kvjayan wrote: ↑15 Jan 2018, 13:21
[quote=kvjayan post_id=329193 time=<a href="tel:1515997060">1515997060</a> user_id=16510]
"Meanwhile, Mr. Vairamuthu clarified that he had used the word devadasi (Servant of God) in the same positive connotation as the original authors Professors MGS Narayanan and Kesavan Veluthat did in the article ‘Bhakti Movement in South India’."
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/t ... 438395.ece
It is not clear if these Profs. are from "Indiana University" (as quoted earlier by the poet) or the "American Scholar" (as quoted by scroll.in). Perhaps the poet was misled by some left-liberal intellectuals or he thought that he can get away by tossing out some yankee connection, by way of authoritative reference.
[/quote]
Really good of kvjayan to post this. Thank you!
Watching it I felt thankful to the speaker for taking the trouble to follow the citations and bring them to us. But I did notice that he does not go over the part of the study that precedes the specific quote about Andal and I think he says that he was jumping ahead to the relevant section, which seemed reasonable. And it did seem shocking that the reference to the 1923 article by a Govinda Rao did not contain any reference to the notion of Andal being a devadasi. But it seemed a little easy and a quick jump to conclude that the authors thought they might get away with citing a study as old as 1923. I did not really think it was impossible, but you have to ignore the fact that other knowledgeable academics do know how to access old literature, plus you have to be quite the scoundrel to publish fake sources.
That was also possible, I thought, till I heard the aged gentleman, the author's interview. He stood by his work, spoke very reasonably, sounded dignified, measured, not like a scoundrel at all. And he stressed that it was a possible interpretation of the life of Andal based on the known facts.
But it was when the presenter says to us that it was not research, but
shakkadai
that he gave a clear indication of being offended at the level of religiosity. Shakkadai is a word that makes no sense in a careful academic critique, but complete sense when it is a response to your religious sentiment being violated. So I doubt that this exposé is the
whole truth. That, along with the apparent decency of the person interviewed, in conjunction with this:
"Meanwhile, Mr. Vairamuthu clarified that he had used the word devadasi (Servant of God) in the same positive connotation as the original authors Professors MGS Narayanan and Kesavan Veluthat did in the article ‘Bhakti Movement in South India’."
make me certain that there is more to this story.
Now you wonder what that positive connotation was. What was said before that offending sentence along with that dubious-seeming reference number 36? The part which the speaker reasonably skipped to stay relevant to the controversy suddenly becomes important and germane to the "discussion" if this mess can be called one. It becomes significant that the interviewer who asks all the correct questions does not seem to ask about the number 36 reference to author Govindarao of 1923. But in fact it is the YouTube video that cuts off from the interview.
My guess, but based on the more likely and simple assumption of the integrity of the researcher (Narayan?) which normally works in the regular world, is that he had expressed a more sympathetic view of the life of the original devadasi in the earlier part of the study. The kind of view expressed by an artist in the article we saw yesterday that was posted by Shankarank. If there was an expose of devadasi life in medieval India, and if it was respectful as Vairamuthu states, then that offensive line about Andal can be viewed as an INTERPRETATION of her life based on the social norms of the time: devadasis there were considered married to lord Ranganatha alone, to the exclusion of all others. The quote of researcher Govindarao (that ref num 36) would also be valid and not at all dishonest, as it is used the basis they require, to make that connection to Andal. Item 36 is not used as a quote but as a scholarly reference to a particular individual. They have put two things together: You have a social norm, you have a historical person of that period cited and described in a scholarly historical publication (not a religious source) and they interpret THAT ACCOUNT of a life as probably one of a great, devotional devadasi.
In this light, these researchers seem to have integrity, they were considering Andal with the mores of HER TIME and not ours and do not take anything away from her dignity. In fact they do us a favor - they make Andal a REAL person with incredible Bhakti instead of turning her into an quasi-mythical figure.
This DOES NOT mean that they say that she was in fact a devadasi, they offer it as an INTERPRETATION of the accounts of her life. Interpretation is never, never offered as fact.
I have no personal agenda, to me Andal"s beloved works stand tall of their own strength, the purity of mind and devotion expressed are sublime and I agree that there can be no new facts about her as there don't seem to be any further sources of that period, but I am open to interpretations and it is not sacrilege as there are no negative connotations implied (which many of you carry in your head, invalidating your sense of umbrage). Interpretations can only be rated as possible / probable, improbable based on the reasoning offered and surrounding evidence/facts available.
I don't think the researcher Narayanan is
shakkadai
.
I may write this, but I know that your emotional minds may not be able to even consider my reasoning. But this vilification of so many others ought to stop as long as we don't have full facts. The fact that is now missing is what was stated in that report about the lives of devadasis, and what light they were painted in, before the Andal reference.