Ancient Political thought of Tamil Nadu

 The history of Tamilnadu goes well before the Christian era, which could be traced through the archeological evidences and ancient Tamil literatures. The ancient Tamil region was segregated into five geographical regions like Mullai, Kurunchi, Marutham, Neythal and Paalai. According to the ancient Tamil literatures, the total Tamil land was ruled by more than 300 chieftains and small kings. But three famous kingdoms namely, Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas, are mentioned all over the body of ancient Tamil literatures. An inscription of Emperor Ashoka, along with the above three kings also mention Satyaputras, identified as the celebrated sangam age king Adiyaman neduman anji.

The ancient Tamil literatures like Sangam literature, Tirukural, silapathikaram, manimegalai etc threw light, not only on the geography, society, economy of the ancient Tamil people, but also on the politics of the land. The ‘ancient Tamil political thought’ was idealistic in many respects as it searched for a good and ideal way of polity. But at the same time the political thought also depicted the exact political situation of the Tamil land. Sangam literature is a body of Tamil poems written during 5^th BC to 2^nd AD and which was compiled by the third Sangam (date of which is unknown). These sangam literatures are considered as the oldest Tamil thought which depicts the ancient Tamil life. Thirukural are short poems written by Thiruvalluvar, approximately dated close to the start of Christian era. Thiruvaluvar was an idealist and he wrote extensible on the attributes of the state and king. He detailed the elements of the state and also preached the best way of governance. The impact of Thirukural in the ancient Tamil life could be very evident, as the literatures written after Thirukural like silapathigaram, Manimegali, seevagasinthamani reiterated the values of the social and political life preached by Thiruvalluvar. The political thought mentioned in these above body of literatures is compiled as the ancient Tamil political thought.

Sangam Political Thought

            The sangam age was characterised by small kings and chieftains fighting among themselves for supremacy. War was an essential part of the life of a typical sangam age man. But at the same time, the feeling of ‘brotherhood’ and ‘oneness’ was also present among the Tamil people during those times. One of the oldest Tamil grammer books ‘Tholkapium’ mentions ‘vada venkatam then kumari aayidai Tamil koorum Nal uzhagathu’, that is, ‘the region between vengata mountain in the north and kanyakumari in south is Tamil speaking land’[1]. It clearly shows that even though the kings and chieftains in the ancient Tamil land were fighting among themselves, they had a feeling of the ‘Tamil nation’. This literary finding is also substantiated by a stone inscription of Kalinga King Kharavela (BC 165), who claims to have destroyed a ‘Tamil federation’ which existed for 113 years[2]. Similarly such a Tamil federation of kings to fight foreign invasion is also mentioned in ‘Agananooru’, a sangam literature. Hence, today’s Tamil nationalism is not a new one or a product of colonialism, but has its roots in a typical ‘Tamil psyche’ which could be traced even in the sangam age.

            The concept of state was not developed during the Sangam age, in fact the state was in its formation during the sangam age. The sangam literatures however throw some light on how small chiefdoms were captured by kings like Pandyas, Cholas, Cheras, Adiyas (according to Aganananooru, Adiya kingdom was much bigger than Pandya kingdom during Mouryan times) and was made as a big kingdom and how statehood formed. Earlier Sangam poems did not mention about taxation as a source of income for small kings and chiefs. But, the chronologically later sangam poems (Pattinappaalai) speak about different types of taxations like customs duty, income tax, toll tax etc as a specific source of income to the King. It is pertinent here to note that, the ruler of the state – ‘king’ is not separate from the concept of state in sangam political thought as monarchy is the only form of government which finds its mention in sangam literatures.

            The whole body of sangam literature preaches some ideal political principles worthy to be followed kings. They are summed up as follows

1. A kingdom should have a good fort to protect its people from invasions (puranaanooru even speaks about forests as forts on all four sides).

