Assignment Comparative literature and translation studies
Translation and the Politics of Representation: A Critical Reading of Tejaswini Niranjana’s Siting Translation
Table of contents:
Personal Information
Introduction
About Tejaswini Niranjana
Theoretical framework
Translation as Colonial Tool
Politics of Representation
Critical analysis of niranjana’s argument
Conclusion
Personal Information
Name: Kusum J. Sarvaiya
Batch: 2023-25
Semester : 4
Roll no. : 17
Enrollment Number : 5108230041
Paper: 208: Comparative Literature & Translation Studies
Topic: Translation and the Politics of Representation: A Critical Reading of Tejaswini Niranjana’s Siting Translation
Personal Information
Email : kusumsarvaiya2304@gamil.com
Introduction:
Translation has long been viewed as a neutral and necessary bridge between languages and cultures, often celebrated for promoting cross-cultural understanding. However, in Siting Translation: History, Poststructuralism, and the Colonial Context, Tejaswini Niranjana challenges this conventional view by exposing how translation, particularly during colonial rule, served as a powerful ideological tool. Drawing on poststructuralist theory, Niranjana argues that translation was deeply involved in the politics of representation, where the colonized subject was constructed in ways that upheld and justified the colonial power structure. As summarized in Yazid Haroun’s article, Niranjana reveals how colonial translations often erased or distorted indigenous knowledge systems, presenting them through Western frameworks that reinforced cultural hierarchies. Her work invites readers to critically reconsider the role of translation in shaping historical narratives and maintaining structures of domination.
About Tejaswini Niranjana:
Tejaswini Niranjana is an influential Indian scholar, cultural theorist, and translator known for her critical work in postcolonial theory, translation studies, and gender studies. Her seminal book Siting Translation: History, Poststructuralism and the Colonial Context (1992) challenges traditional Western approaches to translation by situating it within the framework of colonial power and poststructuralist theory.
In the introduction titled “History in Translation,” Niranjana argues that translation is not merely a linguistic or literary act but a political and ideological tool. During colonial rule, especially in British India, translation was used to construct knowledge about the colonized, often representing them as passive, irrational, and inferior. This process supported the colonial agenda and helped justify domination. Niranjana critiques how colonial translations shaped and distorted indigenous texts, reinforcing Western superiority and silencing native voices.
Drawing on poststructuralist thinkers like Jacques Derrida, Paul de Man, and Walter Benjamin, she shows how translation is involved in the production of meaning, identity, and historical narrative. Her work exposes how colonial translation practices helped produce the "Other" and contributed to the formation of colonial discourse.
Niranjana’s introduction lays the foundation for rethinking translation not as a neutral bridge between languages but as a site of ideological struggle. She calls for a critical, postcolonial approach to translation—one that recognizes its power dynamics and its role in shaping cultural and historical consciousness.
Theoretical Framework:
Tejaswini Niranjana’s critique of translation is deeply rooted in poststructuralist theory, which questions fixed meanings, stable identities, and binary oppositions. In Siting Translation: History, Poststructuralism, and the Colonial Context, she draws upon the insights of Jacques Derrida, Walter Benjamin, and Paul de Man to analyze how translation practices were not neutral but complicit in colonial domination.
Niranjana engages with Jacques Derrida’s idea of “différance” and his concept of translation as transformation rather than equivalence. Derrida argues that language is inherently unstable and meaning is always deferred, never complete or fixed. Niranjana uses this to question the colonial assumption that a source text in an indigenous language can be perfectly and objectively represented in English. Colonial translations often presented themselves as accurate and faithful, but they were actually re-interpretations shaped by ideological motives. Derrida’s ideas allow Niranjana to expose how translation reproduces power, not just words.
Walter Benjamin, in his essay The Task of the Translator, suggested that translation is not about equivalence of meaning but about the afterlife of texts. He emphasized that translation reveals a deeper relationship between languages and can transform the original. Niranjana appropriates this insight but also critiques Benjamin for neglecting the power dynamics involved in translation. In colonial contexts, translation was not about preserving the “life” of the original but about appropriating and controlling it. Benjamin’s metaphorical and abstract framing is thus recontextualized by Niranjana to show how translation became a tool of ideological violence.
Paul de Man’s reflections on rhetoric and misreading influenced Niranjana’s understanding of how language can deceive. His view that texts carry ideological assumptions that readers may unknowingly reproduce is crucial to Niranjana’s critique. She uses de Man to suggest that colonial translations did not just misrepresent the original texts—they also carried hidden ideological agendas that shaped how readers saw the colonized subject. This manipulation of meaning through translation was rarely questioned in traditional Western translation theory.
Niranjana’s theoretical framework enables her to argue that translation in colonial India was not a passive act but a method of constructing colonial authority. She blends these poststructuralist insights with postcolonial theory to show that:
Translation helped produce the “Other” (a non-Western subject positioned as inferior), It supported the ideological narrative of empire, and It shaped the historical consciousness of both colonizer and colonized.Thus, poststructuralist theory allows Niranjana to deconstruct the myth of objective translation and lay bare its role in sustaining imperial dominance.
