Part 8: The Twin Narratives of Tamil Nationalism
by
D.P.
Sivaram
[courtesy:
Lanka
Guardian,
September
1,
1992,
pp.10-12;
prepared
by
Sachi
Sri
Kantha,
for
the
electronic
record]
At
the
turn
of
the
Twentieth
century
Tamil
nationalism
was
articulated
in
terms
of
two
different
interpretations
of
Tamilian
identity,
propagated
by
two
distinct
movements
which
were
politically
opposed
to
each
other.
The
one
was
the
Dravidian
school;
the
other
was
the
Indian
revolutionary
movement.
The
former
was
closely
associated
with
English
missionaries
and
unequivocally
supported
British
rule;
the
latter
strongly
opposed
the
Raj
and
preached
violence
as
the
chief
means
of
national
emancipation
from
foreign
domination.
 |
| Bishop Caldwell |
The
discourse
that
may
be
identified
today
as
Tamil
nationalism
is
constituted
at
its
basis
by
these
two
interpretations
–
or
more
appropriately
‘founding’
narratives
–
which
contended
with
each
other
to
offer
authentic
readings
of
the
Tamilian
past
and
present,
of
what
‘really’
constituted
Tamilian
identity.
The
Dravidian
school
gave
political
and
academic
form
to
linguistic
ethno-nationalism;
the
revolutionary
movement
turned
traditional
Tamil
militarism
into
a
liberation
ideology,
which
evolved
into
militarist
ethno-nationalism.
The
militarist
reading
has
also
characterised
Tamil
ethno-nationalism
in
the
twentieth
century
not
merely
because
it
was
"constructed
and
deployed
to
advance
the
interests
and
claims
of
the
collectivity,
banded
and
mobilized
as
a
pressure
group"
but
also
because,
as
this
study
intends
to
show,
it
appealed
to,
and
arose
out
of
the
structures
of
experience
produced
and
reproduced
through
folk
culture
and
religion
in
rural
Tamilnadu.
This
is
how,
as
we
shall
see
later,
MGR
became
Madurai
Veeran,
the
warrior
god
of
a
numerous
scheduled
caste
in
Periyar
district
in
Tamilnadu.
Jeyalalitha
contested
from
an
electorate
there
in
the
last
election
[i.e.,
1991
general
election].
However,
it
is
essential
to
understand
the
politics
behind
the
claims
and
silences
of
the
early
Dravidian
school
of
Tamil
revivalism
and
‘historiography’
for
examining
the
rise
of
modern
Tamil
militarism.
Caldwell
and
his
followers
who
wrote
and
spoke
about
Tamil
culture
and
history
endeavoured
to
show
that
Tamils
were
essentially
a
peaceful
people
who
had
achieved
a
high
level
of
civilization
independent
of
and
prior
to
the
arrival
of
the
‘Aryans’
in
the
Indian
subcontinent.
This
was
the
unique
Dravidian
civilization.
The
theory
of
Dravidian
linguistic
and
hence
cultural
independence
also
contained
in
it
the
idea
that
the
Tamils
were
originally
a
class
of
peaceful
farmers.
The
politics
of
Caldwell’s
teleology
compelled
him
[to]
introduce
this
idea
into
his
writings.
(It
was
seen
earlier
that
it
arose
from
the
attitude
he
shared
with
the
English
rulers
towards
the
Maravar.)
The
views
of
Bishop
Caldwell
were
found
to
be
extremely
useful
by
the
newly
arisen
Vellala
elite
which
was
contending
for
higher
status
in
the
Varna
hierarchy
of
caste.
Therefore
the
‘histories’
which
were
written
by
the
Dravidian
school
of
Tamil
studies
at
the
turn
of
the
[20th]
century
were
underpinned
by,
(a) The political and religious concerns of Caldwell and other missionaries like Henry Martyn Scudder and G.U.Pope(b) The caste politics of Vellala upward mobility.
The
interests
of
both
were
intertwined.
Their
express
political
interest
was
to
show
that
Tamil
culture
in
essence
was
pre-Aryan-Brahmin
and
non-martial.
The
first
non-Brahmin
Tamils
to
take
up
the
Dravidian
theory
to
examine
theTamil
past
belonged
to
the
Vellala
elite
and
were
supported
and
encouraged
by
Protestant
missionaries
(and
sometimes
by
English
administrators).