2. A good king is the one who fights and conquers his enemies[3]

3. Justice is an essential element in a king’s rule. A good king should never forgo justice and should always do good deeds, which will bring him everlasting fame[4].

4. The major work of the king is to secure food to all the poor in his country and remove their hunger[5].

5. A king is a king only as long as he enjoys people’s support and he loses legitimacy if he loses their support.

The sangam political thought gives lot of importance to war and its nature, as war is considered as an essential element of Ancient Tamil life. Hence in sangam political thought, a king should be a person who fights his enemies with courage and never escapes a battlefield. Even if a warrior dies in battle field with a wound in his back, is considered derogatory in ‘Sangam’ thought[6]. Lots of good practises of war find its mention in sangam literatures. Purananooru, a sangam literature, hails a Pandyan king who announces all the women, children, sick people, cattles, childless people to go to safety zone before invading a country. Similarly the institution of ‘spy’ is considered a necessary institution in sangam thought, for maintaining peace in the state. Hence many poets preach the kings to keep good spies to be efficient.

            Slavery was an accepted institution in Sangam times. The king is measured with the number of efficient slaves he has. Kings are known to have built their country with the help of the captured slaves during invasions. But the institution of slave trade is absent in Sangam times and slaves are transferred only by gifts.

            The sangam age also throws some light on the status of sangam women. Women are highly respected in the sangam society and they had their rights to choose their partners. In sangam literature we find contributions of 26 female poets, the most famous one being ‘Avvaiyar’. Avvaiyar was an idealist philosopher who wrote many ethical doctrines and was respected by all three major sangam powers, namely, Chera, Chola and Pandya. She even functioned as a diplomat during the war times between these three kingdoms. This shows not just that women’s words were respected in the sangam society but also how the institution of  ‘diplomacy’ played a major role in maintaining regional peace.

---

[1] http://www.geotamil.com/pathivukalnew/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1678:2013-08-24-03-32-41&catid=56:2013-09-02-02-58-06&Itemid=73 accessed on 04-09-2019

[2] Padmaja, R, Purushothaman, V.P (2000). Sanga Kaala Mannargalin Kaala Nilai. Volume 1. International institute of Tamil Studies: Chennai. Pg 43

[3] 400^th  verse of puranannoru….. See ‘Purananooru, moolamum thelivum, manimegalai presuram, pg 228

[4] 367^th verse of puranannoru….. See ‘Purananooru, moolamum thelivum, manimegalai presuram, pg 172

[5] 400^th  verse of puranannoru….. See ‘Purananooru, moolamum thelivum, manimegalai presuram, pg 228

[6] 278^th verse of puranannoru….. See ‘Purananooru, moolamum thelivum, manimegalai presuram, pg 82

Process of Caste formation in Tamil land

 A conscious study of sangam literature will enlighten us about the existence of slaves and different classes in ancient Tamil land. Sangam literatures mention the names of ‘Paanan, Parayan, Thudiyan and Kadamban’[1] as ‘Kudi’ (settled ethnic groups) in Tamil land. But there is no mention of them constituting as a caste in Sangam literature[2].  In ‘Marutham’ land, where people lived by doing agriculture, the presence of slave system was heavy. Sangam literature mention names of class of people like Ooran, Magizhnan, Kizhavan, Manaivi, Kizhathi who were upper class and were slave owners. Similarly, classes like Uzhavar, Uzhathiyar, Kadayar, Kadaisiyar, Kalamar, Thozhuvar,[3] were slaves or lower class people. Slaves were employed everywhere in sangam age from agriculture to war field. Women slaves were employed to help the queens and wives of landlords. The life of the slaves was pathetic in sangam age. Their settlement was little away from the main settlements and was called as “pura-chaerry” in sangam texts. It is pertinent here to note that all the people’s settlements were called as ‘chaerry’, but the prefix ‘pura’ was associated with settlements of slaves[4].

