The Brahmin community that has been running amuck for 10 days and the Hindutva brigade that's been baying for his blood all owe an apology to Vairamuthu or at least, if any decency is left, drop this topic and get on with their lives.
Vairamuthu's ONLY sin was sourcing a quote and like the many who are pillorying him, being a non-academician and accepting what's printed as God's own truth without probing further. If this is sin worth lynching him then what do we with the authors of Hindutva rag sheets or the many wanderers in the portals of academia that have become cesspools of revisionism servicing linguistic chauvinism or nationalist jingoism?
I've finally managed to get hold of the book, "Indian Movements: Some Aspects of Dissent Protest and Reform" edited by S.C. Malik.The book is published by "Indian Institute of Advanced Study - Simla", not by Indiana University. The copy Vairamuthu used was issued by Indiana University. The poor dilettante just mistook it for being a university publication.
The essay, in that book, "Bhakti Movement in South India" is by M.G.S. Narayanan and Veluthat Kesavan, both professors from Calicut University. Before we get to the offending lines let’s understand who these authors were.
Wikipedia has good details on Muttayil Govindamenon Sankara Narayanan aka M.G.S. Narayanan. He is a very highly regarded historian. Unlike Vairamuthu and his detractors I’ve taken pains to go to some of the sources of the quotations just to verify the context and reassure myself that no misrepresentation creeps.
Wikipedia supplies a quote from A.L. Bhasham to affirm the merits of Narayanan as a historian. Bhasham, referring to an index of inscriptions in Narayanan’s book “Perumals of Kerala” had said that the index alone is “a contribution to knowledge more valuable than many PhD theses”. This was excerpted from a review of a recent edition of the book, published in Frontline, and reviewer was none other than Veluthat Kesavan.
The mob spawned many conspiracy theories on the motivations of Vairamuthu to foreign universities meddling in India at the behest of a world conspiracy to undermine Hinduism were mentioned.
M.G.S. Narayanan was, interestingly, appointed Chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research in 2001 during Vajpayee’s tenure and was assured by Murli Manohar Joshi, then education minister, that there would be no interference in academic matters. Of course the honeymoon lasted just 2 years and Narayanan was ousted. Narayanan, Ramachandra Guha characterizes, in a column, as one who “knows his Vallathol and his Basheer, but also his Foucault and his Sartre”. Guha adds that unlike Paul Zachariah who calls himself a ‘man of the left’ Narayanan could best be described as ‘a man of the “anti-left”’.
Narayanan’s book “Perumals of Kerala” is subtitled “Brahmin Oligarchy and Ritual Monarchy: Political and Social Conditions of Kerala Under the Cera Perumals of Makotai (c. A.D 800-A.D 1124)”. Kesavan Veluthat takes issue with the anti-Brahmin flavor of that title in his review and points out that the book in fact shows Brahmins of that era in a very favorable light. Combining Kesavan’s observation and Guha’s characterization one can say that Narayanan cannot be boxed into the knee jerk neo-nazi anti-Brahmin lumpen crowd led by Karunanidhi. To be fair to Vairamuthu one cannot say he believed in everything Karunanidhi espoused or came to symbolize. I’ve not come across any overt anti-Hindu or anti-Brahminical flavored uttering of Vairamuthu.
About Kesavan Veluthat there’s little info like a wikipedia page. His bio-data is at http://www.du.ac.in/du/uploads/Faculty%20Profiles/2016/History/Nov2016_History_Kesavan.pdf
With that back drop let’s look at the words by Narayanan and Kesavan Veluthat. The paragraph deserves to be quoted in full:
A work by scholars when citing a reference cannot use words, especially when connotations are loaded, to summarize what the source said. Sastri only says Nayanar wanted to marry a ‘dancing girl’ and a ‘sudra girl’. Of course one could argue that dancing girls were ‘devadasis’ in that era. If so the historian should suitably word it in his reference.
