Continuing the review of Passions of the Tongue

[Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan]

Parthasarathy also notes that the Tamil king ceGkuTTuvan2's dedication of the 
memorial stone for the pattin2i (deified kaNNaki) "implies that pattin2i is 
now the tutelary deity of the kingdom and that he is under her protection. 
ceGkuTTuvan2 sees himself as uniting the three Tamil kingdoms culturally into 
a single nation (tamizakam). Thus both the king and the goddess become 
defenders of the realm
ceGkuTTuvan2 himself brings the stone for the goddess 
pattin2i's image from the himAlaya, and he makes the Arya kings, kanaka and 
vijaya, carry it on their heads to the banks of the gaGgA 
We can see here 
the beginnings of Tamil separatism that has manifested itself in the 
mid-twentieth century " (p. 342-4)

Sumathi Ramaswamy could have explored the fact that kaNNaki is said to be the 
child resulting from the penance of Tamil personified as a female. Given the 
fact that kaNNaki after apotheosis seems to become the defender of the realm 
of the Tamil nation, it is only fitting that Tamil is made to be the cause 
for the birth of kaNNaki. If the epic was created during the post-Classical 
period when Tamilakam was under the rule of kaLabhras, then iLaGkO is 
probably presenting his vision of  Tamils regaining their national 
sovereignty. Interestingly, the feminization of Tamil is done by a priestess 
in the context of the worship of koRRavai, a goddess.

What may be interesting to some is that while the north Indian kings are 
called Arya and contrasted from Tamil kings, a brahmin poet is called a 
Tamil. Moreover, another brahmin called mATalan2 from the Chola country is 
portrayed as going on a pilgrimage to potiyil mountain, kanniyAkumari, and 
the Ganges. Thus he is shown to have had religious affiliation to a site 
outside tamizakam. But he calls the Tamil ceGkuTTuvan2 "his king". Thus 
mATalan2's political affiliation to tamizakam and religious affiliation to 
Hindu sites outside tamizakam are clearly distinguished by iLaGkO.  This is 
not very different from a Tamil Christian going to Jerusalem or a Tamil 
Muslim going to Mecca. Clearly iLaGkO was articulating a  case of  linguistic 
nationalism. Thus, linguistic nationalism was not a "regime of repetition and 
mimicry that colonialism sparked" among Tamils  as posited by Ramaswamy.

Regards
S. Palaniappan