The
writings
of
Professor
Sunderam
Pillai
of
the
Trivandrum
University
on
Tamil
history
and
culture
inspired
many
of
his
castemen
who
had
been
seething
at
being
classified
as
Sudras
by
the
Brahmins,
and
worse,
by
the
British
caste
census
and
courts
of
law
as
well.
 |
| Prof. Sunderam Pillai |
Thus,
the
historical
works
of
the
early
Dravidian
school
were
produced
as
"social
charters
directed
toward
the
census,
where
the
decennial
designation
of
caste
status
became
a
major
focus
for
contests
over
rank
between
1870
and
1930.
The
first
Dravidian
history
of
the
Tamils,
‘The
Tamils
Eighteen
Hundred
Years
Ago’,
was
written
by
V.Kanakasabhai
Pillai,
a
Vellala
from
Jaffna
who
was
a
civil
servant
in
Madras.
Edgar
Thurston
thought
it
appropriate
to
quote
the
following
excerpt
from
that
work,
in
the
section
dealing
with
the
Vellala
caste
in
his
‘Castes
and
Tribes
of
South
India’.
"Among
the
pure
Tamils,
the
class
most
honoured
was
the
Arivar
or
Sages.
Next
in
rank
to
the
Arivar
were
Ulavar
or
farmers.
The
Arivar
were
ascetics,
but
of
men
living
in
society
the
farmers
occupied
the
highest
position.
They
formed
the
nobility,
or
the
landed
aristocracy,
of
the
country.
They
were
also
called
Vellalar,
the
lords
of
the
flood
or
karalar,
lords
of
the
clouds…The
Chera,
Chola
and
Pandyan
kings
and
most
of
the
petty
chiefs
of
Tamilakam,
belonged
to
the
tribe
of
Vellalas."
(Thurston,
1906:
p.367-368)
The
efforts
of
the
early
Dravidian
school
of
Tamil
‘historiography’
culminated
in
the
work
of
Maraimalai
Atikal
–
the
founder
of
the
Pure
Tamil
movement
which
became
a
powerful
force
in
the
anti-Hindi
struggles
from
1928
onwards.
He
published
a
book
called,
‘Vellalar
Nakareekam’
–
The
Civilisation
of
the
Vellalas
–
in
1923.
The
book
was
a
lecture
he
had
given
at
the
Jaffna
town
hall
on
January
1,
1922
on
the
‘Civilization
of
the
Tamils’
A
contribution
of
Rs.200
was
made
in
Jaffna
towards
the
publication
of
the
lecture,
as
a
book.
The
Jaffna
Vellala
of
that
time
saw
his
interests
as
being
bound
with
that
of
his
castemen
in
South
India,
who
were
attempting
to
rid
themselves
of
the
Sudra
status
assigned
to
them
in
the
Varna
hierarchy
of
caste
by
Brahmins.
 |
| Prof. V. Kanagasabai Pillai |
However,
Maraimalai
Atikal
had
decided
to
publish
it
as
a
book
in
order
to
refute
a
claim
in
the
caste
journal
of
the
Nattukottai
Chetti
community,
that
the
Chetties
did
not
marry
among
the
Vellalas
because
they
(the
Vellalas)
were
Sudras.
In
the
English
preface
to
the
work,
Maraimalai
Atikal
says
that
his
book
"is
written
in
scrupulously
pure
Tamil
style,
setting
forth
at
the
same
time
views
of
a
revolutionary
character
in
the
sphere
of
social
religious
and
historical
ideas
of
the
Tamil
people…In
the
first
place
attention
is
directed
to
Vellalas,
the
civilized
agricultural
class
of
the
Tamils,
and
to
their
origin,
and
organization…it
is
shown
that
at
a
time
when
all
the
people
except
those
who
lived
all
along
the
equatorial
regions
were
leading
the
life
of
hunters
or
nomads,
these
Vellalas
attained
perfection
in
the
art
of
agriculture…and
by
means
of
navigation
occupied
the
whole
of
India.
When
the
Aryan
hordes
came
from
the
north-west
of
Punjab
and
poured
forth
into
the
interior,
it
was
the
ten
Vellala
kings
then
ruling
in
the
north
that
stopped
their
advance."
Maraimalai
Atikal
goes
on
to
claim
that
the
eighteen
Tamil
castes
were
created
by
the
Vellalas
for
their
service;
that
they
(the
Vellalas)
were
vegetarians
fo
the
highest
moral
codes;that
Saivism
and
the
Saiva
Siddhantha
philosophy
nurtured
by
the
Vellalas
for
more
than
3,500
years
were
the
pre-Aryan
religious
heritage
of
the
Tamils;
that
the
classification
of
Vellalas
as
Sudras
was
the
result
of
an
insidious
Aryan-Brahmin
conspiracy.
