Challenges of translating vernacular texts, specifically Punjabi, into English
The story of Punjabi reflects the story of the subcontinent itself. It is one language that lives in two countries, written in two scripts, yet carrying a shared emotional world. Across India and Pakistan, millions speak Punjabi, but they read it differently: Gurmukhi in India and Shahmukhi in Pakistan. This difference has never weakened the language. Instead, it has shaped Punjabi into a unique space for cultural exchange.
This becomes especially relevant when we consider the message behind the United Nations’ International Translation Day on September 30, which celebrates translators for enabling communication, understanding and cooperation among societies. Punjabi has been quietly fulfilling this role for decades. It has kept relationships alive across borders, preserved shared memories and created bonds where politics often fall short.
A powerful example comes from Sahitya Akademi award-winning writer Desraj Kali, whose novels were recently published in Urdu script by a Karachi-based publisher . Even with the change in script, the essence and flavour of the original Punjabi remained completely intact. It is the same cultural connection that led Pakistani Punjabis to mourn the killing of Sidhu Moose Wala, showing how emotions and stories travel freely across boundaries.
Yet, despite its rich cultural legacy, Punjabi still needs more translators, more interpreters and more voices who can carry it to a global audience. Its ability to build bridges is immense, but its journey across the world is still unfolding.
Cultural Loss in Translation: Insights from Heer Waris Shah
In the essay “Translations of Punjabi Poetry into English: An Analysis of Loss of Cultural Meaning in the English Translation of Heer Waris Shah,” the authors Um-E-Laila, Dr. Anser Mahmood, Fatima Anser, and Wajid Riaz draw upon the translation strategies proposed by Mona Baker (1992). Their study seeks to interpret the subtle nuances present in the cultural expressions, words, and metaphors of the source text and examine how these shift in the target text. Because the two languages embody distinct cultural worlds, these differences often lead to a loss of cultural meaning. The study therefore aims to analyse how specific cultural terms acquire altered connotations in translation, thereby losing their embedded cultural significance, and to identify the reasons behind these losses through the lens of Baker’s (1992) framework (p.185. 2024).
The data sources for the research conducted by Um-E-Laila, Mahmood, A., Anser, F., and Riaz, W. include the Punjabi folk-tale Heer Waris Shah as the source text (Sheikh Akram, 2010) and its English translation by Sant Singh Sekhon (Sekhon, 1978). Using these texts, their study examines how cultural meanings shift, diminish, or disappear during translation, particularly when culturally embedded expressions are rendered into English through strategies such as paraphrasing, generalisation, or literal translation.
Examples of Cultural Dilution
In several instances discussed by Um-E-Laila et al., the English translation of Heer Waris Shah relies on paraphrasing with more general or culturally neutral terms, which weakens or erases the dense cultural and religious meanings embedded in the Punjabi original. A key example is the translation of a term for the Islamic marriage contract (nikah), rendered merely as “rites,” which strips away its specific legal and spiritual significance in Muslim societies. Likewise, an expression tied to the emotional and social atmosphere of Punjabi weddings is reduced to a vague reference to “noise,” which cannot reproduce the layered cultural imagery associated with wedding rituals, family dynamics, and village life. In each case, the translator chooses accessibility for an English-speaking readership at the expense of the culturally specific meanings that give the original its depth and texture .
These difficulties become even more pronounced when Waris Shah uses religious metaphors that are deeply rooted in everyday Punjabi idiom. For instance, a phrase referring to a visible mark on the forehead acquired through regular prostration in prayer is translated with a completely unrelated physical description, breaking the link to Islamic devotional practice that the original audience would immediately recognise. Similarly, an idiom that portrays someone as humble and grounded is translated into English with a phrase that suggests stubborn pride, effectively inverting the intended meaning. Such examples show that the problem is not only one of vocabulary but of conceptual worlds. The cultural and religious associations carried by the source text often have no direct equivalents in English, so strategies like literal translation or loose paraphrase can end up distorting the meaning or draining it of its cultural essence (pp. 195–197, 2024).
