|
Maraimalai Atigal and the Genealogy of the Tamilian Creed -
Ravi Vaitheespara -
Economic & Political Weekly, 4 April 2009 vol xliv No 14 [also
in PDF]
 This paper was first presented at the Tamil Studies Conference in Toronto,
Canada, in May 2008. In addition to the conference organisers I would like to thank R Muthu Kumaraswamy, Perundevi Srinivasan, V Rajesh, M S S Pandian, S Anandhi, T Ganesan, M Kannan, T N Ramachandran, G Sundar, S Sivasegaram and Mark Gabbert for their valuable comments and suggestions at various stages of the writing
process.
Dr. Ravi
Vaitheespara is
Assistant Professor of History at the
University of Manitoba. His research interests include colonial and
postcolonial South Asia with a special interest in the area of
nationalism, national liberation movements and left politic. His
other publications include
Theorizing the
National Crisis: Sanmugathasan, the Left and the
Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka,
and
"Beyond
'Benign' and 'Fascist' Nationalisms: Interrogating Sri Lankan Tamil
Nationalism and Militancy," South Asia: Journal of South Asian
Studies 29 no.3 (December 2006): 435-54.
Comment by
tamilnation.org
"Dr. Ravi Vaitheespara's study is
essential reading for all those concerned to further their
understanding of Tamil nationalism and its future direction. It was Mao Tse Tung who said
somewhere that theory is a practical thing. Mao was right." [see also
Spirituality & the
Tamil Nation - Nadesan Satyendra]
Contrary to later day perceptions, the Tamil-Saivite movement of the early 1900s
played a major role in preparing the groundwork for the mobilisation by the
radical self-respect movement of the Tamil vernacular public. Led by Maraimalai
Atigal who recast, secularised and rationalised earlier forms of Saivism and
Saiva-Siddhanta, the movement helped frame a new language of Tamil modernity and
nationalism.
In the year 1928, Maraimalai Atigal penned a rather shrill and anxiously worded essay entitled “Caiva Camayathin Nerukkadiyana Nilai” 1
(The difficult and alarming state facing Saivism), warning of developments that posed a very grave threat to Saivism.
The
developments that Atigal was referring to were of course those posed by the
emergence of E V Ramasamy’s (EVR) “rationalist” and “atheist”
self-respect
movement (SRM), which by now was no longer content to direct its ire solely
against Brahmanism and caste but was beginning to turn its deadly iconoclasm on
Tamil Saivism itself – to the very sacred marrow of Tamil culture – as the
author would have it.
Though the essay may be dismissed as just another from the
desk of an anxious Saivite, what is remarkable about it is the sense of outrage
and self-righteous indignation it conveys – one that stemmed no doubt from the
author’s clear sense of horror at being suddenly and unexpectedly let down by
the “self-respecters” – who, according to the author, were not only attacking
the very foundation of their own movement but, more importantly, the very source
of their own reformist moral and ethical vision.
There is then a deep sense of disquiet in the article as if the author was
suddenly finding himself having to cry “foul”!2 Among the arguments he presents
in the article, what is perhaps most striking is his contention that if the
self-respecters only cared to research and find “true” Saivism, they would find
no contradiction between their reformist and radical vision and that of “true” Saivism. What
Atigal appeared to be suggesting is that he saw no essential contradiction
between what the SRM was calling for and what he, as the major proponent and
propagandist of Saivism, had been fighting for all along.3
While it is easy to see in this episode, as many scholars have already done, the
transition or supersession from what had been up to this point an essentially
conservative and elite-led Tamil/Saivite revivalist project to one that gave
rise to a much more radical and broad-based Tamil/Dravidian nationalist
movement, there are certainly deeper questions behind this easy assumption of
disjuncture or supersession that needs revisiting.4
What is then assumed, which
this episode supposedly illustrates, is that the emergence of the SRM by the
late 1920s was an entirely novel and distinct phase in the trajectory of the
Tamil/Dravidian nationalist movement whereby the earlier more conservative and
elite character of the Tamil/Saivite revival movement is superseded by the more radical and
iconoclastic SRM led by Ramasamy. Perhaps more importantly, these scholars tend
to suggest or at the very least imply that not only had the movement
fundamentally changed but that from this point on, the earlier Tamil/Saivite revivalist current was pushed to the very margins of the movement.
This current’s rather conservative and elitist ideology was discredited, while
the introduction of a new ideology broadened the appeal of the movement
significantly and brought into the fold many social groups from the
under-classes/castes.5
Saiva Siddhanta Revival: Unexamined
Beginning to emerge as we are from under the
powerful shadow cast by the Dravidian movement on the scholarship of the period,
it is imperative that we move beyond viewing the Tamil-Saivite movement as a
distinct if not inconsequential early phase that was later completely eclipsed
or transformed by the entry of Periyar and the SRM as contemporary scholars have often portrayed – but rather as laying an important groundwork for what followed.6
Symptomatic
of this scholarly trend to conceptualise the
Tamil/Dravidian movement as consisting of distinct phases has been a
tendency to either ignore or downplay the earlier religio- cultural basis of the movement and to focus instead on the more radical and
populist phase of the movement and restrict any explorations of its earlier
history to its more “secular” antecedents. Thus the limited scholarly attention
that has been devoted to the early roots of the Tamil/Dravidian movement has
largely focused on looking at how Tamil language and history had been recast in
opposition to Sanskrit as is evident from the numerous works that have been
devoted to the “pure” Tamil movement. This, then, leaves the role that the
Saivite and Saiva Siddhanta revival movements played in the Tamil/Dravidian nationalist movement for the most part unexamined.
