Na stree svAtantryam arhati - yea right!
Now that we are on the topic of descriptions, it reminds me of a small discussion i had with Balu. It was regarding the famous Manu-smriti passage -
pita rakshati kaumare bharta rakshati yauvane|
putras tu sthavire tasmat na stree svaatantryam arhati||
It is the favorite whip to bash India and its traditions about gender inequality. Let us look at two alternate translations that changes the descriptions completely -
"Father guards her as a kid, husband in youth, son in oldage, a woman does not deserve independence!!" (exclamations mine)
The above translation fits very well with the pre-conceived idea that India is a corrupt society which has been systemically (systematically as well) been ill-treating women.
But, is svaatantra = independence correct? How would an alternate translation that takes the structure of Indian society into consideration look like -
" As a kid, she is protected by father, as a youth by husband, in oldage by son, a woman should not be left to her own devices"
This above translation which is more in keeping with the cultural context of the sanskrit words transforms the sense completely. One begins to wonder, did the theory come first (from europe) and the data was fit??
pita rakshati kaumare bharta rakshati yauvane|
putras tu sthavire tasmat na stree svaatantryam arhati||
It is the favorite whip to bash India and its traditions about gender inequality. Let us look at two alternate translations that changes the descriptions completely -
"Father guards her as a kid, husband in youth, son in oldage, a woman does not deserve independence!!" (exclamations mine)
The above translation fits very well with the pre-conceived idea that India is a corrupt society which has been systemically (systematically as well) been ill-treating women.
But, is svaatantra = independence correct? How would an alternate translation that takes the structure of Indian society into consideration look like -
" As a kid, she is protected by father, as a youth by husband, in oldage by son, a woman should not be left to her own devices"
This above translation which is more in keeping with the cultural context of the sanskrit words transforms the sense completely. One begins to wonder, did the theory come first (from europe) and the data was fit??
Interesting how a superficial translation and one that factors in the spirit more than the letter can bring about a sea change in the way the verses are looked. A lot has come to be irrevered owing to irresponsible translations.
Nice post.
Reply to this
It is not exactly a translation problem but a problem of descriptions. when one culture describes another, it describes it with the tools available at its disposal. "Independence" in western culture has a specific connotation connected with the christian framework from which it emerges. "savtantra" in indian traditions has no connection with the sense of independence, even though in some respects you cannot be 'svatantra' without being 'indepedent'. you can still be 'independent' without being 'svatantra'!
Reply to this
That I agree goes for all those who make an earnest attempt to comprehend the verses. There is, however, this bunch of people on the lookout for verses that could be quoted out of context, culturally and disregarding the totality of the thought therein. For such wiseguys, verses like this one are easy fodder.
A similar word that's hard to translate in its entirety in English - Dharma. 'Sarva Dharmaan parityajya..'?
Reply to this