Translation of a portion from T Dharmaraj’s book, Iyothee Thassar. Can be read online in Tamil here.
Caste, Language, and Religion are among the concepts most fiercely discussed and politicized in twentieth-century India. Social movements of the past century’s India can be identified as creating identities, moving towards power, social reformation activities, liberation of the oppressed, and by many other names. But caste, language, and religion have remained at the centre of all these dialogues and activities.
The idea that Indian society’s structure can be understood by explaining these concepts is ingrained in our research spaces. As a result, these three have been discussed widely.
Among the attempts of understanding the strange factor called ‘Caste’ and attempts to step out of the caste structure — conceptualizing homogenous hierarchy[i], purity-impurity, ‘consensus’ and ‘replication’[ii] by the oppressed castes, ethnography of caste, Ambedkar’s ‘recreating the history caste’s origin’, renouncing Hinduism, creating the non-brahmin identity, self-respect, Sanskritization[iii], Dalitism have made many valuable impacts possible.
At the same time, we can see the dialogues on language being expressed almost exclusively as problems of national identities and as strategies of capturing power, and Indian social structure being depicted as the Aryan-Dravidian binary identities opposing each other.
The factor of religion has been a parallel point of discussion along with caste and language, but the violence caused by religious battles and the blood lost in them indicate how it has been a ‘sensitive’ matter of discussion in comparison with the other two. This is not a unique feature of the twentieth century, the Indian landscape has been painted red throughout history by the blood spilt on religious battles.
If there is something called Indian modernity, these three concepts and dialogues, political actions based on them have built it. Various socio-cultural groups across India have been continuously trying to break out of the bounds of caste, to understand language better, and to clearly define the limits for religious activities. We can also list how those attempts have led to meagre victories and painful, shameful losses.
On one hand, lengthy dialogues are going on and lengthier activities happening in the ground. But on the other hand, we can see the caste structure constricting more and more, religious institutions multiplying in newer forms, the interest in language becoming fanaticism filled with enmity.
Human history is familiar with this directionless state. Society has been advancing in the manner of racing ahead, getting shocked, and racing again with more force. Every time it stumbles and retreats, it identifies something from the forgotten past and holds to that to stabilize itself.
Similarly, revisiting nineteenth-century activities in search of a light that can lead us out of the shocks Tamil society’s activist spaces are facing now will be a useful activity.
In this background, this article tries to see if new answers can be found in the thoughts of Iyothee Thassar who lived from the late nineteenth century to the early twentieth and has left us with large records of his thoughts and activities.
*
For those who ask if there are any benefits in rereading Iyothee Thassar’s thoughts, I have two facts to remind them for now. One, Iyothee Thassar has discussed in detail caste, language, and religion, the three concepts we want to discuss here; two, ironically it is our luck that his writings were ignored after his death. Let us stop right here and visit Iyothee Thassar’s perspective on these three things.
1 — Iyothee Thassar and his writings
There are two practical problems in reading and understanding Iyothee Thassar’s writings. First are the books he quotes. We cannot identify most of them now. Some of them are not available anymore. This gap cannot be filled unless someone carries out intense research on the writings of his contemporaries, memories of friends, family records, and the library he used.
Second, a majority of his writings were published in magazines and dailies. So, his thoughts were not compiled and collected under topics and are available only as scattered pieces. Except for the few titles like Swadeshi[iv] politics, History of the Indirar country, Aadhi Vedham, and Literary analysis, his other writings were published under different titles as time demanded. For example, his thoughts on caste were published under more than five different titles. His thoughts on language and religion are also scattered in similar ways.
2 — Caste
In his Thamizhan magazine (No: 439) dated 1911, March 8, Iyothee Thassar has penned an article titled ‘Saathi[v]’.
In that short article, he has recorded his thoughts on the identities prevalent in India. He mentions the meaning of terms like ‘Saathi’, ‘Varna’, ‘Kula’ and how they were used then. He also talks about who changed the meaning of these terms.
This is the methodology that Iyothee Thassar employed almost everywhere. Whatever topic he discusses, he identifies the terminology used; he explains the meaning of those terms next; then he describes the reason for why these meanings were attributed to those terms (this historical background often refers to the ‘ancient’ period when Buddhism was in practice); finally, he explains the situations under which the proper meaning of those terms was destroyed and manipulated (this often refers to the nature of Brahmin caste supremacy).
