கல்யாண விருந்திற்குச் செல்லத் தயாரானேன். குழந்தை பிறந்து ஐந்தாவது மாதத்தில் திருமண விழாவில் பங்கேற்க வாய்ப்பு கிடைத்துள்ளது. நேற்றைய வரவேற்பில் அத்தையும் மாமாவும் கலந்து கொண்டாயிற்று. நெருங்கிய சொந்தம் என்பதால் காலையில் திருமண விழாவில்...
The post விருந்துணவு first appeared on Her Stories.
யூன் ஃபாஸ்ஸயின் அமைதிக்கான தேடல்
தாய்ப்பால் கொடுப்பது அவ்வளவு சுலபமா!
நியூ இங்கிலாந்தின் கன்னியாஸ்திரி
Let me say this first. I am aware of the boundless regard Aravindan has for me. This is true of many other persons who joined him malign me. Thus, there is nothing personal in these debates. Of course, there are a few other buffoons and nitwits who have used his post to take potshots at me. I hold them in utter contempt. Now, about my Brahmin birth. Aravindan has separately written to me and said that his intent was not to hurt me. I believe him and hence I would let that matter rest. I know this will be extremely disappointing to Periyarist Nazis and other Brahmin-hating – and Aravindan-hating – nuts, but I can’t help it. However, if Aravindan wants to continue the discussion on these lines and give a few minutes of amusement to these weirdoes, I am ready for it.
I have been a lifelong fighter on the side of Secularism – especially the Nehruvian brand of secularism. Most of the persons, including Aravindan, were not even born when I started my journey. It is therefore natural for me to get irritated when some of these persons who have newly found secularism try to teach me how to couch my secularism in an acceptable language. If this irritation is mistaken for arrogance, as has been done by some dimwits, I can’t help it. One Ambedkar-worshipping worthy has made a snide remark that a lifelong reading of Gandhi doesn’t make one Gandhian. I have never claimed myself to be a Gandhian. I am a lifelong student of Marx, Gandhi, and Nehru. That is all. In any case, I would remind this worthy of what Ambedkar had to say about Muslims in his famous book on Pakistan. What he wrote doesn’t diminish his secular credentials.
What did I exactly write that made these self-appointed guardians of secularism to bristle and pounce on me? It is just one word, – Hindu. This was what I wrote: My heart goes out to the Hindu families who have lost their dear ones. If I had not added the word ‘Hindu,’ all hell would not have broken loose. The guardians’ contention was that I had dirtied secularism beyond dry-cleaning by adding the word ‘Hindu.’ I was going through what I wrote on the 22nd of April, and these words that I wrote struck me: “Defend Democracy! Defend Secularism! Defend our Supreme Court.” I was also taking on the Hindutva fanatics. I didn’t watch the television that day and got to know of the attack in Pahalgam pretty late at night on that day or the next morning. If I remember rightly, it was DNA’s headlines that caught my attention. It screamed “Hindus Killed in Pahalgam Terror Attack.” I was not then aware that a Muslim was also killed in that attack, and my reaction was spontaneous. I never imagined that it would be nitpicked by self appointed guardians of secularism who had not had a single word of sympathy, until then, for the victims. Their convoluted reasoning was that my mentioning the word ‘Hindu’ would bring the entire Muslim community to disrepute. Now, there have been many attacks by terrorists in the past. This attack is different for a single reason. The terrorists sought out and identified Hindus and trained their guns on them. Yes, terrorism doesn’t have a religion. Yes, terrorists don’t represent Islam. But the victims were butchered because the terrorists identified them to be Hindus. A Nepali was killed. They also killed a Muslim who tried to help the tourists. It is the height of dishonesty to claim that they were killed because they were Indians. Even left-leaning media doesn’t claim that. For instance, in an interview for Frontline, Nirupama Subramaniam clearly says that the terrorists pulled out the tourists after ascertaining their religious identity and shot them execution-style.
Now to Gandhi.
