Translation into other forms

These forms of adaptation into other art forms are not perhaps so popular or obvious in the public perception. But a careful observation reveals that most of our classical dance and music forms are ‘translations’ from epics and puranas. This is especially true of our classical dance forms. Kathakali, the dance drama of Kerala, has a strictly defined script to which it is performed. The traditional stories of Kathakali have been invariably drawn from either the Ramayana or the Mahabharata – like Nalacharitam (the story of Nala), Duryodhanavadham (the slaying of Duryodhana), Keechakavadham (the slaying of Keechaka) etc. An excerpt from the epic is transformed to suit the format the Kathakali performance. The script is in verse form which is sung to the accompaniment of instruments, and offers ample scope for dramatic interpretation. Although Kathakali adaptations are never subversive, the stories are selected and edited in such a way that they are dramatic enough to suit the new medium..

This is true of most classical performing arts like Yakshagana and to some extent, folk forms like Pandvani, Thullal etc. The fact is that traditional Indian art forms, be it classical or folk, have their roots in the religious mythical lore of the country. This applies to all our classical dance forms like Bharatanatyam, Kuchipudi, Odissi etc and for the two schools of Indian classical music, the Hindustani and Carnatic. It is said that our classical forms of dance, theatre and music evolved from the folk forms which in turn derived their raw material from the common fount of bhakti or devotion of the masses. It is not coincidental that our classical dance and music are largely devotional in nature even today. Each art form developed its own distinguishing feature, depending on the socio-cultural context of its origin –  in short, each utilized a particular translation strategy in accordance with the target culture, to achieve equivalence.

K. M. Sherrif, in his article “Toward a Theory of Rewriting: Drawing from the Indian Practice” argues that these art forms are inter-semiotic rewritings, an aspect which has not been addressed adequately enough by translation theorists. He points to another aspect of such rewritings which is that of the socio-political factor. While translation studies has focused on the socio-political implications of literary rewritings like Bhakti poetry, similar attention has not been paid to the non-aesthetic implications of a rewrite like Kathakali. Mentioning the “aesthetic and socio-political distance that separates the rewriting of Ramayana by poets like Ezhuthachan or Tulsidas” from a performing art like Kathakali, he notes: “The stark contrast between the devotional fervour of Ezhuthachan’s verses and the stylized mudras of Kathakali with their alienating effect, stares one in the face” (Translation Today). Sherrif is pointing to the different rewriting/translation strategies and also their purpose of  these art forms.