12-02-2004, 09:37 PM
The foll discussion is a copy paste from another yahoo group ..
On MaRaimalai AdigaL
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Dravidianist scholarship": Sounds like an oxymoron! So, I will start by making a distinction between the terms "Dravidian" and "Dravidianist".
The term "Dravida" has been used in Sanskrit works to refer to the people of the South in general. At times, it was used to denote the Brahmins, as the term "Pancha Dravida" in Skanda Purana would indicate. Otherwise, it stood for all the residents of the South. It was a geographical - and not a racial or linguistic - term until the 19th century A.D. when the missionaries gave this term a new twist. "Dravidians" have always had a great culture, art and literature that can rival anyone else'. They were the ones who gave India the pithy philosophical couplets of TirukkuRaL on the one hand and the profound Bhakti literature on the other. The splendid dancing Nataraja statues would bear testimony to their aesthetic sensibilities. As a people, they valued simplicity, erudition and courage while facing adversity.
"Dravidianists", are the anti-thesis of "Dravidians", though they have capitalized on the latter for their political gains. They were founded and funded by the missionaries during the 19th century, <b>with the purpose of destroying Hinduism and India. Their ideology was one of hate and jingoism. Hate against Hinduism, Brahmins, North Indians, Vedas, Sanskrit and Hindi. Grapevine has it that "Dravidianists" were discouraged from attaining Upanishadic self realization - "Aham Brahmasmi" - for such a state leaves no second to hate</b>! A discussion of their politics would constitute a seperate discussion by itself and is beyond the scope of this article.
Initially, the "Dravidianists" were patronized by the missionaries, though during the 20th century they captured political power to further their ideology. <b>Writings of "Dravidianist scholars", though devoid of logic, facts and scholarship, was promoted with fan fare. Just like the Marxists hijacked the academic establishment during the Nehruvian era, the "Dravidianists" hijacked the educational institutions, under the tutelage of the missionaries, in Tamilnadu, from the end of the 19th century</b>. Even though their methods were barbaric, they called themselves scholars. Of course, it would be futile to search for scholarship in their works; you would be better off looking for an extra terrestrial at your nearest Pizza Hut.
One of the much touted "Dravidianist scholar" was MaRaimalai AdigaL, born VedAchalam. He spent the formative years of his career at <b>Madras Christian College, the breeding ground of anti-nationalism, anti- Brahminism and anti-Hinduism</b>. He would also write purport to several literary works, which included the Sangam classics. One of them was "MullaippAttu". Some of the lines of this poem would be:
"valipuNar yAkkai van kaN yavanar
pulittodar vitta punaimA NalliR
RirumaNi viLakkam kAttit tiNgnA
Nezhini vAkgkiya vIraRaip paLLiyu
Ludambi nuraikku muraiyA nAviR
padampugu milecchar uzhaiyarAga" (lines 61-66)
MaRaimalai AdigaL's purport for the same, loosely translated into English, was: "The able bodied Yavanas reside in a house lit up by an ornamental lamp; a curtain divides the room where they sleep while dumb mlecchas stand guard without."
Nothing wrong so far. MaRaimalai AdigaL could have stopped there; instead he decided to indulge in some "Dravidianist research". He went on to comment that the word "milecchar" in the song actually refers to the Aryans! One would need a bout of fantasy to justify such a comment and for sure MaRaimalai AdigaL had one. He went on to say that the Aryans were actually Turks who came from Balucchistan and invaded India. He claimed that hence they were called "Belucchis" from which word the Tamil word "Mileccha" arose! Of course, he didn't bother to explain by what linguistic rule the word "Belucchi" transformed into "Mileccha". Such an exercise was not a requirement in "Dravidianist scholarship". They firmly believed that all they had to do was to have an incredible fantasy. Once they had it, all that was left to be done was to repeat it often until it gains currency as fact. They certainly had the missionaries and later their own government in Tamilnadu to back them in their efforts.
Let us ignore the fact that "Mleccha" is a Sanskrit word. We also won't bother to inquire why MaRaimalai AdigaL equated the word "milecchar" in the poem with the Aryans, though there is no mention of Aryans at all in that context. Let us also not address the puzzle how the Aryans could have been Turks if they had come from
Balucchistan. For a "Dravidianist" every "stan" north of Tamilnadu is one and the same - a place from where the Aryans came and invaded India. It doesn't matter if the 2 "stans" in question are seperated by thousands of miles. For the sake of drawing simplistic inferences, they can be merged. Let us just concentrate on his fundamental claim.