The sangam literature also mentions about class of people like kammiyar, kuyavar, thachhar, kollar[5], kanavar, idiyar, valaiyar[6] who do a specific job for their livelihood. But, there is no evidence of the presence of any endogamy[7] between these job groups during the sangam age. Guild system was present during the Sangam period. Many archeological evidences suggest the presence of guilds like Thisa, bharatha[8], Thithan operating in the ancient Tamil land. All the above evidences clearly educate us about the class system in ancient tamil land. As Rajan Gurukal notes[9], the Brahmins were present in the Sangam age, but were very less in number to exert domination on the Tamil mass. But we assume that the process of aryanisation starts in the later stage of the sangam period with the development of material forces.

The development of caste in Tamilnadu starts with the Brahminisation of Tamil culture and traditions. Ancient Tamil kings start to do ‘yajna’ in Brahminic style. The institution of Brahmin ministers start to emerge in Tamil land which was absent in earlier sangam period. As M.N.Srinivas notes, the process of sanskritisation[10] of the Tamil masses happen silently in the earlier ages of Christian era. This could have crystallised the class into caste in Tamil land.

But the caste formation gets completed only during the imperial Chola period between 10^th to 13^th century AD. The sangam period is followed by the period of Kalabhras who were Buddhists[11]. Later, the kalabhras were again replaced by Pandyas in south and Pallavas in north. This period correlated with the period of revival of Saiva-sithaantha tradition in Tamil Land in 8^th century AD, where again Brahminism becomes the dominant discourse replacing Buddhism and Jainism. One of saints of Saiva-sithaantha tradition Thirugnana Sambanthar, a Brahmin was responsible for the mass killings of Jains and Buddhists in the Pandya kingdom during that period. Similarly many nayanmars openly sang about the need for killing the Jains and Buddhists in Tamil land[12].  The other Buddhists who escaped the mass killings were captured and were made slaves. Many Dalit scholars[13] claim citing this historical evidence that, dalits of Tamilnadu are Tamil-buddhists of the Kalabhra period[14]. All these things culminates with the start of the era of Imperial Cholas who were strong saivaites and followed Brahminic traditions completely. They created ‘brahmadeya’[15] villages for Brahmins and donated lots of land for their livelihood. The process of Brahminism gets completed and Tamil society becomes a pure Caste bound Brahminic society during this Chola period.

---

[1] Sittrambalam, C.K. (1999) Pandaya Thamizhagam. Kumaran Publishers: Chennai. Pg 231

[2] Gurukkal, R. (1994). The formation of caste society in Kerala: Historical antecedents. In K. L. Sharma (Ed.), Caste and Class in India (pp. 393 - 404). Jaipur: Rawat Publications. Pg 394.

[3] Perumalsaami, V. (2007) Sanga Kaala Thamizhagathin Samooga Nilai. Bharathi Poothakalayam: Chennai. Pg 73

[4] Ibid, Pg 74

[5] Op.cit., Sittrambalam, pg. 230

[6] Op.cit., Gurukkal, Pg. 394

[7] According to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar presence of endogamy is the real institution which sustains and continues caste system. Hence he suggests inter caste marriages as a solution for annihilation of caste.

[8] Rajan, K. (2004).  Tholiyal Noakkil Sanga Kaalam. International institute of Tamil studies: Chennai. Pg 98

[9] Op.cit., Gurukkal, Pg. 395

[10] Singh, Y. (1986) Modernisation of Indian Tradition. Rawat: New Delhi

[11] Padvamathy, A. (2003) Chozhar aatchiyil Arasum Madhamum. Kumaran Publications: Chennai. Pg 27

[12] Thirumavalavan, Thol. (2004) Thamizhargal Hindukala. Thaimann: Chennai. Pg.16

[13] Ibid., pg 10

[14] This concept made Pandit Iyothee Thass, a Dalit – anti brahminic scholar to embrace Buddhism in final stages of his during 19^th century. https://www.countercurrents.org/dalit-ravikumar280905.htm accessed on 03-09-2018