One of the arguments put forward here is that this tendency to see the emergence
of the “rationalist” and “secular” SRM as signalling a disjuncture or distinct phase fails to discern the complex relationships and underlying unities between the two phases of the Tamil/Dravidian nationalist movement. It also fails to take into
account how the recasting of Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta played an essential role in the ideological and discursive formation of Tamil/Dravidian nationalism. It is this scholarly lacuna that I
intend to attempt to explore in this paper by looking specifically at the work and writings of Maraimalai Atigal.
Although there were a great many individuals who contributed in laying the
intellectual foundation for the Tamil/Saivite revivalist project, it is widely conceded that Maraimalai Atigal played a pioneering and key role in crafting its intellectual and discursive
framework particularly through the Tamil medium.7
This paper will focus on
exploring how Atigal recast and reinterpreted Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta as the quintessential Tamil religion.
I argue that it is precisely through this redeployment of Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta that Atigal came to, in some sense, rationalise
and “secularise” Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta and in the process frame a language of Tamil modernity and nationalism that ended up serving to
displace and translate the Saiva and Saiva Siddhanta heritage on to a new
conception of Tamil culture, history and language that had emptied much of its earlier ritualistic and doctrinal focus.
This process of “secularisation” was a natural product of Atigal’s redeployment and redefinition of the Saivite tradition with its emphasis on literature, history and language so that the weight and meaning of the Saivite heritage was
displaced on to Tamil history, culture and language.
Atigal’s Recasting
 To understand Atigal’s recasting of Saivism it may be helpful
here to briefly compare his deployment of Saivism with that of the radical 19th
century Saivite figure Ramalingar Swamigal (1823-1874) who lived only a
generation before him.8 Atigal’s recasting of Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta was
both similar and distinct from that of Ramalingar.9
The most striking difference
was that Ramalingar’s religiosity was clearly more practice-oriented and centred
on disciplining the body and mind through fairly rigorous routines of self-abnegation and devotional practices whereas Atigal’s appears to
have focused more on an intellectual exploration and explication of Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta.
Furthermore, though Ramalingar was critical of the excessive casteism, and ritualism of the
more Brahmanical and Sanskritic traditions, he did not single out Brahmins or
Brahmanism for critique as Atigal did, nor did he seek to fashion a discursive or ideological framework for
Tamil/Dravidian nationalism.
Despite his praise and encouragement of Tamil,
Ramalingar did not reject Brahmins or the Sanskritic tradition but was quite comfortable working within a religio-cultural milieu that gave pride of place to the
Sanskritic-Vedic heritage like many contemporary religious and literary figures
of his time in the Tamil region – a point which Raj Gautaman has highlighted in
his excellent work on Ramalingar.10
Thus a comparison with Ramalingar at one
level, provides a useful entry point to help one to understand the kind of changes that may have produced
Atigal and his redeployment of Saivism only a generation later. At the very
least it may suggest ways to better theorise the kind of changes that produced
figures like Atigal.
It is fairly apparent that Ramalingar, like many of his contemporaries, was clearly inhabiting a world where the imprints of a more medieval
religio-cultural world had not been as thoroughly supplanted by the changes wrought by the British colonial and missionary impact – as was clearly the case during Atigal’s time.
U V Swaminatha Aiyer’s autobiography11 certainly brings out this aspect of the
religio-cultural world of the Tamil region of the late 18th century right up
until at least the 1860s. Iyer depicts this as a world where the traditional
religious institutions such as the various Saivite maths (matams) still held great sway in terms of language and literary training.
Even the culture of multilingualism had not entirely
faded along with a literary and religious culture that continued to give pride
of place to Sanskrit and the Vedic heritage. Furthermore, ethnic identities had not crystallised as strongly around
particular monolithic vernacular identities as one begins to see by the 20th
century. Thus it is clear that as we move from Ramalingar to Maraimalai Atigal, one can see a shift to a cultural politics that was focused on the development of an identity and subject formation that
was centred on a sole vernacular “mother tongue” – a shift that Atigal helped
crucially in bringing about.12
A Broader Conceptualisation
A helpful way to conceptualise such changes – changes
which engendered and enabled Atigal’s understanding and deployment of
Saivism and
Saiva Siddhanta for his Tamil/Dravidian project is offered in the
writings on religious change by
Talal Asad and following him David Scott.13
Asad’s focus on tracing historical changes in religious practices where he
suggests different disciplinary practices and technologies for the “production of truth” in different historical
periods is quite illuminating. Particularly useful is his broad
conceptualisation of changes in “faith” practices from the medieval to the modern period where he suggests that the culture of
medieval European Christianity which he believes was rooted in various social
and disciplinary practices centred on disciplining the body (practices of pain
and penance) gives way by the time of the reformation to an understanding of
“religion” as above all a set of doctrines or belief system whose truth value
subsequently gets opened up for debate in the emerging public sphere through the new “rationalities” thrown up by enlightenment and
post-enlightenment thought. Asad then locates the contemporary understanding of
religion as a transcendent and unchanging “essence” – something that is transhistorical and universal – to the impact of post-reformation history and its global spread
through European expansion and colonialism.
