Thread by @kbalakumar

A typical social media kerfuffle has ensued after the BJP maladroitly depicted Thiruvalluvar in saffron robes and vibhuthi-smeared body, thereby suggesting that the saint poet was a Hindu. This has triggered the Dravidian types who claim that Thiruvalluvar was not a Hindu.

The debate on Thiruvalluvar's religion is, however, not exactly new. It has been on for long, but it got its political underpinnings when the Dravidian movement, during its formative years, saw in Thirukkural a way to appeal to the Tamil pride of the masses.

The Dravidian movement's choice of Thiruvalluvar and his Thirukural was an inspired one. The two-line kurals were verily a microcosm of Tamil: Hoary and hefty and accessible. It can also be taken to symbolise the richness of Tamil traditions & culture.

More importantly, it did not overtly belong to the "Bhakthi Ilakkkiyam" (Bhakthi literature) which was anathema to the Dravidian movement because of its essential Hinduness.

Now, the antiquity of Thiruvalluvar and Thirukural have always been a matter of scholarly conjectures. Nobody is sure in which era the timeless treatise was penned. Ditto the open-endedness on his religious background.

To be sure, there have been kurals that refer to Indran (ஐந்தவித்தான் ஆற்றல் அகல்விசும்பு ளார்கோமான்
இந்திரனே சாலுங் கரி), Lakshmi (Sri Devi) and her sister Moodevi (அவ்வித்து அழுக்காறு உடையானைச் செய்யவள்
தவ்வையைக் காட்டி விடும்) and also Hindu ideals of multiple births.

There are a few more kurals that can be taken to amplify Hindu spirit. But, then again, it is open to general interpretation too, which is the hallmark of any great literature. There have been multiple books explaining the various possible meanings of the Kurals.

If you're reading Parimel Azhagar you'll get the Hindu flavour (very Vaishnavite feeling). If you are poring over the texts of Manakudavar or Devaneya Pavanar, for instance, you will espy a 'secular' subjectivity.

There have also been myriad explanations including that Thiruvalluvar was a Jain/Buddhist. The beauty is, as I said, the Kurals allowed for a kaleidoscopic reading. Also, it can be argued even if the references in Thirukural are Hindu, it doesn't establish that he was a Hindu.

As with his birth place and his years of living, nothing can be said with certainty about his religion, if at all he had one. The Dravidian movement's reading, understandably, is to play down the purported religious underpinnings of Thirukural.

But the problem is the Dravidian leaders while quick to come down on any assertions from the Hindu camp, have never really vocally criticised similar claims from others including Christians (that is a separate fun story for another day.)

So their fury was seen as dubious by a few sections. But the Dravidian pantheon did possess wonderful scholars on Thirukural who could take it to the people as a non-religious text on essential living.

At one one point, the Dravidian experts posited Thirukkural to be against 'Manu Smrithi'. Periyar declared that Kural was a weapon to destroy the Aryans.

Talking of Periyar --- as was his general wont --- he was never consistent on his views on Thirukkural. While it is generally said that he was the brain behind the DK-helmed meet on Thirukkural in 1949, there are also suggestions that he was 'convinced' to lead the event.

In the book "E V K Sampathum Dravida Iyakkamum", it is said that Periyar who had declared "Tamil as the languge of barbarians" was insisted upon by well-wishers to take his leg off the pedal on his criticism of Tamil and its scholars.

But Periyar again changed tack in 1950, when he literally likened it to 'shit'. "வள்ளுவர் குறளையும் அந்தப்படியே அப்போது பகுத்தறிவுக்கு ஏற்றதல்ல என்று கண்டித்து வந்தேன். எல்லாவற்றையும் குறை சொல்லும் போது பலர் என்னிடம் எல்லாம் போய் விட்டால் நமக்கு எது தான் நூல்...

என்று கேட்டார்கள். நான் இங்கே இருக்கிற மலத்தினால் கெட்ட நாற்றம் வீசுகிறது. அதை எடுத்து விடு என்று கூறினால் அந்த இடத்தில் என்ன வைப்பது என்றா கேட்பது என்று பதில் கூறினேன்." (Reported in Viduthalai June 1950)

While Periyar's views kept vacillating, he never really was convinced of Thirukkural and its literary beauty. Even in one of his last interviews (the often quoted one to the magazine 'Kalaimagal' in 1972), Periyar again comes down on it with his typical acerbity.

"குறளை எடுத்துக்குங்க. நான் மட்டும் தான் குறளை கண்டிக்கிறேன்…. நான் குறள் மாநாடு நடத்தியதாலே சிலபேர் என்னைக் கண்டிச்சாங்க. கலைஞர் கூட அதை ஒண்ணையாவது விட்டுவிடக் கூடாதான்னு கேட்டாரு. குன்றக்குடி அடிகளாரும் கேட்டுக்கிட்டாரு.

இரண்டாயிரம் வருடத்துக்கு முந்தியது குறள். அதை அப்படியே இப்பவும் நாம் ஏத்துக்கணும்னா?” But other leaders were singing paeans on Thirukkural. Because of such contradictory pronounciations, hardcore Tamil scholars have tended to view Dravidian critiques with scepticism.

The larger point is discussions surrounding Thirukkural have always been politicised for historical reasons. It is not just now.
The only thing that can declared with conviction is Thirukkural is a timeless classic. Its spirit is all-encompassing of all humanity.

So, do read the Kurals & their various interesting annotations. It is rewarding. But you decide for yourself what conclusions to arrive at. The last words should go to the great man himself (a popular Kural): எப்பொருள் யார்யார்வாய்க் கேட்பினும் அப்பொருள் மெய்ப்பொருள் காண்ப தறிவு.