When referring to the word ‘Saathi’, he writes that it is the short form of the word ‘Saathippor’ or ‘Saathithor’, which can be translated as practitioners. Saathi-thal means practising and Saathi-ppor means practitioners.
How people practice is identified as their ‘Saathi’. When the word Saathi was created, or in the ancient period, whichever language a group of people spoke to each other was called their Saathi.
Iyothee Thassar writes that ‘A group of people practising the spoken Dravidam, the Tamil language were called as ‘Dravida caste’ and a group of people practising the spoken Kannada language were called as ‘Kannada caste’ (Page:693, G.Aloysius, Iyothee Thassar Sinthanaigal, Part 1). In his thinking, ‘in origin’ the word Saathi referred to a social group’s language identity.
Every group practices its activities with a unique language identity. There was a habit of asking about a social group, ‘in what way they practice? Their ‘saathithal’’. Iyothee Thassar writes that question was answered by mentioning their language and saying ‘they practice in that language’.
Today the Tamil word saathithal is used in the meanings of achieving a rare feat or being adamant. But Iyothee Thassar uses it in the meaning of practising a normal activity. Similarly, he considers it as playing the role of differentiating between social groups.
More than any other identity, the language identity of a social group makes it a ‘group’ different from others. The difference arises out of language.
While explaining the word Saathi, Iyothee Thassar continues to explain the meaning of the words Varna and Kula, which are closely related to it.
Though these two words refer to identities, they differ from the group identity of ‘Saathi’. He writes that Varna[vi] refers to a person’s colour, and the question of colour arises only in the absence of a person.
In this method of identifying a person by their skin colour, he explains that ‘for the question of what varna he is, an absent person is mentioned as he is of black varna, of black and white mixed varna…’ (Collection of Iyothee Thassar writings, part 1, p693.)
He describes kula as something directly asked to a person, and the person questioned, answers with his family vocation. In earlier times, vocations were four — Brahmanam, Kshatriyam, Vaishyam, and Shudram.
The work of brahamanam or asceticism is ‘…curing the diseases that beings are affected with, making rains fall in proper time, and explaining past, present, and future to people…’; Kshatriyam or ruling is the profession of ‘using physical strength and vigour, hunting and punishing unafraid of evil animals… facing enemies and fighting without turning back…’
Vaishyam or merchandise is the name for those who are ‘…selling products for proper gain and establishing trade to buy one thing selling another.’; Shudram or labouring on land is ‘with perseverance, performing world reforming labour and being helpful to everyone’. Iyothee Thassar determines that the question of what is one’s Kula is answered with the profession of a kula one is born in[vii].
Starting to discuss the meaning of ‘Saathi’ Iyothee Thassar ventures further to describe the ‘real’ meaning of related terms, and then explains how those real meanings were manipulated, by whom, for what reasons, and how the current meanings for those terms came into practice.
As we already saw, he describes how in ‘origin’ or ‘ancient’ words had their real meanings and then ‘enemies to the true dharma of this nation, an untruthful caste called milaichar or mleccha came and settled here. They lied that they are brahmins and started destroying the ‘original’ meaning’.
‘These pretending brahmins had no care towards other castes… they knew neither the details nor the meaning of the word Saathi and its origins… they created fake stories on upper-caste and lower-caste, and used their language skills to tell them as if they were real… they spread meaningless imaginary stories.’ ‘…when intelligent people appear those will be exposed as lies, lies, and nothing but lies.’ Iyothee Thassar believed this wholeheartedly.
Now we can identify some basic and important aspects of Iyothee Thassar’s thought process in its entirety. He thinks that great damage has been done in the thought process of the Indian nation. According to him, those who did that damage were the brahmin caste. They destroyed these meanings for the selfish welfare of their caste — and they did that by spreading imaginary tales.
The meanings in practice today did not arise out of this land’s thought process; they were all manipulated meanings. Before the arrival of pretending brahmins, these words had different meanings. Iyothee Thassar argues that those ‘real’ meanings were removed from mainstream usage.