The Andal reference, the epicenter of the controversy, is handled in a very shoddy manner. An unpardonable error in a work by historians of Narayanan and Kesavan’s caliber. The source for the authors was T.A. Gopinatha Rao’s ‘History of Sri Vaishnavas” (1923, Madras University). Gopinatha Rao (1872-1919), an archeologist, is best known for his book “Elements of Hindu iconography”. ARchive.org provided a copy of ‘History of Sri Vaishnavas’ scanned in from a copy owned by University of Chicago. This is not a book but a lecture presented as part of a series titled “Sir Subrahmanyan Ayyar lectures” on 17th and 18th December 1917. After referring to Andal as Periyalvar’s daughter Gopinatha Rao writes:
The construction of this paragraph conflicts mildly with the authors’ earlier reference to Andal where they cite the work of Dr. K.C. Varadachari and write, “Since her love was so intense Ranganatha called her into the shrine where she disappeared”. I could not find the exact source of Varadachari’s that’s cited but I stumbled upon a treasure trove of Varadachari’s writings and biography. Online edition of books by that great scholar are available (see Reference) and his chapter on Andal in a book on Alvars does not contradict anything cited from his work by Narayanan and Kesavan.
That said, the authors’ contention about rise of devadasis as a result of Bhakti movement is not without basis. Saskia Kersenboom-Story in ‘Nityasumangali’ underscores the connection, “The significance of Manikkavacakar for the tradition of the devadasi-nityasumangali consists in the fact that his work seems to represent a completion of the synthesis of the bardic Tamil culture and Brahmanic traditions of ritual and philosophical thought”.
It is instructive to quote K.A.Nilakanta Sastri on some of the eddies that accompanied the currents of the Bhakti movement. The Radha cult, Sastri says, “tended to degenerate into erotic excesses”. Of course, Sastri could not leave it there and he had to add, for good measure, “Nevertheless, Vaishnavism continued to be, in general, a noble and sweet influence on life”.
On the Saivaite Bhakti tradition there were, other than the Manickavasagar type, “other types of worshippers of Siva whose tenets and practices are gruesome and repellent to modern taste”. “Some of these sects, if not all, were addicted to the worship of the female principle, which often degenerated into licentious orgies”. Unlike the certificate of conduct he provides Vaishnavism Sastri doesn't provide one for Saivaites. One wonders.
It was a very complex era that needs to be recalled with due justice for the richness and counter currents and not sanitized to serve jingoistic narratives.
Though the Hindutva brigade and many Hindus today tend to characterize the devadasi tradition, stretching from 10th-20th century, as one glorious era when women were empowered and were repositories and transmitters of fine arts the latter day stigma attached to the tradition rankles them instinctively. That is why though the authors were not entirely wrong in calling Andal’s relationship as ‘devadasi’, literally slave of god, the characterization became a lightning rod.
Vairamuthu, other than mistakenly believing that the book was published by University of Indiana, did not misrepresent anything. The quote he used was accurate and the source of the authors was a Brahmin himself who delivered a lecture in memory of another Brahmin. It is pertinent to recall that Rajaji, a Congress stalwart and a darling of the Brahmins, went to the extent of even doubting whether Andal existed or was her name a pseudonym for a male. Rangarajan, a Vaishnavite author, better known by his pen name ‘Sujatha’, wondered how did a plain woman write such verses and concludes she was probably tutored by her adopted father Periyalvar. One wonders whether other alwars, all male, wrote poetry untutored.
The ever redoubtable Aravindan Neelakandan, considered an intellectual by the Hindutva brigade, something like the Dravidian party members calling Annathurai a ‘Bernard Shaw’, as usual spewed his conspiracy theories and discredited Vairamuthu’s contention that Andal was a voice of feminist assertion in an era when such assertion was unheard of.
Here is vaishnavite Sujatha on what Andal means, “In the 9th century she provided women an awakening that they are not objects of pleasure but privileged to awaken the sleeping lord to hear them. She taught women that they can attain oneness with the lord by their purity, external and internal, and that makes her a revolutionary woman”. (Translation by me. Original quote in references). I hope it is not Vairamuthu’s caste or profession as movie lyricist that robs him of his right to come to a conclusion similar to that reached by a vaishnavite writer who wrote pot boilers and dabbled in movies.