[15] Appadorai, A. (1990). Economic conditions in South India (1000 – 1500 AD). University of Madras: Chennai. Pg 112 - 113

Dr.Ambedkar- a True Nationalist

“I confess that I have quarreled with the caste Hindus over some points, but I take vow before you that I shall lay down my life in defense of our land”

-        Babasaheb¹

There is recent trend in India, tacitly planned, spitefully designed, venomously orchestrated by some right wing hindutva groups which brands dalits especially ambedkarites as anti-nationals. Even though they conspicuously praise Babasaheb, they inconspicuously lay the foundation in the minds of all non-dalits to hate ambedkarites and leftists. The incident of RohithVemula is one such example. Their orchestration is admirably brilliant. When all political elites praise Ambedkar, now and then, some obscure rookie politician is made to question the integrity of Babasaheb publicly to defame the legend. Not long ago, one such politician decried publicly that Dr.Ambedkar does not deserve to have so many statues in India, more than even Mahatma Gandhi, because Ambedkar was against Indian independence!!!

            No one would have heard a more stupid and insane argument than this in his or her lifetime. Dr.Ambedkar was never against the independence of our country. He as a messiah of the depressed classes and the downtrodden strongly believed that only free India can give them the real political power, which they are deprived off. Babasaheb himself has said “We feel that nobody can remove our grievances as well as we can, and we cannot remove them unless we get political power in our own hands. No share of this political power can evidently come to us so long as the British government remains as it is. It is only in a swaraj constitution that we stand any chance of getting the political power into our hands, without which we cannot bring salvation to our people.”²Infact Dr.Ambedkar was a person with a true spirit of freedom, patriotism and nationalism. He was always convinced that justice could not be served to the people in a colonially ordained society and sincerely believed freedom is the necessary condition for the development of the human self. Hence he stressed “We must have a government in which men in power knowing where obedience will end and resistance will begin, will not be afraid to amend the social and economic code of life which the dictates of justice and expediency so urgently call for. This role the British government will never able to play. It is only a government which is of the people for the people and by the people that will make this possible.”³

            Many congressmen even today accuse Dr.Ambedkar of opposing congress, which fought for India’s political freedom from foreign rule and hence state him as an anti-national. If we read history of India with a true open mind, we could understand one thing that Ambedkar was one of those few classes of people who existed that day, who was a true patriot and batted for a real freedom. It was true that Dr.Ambedkar was against Congress, but it was not because they fought for freedom from foreign rule, but because they fought for freedom only from foreign rule. He was more a patriot and a better national than the congressmen but with a fundamental difference. As his patriotism doesn’t just meant a cry for power, so his freedom doesn’t just meant freedom from foreign rule.  For him true freedom cannot be realized only with the breakage of colonial political structure but with a supplementary collapse of Hindu social structure. His patriotism meant love for his own people rather hate for British, which the congress successfully articulated. Babasaheb believed that as long as caste hierarchy exists, strong patriarchy exists; political freedom achieved will only be a mirage. Hence he digs at the so called Congress patriots in the following way; “……nationalists and patriots are a peculiar people. A patriot and a nationalist in India is one who sees with open eyes his fellowmen treated as being less than men. But his humanity does not rise in protest. He knows that men and women for no cause are denied their human rights. But it does not prick his civic sense to helpful action. He finds whole classes of people shut out from public employment. But it does not rouse his sense of justice and fair play. He perceives hundreds of evil practices that injure man and society. But they do not sicken him with disgust” ⁴ He further confirms his position as a true patriot as, “I am glad I do not belong to that class of patriots. I belong to that class which takes its stand on democracy and which seeks to destroy monopoly in every shape and form. Our aim is to realize in practice our ideal of one man, one value in all walks of life. Political, economic and social.“⁵Hence Babasaheb to answer his detractors characteristically declared“the untouchables are not opposed to freedom from British Imperialism. But they refuse to be content with mere freedom from British Imperialism. What they insist upon is that free India is not enough. Free India should be made safe for democracy”.⁶