Maraimalai
Atikal
was
also
defending
fellow
Vellala
Dravidian
scholars
and
their
claims
against
attacks
and
veiled
criticisms
of
Brahmin
Tamil
academics,
M.Srinivasa
Aiyangar,
a
respected
Brahmin
Tamil
scholar
who
had
worked
as
an
assistant
to
the
superintendent
of
census
for
the
Madras
Presidency.
Mr.Stuart,
had
made
a
devastating
attacking
on
the
claims
of
the
Dravidian
school
of
Tamil
historiography,
which
derived
its
authority
from
the
‘scientific’
philological
works
of
Bishop
Caldwell.
He
debunked
the
theory
of
the
Caldwell-Vellala
school
that
Tamil
culture
was
constituted
by
the
high
moral
virtues
of
an
ancient
race
of
peaceful
cultivators,
on
the
basis
of
what
he
had
studied
of
the
religion
and
culture
of
the
Tamil
country-side,
as
an
officer
of
the
census,
and
on
the
basis
of
‘pure’
Tamil
works
that
had
been
rediscovered
towards
the
latter
part
of
the
19th
century.
 |
| Maraimalai Atikal |
Srinivasa
Aiyangar
noted
in
his
‘Tamil
Studies’,
"Within
the
last
fifteen
years
a
new
school
of
Tamil
scholars
has
come
into
being,
consisting
mainly
of
admirers
and
castemen
of
the
late
lamented
professorand
antiquary,
Mr.Sunderam
Pillai
of
Trivandrum."
Aiyangar
argued
that
contrary
to
the
claims
of
the
new
school,
the
Tamils
were
a
fierce
race
of
martial
predators.
He
wrote,
"Again
some
of
the
Tamil
districts
abound
with
peculiar
tomb
stones
called
‘Virakkals’
(hero
stones).
They
were
usually
set
upon
graves
of
warriors
that
were
slain
in
battle…The
names
of
the
deceased
soldiers
and
their
exploits
are
found
inscribed
on
the
stones
which
were
decorated
with
garlands
of
peacock
feathers
or
some
kind
of
red
flowers.
Usually
small
canopies
were
put
up
over
them.
We
give
below
a
specimen
of
such
an
epitaph.
A
careful
study
of
the
Purapporul
Venba
Malai
will
doubtless
convince
the
reader
that
the
ancient
Tamils
were,
like
the
Assyrians
and
the
Babylonians,
a
ferocious
race
of
hunters
and
soldiers
armed
with
bows
and
lances
making
war
for
the
mere
pleasure
of
slaying,
ravaging
and
pillaging.
Like
them
the
Tamils
believed
in
evil
spirits,
astrology,
omens
and
sorcery.
They
cared
little
for
death.
The
following
quotations
from
the
above
work
will
bear
testimony
to
the
characteristics
of
that
virile
race.
(1)
Garlanded
with
the
entrails
of
the
enemies
they
danced
with
lances
held
in
their
hands
topside
down.
(2)
They
set
fire
to
the
fertile
villages
of
their
enemies,
and
(3)
plundered
their
country
and
demolished
their
houses.
(4)
The
devil’s
cook
distributed
the
food
boiled
with
the
flesh
of
the
slain,
on
the
hearth
of
the
crowned
heads
of
fallen
kings.
With
these
compare
same
passages
from
the
Assyrian
stories
of
campaigns:
‘I
had
some
of
them
flapped
in
my
presence
and
had
the
walls
hung
with
their
skins.
I
arranged
their
heads
like
crown…All
his
villages
I
destroyed,
desolated,
burnt;
I
made
the
country
desert.’
And
yet
the
early
Dravidian
are
considered
by
Dr.Caldwell
as
the
farmers
of
the
best
moral
codes,
and
by
the
new
school
of
non-Aryan
Tamil
scholars…"
Aiyangar
even
claims,
"We
have
said
that
the
Vellalas
were
pure
Dravidians
and
that
they
were
a
military
and
dominant
tribe.
If
so
one
could
naturally
ask,
‘How
could
the
ancestors
of
peaceful
cultivators
be
a
war-like
race?"