Gandhi’s reaction to mutual butchery in the years 1946 and 1947 was, without doubt, one of anguish. But he never tried to hide the religious identity of the perpetrators. This is what he said in Noakhali in November 1946:
I have heard nothing but condemnation of these acts from Shaheed Suhrawardy [the Chief Minister of Bengal] downwards since I have come here. Words of condemnation may tickle your ears, but they are no consolation to the unfortunate women whose houses have been laid desolate or who have been abducted, forcibly converted, and forcibly married. What a shame for Hindus, what a disgrace for Islam!
This is what he said at his prayer meeting on September 12, 1947:
Let us know our own dharma. In the light of our dharma, I would tell the people that our greatest duty is to see that the Hindus do not act in frenzy, nor the Sikhs indulge in acts of madness… I appeal to the Muslims that they should open-heartedly declare that they belong to India and are loyal to the Union. If they are true to God and wish to live in the Indian Union, they just cannot be enemies of the Hindus. And I want the Muslims here to tell the Muslims in Pakistan who have become the enemies of the Hindus, not to go mad: ‘If you are going to indulge in such madness, we cannot co-operate with you. We will remain faithful to the Union, and salute the tricolour.’
Will these faux guardians accuse Gandhi of suspecting the loyalty of Indian Muslims?
There were instances in the 1920s when Muslims sought out Hindus and butchered them. The Moplah Rebellion of 1921 in Malabar, Kerala, began as an anti-British and anti-landlord uprising by Mappila (Moplah) Muslims but escalated into communal violence targeting Hindus, resulting in significant loss of life and property. Estimates vary, but official figures suggest around 2,339 rebels and sympathizers were killed, with unofficial claims of up to 10,000 deaths, alongside hundreds of Hindus killed, forcibly converted, or displaced. Mahatma Gandhi’s response to the Moplah violence was complex, reflecting his commitment to Hindu-Muslim unity, his support for the Khilafat movement, and his non-violent principles. He appealed to the Hindus to forgive the Mappilas for what they did in ‘ignorance’.
But Gandhi’s reaction to the Kohat massacre of Hindus and Sikhs in September 1924 was different. In fact, Gandhi said this even before the Kohat massacre:
Though the majority of the Mussalmans of India and the Hindus belong to the same stock, the religious environment has made them different… Though, in my opinion, non-violence has a predominant place in the Koran, the thirteen hundred years of imperialistic expansion has made the Mussalmans fighters as a body. They are therefore aggressive. Bullying is the natural excrescence of an aggressive spirit. The Hindu has an age-old civilisation. He is essentially non-violent. (Young India, June 19, 1924)
On the Kohat butchery, he was forthright in condemning the Muslims:
On the 10th, the Muslim fury knew no bounds. Destruction of life and property, in which the Constabulary freely partook, which was witnessed by the officials and which they could have prevented, was general. (Young India, September 25, 1924) Some of the Khilafat volunteers, who were expected to protect the Hindus, neglected their duty, and not only joined in the loot but also took part in the previous incitement. (Young India, September 25, 1924)
On September 18, 1924, Gandhi started a 21-day fast at Mohammad Ali’s residence. This is what he said:
The recent events in Kohat have overwhelmed me with grief… Hindu-Muslim unity has received a rude shock. I have no desire to live if I cannot see Hindus and Mussalmans living as brothers. I undertake this fast as a penance for my failure and as a prayer to God to purify the hearts of both communities.
This is what he said on February 26, 1925, in a letter written to Motilal Nehru:
I have discovered a wide gulf between Shaukat Ali and myself… He believes the riots were provoked by a Hindu poem derogatory to Islam, while I am convinced the conversions of Hindus and the general atmosphere of intolerance were the chief causes. It was as if I found a snake under my quilt.
How would Gandhi have reacted to the butchery of Pahalgam? He would have visited the place. He would have tried to heal the wounds. He would have undertaken a fast to emphasize Hindu-Muslim unity. But he would not have shown cowardice in hiding the fact that those who were butchered were overwhelmingly Hindus and that they were butchered solely because of their Hindu identity. Gandhi was never a coward.