The brahmin intervention and the disorders it created in Indian society’s ideological space was the root of all regressions. Iyothee Thassar decides that Brahmins captured power by successfully executing the brainwashing they planned.
He uses this methodology not merely for ‘Saathi’ but for researching every topic he chose. The entrance of brahmins who were said to be coming from the ‘Puruseega[viii]’ nation, led to regressions in intellectual and mainstream spaces and brought everyone under the limits of their ‘pretending’ ideology is how Iyothee Thassar explains what happened.
In his thoughts, there are two explanations for the word ‘Saathi’; one is that whichever language a group practises is their Saathi. He considers this explanation as ‘real’; the explanation from the age of ‘actual brahmins’; based on Buddhist dharma.
Second, ‘Saathi is an occupational identity in an unequal hierarchical structure that is decided by birth and unchangeable.’ This was created by the pretending brahmins; a ‘lie’ created with imagination and fake tales; a structure created to serve selfishness.
Iyothee Thassar doesn’t show any pieces of evidence to prove that the actual, Buddhist definition is the real definition of Saathi. But he says that the ancient Buddhists were outcasted for ‘announcing’ (Paraithal in Tamil) it, and were declared as ‘Pariahs’ (Paraiyargal in Tamil). We have no evidence that Iyothee Thassar’s ‘actual brahmin’ definitions are in use among ‘Paraiyars’ today, or at least among ‘Valluvars’. Then we have to find the answer for, where did he get these definitions relating to Buddhist dharma and definitions predating the pretending brahmin definitions. Before that, as he explains ‘Saathi’ by relating it to a group’s language, let us see what he says about language.
3
Iyothee Thassar’s thoughts on language can be divided into two sections — the creation of written scripts, the structure of Tamil.
In his writings, We can see an attempt to create a Tamil Buddhist language philosophy based on these two. There is reason to call Iyothee Thassar’s thoughts on language as ‘Tamil Buddhist Language Philosophy’. There are large differences between the language philosophy mentioned in Buddhism and the definitions Iyothee Thassar provides us.
Buddhist language philosophy is discussed based on Sanskrit and Pali, and Iyothee Thassar’s arguments based on Tamil stand apart from what is recognised as ‘Buddhism’. So, it would be right to label his opinions on the formation of language and its structure as ‘Tamil Buddhist Language Philosophy.’
Veerasozhiyam[ix], the Buddhist Tamil grammar book connects the birth of language to God, like every other religion. The Veerasozhiyam verse on the birth of language states that ‘Aayungunatthu Avalokithan Pakkal Akathiyan Kette Ippuvanikku Iyambiya Than Thamizh.’
Traditional interpreters have explained it as, Avalokitha, a Buddha taught the Tamil language to Agathiar the saint and made it spread across the land. Iyothee Thassar did not consider this explanation at all. Using various texts like Veerasozhiya paayiram, Veerasozhiya pathippurai, Sivagnanayogiyaar, Mun Kalai Thivakaram, Tholkaappiyam, Silappathikaaram, and importantly Pathanjaliyaar Gnanam he created a narrative of Buddhism and Language creation.
In this narrative, before the emergence of Buddhism, languages were only spoken by people. In that time, Buddha, the ancient god, taught Aadhi Vedha, Aadhi Marai and his Tripitaka in oral form without a script.
Some of those who heard it understood immediately and started thinking about it. But, ‘…even after hearing it, some where not able to understand it, and confused the meaning.’ So Buddha ‘…created Sanskrit the sakada basha and Tamil the Dravida basha in script form… taught them to the members of the Sangam[x] he was establishing, and to spread the Satya dharma more and more… taught Dravida basha to Agathiar and sent him south… he also went to those places and established written forms of languages, and spread the real morals of Buddhist dharma.’ (P601, Indirar Desa Sarithram, Iyothee Thassar Sinthanaigal– Part 1).
For Iyothee Thassar creation of language is creation of the script. We can guess a few things from him saying this script creation happened at the same time for the three languages.
First, Iyothee Thassar neither believed nor had any respect for the ‘Indian Languages — Indo-European Languages’ opposites created with the background of Linguistics and Indology in the late nineteenth century.
