Whatever a critique may think of a work in translation, but he cannot deny that there is a deep relationship between ‘Translation’ and ‘Comparative Literature’. Translation has served a lot in the development of Comparative Literature as a separate discipline. The relationship between comparative literature and the study of translation has been a complex and problematic one. Translation has tended to be regarded as the poor relation, as an activity involving little talent and creativity, as something that could be carried out by trained hacks and financially rewarded accordingly (Bassnett 139). Though earlier considered as nonstandard work, translation is an important tool for any comparatist, as it helps him in expanding the area of his work. He is able to compare any two texts from two different parts of the world without learning a new language. Even Comparative Literature as a different discipline was able to make a mark when the students, unlike Levin’s will, were not restricted from picking the translated works: as Levin in his 1965 report had preferred that ‘their candidates have solid training in a few languages, rather than that they have skimmed through a great many works in translation or literary history at second hand’ (Levin 2). A translator has a very important role to play while translating a text from source language to the target language. Here, I would like to quote A.K Ramanujan from his translation note to U.R. Ananthamurthy’s novel Samskara. “A translator hopes not only to translate a text, but hopes against all odds to translate a non-native reader into a native one. The Notes and Afterword are part of that effort.” The importance of translation becomes clear from the simple fact that a single person can hardly gain a solid knowledge in more than three languages. And even to be able to compare two texts from the two languages he knows, he needs to work very hard. Considered as an umbrella t