User talk:Tamilpandit

CLASSIC TAMIL LANGUAGE

How old is Tamil literature? Classical Tamil is older than classical Sanskrit.

But as recently as the 19th century, even Tamil ‘vidyans' were not aware of the antiquity of Tamil literature. This is in contrast to the knowledge of, and the esteem in which, Sanskrit was held throughout history.

In 1780s, when European Orientalists embarked on a study of Sanskrit, they had no difficulty in locating pundits who could teach them the language and guide them to its treasures.

On the other hand, the great antiquity of classical Tamil was not recognized by traditional ‘vidyans' even in Chola, Chera and Pandya country.

Kamil Zvelebil writes in his authoritative work on Tamil literature: "The development of Tamil literature was in one sense quite irregular; a decisive, even abysmal hiatus occurred in its evolution, and in that of Tamil culture during the 6th-8th century A.D, when the secular, anonymous, conventional bardic poetry ceased to be a living literature and became part of a ‘dead' classical heritage, giving way to the religious, individual hymnody of the Saiva and Vaishnava Bhakti movement.

"Everything changed: the language (Old Tamil ‘became' Middle Tamil), prosody, themes, genres, motivation, ideology. The classical heritage was preserved only and exclusively by learned poets, commentators and scholiasts, and during late medieval times (after circa 1450 A.D.) even the scholastic ceased to be interested, and classical poetry faded into oblivion."

Sangam poetry of the centuries immediately preceding and following the Christian era, the Classical Age of Tamil poetry, had to be rediscovered in relatively recent times. For three centuries Tamil poetry had a flowering as in classical Greece - and then came a dark age. It was a fully developed literature, endowed with lyric and epic works, when the kavyas of Kalidasa were yet to be written. Why were the Tamil classics forgotten?

"Pandits were not even sure of the correct names of the classical works which became a part of the forgotten pre-bhakti culture. A scholastic, high-flown type of derivative, imitative, exclusively religious, Sanskrit-oriented works was produced in the monasteries which exercised a decisive power and influence…The later medieval Vaishnava and Saiva scholars ‘apparently tabooed as irreligious all secular texts which included the earliest and the greatest of Tamil literary texts; they disallowed from study all Jain and Buddhist texts.' Under this taboo even great scholars were unaware of the existence of classical literature."

So that when in the 18th and 19th centuries Europeans solicited information from Tamils about their oldest writings, they ran into a noman's land of ignorance.

"The ignorance of the early Tamil texts in Tamilnadu itself was naturally reflected in the works of European scholars dealing with Tamil," writes Zvelebil. Caldwell was led into believing that Tamil literature - like the vernacular literatures of the North, such as Bengali, - began in the 10th century. J. Vinson dubbed references to Sangam age works and their authors as "evident fantasies.' How different was the response of scholars in Bengal to European interest in Sanskrit literature! Pradip Bhattacharya noted in a blog: "Kalidasa's ‘Abhinjnanasakuntalam' (‘The Recognition of Sakuntala') was translated into English by Sir William Jones in 1789. Jones first came to hear about Indian Natakas during his sojourn in Europe in 1787. He began to investigate these on his return to Calcutta. Pandit Radhakant pointed out to Jones the similarity of these Natakas to English plays staged in Calcutta and, as an example, gave him a Bengali recension of Sakuntala. Ramlochan, a Sanskrit teacher of Nadia, helped Jones read the play and in 1789, Joseph Cooper published the English translation of Sacontala. The impact of this work was soon felt in Europe. By 1791, Sacontala was translated into German by Forster and by 1792 into Russian by Karamsin.

Translations in Danish (1793), French (1803) and Italian (1815) appeared soon after."

The explanation for the stone wall that inquiries about old, secular, pre-Brahmanic literature met in Coromandel, in contrast to the welcome such seekers received in Bengal, is that Sanskrit was preserved as sacred while Old Tamil was suppressed as irreligious.

The Bengal translations of the Bhagavat Gita, the Hitopadesa and Sakuntala caused more than just a ‘sensation' in Europe.

