Hinduism: its caste system & priesthood

There is this question about the alleged ‘Godlessness’ of DK / DMK and as to why these political parties of Tamil Nadu appear to be more accommodating towards Islam and Christianity than Hinduism.

Whilst it is wrong to club together DK & DMK as ‘Godless’ or ‘God denying’ (as DMK isn’t), it is true that there is an unmistakable difference in their approach towards the various religions. It’s my view that this difference can be better understood if we recognize that their real fight is against the rigid, demeaning and exploitative caste system of Hinduism. This caste system, as codified by Manu in his Manusmirti, is the central feature of what is called Brahmanism (that purports to be synonymous with Hinduism) or ‘varnashrama dharma’ (a term that even Gandhiji used extensively). Whilst Manu enshrines inequality by birth, the Tamilian faith or outlook is one of inclusivity: “yaathum urae, yavarum kaelir” ( யாதும் ஊரே யாவரும் கேளிர் ), which finds echo in the DMK’s “onrae kulam, oruvanae thevan” ( ஒன்றே குலம் ஒருவனே தேவன் - One Humanity, One God). There is no need to add that Kural, hailed as the Tamil Vedam, is the anti-thesis of Manusmirti. In one sense, the Tamilian cosmopolitanism exceeds even the brotherhood of Islam and Christianity which differentiate between believers and non-believers (or ‘infidels’) (Note 1) (Note 7).

Therefore, the DK / DMK’s fight against varna dharma is not merely a political stance; it reflects a fundamental disconnect between the Tamilian ethos and varna dharma. Where does this leave Tamilians (or Dravidians) in relation to what is referred to as ‘Hinduism’ from the time of the British rule in India? (Note 2)

There is far more to Hinduism than Manu’s varna dharma, which is really a masterly political scheme in religious guise. It is wrong to fully equate varnashrama dharma to Hinduism, or vice versa, as even Gandhiji tended to. This may explain why Ambedkar did not believe that Gandhiji’s approach would ever secure social justice for the Harijans / Dalits, and called for their conversion to Buddhism (more about Gandhiji’s viewpoints below).

Varna dharma is an imposition that went hand in hand with the appropriation of the rich intellectual and spiritual heritage of pre-Aryan India, which was (largely) Dravidian. If varna casteism can be lifted out of Hinduism, what remains will be largely the two great religions of Tamilians, viz. Saivism (Siva / Appan, Sakti / Amman, Kumaran) and Vaishnavism (Mayon / Tirumal / Perumal - Vishnu). Yes, if you extricate Hinduism from the grip of Manu, what you get (or recover) will be largely Saivism and Vaishnavism. The brilliant Adi Sankarar may have been able to achieve that, but failed to do so: understandably, his compulsions were different. It’s something that Tamil saints like Ramalinga Adigal (Vadaloor Vallalar) attempted during more recent times. Some of the foundational texts of Saivism and Vaishnavism in Tamil are: Thevaram, Thiruvasagam and Divya Prabhandham.

It is this fight against a divisive social order (the Hindu caste system), imposed and milked in the name of God, that should find the support of all right thinking people (of whatever social background) and be carried through to its logical conclusion (more below). It’s a system that corroded and putrefied Indian society from within for more than two thousand years, exposed India to repeated foreign invasions, and, even today, hundreds of millions of India’s people are still paying the price.

There is an often-attempted interpretation of the caste system that seeks to represent it as a ‘division of labour’. If so, it must be strongly qualified because it is a division of labour without mobility between its divisions: as codified by Manu, entry into each division is by the incidence of birth, which is no accident but the dictate of karma. It, therefore, follows that entry into any of this ‘division of labour’ (i.e. caste / sub-caste) is based on the accumulated karmic 'account balance' carried forward from one’s previous births, rather than by merit acquired in the current life in terms of knowledge, skill, character and deed. It is difficult to find any construction of a social order anywhere else in the world that is so cleverly articulated or rationalised to entrench the status quo. It is this conception that underlies the iron grip of Manu on traditional Hindu society and the traditional Hindu mind for so long, leading to India’s past stagnation and the gross underdevelopment of her immense human capital.

However, it must be admitted that Manu’s grip has been broken to a large extent. Anyone can today aspire to enter any job or profession. This is as it should be. But there seems to be still one striking exception. It is the Hindu priesthood, of course, which still remains largely the preserve of a particular community (Note 3) (Note 4).

This priesthood also stands in the way of the Tamil language entering the sanctum sanctorum of the temples, which have been built and sculpted by Tamil talent and labour. Why should this persist when much else has changed: when, for instance, priests who should NOT be crossing the seas are crossing the oceans with regularity to officiate at ceremonies all over the world? Why?

Why shouldn’t anyone – rightly qualified – not aspire to be temple priests?

If that has happened, whosoever is occupying the office of Kanchi Sankaracharya would have represented all Hindus, like the Pope who represents all Catholics regardless of where in the world they live or their station in life. Why has this not happened as yet? When will this change?

In fact, Gandhiji, who favoured the (re-)interpretation of the varna caste system as a form of ‘division of labour’, made a bold proposition: that a 'Brahmin' is not someone who is to be identified by birth but distinguished by a set of personal attributes / qualities; and that anyone can and should be able to become a ‘Brahmin’ by acquiring the requisite qualities. In attempting such a re-definition, Gandhiji, in my view, was merely re-stating the Tamil conception of ‘anthanar’ and ‘saanROr’ (equivalent to the Confucian 'ren'). For this to happen, Manu has to be fully displaced and interred (Note 5) (Note 6). This is, in effect, what DK / DMK’s social struggle has been about. By the way, are the DK / DMK and their like the only ones ‘thinking’ and vocalizing on these matters? Shouldn’t also others, including the temple-going 'believers', think and act in this direction?

Gandhiji used to repeat this: that he is NOT against the British, but only against British imperialism. It is the same approach that should apply when confronting India’s internal ‘colonization’, viz. the casteist Hindu social order - India's own brand of apartheid imposed in the name of God. No individual should be faulted or targeted on account of his social group.

In the matter of spoken Tamil, there can be sufficient space for different forms of spoken Tamil as long as mutual comprehension is not affected and without impairing or pulling away too far from the ‘standard’ form, which itself will evolve.

Note 1:

There is no denying that Islam and Christianity have not been always peaceful towards non-believers. There is no denying that force (violence), intimidation and inducements have been used to spread these proselytizing religions across the world at different times of history. Today, America’s evangelical Christians, misinformed and with misplaced fervour, backed Bush’s ‘shock and awe’ bombing of Iraq in the hope that it would hasten the Armageddon that would precede the much awaited second coming of the Christ.