            Dr.Ambedkar in a strictest sense wanted a true democratically free India, not mere free India. Democracy in his sense was not just a form of government as the congress and other mere freedom fighters thought. For him it was a society in action. He really wanted a democratic society to be nurtured by all stakeholders in India that gives equal respect to all, a precondition to setup a free, independent democratic government. At least he needed some constitutional safeguards in the free India to realize the true freedom. Hence Dr.Ambedkar wrote,“A democratic form of Government presupposes a democratic form of society. The formal framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed be a misfit if there was no social democracy. The politicals never realized that democracy was not a form of Government. It was essentially a form of society. It may not be necessary for a democratic society to be marked by unity, by community of purpose, by loyalty to public ends and by mutuality of sympathy. But it does unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude of mind, an attitude of respect and equality towards their fellows. The second is a social organization free from rigid social barriers. Democracy is incompatible and inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness, resulting in the distinction between the privileged and the unprivileged”.⁷His vision was more pragmatic than mere romantic. He was not ready to take the congress’s point that social suppression is a minor issue, which could be sorted out after independence but stressed on the importance of creating a concurrence among all stakeholders about constitutional safeguards. Hence he categorically ascertains “In short what the untouchables want are safeguards in the constitution itself which will prevent the tyranny of a Hindu communal majority from coming into being”⁸

            Babasaheb was one of the highly misunderstood figures of modern India. He himself knows this and hence says “I know my position has not been understood properly in the country. It often been misunderstood…I say that whenever there has been a conflict between my personal interests and the interests of the country as a whole, I have never pursued the path of private gain….so far the demands of the country are concerned, I have never lagged behind.”⁹ Isn’t it a true statement? Who else can claim the status of the real architect of modern India than our Babasaheb? Pragmatically he batted for factories and not for any romanticized farms. Apart from drafting the constitution, which everyone know, he was the first intellect to recommend for RBI, free banking, decentralized planning¹⁰, Government Insurance companies¹¹, and regulated work time in factories¹² etc. He waged a lifelong struggle for dalits, downtrodden and women. What India should always remember is whatever right any individual enjoys in this free India today is a gift of Babasaheb by virtue of his relentless struggle against the vested interests. And it becomes our resolute duty to salute this great man who breathed his last for the nation and the development of the nation.

 

Bibliography

 

1.     Quoted in “Ambedkar life and Mission” written by Keer, Dhananjay

2.     Quoted in “Thus Spoke Ambedkar” written by Das, Bhagawan

3.     Ibid

4.     Ibid

5.     Quoted in “Political philosophy of Ambedkar” written by D.R.Jatava

6.     “What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables” by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

7.     “Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah” by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

8.     “What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables” by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

9.     Quoted in “Ambedkar life and Mission” written by Keer, Dhananjay

10.  Rouledge handbook of history of global economic thought – by Vincent Barnett

11.  Dr.Ambedkar and empowerment: constitutional vicissitudes- by K.I.Vibhute

12.  Ambedkar , a critical study – by W.N.Kuber

 

MGNREGA and its contradictions on Capitalism

Anyone who sticks with the matters brought up by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) elites about Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act Programme (MGNREGA) in the media will not be greatly surprised having known BJP and their ideology. But for sure, those irresponsible statements have raised few eyebrows and have triggered a lot of academic and political debates in the country. All those debates lead us to some fundamental yet crucial questions like, does the program really put the final nail in the coffin of agriculture, handicrafts and other labour intensive industries as these ideologues claim? Or all these are done to take us for a ride to protect vested interests? Or these are illogical reconstruction of some misread facts through ideological lenses? A close look into the realities might answer our questions.