In this argument of two different language groups being structured as the ‘Dravidian — Aryan’ ethnicities opposing each other, Sanskrit is the language of the Aryans. Iyothee Thassar denies this and thinks that the three languages Sanskrit, Pali, and Tamil were practised here before the arrival of Aryans.
He also denies the popular portrayals of Aryans and writes of them as having ‘shameless discipline, performing cruel activities, having mleccha behaviours…’. This is why ‘…Senthan Divakara Devar[xi] in his Mun Kalai, Mandal Purudan[xii] in his Pin Kalai has called them as Milaicchas, Mleccha, and Aryans.’ (P609, Iyothee Thassar Sinthanaigal — Part 1.) So, he decides that Aryans and Sanskrit are not related.
Second, like other religious believers, Iyothee Thassar cannot agree that Buddha created language. He thinks it could not have happened that way.
But he had no way to ignore the historical notes that Buddha Avalokitha taught languages to Janakar, Vamadevar, Nandhi, Romar, Kabilar, Panini, Agathiya muni among others and made it spread across the world. To handle this complication, he creates the narrative ‘It is Buddha who taught Sanskrit the Sakata basha and Tamil the Dravida basha in script form. It is for creating these languages, he was given the names Arunkalai Nayagan and Arungalai Vinothan.’ (P544, Iyothee Thassar Sinthanaigal — Part 2).
While talking about language, Iyothee Thassar presents a lot of new information about the structure of the Tamil language. Apart from new information, he is also someone who creates new concepts.
In his conceptualization, every language has two faces, its grammar face, and its latchana[xiii] face. The grammar face of language is familiar to us. The rules and ways of using language. Grammar books like Tholkappiyam, Nannool, Veerasozhiyam describe the rules for using the Tamil language.
The second face of latchana is new to us. Iyothee Thassar writes that these latchana are five, Pancha latchana. Script, Word, Meaning, Verse, Aesthetics are the five latchana. They are closely related to Buddhist philosophy.
He thinks there is a complete logic behind the creation of script in Tamil. Similarly, there are logical explanations behind the creation of words, the creation of meaning, nature of the verse, nature of the aesthetics used in them, and other such latchana.
Buddhism has created the latchana of a language along with its script form. The traditional belief is that Tamil is a combination of its grammar and latchana. To think that one can understand Tamil texts merely by learning its grammar is a fallacy. Those who don’t understand the five latchana of Tamil cannot understand the real meaning of Tamil texts.
It seems like Latchana is something like the internal structure of a language, but its full form is unclear. Only when we know what it is, whether it is philosophy, logic, Buddhist definition, or method of interpretation, we can conclude.
For now, we can see one message that Iyothee Thassar wants to convey — Tamil is not a mechanical language built using rules alone; it has its own internal meaning structure.
The descriptions of Tamil’s latchana start with the reason behind its name. The Tamil language is called by the names of ‘Thamizh’ and ‘Dravidam’. The name ‘Thamizh’ was used in the southern region, where it was spoken, and the name ‘Dravidam’ was used in the northern region.
This had a reason. Some Tamil alphabets were labelled as letters of elixir (Amutham) and some as poison (Vidam). The grammar for compiling verses describe the letters of elixir and poison and has declared it is wrong to start texts with letters of poison. (P463 I.S- Part 2).
It is in the latchana of Tamil to create texts starting with letters of elixir. As the language had elixir and poison among its alphabets, those who wanted to say Tamil has elixir in itself called it Amutham, Amizhtham, and Thamizh; Those who wanted to point out the poisonous nature in Tamil called it the language of poison, Visha Mozhi, Vida Mozhi, Theeraatha Vidam Udaiya Mozhi (Language of Endless Poison), Theerravidam, Thiravidam (Dravidam). This is how it gained the names of Thamizh(elixir) and Dravidam(Endless poison).
The structure of the alphabet which is called the latchana of letters corresponds to the Buddhist dharma. Man has two natures, of body and spirit; but in appearance and activities, he acts as one.