Note 2:

மகாபெரியவர் என்றழைக்கப்படும் காஞ்சி சந்திரசேகர சரஸ்வதி அவர்கள் (இன்றைய ஜெயேந்திரருக்கு முன்பு காஞ்சிச் சங்கராச்சாரியாராக இருந்தவர்) இந்தியாவை ஆண்ட வெள்ளையன் செய்த பெரிய நன்மையைப் பற்றி கூறியதாவது:

"நமக்குள் சைவர்கள், வைஷ்ணவர்கள் என்று வேறாகச் சொல்லிக் கொண்டிருந்தாலும் வெள்ளைக்காரன் நமக்கு ஹிந்துக்கள் என்று பொதுப் பெயர் வைத்தானோ நாம் பிழைத்தோம். அவன் வைத்த பெயர் நம்மைக் காப்பாற்றியது. எத்தனையோ யுக்திகள் செய்து நம்மை ஆரியர் - திராவிடர் என்றெல்லாம் பேதப்படுத்திய அதே வெள்ளைக்காரன் தன்னையும் அறியாமல் நமக்கு ஹிந்து என்று பொதுப் பெயரைத் தந்து, இன்று இந்திய தேசம் என்று இருக்கும் படியான மகா பெரிய நன்மையைச் செய்திருக்கிறான்!"
( நடிகரும் எழுத்தாளருமான சோ ராமசாமி தொகுத்தளித்த 'இந்து தர்மம்' - 2001 பதிப்பு - என்ற நூலிலிருந்து - பக்கம் 76)

ஆரியர் - திராவிடர் என்றப் பாகுபாடு வெள்ளையனின் பிரித்தாளும் யுக்தி எனக் கூற வரும் அதே மகாபெரியவர் ஈராயிரமாண்டுகளுக்கு மேலாக இந்திய மண்ணின் மைந்தர்களை பற்பல கூறுகளாகப் பிரித்தும் இழிவும் படுத்திய - குலத்துக்கொரு நீதி சொல்லும் - இந்தியாவின் பின்னடைவுக்கு மூல காரணமான - மனுவின் வர்ணாசிரமம் தொடர்ந்து போற்றப்பட வேண்டும் என்று வாதம் செய்வது அதே நூலில் (பக்கம் 71-ல்) இடம்பெற்றுள்ளது.

The late Kanchi Sankaracharya Chandrashekara Swamigal acknowledges that the white (British) colonialists had an unintentional unifying effect on India when they chose to refer to us all (Saivites and Vaishnavites) collectively as Hindus, though they had conceived the Aryan – Dravidian division of Indian society. The Swamigal who objects to such a divisive conception of society finds no contradiction in his calling for the continued upkeep of the Hindu varna (caste) system which had been far more divisive and debilitating in its effects on Indian society over more than two millennia (Note 5).

Note 3:

Sir Nirad C Chaudhuri, a scholar and writer who was conferred a knighthood (the CBE) by the Queen of England as well as an honororay D.Litt by the Oxford University, provides the following interpretation of the Hindu priesthood in his Hinduism: a religion to live by (Oxford University Press, 1979):

“In Hindu society the Brahmin caste is theoretically the priestly order. But in practice the caste and the profession are not to be treated as one. All Brahmins need not be priests. In fact, a majority of them are not. They can follow any profession or means of livelihood, and have been kings, soldiers, shopkeepers, or peasants….. On the other hand, no one except a Brahmin can be a priest. Thus, in respect of priesthood, the caste system is permissive in giving the Brahmins the freedom not to adopt the priestly vocation, but restrictive in not allowing anyone but a Brahmin to become a priest.” (p. 164)

"....in well-to-do families in which the women did not cook, only Brahmin cooks would be employed.....As a matter of fact, cooking became the sole profession of poor Brahmins who were not educated enough to be priests and of Brahmin women who were destitute." (p. 195)

Note 4:

Swami Vivekananda’s comments (November 1893) on the caste system:

“All the reformers in India made the serious mistake of holding religion
accountable for all the horrors of priestcraft and degeneration and went forthwith to pull down the indestructible structure, and what was the result? Failure! Beginning from Buddha down to Ram Mohan Roy, everyone made the mistake of holding caste to be a religious institution and tried to pull down religion and caste all together, and failed. But in spite of all the ravings of the priests, caste is simply a crystallized social institution…. and it can only be removed by giving back to the people their lost social individuality … (And) freedom is the only condition of growth; take that off, the result is degeneration. With the introduction of modern competition, see how caste is disappearing fast! No religion is now necessary to kill it. The Brahmana shopkeeper, shoemaker, and wine-distiller are common in Northern India….”

But I’m not able to ascertain if the Swamiji had ever talked about the need for opening up the priestly order itself: to dismantle the varnic monopoly of the priesthood to enable 'competitive' entry by all.

Note 5:

The late Jagathguru Chandrashekara Saraswathi Mahaswamigal (who was the Kanchi Sankaracharya before the current Jeyandrar Swamigal) defends the Hindu caste (varna) system with flawed logic (employing inappropriate analogies) and for self-preservation, as can be seen from the extract below from a compilation (‘இந்து தர்மம்’ - ‘Hindu Dharmam’ by the actor - writer Cho Ramaswamy) of the Periyavar’s pronouncements:

மகாபெரியவர் என்றழைக்கப்படும் காஞ்சி சந்திரசேகர சரஸ்வதி அவர்கள் (இன்றைய ஜெயேந்திரருக்கு முன்பு காஞ்சிச் சங்கராச்சாரியாராக இருந்தவர்) வர்ணாசிரமம் பற்றி அருளிய மொழிகளுள் சில ( சோ ராமசாமி தொகுத்த 'இந்து தர்மம்' - 2001 பதிப்பு - என்ற நூலில் இருந்து ):

"இப்போது பெரிய பெரிய தலைவர்களிலிருந்து ஆரம்பித்து தெருவில் போகிறவன் வரை அத்தனைபேரும் ஜாதி எதற்கு என்கிறார்கள். நாமும்தான் இதைப் பற்றிப் பேசலாமே என்று ஆரம்பித்தேன். நன்றாக ஆலோசனை பண்ணிப் பார்த்தால், இப்படிப்பட்ட ஒரு பாகுபாடு இருப்பதுதான் எல்லோருக்கும் ஷேமம் என்று தெரிகிறது.