These challenges exist within a longer history of Punjabi–English literary translation. The earliest encounters between the two languages began during British colonial rule, when administrators and scholars translated Punjabi works to better understand the region they governed. Although shaped by colonial motives, these early translations opened a pathway for Punjabi literature to travel beyond its linguistic borders. The real momentum, however, emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, when Punjabi writers and translators such as Mohan Singh, Sant Singh Sekhon, Amrita Pritam, Khushwant Singh, Shiv Kumar Batalvi, Kartar Singh Duggal, Dalip Kaur Tiwana and Gurdial Singh began intentionally carrying Punjabi creative expression into English. Their work was part of a wider cultural effort to preserve Punjabi identity, and it established Punjabi-English translation as a meaningful field in its own right.
Despite this growing legacy, the field still lacks sustained theoretical engagement. Much Punjabi literature has been translated into English, yet discussions about method, quality and cultural fidelity remain limited. Translators continue to grapple with practical and conceptual dilemmas, how to carry culturally saturated vocabulary, idioms, metaphors and stylistic patterns into a language that does not share the same worldview. The examples highlighted in Heer Waris Shah reveal why such theoretical work is urgently needed: without a systematic framework for addressing lexical, cultural, syntactical and stylistic challenges, translations risk flattening the richness of Punjabi literature rather than illuminating it for new readers.
Literature review
A review of the scholarship on Punjabi–English literary translation shows that, although the field has produced several meaningful contributions, it still remains underdeveloped and requires much deeper critical engagement. The existing body of work is scattered and often preliminary, signalling a clear need for sustained inquiry, theoretical grounding and comparative evaluation. The purpose of this section is to map the most influential interventions so far and to draw attention to the gaps that continue to shape the discipline.
One of the earliest collective discussions on translation in the Punjabi literary sphere appears in a special issue of Punjabi Dunia published in January 1987, which brought together reflections on the complexities of translating both poetry and prose. Among these contributions was a significant essay by Sant Singh Sekhon, “Anuvad – Ik Kala,” later rendered into English by Tejwant Singh Gill as “Translation is an Art” in Sant Singh Sekhon: Selected Writings (2005). In this piece, Sekhon reflects on Punjabi translations of Kalidasa’s plays and voices his dissatisfaction with the quality of these efforts. He suggests that translations into Punjabi often fall short when compared to those produced in languages such as Hindi, pointing to a limited engagement with classical literature among Punjabi readers. Sekhon argues that this lack of readership interest ultimately affects the vitality of Punjabi literary output, as translations thrive only when there is an active audience willing to appreciate and interrogate them.
His observations bring forward an important insight: the health of a literary translation culture is closely tied to the curiosity, expectations and cultural investment of its readers. Without a readership that values classical texts or seeks out translated works, translators lack the incentive and intellectual environment needed to refine their craft. This dynamic has significant implications for Punjabi literature, as translation has historically served as a channel through which literary traditions renew themselves, absorb new aesthetic influences and engage with broader world cultures. The limited critical discourse surrounding Punjabi-English translation therefore not only restricts the development of translation practice but also curtails opportunities for Punjabi literature to evolve through cross-cultural dialogue.
Specific translation problems
The translation of literary texts often presents challenges that go beyond routine linguistic conversion. J. C. Catford famously argues that a text becomes “untranslatable” when the meaning carried by a particular cultural or situational feature cannot be reproduced in the target language in any functionally meaningful way (Catford, 1967: 94). A well-known example frequently discussed in Punjabi literature is the title of the novel Marhi da Deeva. The term marhi refers to a culturally specific funerary or memorial structure for which no precise equivalent exists in English. Even the word deeva, while broadly understood as an earthen lamp, carries symbolic associations in Punjabi cultural and religious contexts that cannot be conveyed by the English term alone. Such instances illustrate the difficulty of translating expressions that are deeply rooted in a particular cultural worldview.
When translators confront terms that resist equivalence, leaving the original word intact may preserve authenticity but can also create confusion for readers unfamiliar with its cultural background. In these cases, translation becomes an act of negotiation between fidelity and accessibility. Supplementing the text with footnotes or brief explanations can help bridge this cultural gap and allow readers of the translated version to engage more fully with the meanings embedded in the source text.
