Sinhala perceptions
of the Dravidian movement in South India
Northeastern Herald, 4 October 2002
There is a belief among the Sinhalese that a large movement bent
on Tamil aggrandisement flourishes in Tamil Nadu in South India bent
on annihilating non-Tamils in the neighbouring countries. The many
references to the Dravida Kazaham (sic) by Sinhala commentators
brings out the fears they have of the Dravidian movement.
It is seldom realised however that the Dravidian movement has been
seeking Buddhist assistance to thwart Brahminic domination in the
day-to-day life of the Tamils in Tamil Nadu. To a student of modern
Tamil Nadu history, especially of the Dravidian movement, Sinhala
hostility to the movement remains puzzling. Three constituent
strands go into the making of the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu:
a) The Pure Tamil movement advocated by
Maraimalai Adigal, a Tinnavely Saiva Vellalan, who wanted
Tamil to be a language and culture free of Sanskrit � especially
in matters relating to the practice of Hinduism.
b) The Justice Movement of South India, originally known as the
South Indian Liberal Federation, which was a political party
consisting of non-Brahmin, high caste Tamils, Telugus and
Malayalis who did not want the British to give the Brahmins a
dominant position in political and administrative matters.
c) The Self-Respect Movement launched by
E.
V. Ramasamy Nayakar
(called Periyar or great elder), which aimed at doing away with
Brahmin supremacy and in the social and cultural life of the
Tamils.
The Brahmins of Tamil Nadu used Max Muller�s concept of the
culturally superior Aryan to legitimise the their authority, thus
raising a counter argument to the Dravida (those who were
non-Aryans). But it should be noted though there was a tendency to
think in terms of Aryans and Dravidians and in matters of cultural
identification the need for being anti-Brahmin was raised early (the
polarisation having taken place in 1926 after Periyar left the
Indian National Congress over differences with Gandhi and other
leaders of that party on the Vaikon issue) the term �Dravida� did
not come to refer to a political entity till much later.
Despite ample discussion about cultural Dravidianism and the
Dravidian Association, it became the name of a political party only
with the formation of the Dravida Kazhaham (DK) in 1944, when the
almost defunct Justice Party handed over non-Brahmin political
leadership to Periyar. It is from this point onwards the DK and its
various proliferations � Dravida Munnetra Kazhaham (DMK � 1949) and
the All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhaham (AIADMK �1972) etc. came
into being.
Periyar was against Brahminism, superstition and caste. He opposed
all social inequalities that had been imposed by the imprest of
Bramininsm such as caste, pollution etc. He called his intellectual
position as �pahuththarrivuvadham� or rationalism. Rationalism in
Tamil Nadu has a fairly long history. Let alone in pre-modern times
when the Siddhars challenged Brahminism and extreme ritualism, there
was formulation of the concept of equality and the unacceptability
of social hierarchies among human beings even during British rule in
India.
Similarly, even if we leave aside the great tradition of Buddhism in
Tamil Nadu, an appeal was made to Buddhism to avert the inequality
in the modern period too. Dr. Ambedkar�s name is very famous. He
challenged Maharashtra Brahmin superiority by appealing to the
spiritual equality preached in Buddhism. But before him thinkers in
Tamil Nadu had looked to Buddhism as an antidote to inequality and
the various forms of oppression the caste system imposed.
One such was Jyotidas, an important figure in the late 19th and 20th
centuries who established contacts with Henry Olcott, who was then
at the Theosophical Society in Madras (Chennai). We are told that
Olcott brought Jyotidas to the Vidyalankara Pirivena at Keleniya for
discussions on matters relating to conversion to Buddhism.
Historians speak of Vidyalankara Pirivena as referring this matter
to the Malwatte and Asgiriya chapters. Nothing thenceforth is heard
from Tamil sources. Perhaps the caste-based Siam Nikaya had come to
know of the position Jyotidas and his friends, who were from the
oppressed castes, held on matters relating to caste.