While thinking about the dual nature of body and spirit, man must not be perplexed about whether there is something beyond himself. ‘He(man) destroys himself by his acts… He nourishes himself by his acts… He sorrows himself by his acts…’ (P566, I.S. Part 2). Spirit is ‘Ul Mei’, that is the truth inside, ‘Un Mei’, truth; It is in ‘anthar angam’, the part inside; Body is ‘Pura Mei’, that is the truth outside. It is in ‘pakir angam’, the part to be shared. Vowels and Consonants are called as Uyir ezhuthu and Mei ezhuthu in Tamil, letters of spirit and letters of body. This naming also points to the above-mentioned philosophy.
Letters come together as the second latchana ‘…as a one-word sentence, two-word sentence, three-word sentences…’ and become words. Iyothee Thassar thus starts discussing the latchana of words.
Linguistics, traditional and modern, doesn’t accept words as sentences. Linguistics call words ‘morphemes’ or ‘signs’ which have meaning. But doesn’t accept that meanings of words are created based on logic.
Modern linguistics argues that words are signifiers and meanings of words are signified. But Iyothee Thassar identifies the logic of creating words from alphabets as grammar; every word is a sentence according to him.
Iyothee Thassar explains that words have a continuous or conjoined link logic by themselves. According to him, every word is a sentence; it has a vertical or horizontal link going on within itself.
We don’t have to look far to explain Iyothee Thassar saying every Tamil word is a sentence, and hence it has a grammar. Let us take the words for which he has given new explanations. He explains Saathi as Saathikkira mozhiye Saathi, the language in which you practice is your Saathi. This definition is a perfect example of one-word sentences. In his argument, the word Saathi has a sentence in itself, which means a way in which something can be achieved.
Similarly, the word Antharangam is a two-word sentence. The logic of conjoining Anthar and Angam acts within that word. Antharangam stands for privacy and Anthar is inner, Angam is part. Bommai, the Tamil word for dolls is explained by Iyothee Thassar as Poi and Mei. Poi means a lie and Mei means truth; Bommai is a lie acting as truth.
Iyothee Thassar describes Tamil’s word latchana as finding the meaning of words similarly. He writes that ‘…defining a two-word sentence as one word, a divisible term as indivisible, defining singular, plural, first-person derailing from actual attributes, will make a Pancha latchana sentence lose its nature and it will disappear losing its meaning…’. (P567, I.S. Part 2).
Iyothee Thassar was enraged reading G.U. Pope’s[xiv] interpretation of Thirukkural. In Thamizhan magazine 7:46, dated 1914, April 22 he has written an article titled ‘Pope Iyer not knowing the origin of Buddhist latchana means he doesn’t know the origin of Buddhist grammar either.’
After explaining Tamil’s Pancha latchana in the article, Iyothee Thassar writes ‘…those who don’t understand Pancha latchana won’t understand the differences in the latchana of logic. It is nourishing for the intellect to discuss it with those who understand, intellect only deteriorates discussing with those who don’t.’ (P567, I.S. Part 2).
For those asking how one can learn this five latchana, Iyothee Thassar answers in the same article: ‘…these are extensively explained in the manuscripts and stone inscriptions written by Buddhists over two hundred years ago. Those who don’t analyse and understand the ancient concepts, ancient books, ancient stone inscriptions won’t understand Pancha latchana.’
In his perspective, Buddhist philosophy acts as the structural base of the Tamil language. So, Iyothee Thassar’s ideal aim becomes to proclaim that one can attain the state of nirvana explained in Buddhism by understanding language.
Iyothee Thassar explains the latchana of language is structured in a way that it helps us understand the world. The classification of letters of elixir and poison allude to ‘desire — peace’ the two natures found in men. He argues that similar to how we avoid letters of poison while creating a text, we should avoid the poison of desire in life and ‘accumulate the elixir of peace… establishing inner truth…’ is the real idea taught by Tamil.
The connections between language and thought have been spoken about by many. French logician Pierre Abélard who lived in the twelfth century was the first in the European tradition to declare that language is not merely a tool for expression, but it is a tool for thought.
What Abélard says next is useful to us. While discussing the classifications and origin of dialogues he records that ‘All dialogues are political dialogues!’.