For the word "Mileccha" to have originated from "Belucchi", by any sleight of hand, the word Balucchistan must have existed at the time the Aryans *supposedly* invaded India. We are talking of a period between 1900 B.C. and 1500 B.C. The region where Balucchistan stands today was known by several names then, but not by its present name. As we fast forward in history, the Persians too had known that place by a few names but not what we call it today. They called it "Maka". Even Alexander the Great (325 B.C.) had known it by the name "Maka" only, as the references to the journey across "Makran desert" would indicate. The first definitive use of the word "Balucchi" occurs in Firdausi's Persian epic "The Book of Kings", around 1000 A.D., where he says:
"Heroic Balucches and Kucches we saw
Like battling rams all determined on war."
It probably coincides with the time period when the Balucchis themselves had supposedly migrated from Iran to their present home. In any case, 1000 A.D. is a period posterior to Sangam classics and a word occurring in 1000 A.D. for the first time couldn't have been known to the Sangam authors. Even if one were to accept, for argument's sake, Herman Tieken's very late date of the Sangam classics, which he dates to the end of 8th century A.D., still 11th century A.D., when the word "Balucchi" first occurs, is too late a period for that word to have found its way into Sangam literature. MaRaimalai AdigaL passionately argues that the Sangam literature was composed in the pre-Christian era, which only makes it impossible that the word "Mileccha" found in the poem could have been derived from "Belucchi".
In case you thought that MaRaimalai AdigaL's writings were intended to provide comic relief, you are mistaken. The government of Tamilnadu not only subsidised his works, but also elevated him to the status of a Tamil saint-scholar! One can only hope that the days of the "Dravidianists" end and the glorious days of "Dravidians" return.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Maraimalai Adikal aka Swamy Vedachalam also wrote a tract "Vellaalar Nagarigam" i.e. Civilization of Vellalas. Vellaalar refers to land owning non-Brahmin castes like Pillai, Mudaliyar, Nayakkar, etc.
Naturally, the usual villain in Maraimalai Adigal's schemes are brahmins, aryans and sanskrit. He has an honoured place in dravidian movement and his ideas made sure that Dravidian movement was the fiefdom of "upper-caste" non Brahmins and they were and still are anti-Harijans.<b> Maraimalai adigal also received lot of support from Adheenams i.e. religious mutts which have Saiva siddhanta as their inspiration. But many of these adheenams are as much tied to their particular caste as Kanchi Sankara mutt.</b>
That is why a new crop of dalit leaders in Tamilnadu reject 'dravidianism' as much as what they see as brahmin hegemony.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Maraimalai adigal was the head of a saivite adheenam; The Justice party and the Dravidian movement stalwarts owed allegiience to Saiva siddhants mutts like Maraimalai Adigal. Even while taking the usual anti-Brahmin stand, MA could not brook any real or imaginary challenges to his sect. Or rather, any real or imagined slights to him was imagined as an attack on saivite religion. <b>When Self-respect movement was started by E.V.Ramasawmy naicker, a man with a Vaishnava family background, MA attacked Self-respect movement as a plot by Vaishnavites to undermine Tamils, whom he equated with Saiva Siddhanta saivites</b>.
This is what he said about EVR in 1928:
"Self-Respect movement is a plot by Vaishnavites to destroy Saivite religion. The leader of the Self-respect movement is a Vaishnavite (He means EVR). <b>He (EVR) and his brother have put the 'naamam' on innumerable, gullible Saivites and made them into Vaishnavites. His deputy is another Vaishnavite. There are a number of Vaishnavites in the Justice Party leadership. They are not only vaishnavites, but
also Telugu speaking </b>(so much for 'Dravidian consciousnes')
Namam is the Tamil word for thr vaishnavite marks on the forehead of white and red lines. Any sane person can see the utter stupidity of accusing EVR, an atheist, of using Self-respect movement to promote Vaishnavism.
June 1929, M.Balasubramania Mudaliyar, Editor "Siddhantam" organ of Saiva Siddhanta Mahasabha wrote:
"Tamilnadu knows that all the good points in the Self-respect movement are the alms given by the Father of Knowledge (Gnana Thanthai) Maraimalai Adigal due to his boundless Divine Grace ('Arul'). Those who recieve his alms and go for propoganda forget the Grace of the Father, their propaganda will be as useless as the rain falling on the sea"
Even while denouncing Self-respect movement alleging it was vaishnava plot, once it got some popularity he was keen to claim credit for it through his sycophants.
