A false footnote and a fertile imagination
Tamil lyricist Vairamuthu spoke recently at an event organized to honour the
Saint Poet and one of the Alvars of the Vaishnava order Andal quoting from a
book ‘Indian Movements: Some Aspects of Dissent Protest and Reform”. He used a
specific quote from this book to say Andal was herself a Devadasi who lived in
Srirangam, and attributed it to author Subhash Malik of Indiana University. He
used that particular quote to place Andal in Srirangam and to say she was a
Devadasi. This he did at Rajapalayam a few kilometers away from Sri
Villiputhur, considered Andal’s birth place where there is a temple dedicated
to her probably for a 1000 years or more.
Vairamuthu
did not stop at that. His speech at Rajapalayam organized by Tamil daily
Dinamani was followed up with his piece on Andal the next day. In a typical
flowery Tamil Vairamuthu tried to show himself as praising Andal and being
scholarly in quoting an American university research. He uses that single
sentence in the so called research that placed her in Srirangam as a Devadasi.
He then projected his own inferences as to why he believed in that piece of
research. The kind of poetry she wrote on the physical intimacy with a male God,
as an unmarried teen would have been possible only if she were a Devadasi.
Nothing
wrong one would say, for what is wrong if a research article is quoted and
author being a lyricist weaving his own imagination into the life of an eighth
century poet. Look at the kind of things he weaved into her life as a Devadasi
– which the Saiva and Vaishnavas during that period were trying to lure people
back from the ascetic religions of Jainism and Buddhism by being “free”. That
Andal wrote of intense pining for her Lord and wrote intimate verses so aware
of her feminine form is interpreted as something the Hindus of that time did to
induce followers.
How does one
separate the fact from fiction here? Is this history, is this the story of
Saiva and Vaishnava Poets of those days? If so why only one Andal who wrote
exuberant poetry and not her counterpart in the Saiva tradition, Karaikkal
Ammaiyar? Why did only Thirumangai and Nammalvar take on the feminine bhava and
become a Parankusa Nayaki and Parakala Nayaki and not all Alvars? Why did
Andal’s father Periyazhwar take on a feminine bhava as a mother creating the
genre of Pillai Tamizh?
Let that be.
Let us see what happened when protests erupted across the state and from Hindus
outside the state. Vairamuthu tried to say sorry explaining it as just quoting
an American author. Why did Vairamuthu choose to quote from a book about which
he probably did not even have a clear idea? He kept saying author Malik from
Indiana University. Even an immediate googling threw up a few facts. That Malik
was only an editor of the volume published by Indian Institute of Advanced
Study, Shimla and not the author of the particular paper in that volume. The
book published in 1978 as a collection of papers from a seminar proceedings had
a paper titled ‘Bhakti Movement in South India’ by M.G.S.Narayanan and Veluthat
Kesavan. This book seems to be out print and as far as I searched, a copy is
not available. I searched at my library Asiatic Society of Mumbai and also the
digital resource Jstor apart from asking few others to search in other cities.
Finally the book was accessed in the United States and the gentleman who
accessed it in the United States put out a short video explaining the relevant
page, passage and the reference cited. I am quoting from the video: “Andal was
herself a Devadasi who lived and died in the Srirangam temple,” line is very
much from the said article and it carries a footnote reference number of 36.
This should mean that Narayanan and Kesavan have used the information from
another source that they have quoted. The 36 refers to page 5 of ‘The History
of Sri Vaishnavas’, 1923 Madras by T.A.Gopinatha Rao. While I have not seen or
accessed the said book I go by the video from the gentleman (I am not using his
name since he has not taken any credit for himself in the video, but can vouch
for his credibility) who read it at from the University of Chicago Library to
show page 5 content. That page does not contain any reference like what
Narayanan and Kesavan have quoted. There is no reference to her being a
Devadasi at Srirangam.
Shortly
after I had seen the video came another from Tamil television channel Thanti TV’s
voice interview with Professor Narayanan on the details of his work and the
specifics of Andal’s birth. Narayanan clarified that there was no primary
evidence that suggested Andal was a Devadasi and it was a “matter of inference”.
This makes it clear that there is no empirical evidence for a piece of
information passed on as a fact.