Which is to say, no dialogue works without a predisposition. Dialogues are created by ideologies. Thus, they are made possible by political stances. Abélard comes to this conclusion while researching the text of the Bible. These ideas have had a significant impact on seventeenth-century Cartesian thinkers Descartes and Destutt de Tracy. Especially Abélard’s thoughts on language served as the base for Tracy to create the concept of Ideology.
According to European linguistics, Ideology is shaped by language. This way of thinking about language that continued after Abelard till the seventeenth century was relegated to the background with the emergence of the historical perspective in the nineteenth century.
To understand language as an object filled with the remnants of history was prevalent even till the early twentieth century in the name of root word research. In this perspective, every word in a language is considered as a historical record.
Language has been practised since the origin and has been a witness for humankind’s rising and falls. Not as an idle witness, but has modified itself to fit the situations. So, every part of language might bear the marks of the past.
Every word is covered by different appearances of history. The idea that by removing these appearances one by one, we can attain the original form, the roots of language made the mistake of reducing language into a screen or mirror is the accusation Ferdinand de Saussure put forth with Semiology.
Following up, Saussure writes that the two parts of a word, Signifier and Signified, have no logical connection between themselves. The continuous or conjoined link states are created by the logic of words coming together to create sentence structures. But langue, the way in which language is stored in humans, has a logical structure and the above mentioned continuous or conjoined links operate in langue.
Later Jacques Derrida used this concept of Saussure about the above-mentioned logic that creates ideological traces on words to play the textual game of deconstruction.
Wherever words are gathered, logic operates on them; this logic helps us think through language. This is the reason language is called a tool of thought.
Though language serves as a tool to think, it is also true that it closes the doors for alternative modes of thinking. So, we are forced to deny the benefits offered by language when we try to think alternatively.
I understand the latchana Iyothee Thassar speaks of, as something similar to the logic that operates within the structure of language. He tries to establish that the structure of Tamil language is Buddhist dharma itself.
Tamil is built in the way how Buddhist dharma wants people to understand the world. With elixir and poison. With ‘self’ calling it an elixir. The reality of ‘others’ calling it poison. With a method to create texts avoiding poison and based on elixir. With possibilities of pleasure understanding the real truth of those texts!
Thus, Iyothee Thassar decides that Tamil, which is a corporeal form of the Buddhist dharma, is our Saathi identity. Now we will be curious to know what Iyothee Thassar says about religion or Samayam, as he has explained Saathi as language identity, and language as our religious identity. To our surprise, he denies religious identity.
4- Religion
Iyothee Thassar starts his explanation by saying the real meaning of the word Samayam[xv] is time.
‘What Samayam are you in?’ is a question that was asked only towards Samana[xvi] ascetics staying in hermitages. In ancient times, nobody asked this question towards common people. Samayam is a problem of the ascetics. Commoners had nothing to do with it.
The ascetics living in hermitages had three duties — nourishment of Vivekam, Vithusam and Gnanam. Vivekam among this is reason.
For the development of the capacity to reason, it is the duty of ascetics to ‘…create grammar books explaining the alphabetical latchana of Tamil, literary books explaining various topics, art books, astrology books that aid mathematical research, medical books that aid improvement of health…’ (P548, I.S Part 2).
For the nourishment of Vithuvam, which is the expertise, the second duty they should ‘…teach children the Tamil language… and lead them on the right path.’ The third duty of the nourishment of gnana, which is knowledge, involves ‘exploring oneself’ majorly. Ascetics must perform these three duties without fail.
The period when books are written for the nourishment of reason is called as Aruka Samayam[xvii], the time when they are teaching children is Bouddha Samayam[xviii] and the time they are exploring themselves is Seeva Samayam. So, nobody except monks had Samaya identities according to Iyothee Thassar.
The word Matham, which also means religion in modern parlance and is used as an equivalent of Samayam, was used by Iyothee Thassar only in a derogatory sense. His stance is that Matham is a commercial establishment.
‘…Spreading out various statues made of stones, copper, clay and bones, claiming this god is a big god and this one is a small god. This will lead you to salvation. This will kill all your enemies. This god will cure your diseases. This god will remove all your sins, bring offerings and beetle leaves with areca nuts. Bring your money and drop it in the offering box… Such religion shops and traders are not seen in any country in the world. Only the Hindu country has such specialities.’ (P152. I.S Part 2).
