Bharathiyar ..

[RVR]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Shri Vikrama ji,

You are correct, Bharathi is religious, secular & patriotic. But certain elements in our forum are misusing Bharathi by invoking few anti-brahmin songs alone. They write all sorts of non-sense.

Our community has produced people like Veera Vanchi which even Bharathi has ignored when he wrote such songs. Lot of other people have followed Mahatma Gandhi's path. When majority of our community people have participated in the freedom struggle, some unwanted elements are quoting certain aberrations of Bharathi.

Let us not play into their hands.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri. R.Venkataramani:

Greetings!

You are correct, Bharathi is religious, secular & patriotic. But certain elements in our forum are misusing Bharathi by invoking few anti-brahmin songs alone. They write all sorts of non-sense.

Being a member of "certain elements" let me say that I never stated, directly or indirectly, that Mahakavi Bharathi was not religiously motivated. One of the verses I cited included the following:

முன்னாளில் ஐயரெல்லாம் வேதம் - ஓதுவார்
மூன்றுமழை பெய்யுமடா மாதம்;

I don't agree with this. There is no connection between rain and reciting of Vedas. I also know that he was not exactly opposed to the Varna system. Consider the following verse:

நாலு வகுப்ப்மிங் கொன்றே - இந்த
நான்கினி லொன்று குறைந்தால்,
வேலை தவறி சிதைந்தே - செத்து
வீழ்ந்திடும் மானிட சாதி

I cannot disagree more with the Mahakavi here. In theory or practice, the four Varnas have never been equal.

At the same time, I have no doubt that he was sincerely in favor of social reform. Take a look at this one:

அன்பென்று கொட்டு முரசே - மக்கள்
அத்தனை பேரும் நிகராம்;
இன்பஙகள் யாவும் பெருகும் - இங்கு
யாவரு மொன்றென்று கொண்டால்.

I am inspired by this verse, and many others with similar message.

...., some unwanted elements are quoting certain aberrations of Bharathi.

Well, well, I suppose I am one of the "unwanted elements" . If I am unwanted by the host, moderators, and patrons, you being one of patrons, I am ready leave peacefully.

Mahakavi Bharathi's progressive thoughts are not an aberration. Being religious and being a social reformer are not mutually exclusive.

Cheers!

 

[RVR]

Dear Shri Nara ji,

This forum permits everybody. I have no say in any of the postings or editing. However when somebody says about the father of the nation like this,


`I would proclaim, he is more than a Gandhi.. Bharathi was not an opportunistic like Gandhi..'

I am forced to react. Just for the sake of glorifying `Bharathi' I don't want Mahatma Gandhi to be termed as an `opportunist'.

Please read my treads carefully. I have never said anything against Bharathi. I just said TB of those days supported Mahatma Gandhi and not Bharathi.

I have not supported `violent path' chosen by Veera Vanchi inspite of his great sacrifice.

Entire world knows what the movement lead by Mahatma Gandhi got for the nation against the mighty British empire.

Mahatma Gandhi also said the following about Hinduism

"My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired .... I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense" (The Collected Work of Mahatma Gandhi, The Publication Division, Government of India, Vol. XXI, p. 246). Yet Gandhi was only following Hindu law.

I am inspired by Mahatma Gandhi's statement above, which conveys the same message which you propagate. At the same time without attacking any particular caste.

You please participate in the discussions. Personally I have nothing against you.

Spreading hatred against a particular religion, caste, language or race will not achieve anything.

 

[Nara]

This forum permits everybody. I have no say in any of the postings or editing. However when somebody says about the father of the nation like this,

Dear Shri. Venkataramani, Greetings!

Thank you for your reply.

I understand your feelings. But when you use phrases like "certain elements" and "unwanted elements" without naming anyone in particular, it leads to unnecessary misunderstanding.

Electronic forum being impersonal by nature, we all sometimes write things that we may never say face-to-face.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Venkataramani Ji,

This forum does not permit 'everybody'. There is a long list of 'banned' handles here, who tried to vilify our community or try to be abusive in language and sometimes vulgar in thoughts.

Is calling Mahatma 'opportunistic' abusive and/or vulgar? In my opinion, unless we know why the poster said it under what circumstance, it is not.

This Forum caters to all ideas as long as they do not mean us harm. And censorship of free ideas have to be applied very carefully. Because censorship lowers the threshold of accepted standards and norms and that is a slippery slide.