What I would like to argue here is that Atigal’s understanding and deployment of Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta certainly signals a new
understanding of Saivite practices as “religion”; one that matches Asad’s
conceptualisation of post-reformation understanding of religion. One can perhaps then conceptualise the transition to Atigal’s interpretation and
understanding of Saivism as quite distinct not just from what Ramalingar’s
understanding but further removed from what had been practised in the Saivite
maths of the 18th century.14
Atigal’s interpretation and understanding of Saivism appears to have been
very much influenced by what Scott depicts as typical of the new “rationalities”
associated with “second empire colonialism” – where orientalist and Christian
missionary discourses plays a crucial role.15
It is then hardly surprising that Atigal’s central preoccupation had been to propagate the
“truth” of Saivism through his
recourse to these orientalist and missionary sources and its accompanying
disciplines of reason, history and science. Asad’s conceptualisation here also
helps us to understand how Atigal’s use of “enlightenment reason” and science
did not so much help to “secularise” Saivism but rather served to displace its
meaning onto Tamil language and history.
Saiva Siddhanta as Tamilar Matam (Tamilian Creed)
The recasting of Saivism and
Saiva Siddhanta was then conducted through the new rationalities and the newly created public sphere and print culture that had emerged as a result of the colonial and
missionary intervention. It was aimed at a broader and geographically diverse
Tamil and English-speaking, reading public.
The relationship that these
revivalists maintained with the “traditional” institutions of Saivism and Saiva
Sidhanta was at best complex and ambivalent. One can for the sake of clarity,
delineate Atigal’s own efforts at recasting Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta as centring on at least two significant though related interpretive moves.
The
first was on reversing the subordinate position of the
Tamil language,
literature and tradition in relation to the Sanskrit language and tradition with aid of the newly rediscovered corpus of ancient Tamil literature as well as Christian missionary and orientalist scholarship.
The second was on recasting Tamil Saivism especially in relation to and in contradistinction with what was then cast as the normative pan-Indian Hindu tradition loosely described as Brahmanical Hinduism whose doctrinal basis was generally identified with Advaita Vedanta – which Atigal often referred to derisively as Mayavada.
Deploying Tamil and Reversing the Status of Sanskrit
It
was Atigal’s expertise, particularly in the newly recovered corpus of ancient Tamil literary works, that had enabled him to join the select group
of late 19th century pioneer Saiva Siddhanta revivalists, especially featuring
Somasundara Nayakar. Atigal had first proved his mettle by cleverly defending
Nayakar’s interpretation of Saivism against his Vedantic opponents with his mastery of the newly
rediscovered oldest Tamil work on grammar and poetics – the
Tholkappiam.
Thus Atigal had received his early training
fighting on the side of the Saivites in the heated battles between the
Vedantists, Saivites and the Vaishnavites that was gaining momentum by the
latter part of the 19th century in the pages of the Tamil vernacular journals.16
The relative status of the Tamil language in relation to Sanskrit was crucial in
these battles between the Vedantists and the Tamil Saivites.17
Valorising Tamil and substantiating a separate Tamil genealogy for Saivism and Saiva
Siddhanta was seen as crucial by these early revivalists as they feared that
Tamil-Saivism would simply be subsumed under the broader umbrella of an
ascendant Brahmanical Hinduism – albeit as a minor variant of the pan-Indian Vedic and agamic Sanskrit
tradition.
The argument of the opponents was that even the existing body of
theological and doctrinal works on Saiva Siddhanta in Tamil was simply a
derivative of the pan-Indian Saivism based as it was on the Sanskritic Vedic and
agamic tradition. It is against this background that one can understand the
tremendous efforts Atigal expends in reversing the status of the Tamil language
and tradition in relation to the Aryan-Sanskrit language and tradition with the
aid of the newly recovered ancient Tamil literary corpus and the Christian
missionary and orientalist scholarship.
Atigal was not merely content with this but went on
rewrite the history of India so that now it was to the Tamil’s and to the Tamil
language that India owed the entirety of its high culture including Saivism.
Atigal’s major intervention as far as Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta goes was to give it not
merely a strong Tamil genealogy but to infuse and inflect his interpretation of
Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta with a literary and historical reading of it. He was
able for example to identify for example an unchanging Tamil “essence” in Tamil
literary history which he identified with Saivism and Tamil culture. An illustrative
example of this is his work entitled “Palanththamil Kolkaiye Caiva Samayam”
(Saivsm is essentially the way of the ancient Tamils).
Tamil Caivam in Relation to Brahmanism
Atigal’s second major effort was
directed towards recasting of Saivism in relation to and in contradistinction to
Brahmanism. This involved at least two significant interpretive moves. One was to construct a purely Tamil (non-Brahmin) origin and history for Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta – to present them as quintessentially a Tamilian product utilising both the newly recovered ancient Tamil literary
corpus and western orientalist, historical, archaeological sources. In doing
this he was in effect carrying forward the efforts of missionary figures such as
G U Pope. Pope had put forward such a position much earlier in the introduction
to his translation of the important Saivite work,
Thiruvacagam. He had asserted:
The Caiva Siddhanta system is the most elaborate, influential, and undoubtedly
the most valuable of all the religions of India. It is peculiarly the South
Indian, and Tamil religion…Caivism is the old pre-historic religion of South
India, essentially existing from Pre-Aryan times, and holds sway over the hearts of the Tamil people.18
What Atigal was engaged in was to confirm and consolidate Pope’s line of
argument through marshalling even more archaeological, historical sources from the writings of other western scholars in addition to
the evidence he could draw from his own mastery of early Tamil literary sources.
