Journal of Advances in Developmental Research
E-ISSN: 0976-4844
•
Impact Factor: 9.71
A Widely Indexed Open Access Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Bi-monthly Scholarly International Journal
Plagiarism is checked by the leading plagiarism checker 
Call for Paper
Volume 16 Issue 2
2025
Indexing Partners
A Comparative Study of Indian English Literature and Regional Indian Literature in Translation
| Author(s) | Dr.Neeta Mathur |
|---|---|
| Country | India |
| Abstract | This research paper presents a comparative analysis of Indian English Literature (IEL) and Regional Indian Literature in Translation (RILT), arguing that these two streams, while emanating from the same geo-political entity, operate under distinct aesthetic, thematic, and market pressures, leading to the formation of two separate, often conflicting, national canons. IEL, written in English and often engaging with diasporic and urban elite concerns, enjoys immediate global recognition, leveraging the linguistic privilege of the Anglophone market. Conversely, RILT, relying on the often-invisible labor of the translator, typically foregrounds vernacular texture, subaltern histories, and localized socio-political critiques (e.g., caste, regionalism). Through a comparative thematic, stylistic, and reception study, this paper demonstrates that RILT serves as a crucial counter-archive, resisting the homogenized "Indian" identity frequently established by IEL, and underscoring the deep multilingualism and intersectionality defining the nation's true literary imagination. Keywords : Indian English Literature (IEL), Regional Indian Literature in Translation (RILT), Canon Formation, Multilingualism, Translation Studies, Postcolonial Literature, Subalternity, Global Market, Vernacular Aesthetics. 1. Introduction: The Divided Literary Landscape India is a nation defined by its linguistic pluralism, boasting 22 scheduled languages and countless dialects, each with its own robust literary tradition. Yet, within the global literary sphere, the narrative of "Indian Literature" is frequently dominated by works written directly in English—Indian English Literature (IEL). This phenomenon has long fueled a critical debate regarding the marginalization of literatures written in languages such as Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, or Marathi, which must pass through the often-contentious filter of translation to achieve international, and sometimes even national, visibility (Regional Indian Literature in Translation - RILT). This study aims to move beyond a simplistic valuation, instead offering a comparative analysis of the two streams across three crucial dimensions: aesthetic approach, thematic prioritization, and market reception. The central thesis of this paper is that the choice of language—either as a mother tongue for the author (regional languages) or as a postcolonial inheritance (English)—fundamentally determines not only the literary style but also the subject matter considered "publishable" and "representative" on the global stage. IEL often privileges the cosmopolitan, while RILT tends to privilege the vernacular and the localized. 2. Theoretical Framework: Language, Power, and Visibility To ground this comparison, three interconnected theoretical concepts are essential: 2.1. The Question of Multilingualism and the Mother Tongue The postcolonial discourse often emphasizes the role of the English language as a colonial imposition. However, for IEL writers, English has evolved into a legitimate, if privileged, Indian language, functioning as a lingua franca for a specific, usually urban and elite, class. Critics like Rushdie famously argued for the creative potential of English when "Indianized." In contrast, RILT draws its strength and depth from the mother tongue, which allows for a richer, untranslatable engagement with regional proverbs, cultural nuances, and historical memory. The tension here is between English as a language of access and assimilation (IEL) and the regional language as a language of cultural rootedness and resistance (RILT). 2.2. The Politics of Global Canon Formation The global literary marketplace, governed by Western publishing houses and prize committees (Man Booker, Pulitzer), effectively acts as a gatekeeper in defining the "Indian canon." IEL authors benefit from immediate linguistic access to this canon, leading to their disproportionate visibility. RILT, however, enters this canon only after being selected and interpreted by translators, a process that can involve the intentional or unintentional domestication of complex regional realities to make them palatable or comprehensible to a foreign audience. The works that get translated often fit a pre-conceived notion of "exotic India," rather than those that offer challenging, localized critiques. 2.3. Translation as a "Third Space" of Writing For RILT, the translation is not merely a transfer of meaning, but the creation of a Third Space (Bhabha), where the vernacular text is re-contextualized into a hybrid Anglophone text. The translator’s decisions—on tone, vocabulary, and cultural explication—become an integral part of the text's final identity. This dynamic distinguishes RILT from IEL, as the latter remains the author’s singular, untranslated articulation. RILT is inherently a collaborative literature, bearing the stamp of both the original author and the mediating translator. 