Neelakandan thrashes about and blames “Marxist or Dravidiainist Hinduphobia” for “speculative forays are invariably negative, deeply distortionary, seldom based on robust historic scholarship”. Unfortunately for Neelakandan it is Brahmin and anti-left historians whose opinions formed the basis of this unholy mess.
Narayanan and Kesavan are not lumpen brahmin hating Dravidian party stooges. Here’s what they write on Brahmin contribution in the Bhakti era. “Brahminism with its institutional base in the temple centered agrarian settlements, had emerged as the most dynamic progressive force”.
The authors pre-date Saskia Kersenboom in concluding “the ideology of Bhakti served as the cementing force bringing together kings, brahman priests and the common people in a harmonious manner”. Is this what Neelakandan calls ‘hinduphobia’? Oh wait, he did not bother to read the source but instead uses Vairamuthu, more importantly for his friendship with Karunanidhi, as a straw man.
Essentially Vairamuthu did not say anything that other Brahmins have not said. Vairamuthu’s only real sin was that he is a dark skinned non-Brahmin and that too from a caste known for martial prowess and not literary pursuits. Understandably the community which has come to believe in its own mythical collective intellectual prowess could not brook such impudence on behalf of a lower caste member.
The torrent of abuse from Brahmins in particular and Hindus in general was unbelievable for those who are unfamiliar with history. A vaishnavite savant coolly cited a poem that called for either beheading, when able, or, when not able, to shut one’s ears when faced with an abuse of the lord. Another sadhu gesticulating furiously recalled the myth of a crow being maimed and for good effect added “the crow, too, is dark”, a clear allusion to Vairamuthu’s dark skin.
A senior functionary of the ruling party, never one to be outdone in dishing out venom, called Vairamuthu a whore’s son. That functionary also gloated how Y.S.R. Reddy, a Christian (he rarely used his full name), died a gruesome death after slighting a Hindu god. “His flesh had to be scraped from the mountains where his helicopter crashed” said the functionary and people clapped. A handful of Hindutva brigade dissociated themselves from his remarks on Vairamuthu but coolly neglected to dissociate from his remarks on Y.S.R.Reddy. I’m sure Reddy’s religion had nothing to do with that speciously selective disavowal.
Not to be outdone by a BJP functionary popular movie director Bharathiraja decided to offer his support to Vairamuthu and issued explicit threats of violence to anyone who may harbor ideas of harming Vairamuthu. Sheer madness.
It is illustrative to recall how these same Brahmins encountered fellow vaishnavite Kamal Hassan, a matinee idol, who relishes pricking Hindu sentiments. Sure, they rant and gnash their teeth but compared to the scorn and ridicule and threat of violence against Vairamuthu it was nothing. Needless to say Kamal Hassan is not dark skinned either.
Vairamuthu has now released a comprehensive statement repeating the regret he had expressed when the controversy broke out. His speech, as he claims, was indeed respectful to Andal, largely. He has in the past used Andal’s poetry in his lyrics. His admiration of Andal is genuine.
It is interesting that the entire ire was focused on Vairamuthu and none was directed at the original authors of the quote. The conduct of Dinamani, a newspaper, which sponsored the event where Vairamuthu spoke was shameful cowardice. Instead of standing by their invitee, especially when all he did was quote, they buckled too eagerly and cravenly. In buckling they compounded their cowardice by asserting that the intent was only to honor the memory of literature and religion and not to besmirch it. Is this how a newspaper conducts itself? Alas there's no journalistic ethos left to be defended.
The Brahmin community which had chafed for decades at Karunanidhi’s taunts and was mostly mute in the face of lack of cohesive political power has burst forth in blind fury at a man whose list of sins include being friends with Karunanidhi and the time is opportune because Karunanidhi, who if he was not incapacitated would’ve neutralized the protests.
Ironically the Brahmin community really cared a damn about existential issues like the reservation policy for which one guy, K.M. Vijayan, is carrying on a valiant fight against heavy odds and he has already paid a huge price for that. This community that is wailing in every street for Andal did not raise a whimper when utterances like “the day there’s no Brahmin in MBBS course would be a golden day” were made. Apparently their rituals and religious icons matter much more than the welfare of their progeny.
The only silver lining in this fracas is that no Brahmin can, anymore, look smugly at other caste outfits when they act less than Socratic in encountering opposing views or inconvenient truths.