Ar
இந்நிலையில் அண்மையில் தமிழ்நாட்டரசு பாவேந்தரின் பிறந்தநாளையொட்டித் தமிழ்மொழி வாரம் அறிவிப்பினை வெளியிட்டுப் பாவேந்தர் பற்றாளர்களின் உள்ளத்தில் மகிழ்ச்சியை ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளது. பாவேந்தரின் பெருமைகளை நினைவுகூரும் வகையில் இன்றைய(02.05.2025) TIMES OF INDIA நாளேட்டில் திரு. வினோத்குமார் அவர்கள் பாரதிதாசன் பரம்பரை என்ற தலைப்பில் என்னையும் புலவர் செந்தலை ந. கவுதமனாரையும் நேர்கண்டு, அழகிய கட்டுரை ஒன்றை வரைந்துள்ளார்.
பாவேந்தர் பாரதிதாசனாரின் சிறப்புகளை நான் மாணவப்பருவத்தில் அறிந்துகொள்ள வாய்ப்பு நல்கிய பாரதிதாசன் பல்கலைக்கழகத்திற்கும், என் நெறியாளர் முனைவர் எழில்முதல்வன் அவர்களுக்கும் இன்றைய கட்டுரையாளர் திரு. வினோத்குமார் அவர்களுக்கும் நன்றியன்.
Let us assume that God did not choose to send Gandhi to India and sour the Hindutva dream. Let us assume that a strong Hindu leader took charge and rekindled the dormant spirit of the Kshatriyas.
What would have happened?
Democracy was not an option, because, as per the immutable definition of the Hindutva guys, Muslims were too uncivilized and barbaric to adopt a pristine idea like democracy. The Hindutva leaders of that era, too, were not too fond of democracy, but that is a different point. The Muslims would not chosen to live under an overtly dominant Hindu government. Consequently, there would, in all probability, have been a civil war, mostly fought in Punjab, UP, Bihar, Bengal, Central Provinces, NWFP, Sind, and in parts of Bombay and Assam.
The Muslims in India then comprised 25% of the population, and the civil war would have been horrendously murderous.
India then had 11 provinces. They were Bengal, Bombay, Madras, United Provinces, Punjab, Bihar, Assam, Central Provinces and Berar, Orissa, NWFP, and Sind.
Let us assume that the Hindutva leadership had managed to either evict or subdue the Muslims where they were minorities. The Muslim-majority provinces would, in any case, not have been subdued. Punjab, Bengal, NWFP, and Sind would have either chosen to remain separate, or a partition of Bengal and Punjab would have happened, as it really did in 1947.
Let us not forget the princely states.
The major princely states in India then were Hyderabad, Mysore, Jammu and Kashmir, Gwalior, Indore, Travancore, Bhopal, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Baroda, Patiala, and Udaipur. None of these states would have joined the rump India, as it would not have given them any advantage. In fact, Travancore, Baroda, and Mysore were very efficiently run, and they would not have liked to join the mess. Hyderabad would certainly have remained separate. So would have Kashmir. Dravida Nadu would not have emerged, but a separate Tamil Nadu would have materialized.
There would not have been any Akhand Bharat. There would certainly have been a dozen or more Hindu and Muslim states constantly warring with each other.
Let me say this loudly and clearly.
The cementing forces of 20th-century British India were the Indian National Congress and Mahatma Gandhi. The Congress appealed to a broad spectrum of the Indian upper and middle classes, while Gandhi brought the Congress’s message to the masses. He constantly spoke to them about not only Hindu-Muslim unity but also unity among Hindus. He was unique in that he urged the Hindu upper castes to embrace basic human values—a stance that was, of course, anathema to some Hindus.
The Hindutva proponents certainly didn’t deserve him, but India most certainly did.
Hindutva fanatics like Mr. Sai Deepak never tire of repeating that Gandhi blunted the ‘Kshatriya’ spirit of the Hindus. His logic seems to be that if Gandhi had not been around, India would have won its independence through revolution. He also regrets the fact that India – that is, the Hindus – did not spill enough blood.
What does history say?
In the 19th century, the biggest uprising against the British took place in 1857. Mr. Sai Deepak dismisses it as a failed attempt to restore Muslim rule. But who fought side by side with the British to defeat Bahadur Shah and the sepoys? The Rajputs! Notably, prominent Rajput states like Jaipur, Udaipur, Jodhpur, and Bikaner provided assistance to the British in the form of troops, supplies, and logistical support during the war. The Maratha states like the Scindias of Gwalior and the Holkars of Indore also largely remained loyal to the British, as they had been beneficiaries of British support and preferred to maintain their privileges.