He
argues
that
the
etymology
of
the
root
Vel
is
connected
to
war
and
weapons,
that
it
was
not
uncommon
for
cultivating
castes
to
have
been
martial
tribes
in
former
days
as
in
the
case
of
the
Nayar,
the
Pillai,
the
Bants,
etc.
He
also
cites
an
official
census
of
the
Tamil
population
in
the
Madras
Presidency,
which
shows
that
Tamil
castes
with
a
claim
to
traditional
marital
status
constituted
twenty
six
percent
of
the
total
number
of
Tamils
in
the
Presidency.
(Srinivasa
Aiyangar;
1915,
pp.40-58)
 |
| Kasi Anandan |
Aiyangar’s
attack
on
the
Dravidian
theory
of
Caldwell
and
the
Vellala
propagandists
had
political
undertones.
Learned
Brahmins
of
the
day
were
acutely
aware
of
the
political
interests
that
lay
behind
the
claims
of
the
early
Dravidian
school.
Vellala
Tamil
revivalism
and
its
idea
of
Dravidian
uniqueness
were
closely
related
to
the
pro-British
and
collaborationist
poltical
organization
that
was
formed
in
1916,
by
the
non-Brahmin
elites
of
the
Madras
Presidency
–
the
South
Indian
Liberal
Federation.
Its
proponents
were,
therefore
careful
not
to
emphasise
the
narratives
of
the
martial
reputation
of
the
Tamils
that
were
embodied
in
the
ancient
‘high’
Tamil
texts
or
in
the
folk
culture
of
rural
Tamilnadu.
(Tamil
revivalism
had
been
promoted
by
Protestant
missionaries
and
British
officials
in
the
latter
half
of
the
19th
century,
only
in
as
much
as
it
was
seen
to
facilitate
the
social,
economic
and
religious
aims
of
demilitarizing
Tamil
society
and
diminishing
the
influence
of
Brahmins
in
it.)
This
was
done
not
only
out
of
a
desire
to
promote
Vellala
caste
culture,
as
Tamil
national
culture,
but
also
in
conscious
deference
to
the
concerns
of
the
Raj
about
the
‘seditious’
views
of
Tamil
cultural
revival
that
were
being
propagated
by
the
‘terrorists’
and
their
sympathisers
which
were
aimed
at
stirring
the
"ancient
martial
passions"
of
the
Tamils
in
general
and
the
military
castes
in
particular,
by
appealing
to
martial
values
inscribed
in
the
caste
traditions
of
the
Maravar
and
linking
them
to
a
glorious
past
that
had
been
sustained
by,
what
according
to
them,
was
the
unique
and
powerful
Tamil
martial
tradition.
The
political
life
of
Purananooru,
the
foundation
text
of
Tamil
militarism
had
been
initiated
by
two
Brahmins
who
were
sympathisers
of
the
Indian
revolutionary
movement
at
this
juncture.
(The
one
was
the
great
Tamil
poet
Subramanya
Bharathi;
the
other
was
the
great
Tamil
scholar
M.Raghava
Aiyangar,
the
court
pundit
of
the
Marava
kings
of
Ramnad.)
These
concerns,
had
compelled
the
Raj
to
take
lines
of
action
aimed
at
the
terrorists
and
the
military
castes.
One,
it
carefully
sifted
through
the
Tamil
revivalist
propaganda
of
the
suspected
sympathisers
of
the
terrorist
movement,
to
charge
them
with
sedition.
Two,
it
introduced
the
Criminal
Tribes
Act
of
1911,
with
the
express
objective
of
throughly
obtaining
knowledge
of,
supervising
and
disciplining
the
Kallar
and
Maravar
who
were
classified
as
dacoits
and
thugs
under
this
act.
The
political
mobilization
of
the
Tamil
military
castes
began
as
reaction
against
this
act.
The
political
leadership
of
this
mobilization
was
inspired
by
the
militarism
of
the
terrorists.
Modern
Tamil
militarism
as
a
political
force
emerged
from
this
conjuncture.
As
we
shall
see
later,
Karunanidhi,
Thondaman,
Kasi
Anandan
and
Prabhakaran
are
all,
in
varying
degrees,
products
of
the
notions
of
Tamilian
identity
which
arose
from
this
conjuncture.
Students
of
Tamil
ethno-nationalism’s
current
phase
will
find
that
the
martial
narratives
of
Tamilian
past
and
present
are
at
work
in
two
extremes
of
the
Tamil
political
spectrum.