இதை நான் சொல்கிறேன் என்பதற்காக ஒப்புக்கொள்ள வேண்டியதில்லை; சாஸ்திரங்கள் சொல்கின்றன என்பதற்காக ஒப்புக் கொள்ள வேண்டியதில்லை.........இந்தத் தேசம் எப்படியும் முன்னேற வேண்டும் என்பதுதான் ஒருத்தருக்கு லட்சியமாக இருந்தது என்பதை எல்லோரும் ஒப்புக்கொள்கிறார்கள். தேசத்தில் இருந்த பேதங்களை, மூடநம்பிக்கையை எல்லாம் நீக்கி, பிற்பட்டவர்களை மற்றவர்களுக்குச் சமமாக ஆக்குவதற்காகவே அவர் கங்ஙனம் கட்டிக்கொண்டிருந்தார் என்று எல்லோரும் நம்புகிறார்கள். அப்படிப்பட்ட அந்த ஒருத்தரான காந்தி இந்த வர்ணாசிரம தர்மத்தை மனப்பூர்வமாக ஒப்புக்கொண்டு ரொம்பவும் சிலாகித்திருக்கிறார். வர்ண தர்மப்படியான தொழில் பங்கீடு சிதறிப் போய்விட்ட இன்றைக்கு 'வெளி வித்தியாசங்களை மட்டும் பிடித்து வைத்துக் கொள்வது மகா தப்பு' என்று நினைத்துவிட்டார்.

நான் அப்படி நினைக்கவில்லை. நம்முடைய மதத்துக்கு முதுகெலும்பு மாதிரி இருக்கும் ஒரு ஏற்பாடு சொஸ்தப்படுத்த முடியாதபடி பாழாகிவிட்டது என்று விட்டுவிடுவதானால் மடமும் வேண்டியதில்லை, மடாதிபதியும் இருக்க வேண்டிய அவசியமேயில்லை........... இப்போது பொதுவாக ஜாதி வேண்டாம் என்று ஏன் சொல்கிறார்கள் என்றால், இதனால் உசத்தி - தாழ்த்தி உண்டாக்கி, சண்டை ஏற்பட்டு விடுகிறது என்று நினைப்பதால்தான். வாஸ்தவத்தில் உயர்த்தி - தாழ்த்தியே இல்லை என்பதாகச் சொன்னேன்.

'வாஸ்தவத்தில் இருக்கிறதோ இல்லையோ, இப்படி ஒரு அபிப்பிராயம் வந்து விட்டதால் சண்டைகள் ஏற்பட்டிருப்பது நன்றாக தெரிகிறதோ, இல்லையோ? இந்தச் சண்டைகள் வேண்டாம் என்பதால் தான் ஜாதி வேண்டாம் என்கிறோம் என்கிறார்கள். ஆனால் இப்படிச் சொல்வது, தலையை வலிக்கிறது என்பதற்காக்ச் சிரச்சேதம் பண்ணிக்கொள்கிற மாதிரிதான்....... சண்டை வந்திருக்கிறதே, அதனால் மூலதர்மத்தையே கொன்றுவிடலாம் என்றால், அது அஸம்பாவிதம்.......

பல பாஷைகள் இருப்பதால்தான் சண்டைகள் வருகின்றன. பாஷைகளையே அழித்துவிடலாம், ஊமையாகி விடலாம் என்றால் இதற்குப் பரிகாரமாகுமா?........ பாஷைச் சண்டையிருப்பதால் பாஷையே வேண்டாம்; கொள்கைச் சண்டையிருப்பதால் கவர்மெண்டே வேண்டாம் என்று ஒப்புக்கொண்டால், ஜாதிச் சண்டை - மதச் சண்டைகள் இருப்பதால் ஜாதி மதமும் வேண்டாம்தான். ஆனால் அப்போது இன்னொருபடி மேலே போய் பார்த்தால் நாம் எல்லோரும் இருப்பதால்தானே சண்டை போட்டுக்கொள்ள முடிகிறது? அதனால் நாமே நம்மை அழித்துக் கொண்டு விடலாமா?

ஜாதியிருப்பதால் தான் உயர்த்தி - தாழ்த்திச் சண்டை என்று புது நாகரிகக்காரர்கள் நினைத்தாலும், இந்த உயர்த்தி - தாழ்த்தி அபிப்பிராயம் அடியோடு போகவேண்டும் என்பதற்காகவே நான் இந்தத் தர்மம் இருந்தாக வேண்டும் என்கிறேன். 'நாம் இப்படிப் பிறந்தோமா? சரி, இது ஈசுவர சித்தம். ஈசுவராக்ஞையால் நமக்கு இந்தக் காரியம் லயித்திருக்கிறது. இதைச் செய்து நம்மாலான சமூக ஷேமத்தைச் செய்வோம். இன்னொருத்தனுக்கு இன்னொரு காரியம் பாரம்பரியமாக வந்திருக்கிறது என்றால், அது அவனுக்கு ஏற்பட்ட ஈசுவராக்ஞை; அவரவரும் அதைச் செய்து ஈசுவர பாராயணம் பண்ணுவோம்' என்ற மனோபாவம் ஏற்பட்டால், அப்புறம் ஒரு காரியம் உசத்தி, இன்னொன்றை தாழ்த்தி என்று நினைப்பதற்கு இடமேயில்லை அல்லவா? இந்த மனோபாவம் உண்டாகத் தான் நாம் பிரயத்தனம் செய்ய வேண்டும், பிரசாரம் செய்ய வேண்டும்."

The Maha Periyavar remains firm in his belief that varnashramam (the Hindu caste system) is the ‘backbone” of the Hindu faith, in contrast to Swami Vivekananda's view as in Note 4 above. The Periyavar regards the calls for the removal of the caste system as akin to curing a headache by chopping off the head. Even Gandhiji's more limited attempt to reform the system, without wholly undoing it, is not welcome. The Maha Periyavar links the preservation of the order of Sankara 'madams' (or 'maths') and ‘madaathipathikals’ to the continued maintenance of the caste system. In other words, if the caste system were to crumble, the Sankaracharyas (seniors and juniors) would be out of their jobs and this prospect is to be averted by all means, never mind about the hundreds of millions who had suffered (over many centuries past) and are suffering from the grossest of human rights violations due to the crippling and humiliating restraints and disabilities imposed on them by the purportedly God-ordained and apartheid-like varnashramam. The late Sankaracharya would want the status quo to be preserved, together with its attendant benefits and privileges to his religious order, never mind about the enormous costs to Indian society due to the severe under-development and under-utilization of India's human capital. The eradication or dismantling of the caste system is to be compared not to the ‘beheading’ but to the detoxification of the body of society, to the unshackling of the minds and spirits of millions long trapped in imposed ignorance and fear.