Translated from 'Thinnai' November 28, 1999 based on the book "Dravidian movement and Vellalas" by A.R.Venkatachalapathy<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On MaRaimalai AdigaL
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Dravidianist scholarship": Sounds like an oxymoron! So, I will start by making a distinction between the terms "Dravidian" and "Dravidianist".
The term "Dravida" has been used in Sanskrit works to refer to the people of the South in general. At times, it was used to denote the Brahmins, as the term "Pancha Dravida" in Skanda Purana would indicate. Otherwise, it stood for all the residents of the South. It was a geographical - and not a racial or linguistic - term until the 19th century A.D. when the missionaries gave this term a new twist. "Dravidians" have always had a great culture, art and literature that can rival anyone else'. They were the ones who gave India the pithy philosophical couplets of TirukkuRaL on the one hand and the profound Bhakti literature on the other. The splendid dancing Nataraja statues would bear testimony to their aesthetic sensibilities. As a people, they valued simplicity, erudition and courage while facing adversity.
"Dravidianists", are the anti-thesis of "Dravidians", though they have capitalized on the latter for their political gains. They were founded and funded by the missionaries during the 19th century, <b>with the purpose of destroying Hinduism and India. Their ideology was one of hate and jingoism. Hate against Hinduism, Brahmins, North Indians, Vedas, Sanskrit and Hindi. Grapevine has it that "Dravidianists" were discouraged from attaining Upanishadic self realization - "Aham Brahmasmi" - for such a state leaves no second to hate</b>! A discussion of their politics would constitute a seperate discussion by itself and is beyond the scope of this article.
Initially, the "Dravidianists" were patronized by the missionaries, though during the 20th century they captured political power to further their ideology. <b>Writings of "Dravidianist scholars", though devoid of logic, facts and scholarship, was promoted with fan fare. Just like the Marxists hijacked the academic establishment during the Nehruvian era, the "Dravidianists" hijacked the educational institutions, under the tutelage of the missionaries, in Tamilnadu, from the end of the 19th century</b>. Even though their methods were barbaric, they called themselves scholars. Of course, it would be futile to search for scholarship in their works; you would be better off looking for an extra terrestrial at your nearest Pizza Hut.
One of the much touted "Dravidianist scholar" was MaRaimalai AdigaL, born VedAchalam. He spent the formative years of his career at <b>Madras Christian College, the breeding ground of anti-nationalism, anti- Brahminism and anti-Hinduism</b>. He would also write purport to several literary works, which included the Sangam classics. One of them was "MullaippAttu". Some of the lines of this poem would be:
"valipuNar yAkkai van kaN yavanar
pulittodar vitta punaimA NalliR
RirumaNi viLakkam kAttit tiNgnA
Nezhini vAkgkiya vIraRaip paLLiyu
Ludambi nuraikku muraiyA nAviR
padampugu milecchar uzhaiyarAga" (lines 61-66)
MaRaimalai AdigaL's purport for the same, loosely translated into English, was: "The able bodied Yavanas reside in a house lit up by an ornamental lamp; a curtain divides the room where they sleep while dumb mlecchas stand guard without."
Nothing wrong so far. MaRaimalai AdigaL could have stopped there; instead he decided to indulge in some "Dravidianist research". He went on to comment that the word "milecchar" in the song actually refers to the Aryans! One would need a bout of fantasy to justify such a comment and for sure MaRaimalai AdigaL had one. He went on to say that the Aryans were actually Turks who came from Balucchistan and invaded India. He claimed that hence they were called "Belucchis" from which word the Tamil word "Mileccha" arose! Of course, he didn't bother to explain by what linguistic rule the word "Belucchi" transformed into "Mileccha". Such an exercise was not a requirement in "Dravidianist scholarship". They firmly believed that all they had to do was to have an incredible fantasy. Once they had it, all that was left to be done was to repeat it often until it gains currency as fact. They certainly had the missionaries and later their own government in Tamilnadu to back them in their efforts.
Let us ignore the fact that "Mleccha" is a Sanskrit word. We also won't bother to inquire why MaRaimalai AdigaL equated the word "milecchar" in the poem with the Aryans, though there is no mention of Aryans at all in that context. Let us also not address the puzzle how the Aryans could have been Turks if they had come from
Balucchistan. For a "Dravidianist" every "stan" north of Tamilnadu is one and the same - a place from where the Aryans came and invaded India. It doesn't matter if the 2 "stans" in question are seperated by thousands of miles. For the sake of drawing simplistic inferences, they can be merged. Let us just concentrate on his fundamental claim.