Post-Script: Dr. K.C. Varadachariar is a person to be read. He writes like Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan. Well, they both were graduates from the philosophy department of Madras Christian College. M.G.S. Narayanan too is an alumnus of Madras Christian College. Before the Hindutva brigade runs around yelling, "ah see the Christian conspiracy" I suggest they read Varadachariar.
References:
1. ‘History of South India” Published 1958, Oxford University Press 2nd Edition.- K.A.Nilakanta Sastri
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._G._S._Narayanan
4. Ramachandra Guha’s article https://www.telegraphindia.com/1031005/asp/opinion/story_2393847.asp
5. Kesavan Veluthat book review in Frontline http://www.frontline.in/books/keralas-past/article5544506.ece
6. Gopinatha Rao’s paper ‘The history of Sri Vaishnavas” https://ia802702.us.archive.org/7/items/MN40128ucmf_0/MN40128ucmf_0.pdf
7. K.A.Nilakanta Sastri “History of South India” https://ia801300.us.archive.org/19/items/AHistoryOfSouthIndiaPDF/A-History-of-South-India-PDF_text.pdf
8. Aravindan Neelakandan article on Vairamuthu https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/aandal-attacked-again-and-again
9. Dr. K.C. Varadachariar on Andal http://www.drkcv.org/Books/Chapter15.pdf
10. Nitya Sumangali - Saskia Kersenboom
11. Indian movements: Some aspects of dissent protest and reform - Edited by S.C. Malik.
12. ஆழ்வார்கள் ஓர் எளிய அறிமுகம் - சுஜாதா
Vairamuthu's ONLY sin was sourcing a quote and like the many who are pillorying him, being a non-academician and accepting what's printed as God's own truth without probing further. If this is sin worth lynching him then what do we with the authors of Hindutva rag sheets or the many wanderers in the portals of academia that have become cesspools of revisionism servicing linguistic chauvinism or nationalist jingoism?
 |
| Vairamuthu (Image Courtesy sbllPOijgdhcg.jpg) |
The essay, in that book, "Bhakti Movement in South India" is by M.G.S. Narayanan and Veluthat Kesavan, both professors from Calicut University. Before we get to the offending lines let’s understand who these authors were.
Wikipedia has good details on Muttayil Govindamenon Sankara Narayanan aka M.G.S. Narayanan. He is a very highly regarded historian. Unlike Vairamuthu and his detractors I’ve taken pains to go to some of the sources of the quotations just to verify the context and reassure myself that no misrepresentation creeps.
Wikipedia supplies a quote from A.L. Bhasham to affirm the merits of Narayanan as a historian. Bhasham, referring to an index of inscriptions in Narayanan’s book “Perumals of Kerala” had said that the index alone is “a contribution to knowledge more valuable than many PhD theses”. This was excerpted from a review of a recent edition of the book, published in Frontline, and reviewer was none other than Veluthat Kesavan.
The mob spawned many conspiracy theories on the motivations of Vairamuthu to foreign universities meddling in India at the behest of a world conspiracy to undermine Hinduism were mentioned.
M.G.S. Narayanan was, interestingly, appointed Chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research in 2001 during Vajpayee’s tenure and was assured by Murli Manohar Joshi, then education minister, that there would be no interference in academic matters. Of course the honeymoon lasted just 2 years and Narayanan was ousted. Narayanan, Ramachandra Guha characterizes, in a column, as one who “knows his Vallathol and his Basheer, but also his Foucault and his Sartre”. Guha adds that unlike Paul Zachariah who calls himself a ‘man of the left’ Narayanan could best be described as ‘a man of the “anti-left”’.
Narayanan’s book “Perumals of Kerala” is subtitled “Brahmin Oligarchy and Ritual Monarchy: Political and Social Conditions of Kerala Under the Cera Perumals of Makotai (c. A.D 800-A.D 1124)”. Kesavan Veluthat takes issue with the anti-Brahmin flavor of that title in his review and points out that the book in fact shows Brahmins of that era in a very favorable light. Combining Kesavan’s observation and Guha’s characterization one can say that Narayanan cannot be boxed into the knee jerk neo-nazi anti-Brahmin lumpen crowd led by Karunanidhi. To be fair to Vairamuthu one cannot say he believed in everything Karunanidhi espoused or came to symbolize. I’ve not come across any overt anti-Hindu or anti-Brahminical flavored uttering of Vairamuthu.
