The late Prof V I Subramoniam, the founder of the DRAVIDIAN LINGUISTICS ASSOCIATION and the INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF DRAVIDIAN LINGUISTICS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, requires no introduction. I have been working as a Senior Fellow in ISDL as a scholar in Anthropology and Economics, and am not a scholar in Tamil. So, I was completely taken aback when he suddenly declared that I should translate the PURANANURU, the Sangam Classic. He brushed aside my protests, and said that wherever I was deficient in Tamil, he would instruct me. I had no escape. I would translate a passage and circulate to him, for his comments and corrections. Invariably, he supported me, and encouraged me. But then, his health rapidly deteriorated and he expired in June 2009. I was left rudderless, but sought the help of Tamil scholars like Prof Naccimuttu of the JNUniversity, and Prof Gloria Sundaramathy of the Kerala University. My translation, in English Prose, has now been published by ISDL, Thiruvananthapuram. It is a substantial volume of 632 pages, with an Introduction, and several Notes, available at the ISDL Thiruvananthapuram @ Rs. 900/- per copy.
Prof Subramoniam had told me: "The Purananuru is a Classic; every time you read it, something new will strike you". I found this very very true. I place before you the following examples where my interpretation led me to take view-points very different from the conventional interpretations.
Purams 65 & 66: These are famous for their historiographical significance. They describe how, in the decisive battle of Koil Venni (circa 1st cent. BCE), Cheran Perumcheral Athan committed suicide after having suffered a wound in the back at the hands of Cholan Karikar Peruvalattan. The great historian of South India, K A Nilakantha Sasthry, commented that this was the "last disgrace that could befall a soldier on the battlefield", in expiation of which the Chera committed suicide. Ever since then, the stigma of having been a coward has besmirched the reputation of this great king and warrior. But my close reading of the Puram song brought me to a different conclusion: the Poet had declared that the battle was fought on a day when it was FULL MOON, and that the two kings were fighting face to face. The battle was far east of the traditional Chera territory, and right in the Chola heartland. So, Athan must have been advancing facing the EAST. The poet had drawn pointed attention to the fact that "the sun and the moon had faced each other; and then (THE SUN) had disappeared behind the mountains". This has been interpreted as a poetic figure, but it contains a statement of fact. Atan, facing east, had seen the moon rise over the flat horizon of the neythal land, but Karikal, facing west, would not have seen the orb of the setting sun because it was hidden behind the row of mountains to the west. Atan, knowing that it was FULL MOON that day, knew that if the moon had risen, as he could see, then the sun would have set and the day was over. The Rules of Battle and Chivalry of those times lay down that fighting should cease AT SUNSET. Atan therefore stopped the fight, and turned to go. But Karikal had not seen the sun set because his view was cut off by the mountains. He saw the sky still red, and released his spear like a javelin. It struck Athan wounding him in his back. Actually, Karikal was violating two Rules of Battle: (1) he continued the fight beyond sunset; (2) he attacked a retreating enemy ON his back. The poet finds excuses for him, though; the sun was hidden ("Malai marantanku); and he had already released his missile (mumpu kuritterinta). Far from being a "coward" as labelled by Sasthry, Athan was thus a Hero who would not compromise with the Rules of Chivalry. But unable to bear the shame of a wound in the back, he committed suicide, as befitted a Hero of his standard of Conscience.
This interpretation accords with the sense of shock and grief that the Poet conveys in Puram 65. Puram 66 composed by a Bard attached to Karikal, openly hints that he had violated a Rule of fair dealing - he contrasts the famous righteousness of Chola ancestors, with the conduct of Karikal, and suggests that Athan, though he lost the battle, was worthy of greater fame than Karikal,the winner. Sasthry had wonderingly commented on this as strange.
My interpretation explains the consternation of the Poets who composed Purams 65 and 66. I believe that it is the duty of scholars and students to make the correction of history necessary in this regard, and redress the injustice done to a RIGHTEOUS king and CONSCIENTIOUS warrior. I shall be adding to this Blog; I stop it now for fear that it has become too long.