One of the recurring issues identified in the study of Punjabi–English literary translation concerns the difficulties translators encounter when dealing with regional dialects. Punjabi comprises several dialects, each carrying its own cultural and semantic nuances. When translators lack familiarity with these dialects, significant shifts in meaning can occur. This is evident in the English rendering of Annhe Ghore da Daan (1975), published as Alms in the Name of a Blind Horse (2016). In this translation, a Malwai expression typically used to indicate “the northern direction” is interpreted instead as “from the direction of hills,” altering the intended spatial reference. Such instances highlight the necessity of dialectal competence in translation work. Resources such as Gurdial Singh: Sandharabh Kosh (2014), where Tarsem Singh compiles Malwai vocabulary and idiomatic usage, demonstrate how dialect-specific documentation can support more accurate and culturally grounded translations. The analysis indicates that, without such contextual awareness, translations may be structurally sound yet culturally misaligned.
Another significant pattern identified in the examination of Punjabi–English translations is the strategic use of omission. In The Skeleton (2017), the English version of Amrita Pritam’s Pinjar (1950), omissions occur at multiple levels: individual lexical items, culturally embedded expressions, idiomatic structures, and notably, an entire chapter from the source text. The exclusion of a complete chapter constitutes a major intervention, one that alters narrative flow and potentially reshapes the thematic and emotional contours of the novel. Although omission can function as a legitimate translational strategy, particularly when addressing structural or cultural disparities between languages, it requires clear justification and transparency. Without such explanation, the practice risks distorting the original work rather than facilitating its transmission to a new readership. The findings therefore emphasise the importance of careful, accountable decision-making when omitting material from a culturally and historically significant text. (Kaur, 2023, p. 144-145)
These translational challenges gain further significance when viewed against the backdrop of my own engagement with translated literature. Much of my exposure to world literature—especially Russian writing—came through Punjabi translations circulated by the Punjab Book Centre in Chandigarh, an institution established during the period of the Soviet Union’s extensive cultural outreach. Through this channel, I encountered works such as Mera Dagestan, originally written in the endangered Avar language, yet rendered into Punjabi with remarkable sensitivity. This inflow of global literature into Punjabi demonstrates the transformative impact of high-quality translations. However, the reverse flow, from Punjabi into other major languages, remains comparatively weak. Foundational Punjabi works, including Harinder Singh Mahboob’s Sahije Racheo Khalsa, have seldom been translated for wider audiences. Although Professor Gurratan Singh undertook an English translation of Mahboob’s text, a colleague familiar with both versions notes that the translation does not fully capture the depth and complexity of the original. While I have not reviewed the translation myself, the difficulty of conveying Mahboob’s philosophical and stylistic intricacies suggests that even committed efforts may struggle to match the richness of the Punjabi source. This disparity between influx and outflow underscores the broader obstacles that continue to shape Punjabi–English literary translation and the urgent need for more robust, theoretically informed approaches.
The form of a literary text often becomes a central obstacle in translation, particularly when the translator must preserve both artistic coherence and semantic precision. This tension becomes especially visible in poetry, where meaning is inseparable from rhythm, pauses, lineation, and tonal movement. In her essay Punjabi-English Literary Translation: Challenges and Possibilities (2023), Kulveer Kaur illustrates this challenge through two contrasting translations of Avtar Pash’s poem “Laṛhe Ho’e Vartmān de Rū-b-Rū,” demonstrating how shifts in form can produce remarkably different reading experiences.