Translation as a Colonial Tool:
In Siting Translation, Tejaswini Niranjana argues that translation under colonialism was not a neutral or benign linguistic act, but a crucial tool of imperial domination. As summarized by Yazid Haroun, Niranjana emphasizes that the colonial enterprise used translation to represent the colonized subject in ways that upheld the ideology of the colonizer. Translation was instrumental in producing knowledge about the colonized, and that knowledge was often distorted to fit colonial assumptions.
Niranjana shows how colonial translations, particularly during British rule in India, systematically reconstructed Indian texts in a manner that made them compatible with Western ideas of rationality, civilization, and order. This was done to justify colonial governance and reinforce the supposed superiority of the West. The translation process became a site of power, where the native text was reinterpreted through the lens of colonial authority, thus erasing indigenous epistemologies and reproducing the native subject as backward or static.
Furthermore, Niranjana highlights how these practices helped in institutionalizing colonial ideology, making it seem objective and scholarly. Translation thus played a central role in shaping the discursive formations of colonial knowledge, contributing not only to literary representation but also to administrative and political control.
Politics of Representation:
In Siting Translation, Tejaswini Niranjana critiques the way translation has historically served as a means of representing the colonized subject, often in ways that aligned with colonial ideologies. As outlined in the article by Yazid Haroun, Niranjana argues that translation was not simply a linguistic activity but deeply involved in the politics of representation—that is, how cultures, peoples, and texts were depicted and understood within colonial discourse.
The colonial translator, according to Niranjana, did not merely convert words from one language to another, but actively constructed the identity of the colonized through selective translation, omissions, and reinterpretation. These acts were shaped by the dominant Western worldview and aimed at fixing the identity of the colonized as static, traditional, and irrational—thereby contrasting it with the dynamic, modern, and rational West. This created a binary opposition that reinforced colonial power structures.
Niranjana’s view that this process of representation was not innocent or passive; instead, it supported the ideological goals of empire by producing knowledge that justified colonial rule. Translation thus functioned as a discursive mechanism, shaping how colonized peoples were perceived both by the colonizers and by the colonized themselves.
Critical Analysis of Niranjana’s Arguments:
Tejaswini Niranjana’s Siting Translation presents a powerful critique of traditional translation practices, particularly as they operated within colonial contexts. As summarized by Yazid Haroun, Niranjana argues that translation was not an innocent or objective process but a politically charged act that reinforced colonial ideologies. Her intervention lies in unmasking translation as a tool of power—a process that helped define and fix the identity of the colonized subject according to the colonizer's worldview.
Niranjana’s use of poststructuralist theory, especially through figures like Derrida, helps her demonstrate how language and meaning are unstable and context-bound. This theoretical grounding strengthens her argument that translations during colonial rule were not neutral but deeply ideological, presenting a distorted version of the colonized that served to justify imperial dominance.
Niranjana’s work challenges previous understandings of translation that emphasized fidelity and equivalence, instead showing that these ideals often concealed acts of ideological rewriting. Her critique is especially significant in the way it connects linguistic practices with political structures, revealing how colonialism operated not just through military or administrative control but also through discursive practices like translation.
By questioning the assumptions behind colonial translation, Niranjana encourages a rethinking of how knowledge is produced and legitimized. Her arguments, as captured in Haroun's summary, offer an essential corrective to earlier models of translation and open up space for more politically conscious and culturally sensitive approaches.
Conclusion:
Tejaswini Niranjana’s Siting Translation, offers a sharp and insightful critique of how translation functioned within the colonial project—not as a bridge between cultures, but as a tool of ideological control. Her work reveals that translation was deeply embedded in the politics of representation, where the colonized were constructed through the lens of the colonizer, reinforcing hierarchical binaries and justifying imperial domination.
By drawing on poststructuralist theories, Niranjana successfully deconstructs the myth of translation as a neutral act and shows how it contributed to fixing identities and shaping colonial knowledge systems. Her analysis invites a more critical and self-reflexive understanding of translation practices, especially in postcolonial contexts.
Overall, Niranjana’s arguments emphasize the need to view translation not just as a linguistic practice, but as a political and historical act that has far-reaching consequences on how cultures are understood and represented. Her work continues to be relevant in examining how power operates through language and representation in both past and present contexts.
Work Cited:
Barad, Dilip. “Comparative Literature and Translation Studies.” Comparative Literature and Translation Studies, 1 Jan. 1970, blog.dilipbarad.com/2025/01/comparative-literature-and-translation.html?m=1. Accessed 15 Apr. 2025.
Haroun, Yazid By Yazid. “Siting Translation by Tejaswini Niranjana.” Yazid Haroun, 21 Aug. 2021, yazidharoun.com/2021/01/10/siting-translation-by-tejaswini-niranjana/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2025.
Niranjana, Tejaswini. “Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context.” University of California Press, 31 May 2023, www.academia.edu/65163371/Siting_Translation_History_Post_Structuralism_and_the_Colonial_Context. Accessed 15 Apr. 2025.
Word count 1,716