Attempts to establish connections with Sri Lankan Buddhists in the
non-Brahmin quest for non-hierarchical spiritual equality does not
end with Jyotidas. Periyar, on his way from the Soviet Union (1928?)
met with G. P. Malalasekera on the question of reviving Buddhism in
Tamil Nadu. Periyar was an atheist, but knew that at a popular level
people needed religion, which is what perhaps constituted the
discussion between Periyar and Malalasekera.
The non-Brahmin � Buddhist dialogue goes even further. When in 1949
C. N. Annadurai broke way from Periyar and founded the DMK, which
had a much better publicised Tamil stand, the tendency to highlight
Buddhism as a religion that ensures equality was emphasised in his
writings. It was so in Tamil films too. It may be of interest to
note that the name of a leading studio at that time was Buddha
Pictures.
The Dravidian movement always admired the strands of equality and
absence of excessive ritualism in Buddhism, especially its focus on
meditation. But unfortunately, in the Sinhala-Buddhist psyche none
of this was known. As mentioned by me in an earlier article, the
word �Damila� was taken to mean also �Buddha virodhi� (enemy of
Buddhism). This is not the place to go into the acknowledged
contributions of Tamils to Buddhism, but resurgent Sinhala-Buddhism
was not made aware of such a contribution. The average
Sinhala-Buddhist was shut out of the knowledge of these legacies.
A discernible factor in Sinhala-Buddhist resurgence has been the
over-domination of the Aryan myth. There have been efforts to equate
Sinhala with Aryan and this has gone to the extent of the upper
garment worn by men coming to be known as the Arya-Sinhala and the
Sinhala-owned restaurant as the �Arya-Sinhala bhojana salawa.�
Identity with Aryan India led to looking at the Tamil-related arts
with disdain and overrating the traditions of the northern India as
the more suitable forms of high culture for Sri Lanka. In music, the
folk tradition of the �vannamas,� which has a strong counterpart in
the Tamil tradition, was overlooked and North Indian traditions
highlighted. It is true the role of Rabindranath Tagore, his school
of music Rabindra Sangeet and the institution Shanthinketan played
an important roles in enabling Sinhala artistes to opt for North
Indian traditions, but that need not have gone to the extent of
branding the entire Carnatic musical tradition as �thosai kadai
music.�
Fortunately, the theatre did not fall for this. From Ediriweera
Sarathchandra to A. J. Gunawardene, from Dhamma Jagoda to M. H.
Gunatilleke, artists, scholars and critics have highlighted
Sinhala-Tamil interactions in the Sinhala theatre. And their Tamil
counterparts have accepted the importance of Sinhala theatre. More
one looks into these features, the more we realise there has been
the tendency to overlook and deny mutual interaction.
It should be mentioned here that some Tamil scholars had, because of
the Arya-Dravida polarisation, taken Ravana to be a great
anti-Sanskrit and anti-Brahmin hero. It might be a matter of great
shock to the followers of the Sinhala purist movement � the Hela
Hawula � that Ravana is the archetypical Tamil hero, whose greatness
has been sullied by Aryan mythmakers.
The book �The Ravana Kavyam� a Tamil epic on Ravana, extols the
virtues of Ravana, while M. R. Radha�s theatrically provocative
parody on the �Ramayana� depicts Ravana as a great hero. To add to
these, the Hindu Tamil psalmists of the 7th and 8th centuries called
Ravana a great Saivite. Trincomalee and its environs are associated
with the Ravana myth.
The tragedy is that these and other Tamil efforts to venerate
Buddhism and its traditions connected with Sri Lanka have not been
taken into consideration in fostering the relationship between the
Sinhalese and the Tamils. Any sincere analysis of the cultural
traditions of the Sinhalese will reveal that at the grassroots there
has been a lot of Sinhala-Tamil interaction. But we have failed to
build on those commonalities. On the contrary, history of the
Sinhala-Tamil relationship has been to emphasise the differences by
ignoring, if not denying, any interaction.
But the two languages are a much better index and reveal the
interaction the average Sinhalese and Tamil have had in this country
for so long.
|