Note 6:

In the course of a discussion in 1946, Dr Ananda K Coomaraswamy is said to have “argued that every Hindu, when born, is casteless. In order to be a Brahmin, one has to prove one’s inner worth, both spiritually and intellectually. In fact, the word ‘Brahmin’ suggests something so great and so noble that Coomaraswamy is forced to assert that there are not many Brahmins left in India today. The word seems to be nobler than the people whom it refers to. He asserts that caste is not determined by birth but by one’s loving devotion to one’s duty. A discoverer of truth, a poet, an artist, a teacher are all Brahmins. But there cannot be a Brahmin cook, a Brahmin clerk.”
- R Raphael, Ananda Coomaraswamy: Spiritual Frontiers of Art, Literature and Culture (1977), p.225


Note 7: (inserted 26 March 2006)

Dr Koenraad Elst, Decolonizing the Hindu Mind (2001), p.421-424:

"..... Ambedkar, a leader of the “downtrodden” (Dalits), was a merciless critic of Hinduism…. For all his bitterness against Hinduism and his emphatic preference of British rule to indigenous “upper-caste rule”, he is hailed as the one man who decisively stood in the way of mass conversions of the former untouchables to Christianity or Islam, guiding several million of them towards Buddhism instead. Also, he was far more forthright in criticizing Islam than most Hindu leaders would have dared to do. In 1947, he called on the Dalits not to side with Pakistan or with the Nizam of Hyderabad but with India……

Ambedkar’s starting-point was a very sound one: there are universal and objective criteria with which to evaluate religious doctrines, and rather than wallow in multicultural relativism, we should judge religions by their objective effects upon human life. We should drop the sentimental belief “that all religions are equally good and that there is no necessity of discriminating between them. Nothing can be a greater error than this. Religion is an institution or an influence and like all social influences and institutions, it may help or it may harm a society which is in its grip.” (B R Ambedkar: Philosophy of Hinduism, in Writings and Speeches, vol.3)

…… he utterly rejected the notion….. that Islamic society is more egalitarian or in other ways better than Hindu society. …. Ambedkar conveyed the dominant opinion that Islam imposes a uniformity of thought, and that “this uniformity is deadening and is not merely imparted to Muslims but is imposed upon them by a spirit of intolerance which is unknown anywhere outside the Muslim world for its severity and its violence and which is directed towards the suppression of all rational thinking which is in conflict with the teachings of Islam.”…….

Ambedkar observed that Islam also has its own caste system, quite apart from the holdovers of Hindu caste distinctions among converts. He quoted the Superintendent of the 1901 Census with approval: “The Mohammedans themselves recognize two main social divisions, 1) Ashraf or Sharaf and 2) Ajlaf. Ashraf means ‘noble’ and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from high-caste Hindus. All other Mohammedans, including all occupational groups and all converts of lower ranks are known by the contemptuous terms Ajlaf, ‘wretches’ or ‘mean people’. …. In some places a third class, called Arzal or ‘lowest of all’ is added. With them no other Mohammedan would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the mosque [and] to use the public burial ground. Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of exactly the same nature as one finds among the Hindus.” (Ambedkar: Pakistan – republished as vol.8 of Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches)

For all his bitterness against Hindu society, Ambedkar’s verdict on Muslim society was even harder: “There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women……. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is one relieving feature about them – namely that some of them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realize that they are evils and consequently do not agitate for their removal.” (Ambedkar, Pakistan) ....."


Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com

Cho Ramaswamy & 'Thani Thamizh'

A moderator of the MaGo mail group in his comment (9 June 05) referred to Cho Ramaswamy’s appearance on TV to voice his concerns about "Thani Thamizh" spoiling & stalling the growth of Thamizh.

Apparently, Cho is seeking to inject greater vitality into Tamil. Instead of merely taking him at his words, it is good to examine his deeds as well. If Cho would offer his manner of writing in Tamil in his Tuglaq magazine as the preferred path towards (re-)vitalizing Tamil, we ought to be warned. Cho is so turbo-charged in this ‘mission’ that he seems bent on injecting excessive doses of English into the arteries, veins and nerves of the Tamil language: he seems not to think (or care) that he may putting the ‘patient’ to undue risk.

I have read Cho in English as well. In the few pieces that I have read, I don’t see any indication that Cho will ever write in English in the following manner:

After the saayunkala poosai, attended by a large number of bakthars (bakthargal) of Muruga kadavul, many stayed back for the isai kaccheri in the koyil’s new auditorium.

Cho and many others of his ilk would mark the above as bad English writing. Instead, they would favour something ‘purer’ or ‘cleaner’ like the following:

After the evening prayers, attended by a large number of devotees of Lord Muruga, many stayed back for the music performance in the temple’s new auditorium.

That’s as it should be. Isn’t that good English so that it would be accepted and understood by all around the world, including non-Tamils. To enable such comprehension all round, we will go to ‘temple’ (not ‘koyil’) and have Muruga kadavul re-christened as Lord Muruga.

But when it comes to writing in Tamil, we seem to be presented with diametrically opposite arguments.

Cho, who seems so intent in saving Tamil from the Thani Thamizh aarvalargal (enthusiasts), is known to be sympathetic towards group(s) bent on frustrating all efforts aimed at enhancing the role of Tamil in education and governance in Tamil Nadu (the subject of some previous posts). These groups have, in the past, resorted to court actions and politicking to block or neuter directives / initiatives by the Tamil Nadu government in this direction.

We have no issue with Cho making a living out of Tamil. But for keeping Tamil alive and taking it to greater heights, let us also hear out - more fully and intently - others with their hearts in the right place.

Related blogs:

Malayalam: Motivated genesis of a language (12 Nov 2005)

Loan words in Tamil (11 June 2005)

Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com

Is Kalaignar Karunanidhi unprincipled in his "Godlessness" ? & Loan words in Tamil

Two issues were raised in a post in MaGo's mail group. Both pertain to important matters of concern to all Tamilians.

1. Is Karunanidhi’s stand on “Godlessness” unprincipled?

It’s important to be clear that “Godlessness” or atheism is the standpoint of the DK (Dravidar Kazhagam) founded by EVR Periyar, NOT that of the DMK (founded by Periyar’s lieutenant Anna, and now led by Karunanidhi). DK is DMK’s parent (a relationship that somewhat parallels that of RSS - BJP). DMK’s slogan is “onrae kulam, oruvanae thevan” ( ஒன்றே குலம் ஒருவனே தேவன், i.e. One Humanity, One God). DMK, therefore, does not deny the existence of God.

Their real quarrel is not with or about God, but with what gets done in the name of God, and with those who have set themselves up to speak in the name of God AND to justify and impose in the name of God the world’s most iniquitous and exploitative social order (the Hindu caste system).

Even the Chinese government had picked up a quarrel with India on this matter: sometime in the 1970s, in the United Nations (UN), China’s Foreign Minister Huang Hua questioned India’s moral standing to criticize apartheid in South Africa when an equally oppressive, if not worse, social order existed in India for thousands of years. More recently, when President Bush was planning to invade Iraq to ‘liberate’ Iraqis from tyranny and (remember!) was expecting to stage a victory parade along Baghdad streets lined on both sides with waving crowds throwing flowers and garlands, my Delhi friend told me this: such a rousing reception would be more likely if Bush were to invade India to ‘liberate’ the hundreds of millions of impoverished in India trapped in far more oppressive socio-economic conditions than in Iraq!

In reality, the denial or acceptance of God by DK / DMK or whosoever is not going to change the fact of God. He cannot be wished away if He existed; nor can He be willed into existence if He didn’t. If at all, what Periyar tried to administer was a shock therapy to stir a caste-ridden society out of its long and deep stupor and bondage, steeped in ignorance. It was no less than a sweeping social revolution that he attempted.