He denies the word matham and the religious identity created upon it completely. It is important to note that he doesn’t show any reluctance to call out those who call Buddhism as a religion and sell Buddha as a big god or small god.
Iyothee Thassar had a clear answer to which among caste, language and religion can be man’s identity. We can guess it from his magazine being named as Thamizhan. But understanding how he defines the Tamil identity is also important.
He sincerely believes that Tamil should not be considered as any of the following — a one-dimensional tool connecting everyone; a sensitive symbol of tradition; in the negative state opposing Brahmins(Sanskrit); the imaginations of Tamil mother or Tamil as a woman; with zealous worship as life, breath, or god. For him, language is a philosophical stance. An ideological political position. Something that decides a man’s latchana.
We can easily see how everything Iyothee Thassar says as Buddhist dharma is based on materialism. All meanings are derived from the events in this world, a man’s nature is decided by his acts, no external force outside this world acts upon us, the clarity that one can attain emancipation only by working on his intellect, the nature of denying hierarchies based on birth, and culture is the nourishment of all these. These are claimed by Iyothee Thassar as Buddhism. But it is expressed more like a modern ideological stance.
His definition of Tamil identity as an ideological space for the liberation of individuals and society, and his claim that it can only be our ‘Saathi’kkum identity, or practising identity, are all clear political stances.
In the question of identity, Iyothee Thassar’s position in the dialogue between the factors of caste, language and religion is important. But equally important is the method by which he arrives at that position.
[i] Homohierarchicus written by french researcher Louis Dumont on 1967 argues that caste is a social hierarchy invented by India based on Purity — Impurity, and the inequalities arising out of this hierarchy is accepted by everyone participating in it.
[ii] Michael Moffot researched on Endavur in South India and came to the conclusion that oppressed castes had no separate culture by themselves, that they agree with the rest of society on caste based inequality, and replicate its features within themselves.
[iii] Sankritisation coined by M.N.Srinivas claims that castes placed lower in the hierarchy imitate and replicate brahminical traditions in an attempt of upward mobility within the caste system, in other words, they sanskritise themselves in an attempt become brahmins, closer to brahmins.
[iv] The Swadeshi movement was part of the Indian Nationalist Independence movement. Swadeshi means ‘of one’s own country.’ The movement included boycotting British goods and systems.
[v] Saathi is the word for caste in modern Tamil usage. Nowadays it is used similar to Jati, which was derived from Sanskrit, meaning born or brought into existence. Referring to the hierarchical caste system designated by birth.
[vi] The Sanskrit Varna refers to the system of dividing society into classes broadly based on occupation, but are strictly controlled and designated by birth with no means of one changing their Varna.
[vii] Kula or Kulam in modern parlance is used to denote subcaste groups. As a group of people who claim to share history, often over an common ancestor.
[viii] Persia.
[ix] Written by Buddhamithirar, this grammar book is considered to be from 11th century.
[x] Buddhist Society
[xi] Senthan Divakaran was the author of Senthan Divakaran a Nikandu. Nikandu are pre-dictionaries explaining word meanings in Tamil.
[xii] Mandal Purudan is the author of Chudamani Nikandu.
[xiii] The tamil word Latchanam can be translated as proper qualities, in the context of proper qualities a person or thing is supposed to have to be ideal or beautiful.
[xiv] George Uglow Pope(1820–1908) was a christian missionary and Tamil scholar. He wrote A Catechism on Tamil Grammar and translated Tamil literature including Tirukkural, Naladiyar and Tiruvachakam. Though Iyer in modern parlance is used to refer a brahmin caste. It also denotes men worthy of respect, and Pope was known as Pope Iyer.
[xv] The Tamil word for Religion along with Matham. It is also used to mean time in modern usage as well.
[xvi] Samana in modern parlance is often used to refer Jainisim. In Tamil literature it is used to notify various religious and philosophical traditions including Aruka(Jainism), Ajivika and Sharvaka.
[xvii] Aruka Matham is mentioned in Tamil literature as the equivalent of modern jainism. Arukan is used as the Tamil equivalent of Tirthankara.
[xviii] Bouddha is the Tamil spelling of ‘Buddhist’.