I am not even talking about the Sikhs, who had fought a fierce war against the British just eight years earlier, but still chose to side with them in 1857.
What were the other revolutionary movements against the British in the 19th century?
The Southern Rebellion in the early years of the century, the Santhal Rebellion, the Kuka Rebellion, Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy’s rebellion, and the Bhumiji Revolt were all minor affairs that didn’t even scratch the surface of imperialism.
In the 20th century, the Jugantar and Anushilan Samiti engaged in bombings, assassinations, and armed robberies, particularly after the 1905 partition of Bengal. In the south, Vanchinathan assassinated Ashe. Then there was the Ghaddar Movement.
All these activities took place before Gandhi’s emergence as a central figure. The revolutionary activities that occurred after Gandhi took the lead were spearheaded by the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, led by Bhagat Singh, and the Chittagong Armoury Raid by Surya Sen. Neither of these had any connection to Hindutva politics, and both had a strong communist overtone.
This leaves the Indian National Army.
Hindutva fanatics conveniently forget that Subhas Chandra Bose was the first to call Gandhi the Father of the Nation, and his “Delhi Chalo” call was dedicated to him. Bose most certainly did not want to establish a Hindu Raj. Forty percent of his army comprised Muslims.
Now, how many soldiers fought in the Indian National Army in the Imphal and Kohima campaigns led by the Japanese imperial forces? Around 20,000. On the other hand, the Indian Army during the Second World War had 2.5 million soldiers. About 1.5 million of them were Hindus, a majority belonging to the so-called ‘Kshatriya’ (martial) races of the Hindus. More than 85000 soldiers shed blood for the British rather than freedom. At least 40000 of them must be Kshatriyas. Add to this about 75000 soldiers died in the First World War, the picture is complete.
This is the story of the revolutionary activities of India. It is pure canard to claim that Gandhi blunted them. In fact, the ‘Kshatriya’ classes blunted the revolution by joining the British.
Here’s a delicious irony.
Two Tamil Brahmins were closely associated with Savarkar during his India House days in London. One was V.V.S. Iyer. The other was an Iyengar, T.S.S. Rajan. Both became ardent Gandhians when Gandhi offered an alternative model! I am sure Sai Deepak has heard their names.
If one really wants to understand how a revolutionary movement evolves, one has to read the modern history of China.
When the Communists were massacred in Shanghai by Chiang Kai-shek’s forces in 1927, the Chinese Communist Party had around 60,000 members. More than 10,000 were killed. Mao Zedong abandoned the urban centers and retreated to rural strongholds. Initially, he had fewer than 1,000 followers. After years of solid work and the establishment of the Jiangxi Soviet, his Red Army grew to about 100,000 soldiers.
It was decimated by Chiang’s extermination campaigns, and at the end of the Long March, Mao had only around 10,000 followers left. In 1937, his Eighth Route Army was formed to counter Japanese aggression. It had about 30,000 troops. By 1945, when the Japanese were defeated, it had become a hardened force of 600,000 soldiers. This was the army that defeated the Kuomintang forces during the Chinese Civil War.
To cut a long story short, armed revolution succeeded in China because its people wanted it. A Gandhian revolution happened in India because Indians wanted it. The ‘Kshatriyas’ were largely with the British. And yes, the forefathers of the Hindutva fanatics were with them too.
அக்குபங்சர் வரலாறு – தொன்மைச் சீனம் முதல் இந்தியா வரை அறிதலும் புரிதலுமே அஸ்திவாரக் கல்! 2014 என்று நினைக்கிறேன். “சின்னக் கண்ணாஆ! என்றொரு சிறுகதை எழுதியிருந்தேன். செம்மலர் மாத இதழ் அதைப் பிரசுரம் செய்திருந்தது. பேசத் தெரியாத இள்ங்குழந்தை ஒன்று…
The post அக்குபங்சர் வரலாறு தொன்மைச் சீனம் முதல் இந்தியா வரை – நூல் அறிமுகம் appeared first on Book Day.