Last
month,
an
audio
cassette
was
released
in
Jaffna
by
the
LTTE
and
a
commemoration
volume
was
released
in
Singapore
in
Thondaman’s
honour.
Both
are
politically
conscious
efforts
to
root
two
personalities
and
their
nationalist
projects,
to
what
has
been
portrayed
as
the
most
powerful
manifestation
of
the
Tamil
martial
tradition
–
the
Chola
Empire.
The
LTTE
cassette
evokes
a
glorious
past
associated
with
Prabhakaran’s
only
nom
de
guerre,
Karikalan
–
the
founder
of
the
Chola
Empire.
The
commemoration
volume,
on
the
other
hand
seeks
to
emphasise
the
‘continuity’
of
a
martial
caste
tradition
between
the
leader
of
the
CWC
and
the
great
general
of
the
Chola
Empire,
Karunakara
Thondaman.
Thus
the
examination
of
Tamil
militarism
in
this
study
is
an
exploration
of
the
answer
to
the
question
–
why
does
Tamil
ethno-nationalism
express
itself
thus
and
how
does
it
sustain
power
to
appeal
to
pan-Tamilian
sentiments?
Letter
of
Correspondent
R.B.Diulweva
[Dehiwela]
and
Sivaram’s
response:
Martial
Tamils
[Lanka
Guardian,
September
1,
1992,
p.24]
I
read
with
wry
amusement,
and
increasing
bewilderment,
Sivaram’s
curious
assemblage
of
‘facts’
about
Tamil
‘military’
castes.
The
recluse
in
the
Vanni,
and
his
acolytes
in
the
diaspora,
should
be
grateful
to
the
L[anka]
G[uardian]
for
providing
a
platform
for
this
skewed
rewriting
of
history.
Some
random
reflections
on
Sivaram’s
thesis.
Does
he
seriously
believe
that
the
buccaneering
Portuguese
had
the
time
to
indulge
in
sociological
analysis
of
Tamil
militarism
(a
la
CIA)
and
strategically
decide
to
erase/Vellalise
the
‘military’
castes?
This
also
applies
to
the
Dutch
and
the
Brits.
Sivaram’s
overall
picture
is
of
a
truly
fantastic
war
sodden
people
imbibing
blood
thirstiness
with
their
mothers’
milk.
Weren’t
the
vast
mass
of
Tamils
peaceable
farmers,
fishermen,
craftmen?
Or
was
their
sole
function
to
service
these
magnificent
bravos?
And
whom
did
these
‘military’
castes
fight
during
the
eras
of
peace
when
Tamil
civilization,
in
its
truest
sense,
flourished?
Another
fact
for
Sivaram.
One
of
his
‘military’
castes
the
Maravar
has
made
a
contribution
to
the
Sinhala
language.
To
this
day,
a
‘marava-raya’
is
synonymous
with
‘thug’.
This
is,
probably,
all
that
these
‘warriors’
were!.
D.P.Sivaram
states:
I
suggest
that
Mr.Diulweva
go
on
reading
before
he
finally
decides
whether
it
is
skewed
history
or
not.
He
should
also
study
Prof.K.Kailasapathy’s
Tamil
Heroic
Poetry,
which
describes
an
earlier
phase
of
the
culture
that
I
have
tried
to
analyse.
He
might
find
the
overall
picture
there
even
more
gruesome.
I
understand
Mr.Diulweva’s
concerns
given
the
current
situation
of
the
country,
and
hence
his
wish
to
think
that
the
vast
mass
of
Tamils
were
peaceable
farmers.
His
wish
and
concern
have
had
precedents
in
the
British
era.
As
for
the
sociological
analysis
of
the
buccaneering
Portuguese,
it
was
based
on
Prof.Tikiri
Abeyasinghe’s
‘Jaffna
under
the
Portuguese’
(discussed
there
in
detail).
I
deal
with
the
Maravar
in
as
much
as
they
were
a
political
fact
in
the
rise
of
Tamil
nationalism.
A
write
up
in
the
Sunday
Times
of
23.8[Aug].[19]92
by
its
Madras
correspondent
refers
to
the
political
influence
of
one
Mr.Natarajan
who
he
says
"belongs
to
the
powerful
Thevar
(the
caste
title
of
the
Maravar)
community
in
southern
Tamilnadu."
Mr.Diulweva
will
find,
if
he
takes
a
closer
look
at
the
politics
of
Tamilnadu,
still
an
important
political
fact.