For example, we have instances in India, where free thoughts (Salman Rushdie comes to mind) were censored, just because one community said that their feelings were hurt, even though majority of them did not read the book! I do not want this for our community. Then, if we discuss liberal ideas, our orthodox will cry foul that their 'feelings' are hurt and vice versa!

This is why, we the moderators allow certain ideas, even though they are odious to some of us. I am as much offended by the statement on the Mahatma as you are. But that does not raise it to the level of censorship, in my opinion. Now if the same person who said what he said about the Mahatma, then goes about posting that it was right that he was assassinated, then he would be banned. I hope you see the difference.

In my opinion, our community only benefits from open and honest dialog of any idea, subject to the limits based on common decency.

As moderators, we are trying our best to enforce this.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri Nara ji,

This forum permits everybody. I have no say in any of the postings or editing. However when somebody says about the father of the nation like this,


`I would proclaim, he is more than a Gandhi.. Bharathi was not an opportunistic like Gandhi..'

I am forced to react. Just for the sake of glorifying `Bharathi' I don't want Mahatma Gandhi to be termed as an `opportunist'.

 

[vikrama]

Bharathi says, ‘Religions and rituals are but routes to the truth and they themselves are not the end. Once your mind is purified these become redundant. The Vedas speak that God is one, we are all His children and the world is a storehouse of pleasures. India is the only country that can teach this to the entire word.’

சமயங்கள், சாத்திரங்கள், சடங்குகள் எல்லாம் உண்மையை அடைவதற்கான படிகளே அன்றி அவையே இறுதி நிலை அல்ல. மனதைச் செம்மைப்படுத்திப் பரம்பொருளை உள்ளத்தால் தொட முடிந்தால் இவை தேவையற்றதாகி விடும்.

காவித் துணி வேண்டா கற்றைச் சடை வேண்டா
பாவித்தல் போதும் பரமநிலை எய்துதற்கே
சாத்திரங்கள் வேண்டா சதுர்மறைகள் ஏதுமில்லை
தோத்திரங்கள் இல்லை உளம் தொட்டு நின்றால் போதுமடா
தவமொன்றும் இல்லை ஒரு சாதனையுமில்லையடா
சிவமொன்றே உள்ளதெனச் சிந்தை செய்தாற் போதுமடா

அறிவு விளக்கம் பெறாத குழந்தை நிலையில் உள்ளோர் தாம் விரும்பிய வெவ்வேறு வடிவங்களில் பரம்பொருளை வழிபடட்டும். ஆனால் அதே நிலையில் நின்று விடாமல் படிப்படியாக மேலே உயர்ந்து வடிவங்கள், வழிபாட்டு முறைகள், வேதங்கள், தவங்கள் இவற்றைக் கடந்து பரம்பொருளை உள்ளத்தால் உணரும் நிலைக்கு வரட்டும். இவை எல்லாமே உண்மை தான். இதை உலகுக்கு உணர்த்தவல்ல ஒரே நாடு நமது நாடு தான் என்பதில் பெருமை கொள்கிறார் பாரதி.

ஒன்று பரம்பொருள் நாமதன் மக்கள்
உலகின்பக் கேணிஎன்றே
நன்று பல்வேதம் வரைந்தகை பாரத
நாயகிதன் திருக்கை

 

[Singleliner]

I am forced to react. Just for the sake of glorifying `Bharathi' I don't want Mahatma Gandhi to be termed as an `opportunist'.
.

I have no second thought in rendering the salutation to Mahathma Gandhi as 'Father Of Nation'.. but comparing to Bharathi, I have my own points to call Gandhi as an opportunist.

If you had read his S.A history, Gandhi was true to his love for Indians, but not for human race. If one got to read his personal life history, in south africa, as an amai-vadai barrister, without any clientele for making his daily bread, he involved himself in to garnering support for the immigrant indians and pleaded their court cases free of charge, since there was no takers for this not so smart advocate.. The point I would request you all to ponder here is, if Gandhi was true to his idea of Human-Liberation, then he should have fought for the plight of Black south africans first, but not the indians who were fairly living in a better conditions than the blacks.. he was indeed an opportunist, to gather the support of known race. And for this, he missed the nobel prize too.

I can list lots.. n..lots from Indian history.. Having said that, my regards for Bharathi stand much much taller than Mr.M.K.Gandhi. Its my personal feel, and Im sure you have no right to question that.