சாதிய அநீதி கண்டு கொந்தளித்தால் நீங்கள் எம் தோழரே சாதி இருக்கும் வரை -15 – அ. குமரேசன் “ஒழிப்பது என்றால் எதிர்மறைச் சொல்லாக இருக்கிறதே? சமத்துவத்திற்காகத்தான் வாதாடுகிறோம் என்பதால் நேர்மறையான வேறு சொற்களைப் பயன்படுத்தலாமே.” சாதிய ஒழிப்பு பற்றிய ஓர்…
The post சாதிய அநீதி கண்டு கொந்தளித்தால் நீங்கள் எம் தோழரே appeared first on Book Day.
 |
| Bharata Matha terracotta image |
Bharatha Matha Terracota figure of composite unit of India, as visualized by Mahakavi Subramanya Bharathi and his close associates, Mandayam Brothers S Thirumalachari, S Srinivasa Chari and S Parthasarathy Iyengar in the year 1916 during their exile at Pondicherry. This idol was discreetly smuggled to Madras and taken in procession during Anti British movements. It has lost the Ceylon part which was in the form of a lotus bud at the feet, during an encounter with British police.
Vande mataram.
------------
This text above, along with this picture, was shared by VK Srinivasan in our Tamil Heritage Trust Whatsapp group.
The Mandyam brothers owned a Tamil newspaper called Swadesa Mitran, in Madras (Chennai) and they hired Subrahmanya Bharati, the poet, as its deputy editor. Bharati today is primarily known throughout the Tamil speaking world as poet extraordinaire, a Mahakavi, whose patriotic poems about India, the Tamil language, are well known. But he did not earn much from his poetry; his primary income was as a journalist. He is considered THE pioneering journalist of the Tamil language - he wrote political essays advocating the expulsion of British rule (inspired by Bala Gangadhara Tilak), he introduced the first cartoons in Tamil newspapers, he wrote essays on science and technology, translated essays and poems from various languages of India like Bengali, Hindi, Marathi, and English. He was considered an extremist in those days, a follower of Bala Gangadhara Tilak, as opposed to the moderates led by the lawyers of Madras, led by the indomitable V Krishnaswami Aiyar. He introduced the Bengali phrase Vande Mataram into Tamil, without modifying the words, and made it popular. He also published an English newspaper, for years.
 |
| A cartoon published by Subramania Bharati Gandhi as a cow, the British as tigers |
He formed a patriotic group with VO Chidamaram Pillai, Subramania Siva, Aurobindo Ghosh and VaVeSu Iyer. VO Chidambaram a lawyer of Thoothukkudi (Tuticorin), an old harbour city near Kanyakumari, is famous for starting a shipping company. He was later arrested and sentenced to jail, where he was also sentenced to be yoked (Literally a wooden yoke, like a plough) to an oil-press (instead of a bull) and forced to pull the oil-press.
Bharathi and others condemned this arrest and cruel sentence. The British issued an arrest order for Bharati for one of his essays, and he escaped to Puducheri (Pondicheri) which was under French rule, taking the advise of his friends. He spent nearly ten years in Pondicheri, in self-exile. At some point he was exhausted with his exhile and came back to British India - that is Madras province. He was arrested in Kadaloor (Cuddalore) and sentenced to jail, but was released after promising not to write against British government policies. Sadly he died a few years later.
The Mandayam family, which ran the SwadesaMitran newspaper, and had hired Bharati as a writer and assistant editor, somehow inherited the terracotta idol of Bharata Matha. Decades later, after independence, N Balasubramanian, a mathematician and cryptologist, and an avid lover of Tamil literature and especially Subramaniya Bharati, was an active membre of Delhi Tamil Sangam. By the 1960s, a significant number of Tamils had moved to Delhi, a vast number of them employed as bureaucrats in the Government of India, and quite a few in academic circles also. The Delhi Tamil Sangam, regularly held meetings in which they discussed literature, hosted visiting writers, speakers, artists, etc; conducted music concerts (mostly Carnatic music) and Tamil plays and so on. Balasubramanian, who wrote under the Tamil pseudonym Nagupoliyan was one of the very active members of this group. On one of his travels, a member of the Mandayam family gave him the Bharatha matha statue for safekeeping. From then on, every monthly meeting of the Delhi Tamil Sangam started with a prayer and puja to this Bharata Matha statue. In 1982 the centenary year of Subramaniya Bharathi, year long celebration called Bharati 200 was conducted. It was called Bharathi 200 rather than 100, in the hope that Bharathi would be remembered for at least another hundred years.