For the word "Mileccha" to have originated from "Belucchi", by any sleight of hand, the word Balucchistan must have existed at the time the Aryans *supposedly* invaded India. We are talking of a period between 1900 B.C. and 1500 B.C. The region where Balucchistan stands today was known by several names then, but not by its present name. As we fast forward in history, the Persians too had known that place by a few names but not what we call it today. They called it "Maka". Even Alexander the Great (325 B.C.) had known it by the name "Maka" only, as the references to the journey across "Makran desert" would indicate. The first definitive use of the word "Balucchi" occurs in Firdausi's Persian epic "The Book of Kings", around 1000 A.D., where he says:
"Heroic Balucches and Kucches we saw
Like battling rams all determined on war."
It probably coincides with the time period when the Balucchis themselves had supposedly migrated from Iran to their present home. In any case, 1000 A.D. is a period posterior to Sangam classics and a word occurring in 1000 A.D. for the first time couldn't have been known to the Sangam authors. Even if one were to accept, for argument's sake, Herman Tieken's very late date of the Sangam classics, which he dates to the end of 8th century A.D., still 11th century A.D., when the word "Balucchi" first occurs, is too late a period for that word to have found its way into Sangam literature. MaRaimalai AdigaL passionately argues that the Sangam literature was composed in the pre-Christian era, which only makes it impossible that the word "Mileccha" found in the poem could have been derived from "Belucchi".
In case you thought that MaRaimalai AdigaL's writings were intended to provide comic relief, you are mistaken. The government of Tamilnadu not only subsidised his works, but also elevated him to the status of a Tamil saint-scholar! One can only hope that the days of the "Dravidianists" end and the glorious days of "Dravidians" return.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Maraimalai Adikal aka Swamy Vedachalam also wrote a tract "Vellaalar Nagarigam" i.e. Civilization of Vellalas. Vellaalar refers to land owning non-Brahmin castes like Pillai, Mudaliyar, Nayakkar, etc.
Naturally, the usual villain in Maraimalai Adigal's schemes are brahmins, aryans and sanskrit. He has an honoured place in dravidian movement and his ideas made sure that Dravidian movement was the fiefdom of "upper-caste" non Brahmins and they were and still are anti-Harijans.<b> Maraimalai adigal also received lot of support from Adheenams i.e. religious mutts which have Saiva siddhanta as their inspiration. But many of these adheenams are as much tied to their particular caste as Kanchi Sankara mutt.</b>
That is why a new crop of dalit leaders in Tamilnadu reject 'dravidianism' as much as what they see as brahmin hegemony.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Maraimalai adigal was the head of a saivite adheenam; The Justice party and the Dravidian movement stalwarts owed allegiience to Saiva siddhants mutts like Maraimalai Adigal. Even while taking the usual anti-Brahmin stand, MA could not brook any real or imaginary challenges to his sect. Or rather, any real or imagined slights to him was imagined as an attack on saivite religion. <b>When Self-respect movement was started by E.V.Ramasawmy naicker, a man with a Vaishnava family background, MA attacked Self-respect movement as a plot by Vaishnavites to undermine Tamils, whom he equated with Saiva Siddhanta saivites</b>.
This is what he said about EVR in 1928:
"Self-Respect movement is a plot by Vaishnavites to destroy Saivite religion. The leader of the Self-respect movement is a Vaishnavite (He means EVR). <b>He (EVR) and his brother have put the 'naamam' on innumerable, gullible Saivites and made them into Vaishnavites. His deputy is another Vaishnavite. There are a number of Vaishnavites in the Justice Party leadership. They are not only vaishnavites, but
also Telugu speaking </b>(so much for 'Dravidian consciousnes')
Namam is the Tamil word for thr vaishnavite marks on the forehead of white and red lines. Any sane person can see the utter stupidity of accusing EVR, an atheist, of using Self-respect movement to promote Vaishnavism.
June 1929, M.Balasubramania Mudaliyar, Editor "Siddhantam" organ of Saiva Siddhanta Mahasabha wrote:
"Tamilnadu knows that all the good points in the Self-respect movement are the alms given by the Father of Knowledge (Gnana Thanthai) Maraimalai Adigal due to his boundless Divine Grace ('Arul'). Those who recieve his alms and go for propoganda forget the Grace of the Father, their propaganda will be as useless as the rain falling on the sea"
Even while denouncing Self-respect movement alleging it was vaishnava plot, once it got some popularity he was keen to claim credit for it through his sycophants.
Translated from 'Thinnai' November 28, 1999 based on the book "Dravidian movement and Vellalas" by A.R.Venkatachalapathy<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->