There is nothing wrong in calling someone as opportunist.. After all, saying goes, how can a dumb become hero, for he not being an opportunistic

 

[RVR]

Moderators. Please intervene and do whatever action you feel is right.

 

[Nara]

Moderators. Please intervene and do whatever action you feel is right.

Oh, come on Venkataramani Sir, don't run to the moderators, you can stand up on your own, I have seen you do it. And, I will stand with you on this one.

Here are couple of quotes from eminent people of the world.

Albert Einstein:
Generations to come will scarcely believe that such one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth.
​

Martin Luther King:
If humanity is to progress, Gandhi is inescapable. He lived, thought, acted and inspired by the vision of humanity evolving toward a world of peace and harmony.​

What if he was an opportunist? Opportunist is one who can take advantage of the situation and if Gandhi did it, he did it for the betterment of humanity. He served the Indian community for free and in return the Indian community presented him with a huge prize when he left SA for India. He gave the whole thing back to them.

Yes, he did not fight for the blacks of SA, but that does not automatically make him an unworthy leader of Indian community.


As for Bharathi, he adored the Mahathma. How can one hold the Mahakavi in high regard and not care for the Mahatma???

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Nara Ji,

I echo your sentiments about the Mahatma.

I wish to add these lines, addressing Sri Singleliner Ji:

1) While being 'opportunistic' is generally a good word, your use of this word in describing Gandhi Ji's methods as opposed to the Maha Kavi's clearly illustrates that you meant this to be at worst a demeaning adjective or at best to put a damper on his accomplishments. So, please do not walk away from it.

2) Charity starts at home. So he honed his non violence methods, first starting with himself and later through extension with his community. Your argument that he did not help the SA blacks has no relevance to a life dedicated to a transformational quest. Your argument is akin to saying that because Mother Teresa catered to only 'a few' in Calcutta, somehow she is less worthy of recognition. Such an argument is sophomoric.

3) It is a good thing he did not get the nobel prize. Looking at some of the recipients in the past few years, I rejoice in the fact that his non selection is a bright light shining on the hypocricy of the Nobel committee. It is their loss, not his.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS:

Greetings!

I beg to differ on just one minor point.

Your argument is akin to saying that because Mother Teresa catered to only 'a few' in Calcutta, somehow she is less worthy of recognition.

Mahathma Gandhi, even though very religious, did not act out of ulterior religious motives. One might argue that whatever may be the motive, a good act must be commended. I certainly agree with that sentiment, unless such ulterior motives lead to despicable acts. If you have not already done so, please read the book by Christopher Hitchens, titled with a deletable double entendre, "The missionary position: Mother Teresa in theory and practice." A limited preview of this book is available in Google Books.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Nara Ji,

I get the drift. I have read Hitchens, though not this one.

I am a simple man. I am not sophisticated enough to go beyond normal human good intentions to account for their good deeds. I am not smart enough to analyze any 'ulterior religious motives' on anyone's part.

Regards,
KRS

 

[RVR]

Mahathma Gandhi is an Indian. He fought for India's freedom. When India itself required his services, how can he serve some other country for its freedom.

If fighting for his own countries freedom is opportunistic, then there is no point in arguing further. After liberation, India fought for ending apartheid in South Africa which is a well documented fact.

Infact several other countries got freedom along with India or immediately after India's freedom and they have all openly acknowledged India's contribution for their freedom struggle.

 

[kunjuppu]

as i see it, gandhi's window was the world. he was a practical leader, who lead india to independence. gandhi's primary goal was independence.

in the course of this fight, gandhi also dabbled in spirituality, alternative life styles. gandhi was focussed primarily in the practicalities of winning india's independence.

not sure, what gandhi's role in india would have been, had he lived longer, after independence.

bharathy was a poet. his canvas was his imagination and indulged in the proverbial poetic licence galore.

it has become fashionable in extreme dravidian circles today to malign bharathi - they have produced documents claiming bharathi's subservience to the english etc.

subramanian became bharathi only later in life. he was progressing and had a learning curve. so it is ok for bharathi, in his earlier life, to do whatever he did. we all learn and mature.

same goes for gandhi. gandhi honed his skills in south africa. his interactions were between indians and the whites. gandhi matured in south africa.

it is immaterial whether gandhi cared about the blacks of south africa or not. what he gained was the realization of an unusual instrument in his fight against the foremost imperial power of the day ie the power of truth aka satyagraha.

and gandhi won. that's all counts.

and bharathi became bharathiar for eternity. that too counts.

different species. different counts. different worlds.

cannot mix them.