3. Aesthetic and Stylistic Divergence The linguistic choice fundamentally dictates the aesthetic and narrative structures employed by the two traditions. 3.1. IEL: Global Modernism and Narrative Innovation IEL, particularly since the 1980s, has often favored a style characterized by maximalism, magical realism, and postmodern narrative fragmentation (e.g., Salman Rushdie, Arundhati Roy). The aesthetic priority is often to engage with global literary trends and place the Indian narrative on the same formal level as contemporary American or British fiction. • Pacing and Structure: Tendency toward long, sweeping narratives, complex chronologies, and an authoritative, globally-informed narrative voice. • Language: Exhibits linguistic hybridity (mixing English with non-English words), but the sentence structure and rhythm are fundamentally Anglophone, often prioritizing literary flair and innovation for a sophisticated international readership. • Setting: Often features cosmopolitan, metropolitan settings (Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore) or diasporic locales (London, New York), using Indian settings as a backdrop for individual, psychological dramas. 3.2. RILT: Vernacular Realism and Orality RILT, especially when translated, often retains a style rooted in regional specificity, local idioms, and a realist tradition shaped by regional histories and oral storytelling. • Pacing and Structure: Tends to be more grounded in linear or cyclical time, reflecting the rhythm of community life or historical events specific to the region. The narrative voice is often less self-conscious and more invested in capturing the collective experience. • Language: The translation often struggles to fully capture the texture of the vernacular. Translators must choose between foreignization (retaining difference, risking opacity) and domestication (making it accessible, risking flattening culture). RILT’s aesthetic is inherently tied to the sound and weight of its original language. • Setting: Focuses intensely on regional landscapes (the villages of rural Bengal in BibhutibhushanBandyopadhyay, the small towns of Hindi heartland in Premchand, the coastal life of Kerala in ThakazhiSivasankaraPillai), where geography, caste, and climate are inseparable from character and plot. 4. Comparative Thematic Prioritization The subject matter of the two literary streams reflects a divergence in social focus and cultural concerns. 4.1. IEL: The Crisis of Individualism and Diasporic Identity IEL predominantly grapples with themes arising from the post-liberalization, globalized experience: • Diaspora and Nostalgia: The psychological effects of migration, the burden of cultural memory, and the crisis of identity among the second generation (JhumpaLahiri, Bharati Mukherjee). • Urban Elite Concerns: Identity politics of the educated middle and upper classes, career ambition, marital discontent, and the moral complexities of wealth and class mobility. • Postcolonial Guilt: A retrospective examination of national trauma (Partition, Emergency) seen through the lens of educated, often privileged, witnesses. 4.2. RILT: Subalternity, Caste, and Regional Resistance RILT acts as a crucial platform for voices and issues often overlooked by the cosmopolitan gaze, focusing on structural inequalities: • Caste and Social Reform: Direct engagement with the realities of caste oppression and the Dalit experience (e.g., Marathi Dalit literature, or writings of Bama in Tamil). These narratives are fundamentally political, focusing on systemic injustice rather than personal alienation. • Gender and Localized Patriarchy: The struggles of women within specific, traditional, and often rural or small-town patriarchal structures, distinct from the urban feminist conflicts addressed by IEL. • Regional History and Political Activism: Deep immersion in local historical events, linguistic movements, and the specific political struggles of a given state or community, often serving as a record of resistance against centralized power. For example, the Naxalite movement in Bengali literature. 5. Market Dynamics, Reception, and the Canon The mechanics of publishing and reception create the most visible disparity between IEL and RILT, influencing which literature is considered canonical globally. 5.1. IEL: Direct Global Access and Critical Currency IEL benefits from an ecosystem designed for its success: 1. Direct Submission: IEL manuscripts go directly to agents and publishers in London, New York, or Delhi (English language divisions). 2. Global Prizes: Major international literary prizes inherently privilege IEL due to language accessibility. The resulting exposure instantly establishes IEL works as globally significant. 3. Reader Expectations: The Anglophone reader receives the IEL text as a singular, authoritative voice, often shaping their understanding of "contemporary India." The IEL canon thus becomes self-perpetuating, based on a cycle of high-profile publication, critical review in major Western journals, and translation into other global languages. 