The second aspect of this recasting was to read Tamil-Saivism as fundamentally
at variance with the ascendant pan-Indian Brahmanical Hinduism and Vedanta –
specifically targeting the “idealist” tradition of Vedanta as well as the
excessive ritualism and casteism of Brahmanical Hinduism.19 Atigal was able to
utilise a long list of Christian theological and western liberal scholars opposed to what was considered the idealist strands of Indian philosophy – which
had become identified by the late 19th century, with Brahmanical Hinduism and especially with neo-Vedanta as its most
sophisticated expression. Atigal’s project then was directed at critiquing this
“idealistic monism” of Vedanta and make the case for what he termed the
“theistic pluralism” of Saivam and Saiva Siddhanata.
It was a project that enabled Atigal to have many western scholars as backers.20 In fact much of his recasting of
Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta takes the form of a polemical attack on Vedanta and
Brahmanical Hinduism.
For example, writing long before the advent of the SRM in
a lecture entitled “The Social Aspects of Saiva Siddhanta” Atigal sought to
underline Saiva Siddhanta’s recognition of the “reality of this world” and hence
its potential for social reform in contrast to neo-Vedanta:
...It would not do to say with some of our extreme idealists that we the
individuals souls…are so many sparks emitted by the blazing Divine fire…(or) we
are that one pure, effulgent and indivisible spirit which involved itself in
ignorance…by losing sight of its own real nature and identifying…with…Maya;…with
the quasi Vedantists that all kinds of knowledge we posses…are false…No doubt it
is all very nice to indulge ourselves in such an imaginative flight…but this
momentary elevation of mind though airy and insubstantial gets itself after all
weighed down to this earth by the necessities of our mundane existence…No
philosopher, however idealistic…in expounding his favourite theory of illusion,
can withstand the formidable attack of misery, poverty and disease….Instead of attempting to understand our real position in the
struggle of life and trying our best to remove the evils and misery…it is of no
use to talk glibly of everything as unreal or one and boast ourselves as stainless and sinless spirit of bright and pure intelligence. 21
It is evident that Atigal here is drawing from many of the Christian and liberal critiques of Vedanta and Brahmanism of the time. The fact that the
critique is aimed specifically at Brahmins and Brahmanism is clear as he
continues:
But strange it is that the very persons who uphold the theory of illusion or the
unreality of the world are those who are the foremost in multiplying ceremonies and endless varieties of rites….strange it is that the very teachers
who try their utmost to prove the unity of things are those who create
interminable distinctions of caste, are those who hinder most heartlessly all
our efforts to become united….Do they display all the splendours of their speech
in the actions of their daily life? No, certainly not. We are even struck with
wonder…when we see before our eyes the very same Idealists who speak about the
unreality of the world working hard with unabated greed and ambition to
accumulate money either by foul means or fair.22
It is, then, such imperatives that help explain Atigal’s recasting of Saivism
and Saiva Siddhanta shorn off its more traditional agamic and ritualistic
aspects that was as equally constrained by caste rules as the Brahminical
tradition.23 What is instead attempted in Atigal’s recasting of the
Tamil-Saivite and Saiva Siddhanta tradition is an attempt to forge a close connection between the more rational
and secular spirit of the corpus of ancient Tamil literature such as the
Tholkappiam, the
Thirukkural, the
Bhakti corpus and the Saivite and Saiva
Siddhanta tradition.
Mastering the Tamil Vernacular Public
If Atigal’s efforts at reinterpretation and
recasting Tamil and Saivism through his numerous writings were remarkably
brilliant interpretive moves in their own right, what made these ideas gain a certain
level of popularity among the Tamil vernacular public were Atigal’s ceaseless efforts to gain mastery of the Tamil vernacular
public. Atigal had risen to prominence as the closest disciple of Somasundara
Nayakar who was without doubt the greatest Saiva Siddhanta revivalist of the
late 19th century in Tamil Nadu. Atigal’s rise to prominence is clearly linked
to his efforts to take the leadership of the Tamil-Saivite revivalist movement after the death of Nayakar and in essence to take Nayakar’s mantle.24
This served as a prelude to Atigal’s founding of the much more prestigious
and popular pan-Tamil Saiva Siddhanta umbrella organisation two years later in
1905 called the Saiva Siddhanta Maha Samasam (SSMS) (Great Association of Saiva
Siddhanta).25 The SSMS was clearly aimed at attracting a broader Tamil-Saivite
educated public which at this time meant mostly emerging English educated
members drawn from the dominant non-bahmin Tamil castes as well as some
traditionally oriented Tamil-Saivite pundits. The novelty of its interventions
and its debt to Christianity was certainly noted by some contemporaries
including certain Christian missionaries.26
While it sought patronage from a wide network of more traditional non-Brahmin elites including local zamindars and “little-kings” and heads of Tamil-Saivite
matams, its primary constituency was clearly the emerging English educated
members of the dominant non-Brahmin Tamil castes such as the Vellalars and Chettys.27
Atigal’s role and leadership
in such ventures as well as his numerous writings and publications ensured that
by the second decade of the 20th century, Atigal had become an iconic figurehead
for a broad-based Tamil-Saivite revival movement consisting of a significant
number of scholars and activists, who though differing on finer points with
Atigal, broadly agreed with and ardently espoused Atigal’s recast perspective on
Tamil and Saiva Siddhanta.
