
SHE may be out of contention for a National Award because she hasn8217;t dubbed for the movie, but Aishwarya Rai deserves some kudos for bringing back a century-old gem firmly into public space. Most of the Gen X readers who pick up the translations of Rabindranath Tagore8217;s Chokher Bali will be putting Rai8217;s face on Binodini8217;s as, indeed, the Penguin cover seems to; it would be a pity, though, if that one impression overwhelms the rest of the novel.
Published in 1903 after being serialised over two years in the Tagore-edited Bangadarshan, Chokher Bali literally, Sand in the Eye; in the novel, it is the fanciful name given to the relationship between two sakhis, after a fad of the time was a landmark in many respects. Though other Bengali authors had touched on the subject of widow-love 8212; Bankim Chatterjee in Bishbriksha, for instance 8212; Tagore was the first to position the widow Binodini as the central personage; more, she was educated and intelligent, passionate and beautiful, aggressive and arrogant, and all woman.
Her story unfolds against a backdrop of strained relationships. Mahendra and Asha are newly weds; in their cocoon of first love, even his mother Rajalakshmi and childhood friend Bihari find no place. Binodini, who had been spurned earlier by both men, enters the household as a widowed dependent and quickly becomes its axis: Rajalakshmi8217;s trusted aide, Asha8217;s best friend and, inevitably, Mahendra8217;s love. Yet it is Bihari she yearns for, Bihari who can give her what she craves most: societal respectability. And, tragically, that will be hers only when she renounces society.
Man, wife, mother, friend, other woman. It could be the stuff of a K soap, but for the shades of grey that colour the protagonists, the multiple conflicts that inform every twist and turn in the plot. With just the subtlest of hints, the merest mention of contemporary concerns, Tagore creates a domestic miniature of a clash of civilisations. Mahendra is a wimp, but he8217;s also guilt-ridden at betraying his wife; Binodini is as dangerous as a frustrated feline, but it8217;s impossible not to sympathise with the enormity of her battle of the self vs circumstance.
Because of the parallels with Victorian novels Tess and Silas Marner come to mind immediately, some contemporary critics accused Tagore of writing an English novel in Bengali. The one charge that could not be raised against him, however, was artificiality. The man who authored 2,500 poems, and continues to be better known as a poet the world over, brought an amazing fluidity to his fiction. Abetted by any number of literals, the flow is lost entirely in the Srishti translation. Was Chakravarty trying to preserve some of the flavour of the period with convoluted sentences and long words? In the process, she seems to have lost sight of her readership, and of the distinction between formal language and stilted.
The contrast is even more telling next to Guha8217;s translation. The Penguin volume, appended with a helpful introduction by Swagato Ganguly, is a far superior work that retains the rhythm of the original with its unlaboured language and syntax. By dropping some of the more esoteric Bengali references 8220;Kayet thakurun8221;, for instance, becomes the 8220;neighbour8217;s wife8221;, Guha makes her work accessible without sacrificing any of the complex, meditative layers. If the original is out of bounds, this is the next best thing.