The great German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote in a letter:

"The first time I came across this inexhaustible work it aroused such enthusiasm in me and so held me that I could not stop studying it. I even felt impelled to make the impossible attempt to bring it in some form to the German stage. These efforts were fruitless but they made me so thoroughly acquainted with this most valuable work, it represented such an epoch in my life, I was so absorbed it, that for thirty years I did not look at either the English or the German version... It is only now that I understand the enormous impression that work made on me at an earlier age."

Translations of Sanskrit works followed one another almost serially.

Sir Edwin Arnold wrote in the introduction to his own translation of the Gita of the trail of translations he was in the act of following:

"The poem has been turned into French by Burnouf, into Latin by Lassen, into Italian by Stanislav Gatti, into Greek by Galanos, and into English by Mr. Thomson and Mr Davies, the prose transcript of the last-named being truly beyond praise for its fidelity and clearness. Mr Telang has also published at Bombay a version in colloquial rhythm, eminently learned and intelligent, but not conveying the dignity or grace of the original. If I venture to offer a translation of the wonderful poem after so many superior scholars, it is in grateful recognition of the help derived from their labors, and because English literature would certainly be incomplete without possessing in popular form a poetical and philosophical work so dear to India."

World literature is the poorer without knowledge of Old Tamil.

The riddle is why did Old Tamil gradually become taboo with the rise of Tamil power from the 8th to the 13th centuries?

There are a number of gaps in Tamil history, including a period when after a glorious phase, Sangam literature simply fades away.

Between the early Cholas of the Sangam literature, and the rise of the medieval Cholas under Vijayalaya (circa 848 A.D.) there is an interregnum of six or seven centuries. There is also a sudden end to the maritime trade between Chola, Chera and Pandyan kingdoms and the Roman Empire, which was not resumed till six centuries later with the rise of the Cholas under Rajaraja Chola and Rajendra Chola.

Is it possible that political integration went hand in hand with Sanskritization and Brahmanism?

Is it possible that there was some cataclysmic natural disaster, say, a super-tsunami, in the interregnum?

Or was the decline in the trade with the West an inevitable consequence of an increasing deficit trade balance for Rome, followed by a recession like the one we are witnessing here in America, leading to finally the fall of the Roman Empire?

Whatever the reason/reasons, what is indisputable is the rise of Chola Empire, which encompassed the Maldives in the west, Sri Lanka to the south and the Srivijay Kingdom in the east.

It was a Tamil king who sent out the only victorious maritime expedition across the seas.

They also were in diplomatic contact with China.

Also beyond doubt is the agency of Tamil kingdoms - the Pallavas and Chalukyas included - in spreading Sanskrit language and Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism to Southeast Asia.

Another riddle which is for future research to solve is that why was the spectacular Pallava and Chola temple architecture not carried across the seas.

The wonders of Borobudur and Angkorwat might owe their origin to the ancient Tamils.

It is amazing that the Pallava and Chola styles were not duplicated.

Most surprising is of course the complete absence of bronzes not only among the overseas finds but also North India. How come the Cholas kept entirely to themselves the secret of their bronzes? Why did not the Gupta and Palas - who created such exquisite works in stone - leave behind a Siva Nataraja?

Before leaving the reader to indulge in listing Tamil contributions to the world - ranging from the sublime, say, Bharatanatyam, to the culinary, such rassam and idli (in which Kannada and Telugu contributions should not be minimzed) - let us take a quick look at the military feats of Rajendra Chola I, who took Tamil arms to as far north as the Ganga, and across the sees to the Srivijay Kingdom in Southeast Asia.

Succeeding to the throne in 1014, he extended the bounadries of the already vast Chola empire "up to the banks of the river Ganges in the north and across the ocean. Rajendra's territories extended coastal Burma, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Maldives, conquered the kings of Srivijaya (Sumatra, Java and Malaya in South East Asia) and Pegu islands with his fleet of ships. He defeated Mahipala, the Pala king of Bengal and Bihar, and to commemorate his victory he built a new capital called Gangaikonda Cholapuram. Tamil Chola armies exacted tribute from Thailand and the Khmer kingdom of Cambodia. Rajendra was the first Indian king to take his armies overseas.

He also built a temple for Siva at Gangaikonda Cholapuram, similar in design to the Tanjore Brihadisvara temple built by Rajaraja Chola. He assumed titles Parakesari and Yuddhamalla." Part XXVI of a series, for earlier parts visit www.newsindia-times.com