Atigal’s partnership with one of his most ardent
early lay-patron and follower, the Tirunelvelly Saivite, V Thiruvarangam Pillai, the formation by the latter of the joint stock company, the Tirunelvelly South India Saiva
Siddhanta Kalaham, the establishment of the important Tamil-Saivite journal
Centamil Selvi were important milestones in this story of Tamil-Saivite revival
that had begun with Nayakar and blossomed under the shadow of Atigal by the
mid-1920s.28 The fact that Atigal’s recast Saivism was resisted from its
inception from a segment of Saivites often described as the
“conservative-Saivites” certainly attest to the boldness and novelty of its
venture.29
Radicalising and Nationalising Saiva Siddhanta
These different strategies of recasting of Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta together coalesced in Atigal’s hands then to produce a reading that was sharply
different from its more medieval focus on ritual-action and practice. The
emphasis was more on identifying an unchanging Tamil-Saivite essence that could be seen from the earliest Tamil
works to the Tamil Bhakti corpus that encompassed widely differing texts such as
the Tholkappiam, the Thirukkural or Manickavacagar’s hymns.
Atigal clearly aimed
to construct an inclusive Tamil nationalist discourse – especially that could
encompass all non-Brahmin Tamils – which was clearly part of Atigal’s as well as
his follower’s Tamil nationalist project and agenda. Shorn of its more
ritualistic focus, Tamil Saivism in the hands of Atigal then came to resemble
the much more iconoclastic dogma that Ramalingar Swamigal came to espouse in his later years – so much so
that in inaugurating his own Saivite math (matam) and order, Atigal crafted its
name after the name Ramalingar had used for his organisation. Atigal had named it the Samarasa Sanmarga Nilayam
after Ramalingar’s which was called Samarasan Veda Sanmarga Sangam (society for
pure truth and universal selfhood).30
Not surprisingly Atigal had dropped the word “Veda” from Ramalingar’s original title. Among the goals of
Atigal’s order were many of the radical reforms that had been proposed by
Ramalingar. In the inaugural announcement of the new order which appeared in
Atigal’s Tamil journal Jnanacagaram, Atigal had written:The philosophy and practices acceptable to all castes and all
religions, ‘Sivakarunyam’ (Saivite compassion) and Samarasa Sanmargam (universal
brotherhood) was emphasised and preached in later years by Ramalinga Swamigal.
It is to spread these two philosophies everywhere, emphasised by Ramalinga Swami and to gather its followers that this order has
been founded in the very name given by Ramalinga Swami, Samarasa Sanmarga
Nilayam. This order’s founding guru is saint Tiruvalluvar and its latter day
guru is Ramalinga Swami.31
Here, Saiva Siddhanta has been transformed from its much more ritualistic focus
to a reformist church that could equally embrace the Jaina-inspired Thirukkural
as well as the iconoclastic vision of the late Ramalingar Swamigal. The list of reforms that Atigal espoused
for his order is also revealing in this regard.
Among the list of items on the
agenda were requests for funds for setting up of a huge library and printing
press in the premises as well as calls for funds for setting up a Tamil
university. Atigal had by this time accumulated a vast collection of
predominantly English books which was to be an integral part of the collection. Atigal was also careful to acknowledge the generous patronage he received from
important and wealthy figures constituting some of the elite and middle sections
of the non-Brahmin Tamils in the inaugural announcement. Subsequent
anniversaries of the founding of the Atigal’s math and Order were also
celebrated quite lavishly as conventions or gathering and as forums for carrying out reforms within the Tamil/Saivite community.
The pamphlet released at the 20th anniversary of the math which by this time had been renamed
with a “pure” Tamil name of Pothunilaik Kalaham (common association) is quite
revealing in this regard. Again in setting out its goals and objectives the
pamphlet reads much like a manifesto of Tamil nationalism. It begins by
asserting: The Tamil people of Tamil Nadu without following the sagely advice of their own
Tamil sages, but following the puranic stories that came later are split into
numerous castes, religions, habits and ways. They are now found strongly
disunited and confused, having forgotten completely the ways of love and grace
of their Tamil ancestors and without education or an investigative spirit...32
Among the list of reform resolutions proposed and passed without opposition were
proposals that call for reforms in almost every aspect of Tamil religious,
social, cultural and family life. They addressed such issues as caste
discrimination in temples, call for Saivite maths to sponsor Tamil and Saivism
and to train members of all castes to perform the essential rituals, and the use
of Tamil as opposed to Sanskrit in temple worship and rituals as well as the
promotion of mixed caste marriages and widow remarriages.33 In terms of reforms
related to the Tamil language, the proposals included urging the “Chetty Nadu”
“king” Annamalai Chettiar to give primacy to Tamil language at Annamalai University; to urge the Madras University not only to give primacy to the Tamil language at
the university, but in all educational institutions throughout Tamil Nadu as well as to make Tamil a sole subject for the Bachelor
of Arts programme at Madras University and all other universities and colleges
in Tamil Nadu.
A substantial segment of the announcement was also devoted to acknowledging the generous donations contributed by34 the various heads of Saivite matams,
zamindars and other significant donors from wealthy middle class backgrounds.
The list of donors not only confirms the elite class background of Atigal’s
sponsors but also the less known transnational dimension of his patronage
network. Many patrons came from as far as Ceylon and Malaya.
It was such themes and
concerns that formed the basis of many of Atigal’s writings on Tamil, Saivism
and Saiva Siddhanta. They find their clearest articulation in Atigal’s
penultimate work on Tamil and Saiva Siddhanta entitled Tamilar Matam35 (Tamilian
Creed) which doubles up both as a Tamil nationalist manifesto and a “Tamil Bible” where Tamils are not only offered a revised history of India
in which they are the progenitors of the great ancient Indian civilisation but
are also offered a guide book for the present based on their newly recovered
glorious literary past.36
Concluding Remarks
Given the tremendous work that had been put towards
transforming and in a sense “secularising” Tamil-Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta tradition as a
discursive platform for a reformist non-Brahmin Tamil community it is hardly surprising that Atigal and his
supporters reacted with such outrage at the sudden attack launched by the SRM on
the ideology and movement.
