“Translations (like wives) are seldom strictly faithful if they are, in the least, attractive”, said Roy Campbell. Well, this may not be particularly true of wives but 'a beautiful and faithful translation of poetry' does sound contradictory since getting the theme or pathos across is not the only concern of the translators of poetry but they also have to take into account the delicacies of nuances, the significance of the metaphor and the sensitivities of both the languages. And we know by experience that some people who tried to translate Urdu or Persian poetry into English have at times made a complete mockery of themselves. And it tempts me to quote Max Beerbohm who once said that “The only tribute a French translator can pay to Shakespeare is not to translate him”.

Translation is not everybody's cup of tea. It is a cumbersome yet thankless job. While translations enrich any language, they can also mar the image of the original work if a translator is not worth his salt. Ironical as it may sound, translations are a boon for those who cannot read some text in the original language, but a substandard translation undermines its very purpose and becomes counterproductive. In situations like this, deciding if to have translations or not to have them becomes a tricky question.

In fact there are two schools of thought on the question of whether to translate or not. One side insists on reading it in original and argues that translating certain texts, such as poetry, is almost impossible and that most translations are deficient if not misleading.

While the others think that an average person cannot learn several languages and to have at least some know-how of other literatures and enjoy their masterpieces it is must to have the texts translated. It also broadens the vision and the writers of the receiving language, too, can learn a thing or two from the translations. As for the quality of the translations, they argue that a drowsing dog is better than a dead lion. Having inferior translations is better than having none at all. And if you find a good translator, he is worth his weight in gold.

Personally, I side with those who are for the translations. It definitely gives the readers a chance to enjoy and appreciate the great pieces that otherwise one would have never read and in some cases might have never even heard of. Secondly, it was the translations that have enabled humankind to gather knowledge from faraway regions and move ahead by sharing it. Good translations make one feel that translations are indispensable, especially if the translator is someone like Baqar Naqvi.

Baqar Naqvi is a sum total of apparently contradicting qualities he is a poet but has studied science and technology quite deeply. Sounds strange? Yes, because our traditional poets consider science a taboo. Not only science and technology are off bounds for our 'paan'-chewing and 'peek'-spewing poets but there are some who abhor reading altogether. Believe me, it is no exaggeration. I personally know some Karachi poets who do not read poetry or criticism on the pretext of being influenced by it and losing their 'originality', which I suspect is non-existent. To them, Baqar Naqvi must seem an extra-terrestrial, or an unheard-of creature that exists only on an unknown planet in some other galaxy, for not only Naqvi reads science and world literature but renders scientific book into chaste Urdu. And believe me Naqvi's poetry is much more 'original' than those who do not read anything except their own poetry for the fear of losing their so-called originality. Their faulty premise proves that a poet has to be illiterate, though all great poets such as Ghalib, Iqbal and Faiz were omnivorous readers (but on this issue we would talk later some day when an opportune moment allows).

Baqar Naqvi's earlier renderings from English into Urdu are indeed commendable especially for those who are in science and technology as these translations concern electronics, genes, computers and artificial intelligence. But I would personally prefer his latest one, titled 'Nobel adabiyaat'.

The book just published by Academy Bazyaft from Karachi is truly a gigantic work delicately done. Naqvi has translated all the Nobel lectures delivered during the twentieth century by Nobel laureates on the occasion of receiving their Nobel for literature. It may seem strange but it is the first time that these lectures have been translated into Urdu. We have of course seen many of them translated and published in literary journals and in recent years too many of them have been translated into Urdu but translating them in toto is a feat never achieved before.

“Why am I so profoundly eulogising this translation of Nobel Lectures?” asks Prof Sahar Ansari in the intro to the book, that is all praise for the translator. “Because I know that”, he replies, “these lectures have been delivered by the great minds of the world after deep thoughts. It was not easy to translate into Urdu their style, thoughts and themes. I have had the opportunity to go through this kind of translations before, but I am sorry to say that the translators of those pieces did not do justice as they had a journalistic approach and rendered them into Urdu just like news. The great feat achieved by Baqar Naqvi is that he has sustained the original tone and colour of these lectures by using the cultural nuances of Urdu.”

“Another aspect that deserves a mention”, says he, “is that Baqar Naqvi has provided the readers with the biographical sketches and details of works of the Nobel laureates, which was a kind of meticulous research in itself and Naqvi has carried it out quite befittingly.”

Mazhar Jamil is of the view that “Baqar Naqvi has an extra ordinary ability for translation. He has a command over both the languages and this unique work is priceless document for those who study literature in world perspective because this book is an index of the truth known as human feelings and points to broader horizons.”

As for what Roy Campbell has said about translations, I feel it is quite possible for a woman to be extremely attractive and strictly faithful at the same time and here is a translation that is very attractive and seems to be very faithful, too. Contrary to what Max Beerbohm remarked, in fact it is a befitting tribute that Urdu has paid to the world authors and not translating these lectures and speeches would have been disrespect our culture does not permit. Hats off to Nobel laureates! and to Baqar Naqvi, of course.

— drraufparekh@yahoo.com