Continuing the review of Passions of the Tongue

[Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan]

narayan S. Raja said:
> Anyway, though, drawing conclusions
>  about "linguistic nationalism" from one
>  of the least important characters in
> "silappadhikaram" seems to be questionable.

Conclusions regarding Tamil nationalism in cilappatikAram are not based on
mATalan2 alone. Tamil nationalism is present in the whole third book of
cilappatikAram if not in the other two  books as well. The reasons for
discussing mATalan2 were the questions in the thread as to whether brahmins
are Tamils. iLagkO�s inclusion of brahmins in the Tamil nation is clear.

In this context, let me quote how Prof. Mitchell Cohen opens his book "Zion &
State" by saying:

<A report on nationalism published in 1939 by a study group of the Royal
Institute of International Affairs remarked that as a consequence of varied
historical conditions the Jews assumed 'at an exceptionally early date, some
of the characteristics which have since become associated most closely with
the modern concept of a "nation" '. The key words in this observation were
'early date' and 'modern concept', for nation and nationalism generally are
regarded as phenomena that appeared in a stage of world history that long
postdated the development of Jewish peoplehood.> p.17

The situation of the Tamils was similar. That is why I quoted Zvelebil who
called cilappatikAram "the first consciously national work of Tamil
lterature, the literary evidence  of the fact that the Tamils had by that
time attained nationhood. " (The Smile of Murugan, p. 172)

I shall let other scholars decide on the nationalism found in Tulasidas'
work.

In any case, originally I did not intend to write such a detailed review of
"Passions of the Tongue". However, I saw one member writing, "I am quite
unable to see that her book is harmful to the pursuit of knowledge. I am
afraid that the difference between Ramaswamy and Rajaram is the difference
between a professional, even brilliant scholar and a hack political
propagandist."  I felt that such an assessment of Ramaswamy arose probably
because of a lack of knowledge regarding the Tamil literary tradition among
some. I also felt that Ramaswamy's work highlighted the gap in the USA that
seems to separate the traditional philologist-Indologists and the leftist
neo-South Asianist social scientists with a negative attitude towards
philologists.

(to be contd.)


Regards
S. Palaniappan
</PRE></HTML>