So whose history is authentic, should there be
an accountability, fairness in what is written and quoted? Should a retraction
be demanded not only from Vairamuthu but the authors of the concerned paper? There
are many western scholars like Normal Cutler, Dennis Hudson, Indian origin
scholars in the West Vidya Dehejia, Archana Venkatesan who have written
extensively on Saint Poets and in specific about Andal. As far as the works
referred to of Hudson, Dehejia, and Venkatesan there is no mention of Andal as
a Devadasi at Srirangam. It is a different matter that most seem not too
convinced Periyazhwar was the father and Andal was his foster daughter. That is
after quoting from internal sources in both their poetry, the verse where
Periyazhwar mentions the precious daughter he brought up like Lakshmi being
taken away by the Lord and the verses where Andal refers to herself as
Thenputhuvai city’s Battarpiran’s Kodhai. Hudson and Venkatesan debate if
Thenpudhuvai Battan was Andal’s Guru or brother.
Life history
of the Alvars and the Sri Vaishnava acharyas have come down in the tradition by
way of sampradaya texts like Guru Parampara Prabhavam, Divyasuri Caritam etc.,
called hagiographies. The Sri Vaishnava commentary tradition starts by the time
of Swami Ramanuja itself and continues for centuries, recounting, interpreting,
and commenting on verses of Alvars. Unique to the community are also the tradition
of composing Taniyans, Vaazhith thirunamams, invocatory verses and praises for
Alvars and their works. The Taniyans for Tiruppavai in Tamil were written by 10th
century Acharyan Uyyakondar placing her specifically at “Annavayal Pudhuvai”,
indicating Srivilliputhur. From Vedanta Desikan’s ‘Goda Stuti’ to
Krishnadevaraya’s ‘Amuktamalyada’ epics and shlokas are written on her placing
her clearly at Srivilliputhur. By Nayaka period almost all Vaishnava temples
get a separate Andal shrine and annual festivals held. Dehejia examines the
utsava vigraha of Andal at Srivilliputhur and concludes it to be from 10th
century with all the features of a Chola bronze. Hudson quotes an inscription
from Srivilliputhur of 973 CE mentioning an Andal temple. What happens then
that someone in late 20th century would come up with an
unsubstantiated paper like Narayanan and Kesavan do? In all probability their
paper would also be widely cited in the years to come in all academic research
papers. Who would know how this would interpret Andal in the next 100-years.
In fact an
earlier fictional work on Andal tried to build up the story of her being a
Devadasi, born to Periyalwar and a Devadasi, a short story by Daniel Selvaraj.
This story was to be included in a text book at the Manonmaniam Sundaranar
University and stopped after a protest. Whether Narayanan and Kesavan’s paper
are widely available and read or not, Selvaraj’s work has had its impact on
academia. Not sure if their quote also stems from this fiction.
Two years
ago, at the Anantacharya Indological Research Institute in Mumbai a Seminar on
Bhakti Poets was organized. One of the speakers told a very learned audience the
story laid out by Selvaraj. Without quoting any specific source she said, “Andal
is considered to be a Devadasi by some, and that is probably one of the reasons
she longed to be united with the God. She perhaps was aware that due to her low
birth she may not get a groom from a high caste and she aspired for the God”
(Put it in quotes what she said, though not the exact sentence). I was present
at the seminar and my jaws dropped. I couldn’t stay behind for the Q&A
after her paper and so was not aware of what happened after she presented it.
Next day I heard from a senior Sanskrit professor that two seniors pointed out
the mistake in assuming an improbable story of Andal’s birth. I am not quoting
her name only because the Institute has not come out with the publication of
the Seminar papers and it is learnt that the lady hasn’t submitted her papers
yet after repeated reminders. One can guess what happens if one paper gets
quoted in a Journal, today with digitization it may be up on Jstor’s and
available for any researcher anywhere in the world to quote. If you do a search
of Narayanan and Kesavan’s paper on google, you can see how they have been
quoted in many papers. The quotes by either the authors or Vairamuthu cannot be
brushed away as an error given the kind of contempt some of the historians and
Dravidianists have had over Tamil temples and deities. In fact the whole lot of
so called research on Bhakti movement and Tamil temples have revolved around
portraying it as epicenter of feudalism and forced labour. The fight here is
not about use of one term Devadasi, it is the imaginary story Vairamuthu has
woven around that citing non-existent proof in a false source. It is the
context, the contempt and the virulent anti-Hindu stance of scholars and
writers in the state that has brought about the current protest.
Comments