About Kesavan Veluthat there’s little info like a wikipedia page. His bio-data is at http://www.du.ac.in/du/uploads/Faculty%20Profiles/2016/History/Nov2016_History_Kesavan.pdf
With that back drop let’s look at the words by Narayanan and Kesavan Veluthat. The paragraph deserves to be quoted in full:
“A specific consequence of the movement was the encouragement it gave to devadasis or handmaids of gods, tevadiccis Tamil. As bhakti spread through the media of songs, dance and beauty, devadasis played a significant role in the popular appeal of the temple. Thus, Sundaramurtti Nayanar was involved with a devadasi. Cheraman Perumal Nayanar notes the reception given to Shiva by devadasis of all ages while he went out in a procession around the streets in Kailasa, and Andal was herself a devadasi who lived and died in the Srirangam temple”.The reference to Sundaramurtti Nayanar was sourced from, according to references provided by the authors, K.A.Nilakanta Sastri’s ‘History of South India’. The authors do not mention the edition or date of publication of the book, a common citation required in academic papers to distinguish the source used. The 2009 Oxford University edition does not bear out the reference made and a google search took me to an archived version of the book which is an expanded version. The expanded version, published in 1958, does not exactly corroborate the quote (see Reference). However, folklore does corroborate it.
A work by scholars when citing a reference cannot use words, especially when connotations are loaded, to summarize what the source said. Sastri only says Nayanar wanted to marry a ‘dancing girl’ and a ‘sudra girl’. Of course one could argue that dancing girls were ‘devadasis’ in that era. If so the historian should suitably word it in his reference.
The Andal reference, the epicenter of the controversy, is handled in a very shoddy manner. An unpardonable error in a work by historians of Narayanan and Kesavan’s caliber. The source for the authors was T.A. Gopinatha Rao’s ‘History of Sri Vaishnavas” (1923, Madras University). Gopinatha Rao (1872-1919), an archeologist, is best known for his book “Elements of Hindu iconography”. ARchive.org provided a copy of ‘History of Sri Vaishnavas’ scanned in from a copy owned by University of Chicago. This is not a book but a lecture presented as part of a series titled “Sir Subrahmanyan Ayyar lectures” on 17th and 18th December 1917. After referring to Andal as Periyalvar’s daughter Gopinatha Rao writes:
“When she reached marriageable age, she refused to marry any one except the God Ranganatha of the Srirangam temple. The God appeared to the Alvar in a dream to declare before him his acceptance of the girl in marriage and ordered her to be brought to his residence at Srlrangam. Periyalvar took her there with great eclat and left her in her Lord's house and returned to his quiet residence at Srivilliputtur.”According to mythology Andal was not left to live in Srirangam but that she merged with the presiding deity at Srirangam temple. Gopinatha Rao’s characterization of Andal being left at Srirangam in a marriage to the deity provided Narayanan and Kesavan the notion that she was a ‘devadasi’. Very unfortunately they did not elucidate that this was ‘conclusion’ they reached but stated it like it was a fact. Read into context with the paragraph talking about the “encouragement” given to the rise of devadasi tradition as ‘consequence’ of the Bhakti movement the authors too hastily clubbed Andal’s life into a traditional devadasi life.
The construction of this paragraph conflicts mildly with the authors’ earlier reference to Andal where they cite the work of Dr. K.C. Varadachari and write, “Since her love was so intense Ranganatha called her into the shrine where she disappeared”. I could not find the exact source of Varadachari’s that’s cited but I stumbled upon a treasure trove of Varadachari’s writings and biography. Online edition of books by that great scholar are available (see Reference) and his chapter on Andal in a book on Alvars does not contradict anything cited from his work by Narayanan and Kesavan.
