The other side of E. V. Ramasamy Naicker — Part 3 (Inconsistencies on Thirukkural — 1)

This is a translation of M. Venkatesan’s book in Tamil which was also was published as a series of articles on www.tamilhindu.com. Permissions were obtained for the translation. Previous part of this series is here.

E. V. Ramasamy Nicker who had said that “Thiruvalluvar has supported Aryan propaganda. He has not cared for rationality, and in the name of imparting justice has uttered something with his religious fervor”, had also contradicted himself later. No one can match him when it comes to making contradictory statements, except himself. Do you know the contradictions he had made?

On 14–03–1948, in the third Thiuruvalluvar conference he said that

“(In Thirukural) there is no room for any irrational obscenities” and “you should realise that Thirukkural is a book book written to denounce Arya Dharma and Manu Dharma.”

On 23, 24–10–1948, he says,

“Everyone should realize that (Thiruk)Kural is a book condemning Hinduism and that it is a book of human values ​​written with the goodness of all religions”.

First, he claimed that Thirukkural was a book supporting the Arya Dharma. Then contradicting it, he has said that Thirukkural was created to condemn Arya Dharma, thus doing a flip-flop.

Second, he claimed Thirukkural was written without any consideration for rationality. And then he again contradicted himself by saying that there was no room for irrational ideas in Thirukural.

Third, he claimed that Thiruvalluvar had written using his religious fervor and yet again contradicted himself by saying that Kural was a book condemning Hinduism.

On 20–01–1929 in Kudiarasu magazine, he says,

“In his Kural one can see the deities of Indra, Brahma, Vishnu, etc., and the Aryan religious traditions and superstitions, such as rebirth, swarga, naraka, upper lokas, pirtus, devas, etc.”

Contradicting it, he claims that Thirukkural is a book condemning Hinduism.

Hence, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Ramasamy Naicker is the epitome of inconsistencies.

“What kind of literature is there that is fit for us to follow and use? They will say it is Tolkappiyam. They say that due to mistranslations. It has nothing which departs from Aryan norms or opposes Aryan teachings”.

This was his statement at the Valluvar Conference in December 1958. This was the literary research he claimed to have done!

Do you know the results of his literary research?

“In fact, we don’t have any literature. There are literatures that are admirable. But what kind of literature do we have that is of use to us and which can be followed?’’

This was the result of his literary research.

There is Sangam literature! There is ‘Purananuru’ in that literature! The song “Yaadhum Oore Yaavarum Kelir” (Every nation is our nation, everyone is our family) of Kaniyan Pungundranar is worthy of emulation. ‘Iniyavai Narpathu’, ‘Inna Narpathu‘, ‘Naladiyar’ are there! Wouldn’t he have read all these? Definitely he would have. But his aim is to denigrate Tamil ​​and Tamil people! Let us assume that we don’t have any literature as he said. Then Nicker could have at least given us a literary work! Or his comrades could have given us some literary works. If there was such a literary work, please show it to us. Why didn’t they do it? He could have given us a literary work which we can follow and which is useful. From this, we need to understand that his main agenda of was to demean Tamil. What is the role of rationalists in the growth of Tamil? These rationalists are the ones who held conferences to develop English instead of developing Tamil!

Do Muslims accept Thirukkural?

Ramsamy Naicker who said that Thirukkural is a book condemning the Hindu religion, said on 23, 24–10–1948 in Dravidar Kazhagam’s 19th Conference that

“Many of the teachings of Prophet Muhammad can be found in the Kural as-is. Nothing can be found against Muslims”

and

“No one, including Muslims and Christians, will oppose the Kural. You (Christians) are also followers of the Kural. There is nothing in Kural which is in opposition to the Bible.”

Naicker claimed that Muslims are followers of the Kural. But did the Muslims accept it? Did the Muslims respect the Thirukkural? History shows that they did not!

In December 1968, Madani wrote and published a book in Trichy. The title of the book was “What is the sacred book of Muslims? Kural? Or the Quran?”. In this book he compares the Thirukkural and the Quran. Let’s see what he has to say.

“The Holy Quran alone has such a qualification. Thirukkural does not. The Holy Quran is God’s words. Thirukkural is a human creation. Comparing both or debating in a competitive manner is a big crime which will end up with grave consequences. It is like a five-year-old boy trying to wrestle a strongman’’ (page 2)

“This is not appropriate for a Muslim” (page 3)

“We can say with confidence that those who claim Thirukkural to be a holy book are those who haven’t studied the Holy Quran” (page. 5)

‘’There is no other book in the world other than the Holy Quran which imparts morality. Muslims have an unshakable belief that there can be no other. They will believe the same until their last breath.’’ (page 6)

“How can a tainted tabloid be sacred literature? How can it be a book on living? Or a common holy book suitable for everyone, for all times? If those who consider the Holy Quran to be a shining moon think a little, they will get good clearity. Truth will be revealed.’’ (page 8)

“Thirukkural does not have the morality of the Holy Quran. The vision and path of both is different, the voice and ideology is different “ (page 23)

“Valluvar does not have an ideology, nor a goal. That is why he could not bring the people under his banner”. (page 30)

“If we compare Thirukkural to milk, we can compare the Holy Quran to water. Milk is not for everyone, nor for all occasions. Nor can it be a common food item. It is not desirable either. Water is not like that. It is useful for everyone, in all occasions.” (page 139)

Thus, in every page of this 144 page book, Thirukkural has been demeaned and the Quran glorified. The fact that Muslims will not accept the Thirukkural was hammered in when he was alive, and in a place like Trichy which was Dravida Kazhagam bastion.

In Trichy itself, it was voiced that Muslims will not accept the Thirukkural. Then how come he said that Muslims are followers of the Kural? Did he issue any condemnation for this? Has he written even a single line in Viduthalai condemning this?

Maybe he accepted what the Muslims said! It is debatable whether the Muslims accepted the Thirukkural or not. But in that book, Thirukkkural has been abused. Has Naicker or his stooge Veeramani condemned this? When the Muslims called Thirukkural a tainted tabloid, where did Ramasamy Naicker or Veeramani who claimed that Dravidar Kazhgam (D. K.) follows the principles of Thirukkual go? Why did he who said that Thirukkural was the life guide of the Dravidians, not condemn Muslims who insulted it or that book itself? Is this the service Dravidar Kazhagam did to Thirukural?

They would probably say that they never knew of this book. But Hindu Munnani had purchased these books and sent them via registered post to all the preeminent rationalists of the Dravidar Kazhagam. Even then, Veeramani, those rationalists or their Tamil scholars didn’t issue a condemnation. Is this their Tamil patronage? Are these the soldiers who claim to protect Tamil? Let us forget that they didn’t condemn it then. Do they have the courage to condemn it now? They said “ban Ramayana”. Like that, will they be prepared to say “ban Madani’s book”? Will the rationalists answer?

Since the time of Ramasamy Naicker, there have been voices calling for temple rituals to be conducted in Tamil. The D. K-ists claim that they were the ones who fought for Temple rituals to be conducted in Tamil. But those who first said that rituals should be conducted in Tamil was not Naicker or the atheists. It was the theists.

Maraimalai Adigal and the theist Tamil Nationalist movement fought for it. The D. K. has no right to claim stake, because the D. K-ists who say no to God and no to Temples have no right to say in which language rituals should be conducted in the temple!