|
 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.