelling tradition—are inevitably difficult to reproduce, Dr. Gaikwad addresses these challenges through careful lexical choices and contextual framing. Fakira explores resistance, dignity, and identity, moving far beyond the Robin Hood archetype. The protagonist wages a multilayered struggle against British rule, feudalism, caste oppression, and poverty. Despite enduring caste discrimination, economic exploitation, and humiliation, Fakira and his community fight with dignity, courage, and exceptional nationalist fervour. This layered portrayal elevates the novel from a socio-political document to a profound literary work, while its straightforward narrative effectively sustains dramatic tension and emotional engagement. Dr Gaikwad's balanced use of language, rustic idioms, folk expressions, and region-specific dialect creates a simple, lucid, and accessible English style, making the translation ofFakira a successful bridge between regional literature and global readership. As Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak observed, a translator must surrender to the text. Dr. Gaikwad has fulfilled this responsibility with sincerity, making a valuable contribution to Indian literature in translation. Fakira is a manifestation of India's rural revolution. The protagonist joins the freedom movement and contributes to the larger struggle for social change.
(The writer is an assistant professor of English literature. Views personal.)

Lingua Pragmatica

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page