5.2. RILT: The Translator as Gatekeeper and the Stigma of the "Exotic" RILT faces significant structural hurdles: 1. Double Filter: The work must first succeed regionally, and then secure a translator and a publishing house willing to invest in an already published foreign-language text. 2. Limited Market: The translated text often reaches specialized academic markets or niche cultural readerships before it breaks into the mainstream. 3. The Translator’s Agency: The success, or even the perceived quality, of a RILT work is inextricably linked to the talent and visibility of its translator. Figures like ArunKolatkar or A.K. Ramanujan are known for their transformative translations, highlighting that the RILT’s global identity is often co-authored. The RILT canon is often built on texts that, in translation, confirm a global demand for cultural authenticity or socio-political spectacle, rather than simple aesthetic mastery. 6. Case Studies in Representation To illustrate these differences, consider the representation of a common theme: the Female Protagonist. • IEL Representation (e.g., Kiran Desai’s The Inheritance of Loss): The female character’s struggle is often one of personal failure, isolation, and navigating complex romantic relationships across national or class lines. Her identity is fractured by Western educational models and global aspirations. The conflict is psychological and internal. • RILT Representation (e.g., Mahasweta Devi’s short stories in translation): The female character (often marginalized, tribal, or rural) faces struggles rooted in systemic exploitation, land rights, or direct patriarchal violence tied to caste and economic vulnerability. The conflict is social, material, and external, demanding justice and political action. The comparative reading reveals that IEL presents a nation through the eyes of its globalized individuals, while RILT provides a fractured, diverse, and often unromanticized view of the nation through the eyes of its communities and subaltern citizens. 7. Conclusion: The Essential Dialogue Indian English Literature and Regional Indian Literature in Translation stand as two distinct, yet complementary, pillars of contemporary Indian writing. IEL provides a crucial lens into the anxieties and aspirations of the globalized Indian self, securing a place for Indian narratives on the world stage. RILT, however, provides the necessary vernacular depth and political critique, ensuring that the narrative of India remains deeply connected to its complex, multilingual, and often conflicted social reality. For a comprehensive understanding of Indian literature, the dialogue between these two streams is essential. Future scholarship must increasingly focus on the micro-politics of translation, examining how translated texts can challenge the Anglophone literary hegemony and enrich the global understanding of India beyond the limits imposed by linguistic privilege. Ultimately, the survival and vitality of the Indian literary imagination depend on the continued, and equally valued, production and circulation of both IEL and RILT. References Primary and Literary Sources (Illustrative) 1. Bandyopadhyay, Bibhutibhushan. PatherPanchali. Translated by T. W. Clark and TarapadaMukherji, Indiana University Press, 1968. (Original Bengali, RILT) 2. Devi, Mahasweta. Imaginary Maps. Translated by GayatriChakravortySpivak, Routledge, 1999. (Original Bengali, RILT) 3. Desai, Kiran. The Inheritance of Loss. Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006. (IEL) 4. Lahiri, Jhumpa. The Namesake. Houghton Mifflin, 2003. (IEL) 5. Rushdie, Salman. Midnight’s Children. Knopf, 1981. (IEL) Secondary Sources (Critical Theory and Analysis) 6. Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. Routledge, 1994. 7. Dharwadker, Vinay. "Colonialism, Nationalism, and the Literary History of India." The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 54, no. 3, 1995, pp. 784-802. 8. Mehrotra, Arvind Krishna (Ed.). A History of Indian Literature in English. Columbia University Press, 2003. 9. Mukherjee, Meenakshi. The Perishable Empire: Essays on Indian Writing in English. Oxford University Press, 2000. 10. Satchidanandan, K. "Indian Literature: An Idea and a Discourse." Rethinking Indian Literature, edited by T. S. Satyanath, SahityaAkademi, 2011, pp. 1-20. 11. Spivak, GayatriChakravorty. "The Politics of Translation." The Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti, Routledge, 2000, pp. 397-416. 12. Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. Routledge, 1995. |
| Keywords | . |
| Field | Arts |
| Published In | Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December 2012 |
| Published On | 2012-12-21 |
| Cite This | A Comparative Study of Indian English Literature and Regional Indian Literature in Translation - Dr.Neeta Mathur - IJAIDR Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December 2012. |
Share this
doi
CrossRef DOI is assigned to each research paper published in our journal.
IJAIDR DOI prefix is
10.71097/IJAIDR
Downloads
All research papers published on this website are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, and all rights belong to their respective authors/researchers.
