== *133*
==
[Urdu 1859] [2.0] CAUSE II -- THE PASSING OF SUCH LAWS, REGULATIONS AND FORMS OF PROCEDURE
AS WERE INCONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES OF HINDUSTAN:
AND THE INTRODUCTION OF SUCH AS WERE IN THEMSELVES OBJECTIONABLE
[2.1]
[2.1x] The promulgation of objectionable
laws and procedures. Act 21 of 1850.
== *134* ==
[2.2] [2.2x]
Act XV of 1856.
== *135* ==
Sir Sayyid refers to baivaste (plural of baivastaa ), which seems to be ultimately from vyavasthaa , and to refer to a legal degree according to Hindu law; with enjoyable parallelism, Platts gives as a synonym fatvaa (p. 212). Judging from the grammar, Sir Sayyid seems to mean that the Government obtained Hindu legal interpretations that favored the provisions of the Act. The 1873 translation, simply sums all this up as 'controversy'.
Sir Sayyid here gets in another dig at the Hindus, who are 'more devoted to customs and traditions than to religion'; the translators diplomatically soften this.
The break between this section and the next occurs a little earlier in the Urdu text than in the 1873 translation.
[2.3] [2.3x] Giving liberty to females.
In the previous section, the fear is that women might become ;xvud-mu;xtaar , 'in authority over themselves'; in this section , the complaint is their fa((l-mu;xtaarii , 'authority over [their] action'. It's a useful reminder that not everything the British did was deplorable.
[2.4]
[2.4x] The promulgation of certain Acts
in cases wherein the parties are of one religion.
== *136* ==
[2.5] [2.5x]
The resumption of M'afis.
== *137* ==
The translation speaks of 'Regulation VI', while the Urdu distinctly has the number '2'. But the Urdu '2' [2], if reversed, is the Urdu '6' [6]. So it seems possible that the translators misread the number. It's also possible, though not so likely I think, that the original Urdu katib accidentally reversed the numbers, and the actual number of the law is 6. This is just one of a number of questions that could easily be answered through research into colonial legal history.
Sir Sayyid's rhetoric is really running away with him. He has by now proclaimed of quite a number of things that each one was the MOST disaffecting of the lot. And the translators are right with him (as in this case), or even sometimes one step ahead of him in their rhetoric (as in the case of education for women).
[2.6]
[2.6x] The result of extinguishing the
Native states, according to Sir Thomas Munro, in place of raising to debase
the whole people. And according to the Duke of Wellington "To degrade and
beggar the natives making them all enemies."
== *138* ==
Instead of kahnaa Sir Sayyid uses farmaanaa , to show respect to the gentlemen he's quoting.
The translation of 1873 speaks of 'the Muhammadans, on whom this grievance fell far more heavily than on the Hindus'.But Sir Sayyid is arguing that the Muslims suffered not just some vague or or psychological sense of 'grievance', but 'very much more harm [nuq.saan] than the Hindus', by which he surely means economic harm, since presumably they had more revenue-free lands to lose.
[2.7]
[2.7x] Public sales of Zemindari rights.
== *139* == *140*
== *141* ==
[2.8] [2.8x]
Heavy Assessments of Lands.
The 1873 translators misconstrue avval : Akbar couldn't have been 'the first' to demand 1/3 of the harvest, because we've just been told that Sher Shah did so.
The phrase 'and changed the payments in kind into money payments' has no counterpart in the Urdu text, yet there seems no particular reason for the 1873 translators to invent it. Could the phrase have been present in an earlier Urdu text?
== *142* == *143*
== *144* ==
[2.9] [2.9x]
The abolition of Talookdari rights, particularly in the Oudh provinces.
[2.10] [2.10x]
The introduction of stamped paper.
The Urdu speaks only of 'stamps'; the reference, however, is not to postage stamps, but to the kind of stamps used to formalize and legalize a document. Pre-printed 'stamped paper' could also be purchased and used to record legally binding transactions. Here's *an example*.
This whole discussion about stamped paper is 'transcreated' by the 1873 translators with even more freedom than is usual for them.
Mill's book is given the transliterated English title polii;Tikal ikonamii , and Lord Brougham's is polii;Tikal filozofii .
== *145* == *146*
==
[2.11] [2.11]
The system of Civil Administration in the Bengal provinces superior to that
in the Punjab, but requires revision in certain points.
The Urdu title of this section is missing the comparative reference to 'the Bengal provinces'; it's missing in both Urdu versions that I've checked, but the grammar suggests that the omission is merely a scribal error.
The criticism of the Punjab system is really unusually freely transcreated. In particular, 'it does not happen that a judge is always right in his interpretation' is definitely a mistranslation; in the Urdu, it's the judges' mutual agreement that doesn't always occur.
I'm reading digrii as dikrii , for 'decree'; both versions of the Urdu have this error (if indeed it's an error, and not the usage of the time).
-- Sir Sayyid index page -- *Platts Dictionary Online* -- Glossary -- FWP's main page --
