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