That said, the authors’ contention about rise of devadasis as a result of Bhakti movement is not without basis. Saskia Kersenboom-Story in ‘Nityasumangali’ underscores the connection, “The significance of Manikkavacakar for the tradition of the devadasi-nityasumangali consists in the fact that his work seems to represent a completion of the synthesis of the bardic Tamil culture and Brahmanic traditions of ritual and philosophical thought”.
It is instructive to quote K.A.Nilakanta Sastri on some of the eddies that accompanied the currents of the Bhakti movement. The Radha cult, Sastri says, “tended to degenerate into erotic excesses”. Of course, Sastri could not leave it there and he had to add, for good measure, “Nevertheless, Vaishnavism continued to be, in general, a noble and sweet influence on life”.
On the Saivaite Bhakti tradition there were, other than the Manickavasagar type, “other types of worshippers of Siva whose tenets and practices are gruesome and repellent to modern taste”. “Some of these sects, if not all, were addicted to the worship of the female principle, which often degenerated into licentious orgies”. Unlike the certificate of conduct he provides Vaishnavism Sastri doesn't provide one for Saivaites. One wonders.
It was a very complex era that needs to be recalled with due justice for the richness and counter currents and not sanitized to serve jingoistic narratives.
Though the Hindutva brigade and many Hindus today tend to characterize the devadasi tradition, stretching from 10th-20th century, as one glorious era when women were empowered and were repositories and transmitters of fine arts the latter day stigma attached to the tradition rankles them instinctively. That is why though the authors were not entirely wrong in calling Andal’s relationship as ‘devadasi’, literally slave of god, the characterization became a lightning rod.
Vairamuthu, other than mistakenly believing that the book was published by University of Indiana, did not misrepresent anything. The quote he used was accurate and the source of the authors was a Brahmin himself who delivered a lecture in memory of another Brahmin. It is pertinent to recall that Rajaji, a Congress stalwart and a darling of the Brahmins, went to the extent of even doubting whether Andal existed or was her name a pseudonym for a male. Rangarajan, a Vaishnavite author, better known by his pen name ‘Sujatha’, wondered how did a plain woman write such verses and concludes she was probably tutored by her adopted father Periyalvar. One wonders whether other alwars, all male, wrote poetry untutored.
The ever redoubtable Aravindan Neelakandan, considered an intellectual by the Hindutva brigade, something like the Dravidian party members calling Annathurai a ‘Bernard Shaw’, as usual spewed his conspiracy theories and discredited Vairamuthu’s contention that Andal was a voice of feminist assertion in an era when such assertion was unheard of.
Here is vaishnavite Sujatha on what Andal means, “In the 9th century she provided women an awakening that they are not objects of pleasure but privileged to awaken the sleeping lord to hear them. She taught women that they can attain oneness with the lord by their purity, external and internal, and that makes her a revolutionary woman”. (Translation by me. Original quote in references). I hope it is not Vairamuthu’s caste or profession as movie lyricist that robs him of his right to come to a conclusion similar to that reached by a vaishnavite writer who wrote pot boilers and dabbled in movies.
Neelakandan thrashes about and blames “Marxist or Dravidiainist Hinduphobia” for “speculative forays are invariably negative, deeply distortionary, seldom based on robust historic scholarship”. Unfortunately for Neelakandan it is Brahmin and anti-left historians whose opinions formed the basis of this unholy mess.
Narayanan and Kesavan are not lumpen brahmin hating Dravidian party stooges. Here’s what they write on Brahmin contribution in the Bhakti era. “Brahminism with its institutional base in the temple centered agrarian settlements, had emerged as the most dynamic progressive force”.
The authors pre-date Saskia Kersenboom in concluding “the ideology of Bhakti served as the cementing force bringing together kings, brahman priests and the common people in a harmonious manner”. Is this what Neelakandan calls ‘hinduphobia’? Oh wait, he did not bother to read the source but instead uses Vairamuthu, more importantly for his friendship with Karunanidhi, as a straw man.
Essentially Vairamuthu did not say anything that other Brahmins have not said. Vairamuthu’s only real sin was that he is a dark skinned non-Brahmin and that too from a caste known for martial prowess and not literary pursuits. Understandably the community which has come to believe in its own mythical collective intellectual prowess could not brook such impudence on behalf of a lower caste member.