 

[G. Soundara Rajan]

Bharathi

Kunjuppu ji's statement is 100% correct. Gandhiji & Bharathi worked on different platforms for the independence of India. They need not be compared with each other. Bharati through his lyrics helped the movement. It is a fact that all need not and cannot not do the same work and in the same sphere.

History says that Loka Manya Bala Gangadhara Thilakar was senior to Gandhi in Freedm Movement. However, Tilakar wholeheartedly, egolessly and happily endorsed Gandhi as the Leader for the independence movement, so that Gandhi's image & the movement could better reach the whole country. Those were the days when selfless attitude among leaders prevailed.

A thread emanated on the issue of postings in Tamil alone, has grown till date to this 'madisar saree (9 yards)' stage and seems still growing.

It is quite strange that Bharathi is ridiculed by Dravida group, but a person with his name as 'Bharathi Dasan' gets applauded in their meetings. How a cub remains relative while its father lion is their enemy. This is only one example of the absurdity in the attitude of our Dravida sigamnis in Tamil Nadu! Perhaps, the reason could only be : by birth, Bharati was a brahmin.

It is a fact that almost all leaders associated in the freedom movement were brahmins. It is also a fact that they belong to the whole country and not just to any caste or religion.

Regards to all.

G Soundara Rajan

 

[Nara]

It is a fact that almost all leaders associated in the freedom movement were brahmins.

Dear Shri Rajan, could you please provide some more data on this "fact"? I am really intrigued by this.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

it has become fashionable in extreme dravidian circles today to malign bharathi - they have produced documents claiming bharathi's subservience to the english etc.

Hi, I think people are overlooking the adjective "extreme" and jumping to the conclusion that Bharathiar is vilified by all Dravidian parties. I am no fan of Dravidian parties, but to be fair to them, the main-stream Dravidian parties are not averse to Bharathiar. If my memory serves me right, they are the ones who built a statue for him in Beach Road.

Cheers!

 

[kunjuppu]

Hi, I think people are overlooking the adjective "extreme" and jumping to the conclusion that Bharathiar is vilified by all Dravidian parties. I am no fan of Dravidian parties, but to be fair to them, the main-stream Dravidian parties are not averse to Bharathiar. If my memory serves me right, they are the ones who built a statue for him in Beach Road.

Cheers!

nara,

it should be emphasized 'extreme'. even the d.k. does not villify bharathiar, to the best of my knowledge.

there are internet based fringe groups who claim to be 'tamilians'. your guess is good as mine as to who these freaks might be.

still, once in a while, i browse through their websites, just to have a look at what the extremes are thinking.

it is frightening many a times though !!

 

[kunjuppu]

Dear Shri Rajan, could you please provide some more data on this "fact"? I am really intrigued by this.

Cheers!

nara,

i don't know about the rest of india.

in tamil nadu, the popular belief is that the freedom movement, i think, was a brahmin led initiative. barring the nadars, not many other communities came out in the open.

the ambiguity of the masses was more due to the overwhelming domination of the brahmins, i think. also, i feel, that power struggles may have been magnified and villified as casteism.

it must be remembered that the justice party, precursor to the current dravidian parties, was the popularly elected party of the erstwhile madras presidency, the major portion of which was tamil speaking.

the justice party was made up of higher caste non brahmins, who wanted to dismantle brahmin domination.

where justice party failed, the dmk succeeded. perhaps it was a good thing for all - it liberated the TBs and weaned them away from their dependency on the government and the land.

their children have succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of the parents of the 1950s and 1960s.

also, it gave a chance to the other tamil communities to come up in life and provide a public profile and presence in the professional services such as doctors, engineers etc.

above everything, the dalits became a beneficiary too. though, i think, a bit late, a bit little and often given their long due share grudgingly by other castes. my opinion.

 

[Nara]

the ambiguity of the masses was more due to the overwhelming domination of the brahmins, i think. also, i feel, that power struggles may have been magnified and villified as casteism.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Only people with at least a modicum of power will have the luxury to oppose the dominant power structure. But still, I am eager to read up on this topic, the extent of participation among the general populace in the freedom struggle starting from the first war of independence that included Kattabomman.

Cheers!