The real aim of DK / DMK is to challenge the supposedly God-ordained social order. This is what Phule opposed; Ambedkar condemned; and Mahatma Gandhi tried to reform. They have already succeeded to the extent that millions of people in India have gained self-respect and economic opportunities. But so entrenched is the system and so massive is the problem that much more remains to be done and for a long time to come. Let’s not forget that Gautama Buddha rebelled against the same priesthood and social order 2,500 years ago. In fact, the so-called North-South Divide which marks out large tracts of North India as socially and educationally backward, as compared to the more progressive South, has come about largely because those regions have remained impervious to social reform for too long.

Allah and Christ do NOT sanction the caste system.
Allah and Christ do NOT, for instance, prohibit education to entire sections of society.
{Note: Tamil sages Valluvar and Avvaiyar extol the virtues of education for all, regardless of gender or class: e.g. “pichai pukinum karkai nanrae” and numerous other sayings on education / knowledge.}
Allah and Christ do NOT deny entry into their holy places based on caste (or ‘no caste’).
{It took a long time before I came to understand that millions are outside the Hindu caste structure, i.e. the so-called outcastes who have no caste. So are they Hindus?}
Therefore, on these counts, the DK / DMK have no quarrel with Allah and Christ.


2. As regards loan words in Tamil.

First, let’s remember that Tamil has loaned thousands of words to Sanskrit, as Devaneya Paavaanar has documented based on extensive etymological research. This has to be noted so that we do not attempt to borrow into Tamil what Tamil had originally loaned out. There are reasons to believe that a vast amount of technical literature in Tamil were absorbed into Sanskrit a very long time ago (estimated to have started 2,500 – 3,000 years ago) and the Tamil texts destroyed (along with the systematic deconstruction of ancient Tamil society).

For instance, “poosai” (poo + saey : make flower) comes back as “puja”. We don’t even bother to re-write it as “pujai” or “poojai”.

So it is with “mayai” becoming “maya”; “deivam” into “deva”.

The root of Sanskrit “raja” is the Tamil “arasan”: this is never mentioned in most popular texts.

In Hindu philosophical texts, the Sanskrit word “Ahamkara” refers to the individual ego. It is said to be a combination of “aham” (“I”) and “kara” (maker). But ‘akam’ and ‘puram’ are divisions in the Tamil conception of human affairs: the inner and outer worlds or selves. It’s the Tamil “akam” and “kaaran” (or “kaaram”) that serve as the root words for “Ahamkara”.

Where Tamil has to borrow, let it be done in a manner that harmonises with its linguistic / sound patterns.

Let’s see how English does its borrowings. For instance, our “kattumaram” becomes “catamaran” on the English tongue. Similarly, our “milagu thaneer” becomes their “mulligatawny”; our “kidangu” becomes their “godown”. They had insisted on calling “Thiruvanthapuram” as “Trivandrum”. It’s about Anglicizing the imported words.

Where Tamil has to borrow words, consider Tamilizing them: e.g. “Aangilam” instead of “English”; “Ingilaanthu” instead of “England”.

Let’s consider this: when Indians write in English, should they write “The catamaran is rocked by sea waves”, OR “The kattumaram is rocked by sea waves”? The latter is a case of domesticating / indigenizing / Indianising English. Instead, the Cho Ramasamy’s are busy adulterating / creolizing / Anglicizing the Tamil language, to save it. It’s either a case of mental enslavement long after the colonizers had left, OR some calculated mischief.


Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com

Jayakanthan and Tamilian language sentiments

Jayakanthan, a popular Tamil writer, is known to have made his infamous remarks deriding Tamilian sentiments about their language and their agitation over language corruption when speaking at a function after winning the Jnanpith (Gnanapeeda) Award.

I am one of many who appreciate and feel proud about Tamil saints, scholars and others who have fought long battles over the last hundred years and more to salvage Tamil from what is known as its ‘manipravaalam’ form (Note 1), to revive Tamil music, and so on. No one could have guessed the battle would become even more complicated some decades after India freed itself from British colonial rule.

This is how the British set out to do educate their Indian subjects as part of their ‘civilizing mission’, as recommended by T B Macaulay (to the then British Governor-General) in his “Indian Education Minute of the 2nd of February, 1835”:

QUOTE

We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.

UNQUOTE

It appears that post-independent India is trying to not only complete what the British set out to do but could not complete before leaving India (in 1947), but even outdo Macaulay in one sense: to Anglicize or creolize their language(s), as is well underway with Hinglish (the Hindi+English composite).

On the other hand, the ongoing globalization has brought along call-centre jobs that require the jobbers to not only switch language but submerge their identity altogether and simulate or slip into alien identities. The relevant point here is that they have to speak ‘good’ English, bereft of any native Indian accent, so as to be acceptable to their distant customers. But these are jobs that could be ‘clicked’ away to other shores in search of lower costs.
{In case we think that “globalization” is a new phenomenon, we are indeed sheep misled by the global media. What then is the last empire in which the sun never set?}

In the case of Tamil Nadu, of independent India (in case, we forget), a child can complete his / her education from nursery to university without ever having to learn the mother tongue (Tamil) in school. Tamil Nadu is the only state in all of India where this happens. I have personally heard of cases of young children scolded / ‘punished’ by convent teachers if they were to talk of their “Amma” and “Appa”, instead of their “Mummy” and “Daddy” (Note 2).

Lest we regard this as essential preparation for future software developers, let’s be reminded that the Japanese, Russians, Israelis, Scandinavians and such have been producing far more software for a longer time even as they are schooled in Japanese, Russian, Hebrew, etc.

Language is not only about communication; it also shapes and structures your thoughts and innermost sensibilities and sensitivities. These are also being confirmed by latest advances in cognitive sciences and neurolinguistics.

The neglect that Tamil language is suffering in Tamil Nadu’s school system has to be quickly addressed and corrected. Tamil Nadu politicians of all parties should be taken to task on this matter. Otherwise, we would all be sorry to witness the effects of growing illiteracy in Tamil amongst Tamil Nadu’s young and future generations.

There is much more that the government of Turkey, for instance, does for the Turkish language than does the Tamil Nadu government for Tamil language (Turkey and Tamil Nadu are approximately equal in terms of population).

What’s the point of having billboards in Tamil when more and more of the younger generation grow up unable to read and write Tamil?
What’s the point of fiery oratory about the greatness of Tamil when the language is marginalized in the education system under the watch of the very same politicians?