One could also argue that without this elaborate
effort at crafting a nationalist imaginary out of the Tamil-Saivite past it would have been challenging for the
SRM or for that matter the Dravidian political parties that followed to so
easily mobilise a “Tamil-vernacular” public. It is against this background that
we need to read the statement by one of Atigal’s ardent followers in response to
the SRM’s attack on Atigal:That the best parts of the SRM is derived from the
blessed offering of the wise philosophical father Maraimalai Atigal is known to
all Tamilians. If those who do propaganda work based on these blessed offerings are not
grateful to its holy founder, their efforts would be as vain as the rain that
falls on the sea.37
The point here is not so much to insist on the similarity of the two movements
or deny the revolutionary nature of the movement led by E V Ramasamy or even deny the fact that the SRM dramatically broadened
the social base of the movement – but to interrogate more closely the possible continuities that lie beneath the
revolutionary breach made by the “self-respecters” to the Tamil-Saivite revival
movement. This exercise can be justified for no other reason than to interrogate and correctly assess both the radical possibilities of the movement began by E V Ramasamy and its possible limitations.
Notes 1 The essay first appeared in the Tamil-Saivite journal Senthamil Selvi,
1928-29, Vol 6, pp 526-35. It was later published as a collection of essays
titled Uraimanik Kovai. See, Maraimalai Atigalar, Uraimanik Kovai, Madras: The
South India Saiva Siddhanta Works Publishing Society, Tinnevelly, 1983, pp
138-67. 2 It stemmed from the feeling that Atigal and his supporters felt that a
movement that drew its main inspiration from their work was now betraying and abusing them. In the words of a contemporary Saiva Siddhanta revivalist, the Self-Respecters were “behaving like a man who after watering and caring for a tree then turns
around and slices the roots of that very same tree”. Cited in Venkatachalapathy,
Tiravida Iyakkamum. p 19. Originally from an article by Alagiri Naidu in the
journal Sivanesan, Vol 6, No 2, Sept-Oct 1932 (my translation). 3 In fact, he goes on to argue that they, the “self-respecters”, have a greater chance of joining the cause of Saivism than those (conservative
Saivites) falsely claiming to be the “true” Saivites – who were not only mired
in caste and other evils but had no real clue as to the “real” philosophy and
truths of Saivism. 4 Venkatachalapathy who had dealt with this subject earlier (the relationship between the Saivites and the Self-respect Movement)
has been the one to perhaps most strongly present this episode as disjuncture or
what he would term “supersession” by the self-respect movement of the Saivite
movement.Written largely against the charge that the self-respect movement was a
Vellalar-led movement Venkatachalapathy has gone to great lengths to depict the Saivite and the
self-respect movement as entirely distinct movements. See, A R
Venkatachalapathy, Thiravida Iyakkamum Vellalarum (Dravidian movement and the Vellalars) Madras: South Asia Books, 1994, p 17. It
is not surprising that many progressive scholars have taken a similar position to highlight the
radicalism and revolutionary nature of the movement led by E V Ramasamy and to deflect the common criticism that the entire movement was a “fanatical” movement led by the non-Brahmin
elites. See for example, V Geetha and S V Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin
Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to Periyar. Calcutta: Samya, 1999; M S S Pandian.
“Notes on the Transformation of Dravidian Ideology – Tamil Nadu C 1900-1940, Seminar Paper on “Ethnicity and Nation Building”,
Centre for South and South East Asian Studies, University of Madras, (March
1994), 21-23; M S S Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin: Genealogies of the Tamil
Political Present, New Delhi, Permanent Black, 2007. One notable exception has
been the work of Sumathi Ramaswami, Passions of the Tongue: Language Devotion in Tamil India, 1891-1970, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1997.