The torrent of abuse from Brahmins in particular and Hindus in general was unbelievable for those who are unfamiliar with history. A vaishnavite savant coolly cited a poem that called for either beheading, when able, or, when not able, to shut one’s ears when faced with an abuse of the lord. Another sadhu gesticulating furiously recalled the myth of a crow being maimed and for good effect added “the crow, too, is dark”, a clear allusion to Vairamuthu’s dark skin.
A senior functionary of the ruling party, never one to be outdone in dishing out venom, called Vairamuthu a whore’s son. That functionary also gloated how Y.S.R. Reddy, a Christian (he rarely used his full name), died a gruesome death after slighting a Hindu god. “His flesh had to be scraped from the mountains where his helicopter crashed” said the functionary and people clapped. A handful of Hindutva brigade dissociated themselves from his remarks on Vairamuthu but coolly neglected to dissociate from his remarks on Y.S.R.Reddy. I’m sure Reddy’s religion had nothing to do with that speciously selective disavowal.
Not to be outdone by a BJP functionary popular movie director Bharathiraja decided to offer his support to Vairamuthu and issued explicit threats of violence to anyone who may harbor ideas of harming Vairamuthu. Sheer madness.
It is illustrative to recall how these same Brahmins encountered fellow vaishnavite Kamal Hassan, a matinee idol, who relishes pricking Hindu sentiments. Sure, they rant and gnash their teeth but compared to the scorn and ridicule and threat of violence against Vairamuthu it was nothing. Needless to say Kamal Hassan is not dark skinned either.
Vairamuthu has now released a comprehensive statement repeating the regret he had expressed when the controversy broke out. His speech, as he claims, was indeed respectful to Andal, largely. He has in the past used Andal’s poetry in his lyrics. His admiration of Andal is genuine.
It is interesting that the entire ire was focused on Vairamuthu and none was directed at the original authors of the quote. The conduct of Dinamani, a newspaper, which sponsored the event where Vairamuthu spoke was shameful cowardice. Instead of standing by their invitee, especially when all he did was quote, they buckled too eagerly and cravenly. In buckling they compounded their cowardice by asserting that the intent was only to honor the memory of literature and religion and not to besmirch it. Is this how a newspaper conducts itself? Alas there's no journalistic ethos left to be defended.
The Brahmin community which had chafed for decades at Karunanidhi’s taunts and was mostly mute in the face of lack of cohesive political power has burst forth in blind fury at a man whose list of sins include being friends with Karunanidhi and the time is opportune because Karunanidhi, who if he was not incapacitated would’ve neutralized the protests.
Ironically the Brahmin community really cared a damn about existential issues like the reservation policy for which one guy, K.M. Vijayan, is carrying on a valiant fight against heavy odds and he has already paid a huge price for that. This community that is wailing in every street for Andal did not raise a whimper when utterances like “the day there’s no Brahmin in MBBS course would be a golden day” were made. Apparently their rituals and religious icons matter much more than the welfare of their progeny.
The only silver lining in this fracas is that no Brahmin can, anymore, look smugly at other caste outfits when they act less than Socratic in encountering opposing views or inconvenient truths.
Post-Script: Dr. K.C. Varadachariar is a person to be read. He writes like Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan. Well, they both were graduates from the philosophy department of Madras Christian College. M.G.S. Narayanan too is an alumnus of Madras Christian College. Before the Hindutva brigade runs around yelling, "ah see the Christian conspiracy" I suggest they read Varadachariar.