When Balasubramanian retired and settled down in Madras (Chennai), he brought back this image with him and somewhere along the way, the Bharata Matha statue returned to the Mandyam family. During the condolence meeting of R A Padmanabhan in 2014, who wrote a biography of Subramaniya Bharati, I met one of the stalwarts of the Mandayam family - Mandayam Parthasarathy Iyengar, then around 96 years old; he was one of the speakers.
 |
| Mandayam Parthasarathi Iyengar at condolence meeting of RA Padmanabhan, 2014 |
 |
| Sevalaya founder Muralidharan speaking Balasubramanian, Ja Ra Sundaresan, Prof Va Ve Su on stage Mahakavi Bharati school, Kasuva |
 |
| Memorabilia from Balasubramanian collection Mahakavi Bharati school, Kasuva |
 |
| Cryptography class in Balu sir's residence, Kotturpuram |
Balu sir passed away in 2019. He told the story of this Bharata Matha idol several times. Once during the performance of an experimental play titled, Chennaiyin Gnanaratham, compered by Vallabha Srinivasan, wife of VK Srinivasan, Balu sir simply walked on to the stage and narrated this story. It became a hit
A few years later, I visited Bharathiyar Illam in Tiruvallikeni with Balu sir, and just outside, we were pleasantly surprised to meet Mandayam Parthasarathy Iyengar, the aged gentleman at the RA Padmanbhan condolence meeting in the front row. He was a then a resident of Tiruvallikeni. A few years back, at the age of 102, he featured in several news channels as the oldest persons to vote in the election (2019 elections, I think). He has since passed away.
VK Srinivasan's whatsapp photos brought back some memories, and hence this blog. It may be some interest that one of the pillars in a mandapam of the Mylapore Kapalishvara temple, has an image of Bharatha matha, which looks very much like this one. This mandapam was constructed in the 20th century.
 |
| Bharatha Matha sculpture Mylapore Kapalishvara temple, Madras |
ஒரு சிறுமியின் அம்மாவோ பாட்டியோ, அவளை ஓர் இடத்திற்கு அழைத்துச் சென்று, மிட்டாய், பலகாரம், ஐஸ்கிரீம் எனப் பிடித்த அனைத்தையும் வாங்கித் தருகிறார். அதனைச் சாப்பிட்டுக் கொண்டே போகும் போது, ஒரு கட்டிடத்தினுள் சிறுமியை அழைத்துச்...
The post சிதைவுகள் first appeared on Her Stories.
வீட்டுக்குள் ஆக்கிரமித்திருக்கும் ஆணவத்தை வெளியேற்ற சாதி இருக்கும் வரை – 14 – அ. குமரேசன் சாதி ஒழிப்பை எங்கேயிருந்து தொடங்குவது? நம் மனதில் இருந்துதான். நம் மனதில் அழுத்தமாகவோ சன்னமாகவோ ஒட்டியிருக்கும் “நம்ம ஆளுக” என்ற சாதிப் பெருமையைத் துளியும்…
The post சாதி இருக்கும் வரை – 14: வீட்டுக்குள் ஆக்கிரமித்திருக்கும் ஆணவத்தை வெளியேற்ற appeared first on Book Day.
எது சரியான பாதை? எங்கிருந்து தொடங்குவது? சாதி இருக்கும் வரை – 13 – அ. குமரேசன் சாதி இயற்கையாக உருவானது, அது ஒரு சமூக அடையாளம், அதை ஒழிக்க முடியாது, ஒழிக்கத் தேவையுமில்லை, இந்தியாவின் கலாச்சாரப் பின்னணியோடும் வரலாற்றோடும் கலந்தது…
The post சாதி இருக்கும் வரை – 13: எது சரியான பாதை? எங்கிருந்து தொடங்குவது? appeared first on Book Day.
Login