Let’s have a scrutiny of the claimed negatives of MGNREGA. One of the two major criticisms is that, MGNREGA reduces the labour force available for agriculture and allied activities and makes them lazy, indolent and sluggish. It claims that after its inception, a rural labourer is not prepared to do hard work even if paid Rs 350 per day. He/She likes to settle for simple and less tiresome work even if they are paid very less. The other important criticism is that, MGNREGA indirectly makes agriculture less profitable.

Are the above criticisms valid? Is it true that labourers are really lazy or contented utility maximisers? When you speak with the labourers you will understand one thing. People love the work culture of MGNREGA than anything else. In MGNREGA, nearly all the willing members of the family get work and they work together, collectively in the same place with their kith and kin. Such a work gives them the much needed mental relief along with work and necessary money. This feature is conspicuously absent in private farm works. In private farms quality, speed and productivity are given preference over provision of mental relief or good work culture. Not to blame the individual farmers who own the land, it is the system of private ownership of production that dictates such preferences. If five people turn up to a job a day and there are requirements for only two people, the farmer picks the stronger two and sends back the remaining three. This when repeatedly done, makes the other three find any other place of work which gives them job security and hence it makes a case for MGNREGA. The fact that is to be examined here is, why the rural labourers are contented and do not go behind money as others generally do? The answer is very simple. They have not yet internalised the capitalist ethos which says “make money for the sake of making money”. It is an irony that the very capitalist landlords, who created the mental wall that stopped the rural labourers from learning and internalising the capitalist ethos, to serve their vested interests, are now shouting against the contradictions these walls are showing with the advent of MGNREGA. For thousands of years the owners of the capital have controlled the social dynamics in such a way that the labourers always remain at the bottom of the pyramid and left without any possibility of acquiring capabilities for mobility. These contended, satisfied and gratified natures of the labourers were the necessary condition for such domination and supremacy. When capitalism knocked the doors of the rural India these very capital owners made sure that the common man do not learn and master the dynamics of capitalism, which for them, if happened, would have drafted the blueprint of their demise. The fact that the owners of the capital are uniting against MGNREGA shows that it has started to quietly toll the death knell of their might and domination. Hence, the evident truth is MGNREGA is not showing contradictions on agriculture or handicrafts as few BJP leaders claim, but only against the capitalist mode of production and appropriation by which these activities are carried out. MGNREGA, hence in the strictest sense, is not threatening to extinct agriculture and its allied activities or handicrafts, but only the domination of capital in carrying out these activities. Thus, if someone says, the legitimate claim of assured 100 days of work is faulted under a specific system of production and distribution, then it is not the legitimate claim, but it is the system of production that has to be done away with. Thus if many persons who seek profit through agriculture and its allied activities feel such a commercial enterprise is no more profitable, then instead of allowing them to unite against scripting the renewed slavery of agricultural labourers and hence the progress of the nation should be encouraged to give way to modern cooperative agricultural societies. The progress of the nation should not be sacrificed for serving the interests of a few notables, in a democracy. When one model of agriculture is showing contradictions, it is nothing wrong in trying out some new innovative model of agricultural production and distribution. India shall be more benefited if a new system of agricultural production based on Public Private Partnership (PPP) emerges where profit is shared by all stake holders equitably. The success of Deng Xiaoping’s China had its roots neither in communism nor in capitalism, but in the innovative models of production and distribution which he devised for each and every sector exclusively. What the today’s power wielders who cry out loudly “make in India” should understand is, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is neither a new avatar of lord Krishna nor the dharma chakra of goddess Durga which could solve all the social evils and bring prosperity to the whole nation at once. Economic development and the resultant social development is a process which has to be carefully manoeuvred with innovative models of production and distribution which has a unique blend of all the successful elements of that historical period irrespective of ideology. The need of the hour is not ideologically driven policies but innovative ideas which could truly transform India.