However, despite her focus on the early religio-cultural basis of the movement, her central focus, however, appears to be in demonstrating the development of
what she terms ‘Tamilpparru’ (devotion to Tamil). 5 Ibid, p 45. 6 The paper also suggests that we need to interrogate the fact that the limited scholarship we have on the modern Saivite revivalist
movement in Tamil Nadu has largely been undertaken from the perspective or
vantage point of the self-respect movement. It has unfortunately led to a
tendency to read the Saivite revivalist movement and its internal dynamics and
conflicts as stemming directly in response to the self-respect movement. It
leads to such easy claims that much of the impulse for reforms within the
Saivite movement came largely in response to the self-respect movement. Not only does this tend to ignore the radical potential within the movement as
exemplified in the case of Ramalingar’s use of the more Siddhar progenitors of the movement
but perhaps more importantly fails to take into account the tremendous impact
that colonial Christianity had made on the Saivite revivalist movement. 7 His central role was in providing a radical re-interpretation of Tamil language, history, Saivam and Saiva Siddhanta. In fact, one could argue
that it was this radical recasting of Tamil language, history, Saivam and Saiva
Siddhanta that was crucial in framing the contours of the Tamil/Dravidian nationalist project. Though there are a number of works that have looked at
Atigal’s role they have generally tended to focus on his role in recasting Tamil
language and history and especially in his role as the father of the pure Tamil movement. Less attention has
naturally been paid to the ways in which Atigal recast Saivism and Saiva
Siddhanta for this Dravidian and Tamil nationalist project. 8 Ramalingar, popularly known as Vallalar in the Tamil country, began as a
fairly conventional Saivite but in his later phase became an extremely radical
spiritual figure who became well known for his social reformist views and for
his extremely compassionate spirit. An excellent recent work on Ramalingar is by
Raj Gautaman, Kanmudi Valakkam Ellam Manmudi Pochu…! C Ramalingam., 1823-1874, Chennai: Thamilini, 2001. 9 The struggle between them over Ramalingar’s hymns came to be known as the
Arutpa-Marutpa struggle as Navalar could not accept Ramalingar’s hymns on the
same level as the wok of the cannonised Saivite saints. Atigal had not only defended the religious hymns of Ramalingar
publicly early in his career against the successor of the more conservative wing of the
Saivites, Arumuga Navalar – but was also clearly insp>10 Ibid. 11 U V Swaminatha Aiyar, En Carritiram (My Story) Madras: U V Swaminatha Aiyar
Library, 1982. 12 See for example the collection of essays in the IESHR special issued devoted
to “Language, Genre and Historical Imagination in South India”, Indian Economic
and Social History Review, Volume XLII, No 4, Oct-Dec 2005. Almost all the
authors in the volume pose a sharp disjuncture between the modern and the pre-modern in terms of linguistic or ethnic identity. Though the similarities between
Ramalingar and Atigal may lead one to view them in the same light it is
imperative that one also note some of the more important differences. For
example, though it is not difficult to discern that Atigal was quite inspired by
Ramalingar’s radicalism and humanism, so much so that he integrated many of his
radical and reformist initiatives, it is important to note that this radicalism was interpreted and projected by Atigal as a return
to the essential Tamil self – shorn of the corrupting influences of later Aryan accretions. Thus Atigal utilised this radicalism to both make his Dravidian project more inclusive and also to
argue and project this radicalism as the inherent and unique property of the non-Brahmin Tamil
civilisation. Ramalingar’s radical vision by contrast was more universalist and lacked any concern with
mobilising along purely ethnic lines. 13 See, especially, Talal Asad, Genealogies of Religion, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993 and David Scott, Formations of Ritual: Colonial and Anthropological
Discourses on the Sinhala Yaktovil, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1994. 14 Richard Davis’ work illustrates well the traditional focus of Saiva Siddhanta on ritualism and practice. See, Richard H Davis,
Worshipping Siva in Medieval India: Ritual in an Oscillating Universe, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000. 15 Scott, Formations, p 146. 16 For example, Nayakar and Atigal often published in the Tamil/Saivite journal
Nagai Neelosanai based in city of Nagapattinam in response to articles published by journals advocating a neo-Vedantistic or Vaishnavite position. One of the most hotly debated questions at this time
was over the question of image worship that had been initially sparked by local
adherents of the Brahmo and Arya Samajists in Madras. They reveal that these
debates conducted in the vernacular journals were already responding to the religious and intellectual currents set off by
the colonial and especially orientalist and Christian missionary impact. 17 Contesting the place of Brahmanical Hinduism in the Tamil region based as it
was on an Indo-Aryan Sanskritic genealogy, a counter-discourse based on a
rereading of Tamil language, religion and history was vital for reversing this
hegemony. 18 G U Pope, Tiruvachakam. 19 What Atigal meant by “neo-Vedanta” was the then ascendant Brahmanical school
of Hinduism that was based on the teaching of the medieval Hindu philosopher
Sankara known as Advaita Vedanta (non-duality) which claimed that god and self
are the world and one (Non-Dual) and the perception of their difference was in
fact only apparent and unreal. The Tamil Saiva Siddhanta tradition, on the other
hand, fell closer to the Visishta Advaita (Qualified Non-Dualist) school which
gave the self and the world a greater sense of reality and difference. Atigal
then saw in ancient Tamil writings and the principles and philosophy of Tamil-Saivism and Saiva Siddhanta a spirit
and philosophy that was not only quite at variance with neo-Vedanta but also one
that was based on the “reality” of life and the world. 20 Atigal had a range of western scholars and Christian missionaries who wrote approvingly of his work and also those he admired greatly
such as the American philosopher William James. The Oxford professor F C S
Schiller had written a foreword to his work on Saiva Siddhanta as a form of practical knowledge. 21 Pandit R S Vedachalam, The Social Aspects of Saiva Siddhanta, an address
delivered at the Fourth Saiva Siddhanta Conference held at Trichinopoly, on the 29-31 Dec 1909, Madras: Vivekananda Press, 1910, pp 1-3. 22 Ibid, p 2. 23 I would like to thank T Ganesan and T N Ramachandran for confirming and pointing out this transformation of Saiva Siddhanta by
figures such as Atigal. 24 His efforts to centralise and coordinate the work of all the various Saivite
and Saiva Siddhanta organisations under the roof of Nayakar’s former
organisation now reconstituted as an umbrella organisation the Vedamoktha Saiva
Siddhanta Sabha in the year 1902 was the initial foundation for these efforts. 25 Also known as the Saiva Siddhanta Conference, it became a grand annual
function that attracted most of the prominent Saiva Siddhanta revivalists and
Tamil elites from south India and Sri Lanka. 26 An interesting long review of the conference by the missionary, H W
Schomerus, a scholar of Saiva Siddhanta and member of the local Leipzig Lutheran
Mission, provides a useful window into how the new Saiva Siddhanta organisation
was perceived by the larger public at the time. While describing the conference
gathering, Schomerus had noted: “the large hall was packed to its utmost
capacity...Brahmins were scarcely to be seen, no wonder since the Saiva
Siddhanta has been from the beginning chiefly the philosophy of the Sudras.”