Original Punjabi Poem by Avtar Pash
ਲੜ੍ਹੇ ਹੋਏ ਵਰਤਮਾਨ ਦੇ ਰੂ-ਬ-ਰੂ ਮੈਂ ਅਖ਼ਬਾਰਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਬਹੁਤ ਡਰਦਾ ਹਾਂ। ਜ਼ਰੂਰ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਿਤੇ ਨਾ ਕਿਤੇ ਕੁਝ ਨਾ ਹੋਣ ਦੀ ਖ਼ਬਰ ਛਪੀ ਹੋਵੇਗੀ ਸ਼ਾਇਦ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਜਾਣਦੇ ਨਹੀਂ, ਜਾਂ ਜਾਣਦੇ ਵੀ ਹੋਵੋ ਔ ਕਿ ਕਿਤੇ ਵੀ ਕਿੱਥੇ ਵੀ ਕੁਝ ਨਾ ਹੋਣਾ ਲਗਾਤਾਰ ਨਜ਼ਰਾਂ ਦਾ ਹੱਫਦੇ ਰਹਿਣਾ ਤੇ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਦਾ ਚੁੱਪ-ਚਾਪ ਲੇਟੇ ਰਹਿਣਾ ਇਕ ਠੰਢੀ ਔਰਤ ਵਾਂਗ– (Pash 2015: 161)
Translation 1 (Mohi 1992) Face to Face with the Fought-Out Present (1) I am much afraid of newspapers these days There must be in them somewhere the news That nothing has happened whatever You may not know, perhaps, or you may also know How terrible it is ‘happening nothing whatever’ The constant panting of sight And things lying mum, like a frigid woman– (Mohi 1992: 46)
Translation 2 (Sharma 2023) Face to Face with the Time Fought For (2) newspapers frighten me so much these days I fear they must be carrying somewhere the news of nothing having happened maybe you don’t know but perhaps you do how terrifying it is when nothing happens the eyes breathless panting run up and down not able to stop and things lie inert like a woman cold… (Sharma 2023: 96)
Kaur points out that these two translations demonstrate different philosophies of handling poetic form. The first translator retains a more continuous, syntactically cohesive structure, mirroring the flow of the Punjabi text and reproducing its thought-units in a direct, almost prose-like manner. This approach relies on fidelity to the original line movement and grammatical organisation. The second translator takes a more interpretive route, breaking the poem into shorter, breath-like fragments. These deliberate pauses slow the reader down, heightening the sense of anxiety and suspension that underlies Pash’s meditation on stillness and dread. By reshaping the form, the translator aims to transmit the emotional atmosphere rather than the structural pattern of the source text.
From a critical standpoint, the two translations highlight the central dilemma in rendering Pash’s poetry into English. Pash’s work is grounded in a rhythm that emerges from Punjabi’s internal cadence and political urgency. A close structural imitation, as seen in the first translation, preserves the poem’s narrative arc but risks muting its emotional intensity. The second version, while more experimental, attempts to recreate the poem’s internal turbulence through fragmentation—yet in doing so, it inevitably distances itself from the original’s syntactic discipline.
The comparison affirms that translating Pash requires far more than lexical accuracy; it demands an attentiveness to the psychological weight embedded in his line breaks, silences, and tonal fluctuations. In this sense, the translator must navigate between faithfulness to textual architecture and responsiveness to the poem’s affective core. Each choice opens possibilities but also imposes limitations, confirming that in poetry, perhaps more than any other genre, form is not merely decorative but constitutive of meaning itself.
Conclusion
The examination of Punjabi–English translation highlights how deeply cultural and linguistic differences shape the movement of meaning between the two languages. Punjabi texts often rely on culturally embedded metaphors, dialectal expressions, and rhythmic patterns that do not easily align with English structures, leading to shifts, omissions, or distortions in translation. These challenges demonstrate that translation is not a neutral act but a complex negotiation between two distinct worldviews.
My own observation is that while Punjabi readers have long benefited from a rich tradition of translated world literature, the reverse flow, where Punjabi texts travel outward, remains limited and uneven. Important works, including those central to Punjabi intellectual and cultural life, are still not widely available in English or are translated in ways that struggle to carry the depth of the original. This imbalance reflects the broader difficulties identified throughout this study: translating Punjabi demands not only linguistic skill but a nuanced understanding of its cultural and emotional context.
Strengthening Punjabi–English literary translation will therefore require more rigorous approaches, greater cultural awareness, and a commitment to preserving the integrity of the source text. Only then can Punjabi literature reach wider audiences without losing the richness that defines it.