Book Review: An Update on AIT (Part 1)

[Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan]

In discussing why Tamils characterized their language as mother, goddess,
maiden, etc., Sumathi Ramaswamy says,

< In the pre-colonial poetic traditions to which Tamil's modern devotees are
indebted in myriad ways, the feminization of Tamil was largely
underdeveloped, although not entirely absent. And the language was not
associated with motherhood. In the rare instances when it was personified,
its gender was either unspecified or even male.[36] Yet, from the late
nineteenth century on, the personification of Tamil relied extensively on the
female form clothed in maternal garb. Such a feminization of the language,
however, was neither idiosyncratic nor exceptional, but symptomatic of a
fundamental regendering of culture and community under colonial rule and
modernity.> p. 121

Footnote 36 reads
<Nineteenth-century mystics like Ramalinga Adigal and Dandapanisami
characterized Tamil as "father tongue" to assert its superiority over
Sanskrit, described as "mother" (Krishnan 1984: 197-99). In recent years, the
domination of the feminized tamizttAy notwithstanding, occasionally some
verses personify Tamil as king, father, son, and male lover (Mudiyarasan
1976: 32-33, 40-41; Nagarajan 1980: 3-8, 13-15, 17-25, 39-31 <sic>).> p. 264

In the first sentence, Ramaswamy says that in the pre-colonial traditions,
feminization of Tamil was not entirely absent. Based on this one might think
that she has come across some instances of Tamil being portrayed as a female.
Now, consider  what she says two sentences later. She says that in the rare
instances Tamil was personified  "its gender was either unspecified or even
male." There is no characterization of Tamil as female here. Moreover, her
footnote gives references to the nineteenth century colonial characterization
of Tamil as male while the discussion is about pre-colonial traditions! This
is strange indeed. She does not give any instance of Tamil being personified
as a female in the pre-colonial period, which is relevant for the discussion.
But she gives nineteenth century references for Tamil being characterized as
a male which is totally irrelevant. We can only conclude she did not have any
pre-colonial examples to show. Why did she not have them? It is not because
they did not exist. Ramaswamy did not do the philological work necessary to
identify them.

Regards
S. Palaniappan