If the above state of affairs were to persist, Jayakanthan, for instance, would have to face the prospect of a shrinking pool of readers for his Tamil novels in future. He should be more concerned about this, rather than leading himself into comparing between Tamil and Sanskrit (Note 4) (Note 5) (Note 6). We could then have been spared another comparison: between 'the dog that licks its own legs' (as he is known to have had characterised the Thani Thamizh adherents) and 'the dog that licks the master’s feet' (Note 3). We do NOT want an equalization by turning Tamil into another ‘dead’ classical language. Let Tamil maintain its distinction as a ‘living’ language for many, many generations to come.

A sense of the audience that Jayakanthan may be playing to emerges from an essay in the Frontline (22 April 2005), a publication of The Hindu group. In tracing his evolution from the days of writing for the “common man”, the essay notes that his entry into a “new cultural world” is marked by the transition from the “language of the slum” to the ‘Brahminical’ language:

QUOTE

…..After establishing himself as a notable writer of the common man, Jayakanthan entered another phase of his life. Impressed by his popularity among a section of readers, mainstream magazines such as Ananda Vikatan, Kumudam and Dinamani Kadir started publishing his stories. This widened his horizon and helped him reach greater heights. He took up larger issues and dealt with them in greater detail and in a more sophisticated way, taking advantage of the form of long stories serialized by these magazines. Knowing full well that he had to write for a different type of reader and address different types of issues, Jayakanthan appeared to have equipped himself with new tools and techniques. He had to adapt himself to a new language that these magazines had standardized over the years and adopt a different style of writing.

The transition from the language of the slum to the “Brahminical” language was smooth. In fact, this marked his entry into a new cultural world. And ultimately he scored remarkable success…..

UNQUOTE

The above words are seeping with so much arrogance that it is hard to believe that they appear in cold print on the pages of a respectable publication. Even the colonial Macaulay was not as condescending when he was comparing English to the ‘vernacular’ languages of India. One hundred and seventy years later, one of the denizens of “a new cultural world” that seems to have emerged in independent India disparages the language of the “common man” - for whom the post-independence Tamil writer Jayakanthan once wrote - as the “language of the slum”, in contrast to the so-called “Brahminical” language. What is this “Brahminical” language? I have not heard of any language described as such before. One is left to infer that a social group of self-assumed ‘cultural’ importance has quietly carved out, NOT from the English language of Macaulay but from the ‘vernacular’ language of Tamil, a ‘new’ language for itself whilst the rest of the Tamil-speaking world had been busily engaged in shoring up and debating about ‘Thani Thamizh’. Is this new language going to be the counterpart (in the language domain) of what’s referred to in the religious sphere as ‘Brahmanical’ Hinduism?

Wonder if Jayakanthan also sees himself as having started out as a writer in the “language of the slum”?

Does Jayakanthan, who opposes Tamil language purism, also see himself now as a writer in the so-called "Brahminical" language?

Note 1:

முன்னாள் அமைச்சர் தமிழ்க்குடிமகன் அவர்கள் அந்தக்காலத்திய 'உபதேசரத்நமாலை'யிலிருந்து எடுத்துக்காட்டிய மணிப்பிரவாள நடை:

"மணவாளமாமுனிகள் தமக்காசார்யரான பிள்ளையுடைய ப்ரசாதத்தாலே, க்ரமாசுதமாய் வந்த அர்த்த விசேஷங்களைப் பின்பற்றாருமறிந்து உஜ்ஜீலிக்கும் படி, ப்ரபந்தரூபேன உபதேசித்து ப்ரகாசிப்பிக்கிறோமென்று ச்ரோத்ரு புத்தி ஸமாதாநார்த்தமாக ப்ரதிஞ்ஞை பண்ணி யருளுகிறார்."

இந்த நடை பற்றி மறைமலையடிகள் சொன்னது:

"மக்களை விட்டு மொழியும், மொழியை விட்டு மக்களும் உயிர் வாழ்தல் சிறிதும் இயலாது. " எனது விருப்பப் படிதான் யான் பேசும் மொழியைத் திரித்தும் அயல்மொழிச் சொற்களோடு கலந்து மாசுபடுத்தியும் வழங்குவேன், அம்மொழியின் அமைப்பின்படி யான் நடக்கக் கடவேனல்லன்" என்று ஒவ்வொருவனும் தனது மொழியைத் தன் விருப்பப்படி யெல்லாந் திரித்துக் கொண்டு போவானாயின், சிறிது காலத்தில் ஒரு மக்கள் கூட்டத்தாரிலேயே ஒருவரையொருவர் அறிந்துகொள்ள முடியாத வகையாய் ஒவ்வொரு சிறு கூட்டத்திற்கும் ஒவ்வொரு புதுமொழி காலந்தோறும் உண்டாகி அம்மக்களை ஒன்று சேரவிடாமல் அவர்களைப் பல சிறு கூட்டங்களாகப் பிரித்துவிடும்."

(நன்றி: செந்தமிழ்ச் செல்வி, ஏப்ரல் 2000)

Related Blog:

Malayalam: Motivated genesis of a language (12 Nov 2005)

Note 2:

"விகடன்" 1.9.1932 இதழில் "பாஷைக்கு அடிமைகள்" என்ற தலைப்பில் கல்கி எழுதியதாவது:

"சாதாரணமாய் நமது கல்வி முறையின் கீழ் மூன்றாம் வகுப்பிலிருந்தே இங்கிலீஷ் பாஷை முக்கியமான பாடம் ஆகிறது. ஹைஸ்கூலுக்குப் போய்விட்டால் கணக்கு, சரித்திரம், பூகோளம், ஸயன்ஸ் முதலிய எல்லாப் பாடங்களும் இங்கிலீஷீலேயே கற்பிக்கப்பட வேண்டும். தமிழை மட்டும் தமிழிலேயே கற்பித்தாக வேண்டியிருக்கிறது. முடியுமானால் அதைக்கூட இங்கிலீஷீல் கற்றுக் கொடுத்து விடுவார்கள். இதைப்போல் சர்வ முட்டாள் தனமான முறை உலகில் வேறெதுவும் இருக்க முடியாது. குழந்தைகளும், சிறுவர்களும் தாய்மொழியிலின்றி வேறு மொழியின் மூலம் உண்மையான பயிற்சி பெறுவதென்பது இயலாத காரியமே.

ஒருவன் தனது சொந்த பாஷை பேசுவது கண்டிக்கத்தக்க குற்றமாகுமென்று யாராவது எதிர்பார்க்க முடியுமா? தமிழ்நாட்டில் தமிழ் பேசுவது ஒரு குற்றம். அதற்குத் தண்டனையுண்டு யென்றால் வெளிநாட்டார் யெவரும் நம்பமாட்டார்கள். இந்த அபூர்வமான உலகிலே எங்கும் இல்லாத சட்டம் நமது நாட்டில் அதிலும் பள்ளிக் கூடங்களில் இருந்து வருகிறது.