References:
1. ‘History of South India” Published 1958, Oxford University Press 2nd Edition.- K.A.Nilakanta Sastri
a. "About a century later came Sundaramurtti of Navalur. He was born of poor Brahmin parents but his beauty as a child was such that he attracted the attention of the local chieftain Narasinga Munaiyadaraiyan who, with the consent of the parents, brought him up. When his marriage with a girl of his own caste was about to take place it was stopped by the mysterious intervention of Siva who claimed him as his slave. A little later Sundara fell in love with two women, one a dancing-girl of Tiruvalur and the other a sudra girl of Tiruvorriyur. Their jealousies, it is said, could only be resolved by Siva himself acting as a messenger to one of them. Like the other nayanars, Sundara is also credited with many miracles and the contemporary Chera ruler, Cheraman Perumal, was his friend. They visited each other regularly and made their last journey to the abode of Siva in Mount Kailasa together, Sundara on a white elephant and Cheraman Perumal on a horse. Sundara’s devotion to Siva was that of an intimate friend so that he was given the title Tambiran-Tolan (‘ Friend of God ’). —- Page 414
b. “The only woman among them, Andal or Kodai (Skt. Goda), was the real or adopted daughter of Periyajvar. In her intense devo- tion to Vishnu she dreamt of her marriage with that god, and described her experience in her hymns. This mystical union was the only one she knew, and in many ways the ardour of her devotion resembles that of Manikka-vasagar, and her hymns are replete with allusions to Krishna stories.” —- Page 416.
c.“Occasionally the cult, especially that of Radha, tended to degenerate into erotic excesses. This is particularly true of the followers of Vallabhacarya (1479-1531), a Telugu Brahmin contemporary of Chaitanya. He was born in Benares, wrote several works in Sanskrit including a commentary on the Veddnta sutras and became the founder of a system called suddhadvaita which exalted bhakti above knowledge. He is said to have vanquished Smarta scholars in public debate at the court of Krishnadeva Raya. The acharyas of the sect were known as Maharajas and lived luxurious lives. The highest ambition of his followers was to become gopis and sport eternally with Krishna in his Heaven, an ideal which in practice degenerated into gross eroticism. Further, disputes be- tween rival sects sometimes flared up with unusual violence. Nevertheless, Vaishnavism continued to be, in general, a noble and sweet influence on life. “ — pg 421-422
d.“To return to the history of Saivism; we must note that by the side of the pure school of bhakti represented by the three saints of Devdram and Manikka-vasagar, there existed other types of worshippers of Siva whose tenets and practices are gruesome and repellent to modern taste. Such were the Pasupatas, Kapalikas, Kalamukhas, and others whose presence in considerable numbers in centres like Kanchl, Tiruvorriyur, Melpadi and Kodumbalur is attested by inscriptions and literature from the seventh century onwards. Smearing the body with ashes from a burning ghat, eating food in a skull, and keeping a pot of wine, were some of the common practices of the Kalamukhas; and some of these sects, if not all, were addicted to the worship of the female principle, which often degenerated into licentious orgies. The practice of the devotee offering his own head as a sacrifice to the goddess is shown in the sculpture and literature of the age of the Pallavas and Cholas." — pg 4222. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._A._Gopinatha_Rao
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._G._S._Narayanan
4. Ramachandra Guha’s article https://www.telegraphindia.com/1031005/asp/opinion/story_2393847.asp
5. Kesavan Veluthat book review in Frontline http://www.frontline.in/books/keralas-past/article5544506.ece
6. Gopinatha Rao’s paper ‘The history of Sri Vaishnavas” https://ia802702.us.archive.org/7/items/MN40128ucmf_0/MN40128ucmf_0.pdf
7. K.A.Nilakanta Sastri “History of South India” https://ia801300.us.archive.org/19/items/AHistoryOfSouthIndiaPDF/A-History-of-South-India-PDF_text.pdf
8. Aravindan Neelakandan article on Vairamuthu https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/aandal-attacked-again-and-again
9. Dr. K.C. Varadachariar on Andal http://www.drkcv.org/Books/Chapter15.pdf
10. Nitya Sumangali - Saskia Kersenboom
11. Indian movements: Some aspects of dissent protest and reform - Edited by S.C. Malik.
12. ஆழ்வார்கள் ஓர் எளிய அறிமுகம் - சுஜாதா
"ஒன்பதாம் நூற்றாண்டிலிருந்து ஒரு பெண் தன் தோழிகளிடம் விழிப்புணர்வை ஏற்படுத்தி, நீங்கள் வெறும் போகப் பொருள்களல்ல; புறத் தூய்மையாலும் அகத்தூய்மையாலும் அவனை அடைய உங்களால் முடியும் என்ற புது நோக்கில் அவரை ஒரு புரட்சிப் பெண்ணாகப் பார்க்க முடிகிறது" (Page 73)