 

[kunjuppu]

nara,

you might also want to look up as to why the tamil brahmins, of all the brahmin communities in india, did so well, compared to their numbers.

perhaps, due to the fact that we took to english education?

i was told, that gujju brahmins are among the poor of gujarat, mainly because they shunned angrezi (!).

infact we were not the first ones to adopt english. it was the christian converts of erstwhile travancore kingdom.

these newly converted keralite christians, along with their syrian christian brethren (who consider themselves as brahmins) who blazed the way towards education.

the first lady h.c. judge of india was anna chandy, known to my family.

the vellore cmc is dominated by the kerala group.

what the kerala christians have that we don't is numbers. they are a significant percent of kerala, and also have a political clout. the best of all the worlds

 

[RVR]

The major communities which participated in freedom struggle are Brahmins, Saiva Velala Pillai (V.O.C), Thevars (Pasumpon Muthuramanlinga thever), Gounders,sections of Naidus and Dalits. Naidus are mostly in congress even now inspite of EVR on the other side (Even EVR started his career as freedom fighter).

Justice party was dominated by Mudaliars (Sir A.Ramasamy Mudaliar), Chettiars (Raja Sir Annamalai Chettiar) and sections of other communities.

Instead of national freedom struggle, it became a caste struggle in Tamilnadu due to the influence of justice party.

After independence Rajaji messed up things for TB community. He brought in`Kula Kalvi Thittam' (inherit father's profession) which was opposed by major section of Congress itself under the leadership of Kamaraj. Every other community thought that Brahmin dominated congress is not allowing people of other communities to learn more lucrative professions citing `barber's son has to be a barber' as per Rajaji formula.

Due to differences with Nehru and Kamaraj, Rajaji left congress and promoted Swatantra Party in 1959. CNA lead DMK was demanding `Dravida Nadu'. Rajaji only adviced CNA to give up Dravida Nadu demand and instead suggested Anti Hindi agitation. Rajaji as CM of the then Madras Province introduced Hindi in 1935. But he fully supported CNA during anti-hindi agitations during mid 60's in Tamilnadu which was a big success for DMK & its allies. Rajaji was responsible for cobbling an alliance of DMK, Swatantra party, Muslim League, communists in 1967 elections which defeated congress. Rajaji aligned with his sworn enemy `communists' during that election which was the main turning point in Tamilnadu politics.

DMK was controlled mostly by Mudaliars. CNA, Nedunchezhian, Mathialagan, N V Natarasan.,Chitrarasu, Anbazhagan are all Mudaliars. Only prominent non-Mudaliar founder leader, EVK Sampath left the party in the mid sixties. Karunanidhi was not a founder member of DMK and is a non-mudaliar. When CNA died, Nedunchezhian should have become CM. But MGR intervened and supported Karunanidhi mainly to make it a multi community party instead of being termed as a `Mudaliar party'.

Subsequently Karunanidhi created problem for MGR and he split DMK to form a new party.It is cinema which was responsible for present dravidian movement. CNA wrote story and dialogue, Karunanidhi produced films, MGR & Jayalalitha acted in films. In short the orgional dravidian movement through Cinema has fallen into the hands of a Malayalee actor and a Brahmin actress. The movement is now fully diluted with Cinema and Liquor as the main focus.

No body in the movement has time to think about Bharathiar and his contribution to tamil language and social reform.

 

[kunjuppu]

good post venkat. also correct description of the mudaliar antecedents of dmk.

when MK berates the upper castes, and proclaims proudly of his supposedly low (4th in the hierarchy) status, i have always suspected that he flays at the mudaliars, pillais and chettiars, as much as the brahmins.

infact, at this time, barring anbazhagan (who is a political zero), there are no upper castes in the dmk hierarchy, to the best of my knowledge.

the caste revolution is complete.

 

[RVR]

good post venkat. also correct description of the mudaliar antecedents of dmk.

when MK berates the upper castes, and proclaims proudly of his supposedly low (4th in the hierarchy) status, i have always suspected that he flays at the mudaliars, pillais and chettiars, as much as the brahmins.

infact, at this time, barring anbazhagan (who is a political zero), there are no upper castes in the dmk hierarchy, to the best of my knowledge.

the caste revolution is complete.

So far no dalith has occupied the chair of chief-minister of Tamilnadu. I still feel caste revolution is not complete.

 

[kunjuppu]

i agree 100%.