பிள்ளைகள் ஒருவருக்கொருவர் தமிழ் பேசினால் வார்த்தைக்கு இவ்வளவுவென்று அபராதம். சென்னையில் தேசிய பெண்கள் பள்ளிக்கூடம் என்று சொல்லப்படும் ஒரு ஹைஸ்கூலில் இந்த அழகான முறை இப்போதும் அமுலில் இருந்து வருகிறது. மாணவர்கள் யாரும் தமிழில் பேசக்கூடாது. பேசினால் வார்த்தைக்கு ஒரு தம்பிடியோ, காலணாவோ அபராதம்."

NOTE 3:

தமிழ் முரசு ( 25.5.2005 ):

தமிழ்நாடு தொடக்கப்பள்ளி ஆசிரியர் மன்றப் பொதுச் செயலாளர் க. மீனாட்சி சுந்தரம் வெளியிட்டுள்ள அறிக்கையின் முக்கியப் பகுதிகள் சில:

'யாமறிந்த மொழிகளிலே தமிழ்மொழிபோல் இனிதாவதெங்கும் காணோம்' என
சமஸ்கிருதத்தையும் உள்ளடக்கியே கூறினார் மகாகவி பாரதியார்.

'லோகத்திலே உள்ள பாஷைகளுக்கெல்லாம் தாய் பாஷை சமஸ்கிருதமே' என அன்றைய சங்கராச்சாரியார் வடலூர் வள்ளலாரிடம் கூறியபோது, 'நீங்கள் குறிப்பிடும் அந்தத் தாயையும் அடக்கியாள்கிற தந்தை பாஷை தான் தமிழ்' என்று பதிலடி தந்தார் வள்ளலார்.

தமிழை உயிராகவே நேசித்து, பிறமொழி கலப்பால் தமிழ் அழிந்துவிடக் கூடாது என்பதற்காகவே தனித் தமிழ் இயக்கம் கண்டவர்கள் தமிழறிஞர்கள் மறைமலை அடிகளார், திரு வி. கல்யாணசுந்தரனார், பேரறிஞர் அண்ணா, ரா.பி. சேதுப்பிள்ளை, நாவலர் மற்றும் பல அறிஞர்கள். தமிழ் வாழ வேண்டும் என்பதற்காகவே தங்கள் தேக்குமரத் தேகத்தைத் தீக்கிரையாக்கியவர்கள் தமிழக மொழிப்போர் தியாகிகளாக வணங்கப்பட்டு வருகிறார்கள். அத்தியாகிகளின் தியாகத்தால் தான் தமிழகத்தில் திராவிடர் பாரம்பரியத்தினர் ஆட்சிக் கட்டிலில் அமர முடிந்தது.

இத்தகைய சூழலில் எழுத்தாளர் ஜெயகாந்தன், ஞானபீட விருதுக்கு உரியவராக
அறிவிக்கப்பட்ட நாள் முதல், தன்னை விட அறிஞர் இவ்வுலகத்திலேயே யாருமில்லை என்ற அகந்தையின் காரணமாக ஏதேதோ உளறுகிறார்...... சமஸ்கிருத சேவா சமிதி பாராட்டு விழாவில் பேசிய அவர், தமிழில் தான் எழுத வேண்டும், பேச வேண்டும் எனக் கூறுபவர்கள் தன் காலைத் தானே நக்கிக் கொள்ளும் நாய்கள்! தமிழ் நமக்குத் தாய்மொழி என்றால் சமஸ்கிருதம் அதை விட மேலானது! எனக் கூறியுள்ளார்.

இவ்வாறு கூறுபவர், சமஸ்கிருதத்தில் எழுதி ஞானபீட விருது பெறாதது ஏன்? சமஸ்கிருதந்தான் மேலான மொழி எனக் கூறும் ஜெயகாந்தனுக்குத் தமிழிலே எழுதியதற்காக ஞானபீட விருது தரப்பட்டது சரிதானா? என்பது
சிந்தனைக்குரியதாகும்.


தமிழ் முரசு ( 15.6.2005 ):

சமஸ்கிருதம் பயிலாத ஜெயகாந்தன், தமிழை விட சமஸ்கிருதம் மேலானது
என்று கூறியது சரியல்ல என்று கரந்தைத் தமிழ்க் கல்லூரி பேராசிரியர் இளமுருகன் கூறினார்.....ஜெர்மானிய அறிஞர் மாக்ஸ் முல்லர் ( Max Muller ) இல்லாவிட்டால் இன்றைய சமஸ்கிருதம் நடைமுறையில் இல்லாது போயிருக்கும் என்றார் இளமுருகன்.

Note 4:

Some of the weaknesses of and difficulties with the Sanskrit language find mention in Sir Nirad C Chaudhuri’s Hinduism: a religion to live by (Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 216-7:

“….. All scholars make use of the Hindu basic and exegetical texts without considering how far they can be utilized to give a rational view of Hindu religious beliefs and practices.

The very first difficulty arises from the nature of the Sanskrit language. There is
an impression among those who want to learn the language that its grammar is difficult, both in accidence and syntax. It is not, and anyone with a good memory can learn the elaborate declensions and conjugations in six months. Sanskrit syntax is also for the most part a matter of arbitrary rules, and can be memorized. The real difficulty in Sanskrit is over the meaning of words. Ancient Sanskrit lexicography was never good, and the modern is also very unsatisfactory. So one can never be sure what a word means in a particular context.

This was perceived even before the eleventh century by the great Muslim scholar Alberuni, who had learnt the language. Thus he said in his famous book Indica, in which he gave an account of the religious and philosophical ideas of the Hindus:

The language (Sanskrit) …… (used) one and the same word for a variety of subjects, which in order to be properly understood, must be distinguished from each other by various qualifying epithets. For nobody could distinguish between the various meanings of a word unless he understood the context in which it occurred, and its relation both to the following and preceding parts of the sentence.

Modern lexicographers of Sanskrit, both Indian and Western, have not as yet produced any dictionary which can be considered to be adequate, especially in regard to religious texts. There is besides a special defect of the modern dictionaries due to the fact that a very large number of words in classical Sanskrit are to be found in all modern Indian Sanskritic languages, in which they are wholly unaltered in form. But these words are often used in meanings which are different from the ancient, and they also have different meanings in different modern Indian languages. All modern Sanskrit dictionaries are coloured by local or provincial usages, and one can never be sure that these correspond to ancient usage and meaning.

Next, difficulty springs from the fact that most of the texts are in verse, and for the sake of metre different words have to be used for the same meaning, and also many
superfluous words or particles have to be introduced. This was also referred to by Alberuni. After explaining that verse was employed by the Hindus to facilitate memorizing, he observed: ‘Now it is well known that in all metrical compositions there is much misty and constrained phraseology merely intended to fill up the metre and serving as a kind of patchwork, and this necessitates a certain amount of verbosity.’