Schomerus went on to claim that when the missionaries present at the conference
thanked the president for the courtesy extended to them, the president had
replied: “On the contrary, it is we that should offer thanks to you, for it is none other but you
missionaries that have caused this revival.” Reflecting on the events of the
conference, Schomerus wryly observed of the Saivites: “They endeavour to revive
their religion in opposition to Christianity, but one sees they try to do it
with the aid of thoughts and ideas derived from Christianity, which of course
they will disclaim, but which is nevertheless a fact...Particularly the leaders are strongly influenced by Christian mysticism, as I had occasion to learn from talks with them, and from their
writings.” In the final section of his review of the conference, Schomerus
explained the missionary stance towards the Saiva Siddhanta revival movement. He
wrote, “we can only be glad of this revival” since, “it stirs up religious
interest...” because it “combats the ever spreading atheism and the Vedantic
monism and it strives to remove many an abuse; because this movement is a proof
for the power of Christianity in the Tamil country; and chiefly because it will
end in showing that Hinduism also in its best branches is not able to
satisfy...” Emphasising this theme, he continued, “It is true, this movement
sets its face against Christianity, but not less against the harmful monistic
Vedantism. We can therefore, look at Saiva Siddhanta not only as an enemy, but
also in a certain sense, as an ally.” H W Schomerus, “The Saiva Siddhanta
Conference at Trinchinopoly”, Siddhanta Deepka, Vol X, June 1910, No 12, pp 509-13. 27 See Thirunavukkarasu, Maraimalai Atigal, p 56. 28 This role of V Thiruvarangam Pillai (d 1944), the partnership between him and
Atigal and the establishment of Saiva Siddhanta Kalaham in 1920, the launching
of the Tamil-Saivite journal, Centamil Selvi in 1922 were hugely important to
the revival and certainly merits further attention. See, Ravindiran
Vaitheespara, “Caste, Hybridity and the Construction of Cultural Identity in
Colonial India: Maraimalai Atigal (1876-1950) and the Intellectual Genealogy of Dravidian
Nationalism”, PhD, Dissertation, University of Toronto, 1999. 29 Atigal’s career was certainly beset by a series of incidents where his work
was severely criticised by a host of Tamil and Saivite scholars. There were at
least two such incidents where it ended up in the courts. Many such criticisms
were published in rival journals or as booklets. 30 The names of Ramalinga’s order and their English translation is from
Zvelebil. See Zvelebil, Lexicon of Tamil Literature, p 262. The reading of
Ramalinga’s order itself has been open to interpretation and has reflected the interests of
the writers rather than Ramalinga’s own vision. There has been a tendency to
present him as similar to the mystical figures of the modern period in India
such as Ramakrishna who are presented as proponents of neo-Vedanta. 31 Cited in Arasu, Maraimaliayadikal Valvum Panium. Madras: Appar Achakam, 1974,
pp 45-47. (Originally from Jnanacagaram, Vol 6, No 1&2) (my translation). 32 This article entitled “Pothunilaik Kalagham”, was probably first published
announcing the 20th year celebration of his order in Jnanacagaram. It is republished as part of a collection of essays by Maraimalai Atigal. See Maraimalaiyadigal, Uraimanik Kovai (Collection of
Commentaries).Madras: The South India Saiva Siddhanta Works, 1983, p 1. 33 The proceedings of the convention including the reforms passed were published
in 1937 in preparation for the 26th year celebration of the order. It is titled Pothunilaik Kalagha
Arikai (The Notice of Pothunilaik Kalagham). It was first published as a pamphlet. 34 Ibid. 35 Maraimalai Atigal, Tamilar Matam (Tamilian Creed), Madras: SISSW, 1941 (first
edition). 36 Atigal’s own English translation of the title to his work Tamilar Matam, as
Tamilian Creed instead of Tamilian Religion is quite revealing. His works on
Saiva Siddhanta include, Saivasidhanta Gnana Botham (1906), Cathivetrumaiyum
Policaivarum (1911), Kadavul Nilaikku Marana Kolkaikal Caiva Aka (1923), Palanthamil Kolkaiye Caiva Camayam (1930), Saiva Siddhanta as
a Philosophy of Practical Knowledge (1940), Tamilar Matam (1941). 37 He had also added “The Saivite religion does not at all contradict the
objectives of the self-respect movement: The self-respect movement arose to
liberate the Tamil people from the clutches of Brahmanism. The Saivite religion
has the same objective; The self-respecters do not like the Aryan Brahmins.
Similarly, the Saivites do not like them one bit; The self-respecters want to
liberate the oppressed castes. The Saivites underlying objective is the same; The self-respecters feel that the Tamils should not have
caste divisions among them, similarly the Saivite religion also earnestly urges
the same. Why then disgrace and blame the Saivite religion and its hallowed Saivite saints?” Cited in
Venkatachalapathy, Tiravida Iyakkamum. pp 20-21. Originally from article by M
Balsubramania Mudaliar, Siddhantam,June 1928.
|
"Maraimalai Adikal was born on 15 July 1876 at
Nagapattinam in Tamil Nadu. He studied Tamil under Ve. Narayanasamy Pillai. He had his
schooling in the Wesleyan Christian High School. He enjoyed the friendship of Sundaram
Pillai, author of Manonmaniyam. He settled in Madras thanks to the efforts of Sandamarutam
Somasundara Nayakar. He joined the Madras Christian College as a Tamil teacher. He founded
the Saiva Siddhanta Maha Samajam.