But besides this linguistic difficulty in the way of interpreting any religious text in Sanskrit, there is the whole Hindu attitude to language. From the very beginning of their speculations the Hindus exhibited a deep reverence for the Word per se……… But for the Hindus the Word is not the Logos of the Greeks, Romans, and Christians, who identified Logos with the reason immanent in the cosmos. With them it is just word, speech as uttered or embodied in writing. This led the Hindus to create a world of words parallel to and co-existent with the world in which they lived and carried on their activities. ……..

This peculiar disposition to speak and write without any relation to what existed objectively in the world and what could influence their actions is seen even in the practical treatises of the Hindus. All of them are padded with theoretical and even fanciful notions which have no relation to the practical instructions given, and, besides, they indulge in a systematization which is thorough to the point of absurdity……….

Sanskrit rhetoric and poetics – Alamkara or Rasa Sastra as these were called – were as pretentious as they were arid. They divided the heroes and heroines of literary works into types in an elaborate taxonomy, and reduced their states of amorousness to ridiculous abstractions. …. The only service that these rhetoricians and analysts rendered to Sanskrit literature was by preserving as illustrations to their categories some gems of lyrical poetry, which otherwise might have been lost. Their writings gave Sanskrit literature a bad name as a collection of mere artificial prettiness and far-fetched conceits. ……..

The largest part of the Hindu religious literature is taken up with mythology, and the most important works in this class are the Puranas, or treatises on old times. These are composed in Sanskrit verse, but possess no poetic merit. For that one has to go to Sanskrit literature in its truly literary genres, to which many Puranic stories furnish the themes. The Puranas are as entertaining as the Arabian Nights in their mythological stories. If, however, anyone tries to extract a consistent account of the gods and of their character and activities from them he will be baffled at every point by their inconsistencies and exuberance. "

We presume that Sir Nirad Chaudhuri knows enough about Sanskrit to make the above observations. However, he appears to be wholly ignorant about pre-Vedic or Dravidian India and its civilizational accomplishments (e.g. Mohenjodaro, Harappa) even before the nomadic Aryans arrived. The late Nirad Chaudhuri, a scholar and writer from Bengal, was conferred a knighthood (the CBE) by the Queen of England as well as an honororay D.Litt by Oxford University.

Note 5:

T. K. Oommen, Professor of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Social Systems, Jawaharlal Nehru University, in his article 'Religious nationalism and democratic polity: the Indian case' in the journal Sociology of Religion (Dec 1994), wrote as follows:

“…… First, Sanskrit is not a living language and is today spoken only by a handful of people. Second, it is not true that Sanskrit is the exclusive heritage of Hindus; it is a common Indian heritage cutting across religious categories. While Sanskrit was an ancient and highly developed language of ancient India, so were Pali and Tamil. (Of these three languages only Tamil is a living vibrant language.) Given the above, Sanskrit is at best identified with Aryan Hinduism, Pali with Buddhism, and Tamil with Dravidian Hinduism. Consequently, Sanskrit is not even the common heritage of all Hindus…….”

Note 6: (inserted on 19.03.06)

Pathmarajah Nagalingam ( owner of website www.siddha.com.my ) writes in akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com (18 March 2006) as follows:

"..... I agree that sanskrit is not a very good communicative language - words and meanings are too vague and easily misunderstood, like 'dharma' for instance. Perhaps thats why there is so much repetition in each hymn. It may also explain why writers over the millenia, in a subconscious need, padded the sanskrit texts, especially the puranas and itihasas until it ballooned to what it is today. Obese texts. Thats the word. Thats a fatal flaw, indicating its a primitive language, and explains its early cardiac arrest. It died long before latin and greek. But it is nice to chant in sanskrit. I do that everyday!!

Nice also to quote in romanised sanskrit, using diatrical marks. Gives a hallowed and scholarly feeling.

(It may also explain why Indians cant understand each other, and resort to plenty of verbiage, but still essentially talking past each other! ) "

Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com

American Society: Myths and Realities

A post in MaGo's group made an observation that “nobody bothers in US if you portray its students as drug addicts”, and even when a movie represented Jesus in a bad light “no body in US bothered”. This would seem to suggest that American society is highly tolerant of alternative views. There is indeed a lot of space allowed in public discourse, e.g. in the mass media, for alternative views on a wide range of matters, in contrast to the highly restrictive information environments in many other countries of the world. But let’s not get carried away by American boasts of free press and freedom of expression. The situation is more complicated and complex.

It’s likely that most of us would still recall the orchestrated protests in the USA against Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’. Powerful forces in Hollywood and the media had tried their level best to block the release of Mel Gibson’s movie. Why?

American society is soaked in media. It’s the country that launched the phenomenon of round-the-clock news. Yet, more than half of the American voters who re-elected Bush (in Nov 2004) were of the impression that Saddam had WMDs hidden away in some deep bunkers (waiting to be discovered) and that Saddam had collaborated with Al-Qaeda to cause 9/11. A democracy is only as good as its citizens; their decisions depend on how informed and discerning they are. The fault lies not only with the media, which shapes the information that is reaching the people, a vast majority of whom rely on the TV rather than print for their news. Americans are themselves increasingly selective about what they would choose to hear and see, thus narrowing their outlook and reinforcing their prejudices.

On the other hand, America’s pornographers have exploited the First Amendment for a full play of freedom of expression. As a result, American society is awash with porn. Such porn is today available across the globe, even in remote towns and villages. This is undermining and fragmenting entire societies: moral degradation, sexual crimes, weakening of the family, etc. American society is not immune: there are some who lament that America is becoming a moral wasteland. David Brooks writes in the New York Times (May 29, 2005): “In 1960, three-quarters of poor families were headed by married couples. Now only a third are. Poor children are less likely to live with both biological parents, hence, less likely to graduate from high school, get a job and be in a position to challenge the hegemony of the privileged class. Family inequality produces income inequality from generation to generation.. ” (Note 1)

No society is safe from the corrosive effects of such ‘morality’ that is being increasingly globalised. We are already starting to witness the impact right here in Singapore. There may be reason to plead for greater INtolerance (or less tolerance) in some matters.

Note 1: (added on 22 May 06)

ADD, ABSENT DAD DISORDER
Coach Dave Daubenmire
March 1, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

We are a nation of broken families. Family trees now resemble a shrub. Over half of our children no longer live with Dad. Some studies show that nearly 7 out of 10 black children are born into a home without a father.

Boys are confused. A national epidemic of single family homes has deprived America’s children of a solid, consistent, male role model. Some turn to gangs, some to drugs, some turn to homosexuality.

Girls are abused. Promiscuity continues to skyrocket among the Britney Spears generation as the young prosti-tots display their wares. Navels in school are now more common than navel oranges in Florida. The daily headlines reveal the latest sex-capades at the hands of public school teachers, the fruit of young girls striving to find that male connection. …….

……… Brokeback Mountain, blatant homosexual propaganda, has been all over the news. Disguised as a movie, it is nothing more than a commercial to try and normalize deviancy.


Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com