1. Kuyil, 8 December 1959, 1; see also Tamiḻppaṇi 1950. [BACK]

2. The term aruccaṉai refers to a particular, personalized form of worship in which the (Brahman) priest recites, generally in Sanskrit, the traditional names of the deity in the presence of the devotee, who then receives its blessings. Many of Tamil’s devout demanded, however, that not just the aruccaṉai but the entire ritual of vaḻipāṭu (worship) be performed in Tamil. [BACK]

3. See also Centamiḻc Celvi 29 (1954-55): 437-44, 501-16; 44 (1969-70): 237. [BACK]

4. It is not surprising that Shaiva rather than Vaishnava reformers spearheaded the demand for tamiḻ aruccaṉai, for it is in Shaiva temples, rituals of worship, and festival processions that the doctrinal and ritual subordination of Tamil to Sanskrit, and of the social subordination of “non-Brahman” functionaries to Brahman priests, is more marked (Cutler 1987: 187-93). [BACK]

5. Centamiḻc Celvi 46 (1971-72): 159-60. [BACK]

6. See also Tamiḻaṉ Kural 1, no. 11 (1955): 12-15. [BACK]

7. Kuyil, 15 August 1948, 3-5; 9 August 1960, 10. [BACK]

8. Quoted in Government of Madras Order No. 2128 (Public Secret), 11 July 1957. See also Order No. 4330 (Public Confidential), 28 December 1956. [BACK]

9. Centamiḻc Celvi 29 (1954-55): 437-39; 43 (1968-69): 31-32. [BACK]

10. Centamiḻc Celvi 46 (1971-72): 113. [BACK]

11. MLCD 17 (1956): 407. [BACK]

12. MLCD 33 (1959): 179-81. In his memoirs, Bhaktavatsalam, who went on to be chief minister of the state from 1963 until the DMK takeover in 1967, writes, “In the worship of god, there ought to be no language hatred. If we go to Tirupati or Simhachalam in Andhra, or to Brindavan in the north, we can hear the Tiruvāymoḻi being recited there. Just because it is in Tamil, it is not hated. They do not start an agitation saying that they do not want to worship in a language they do not understand.” He went on to note, in a manner reminiscent of orthodox Indianism, that both Hindu and Indian culture show the intertwining of Sanskrit and Tamil, Aryan and Dravidian, to an extent that makes it impossible to pry them apart. The Vedas, he declared, are a fount of great wisdom, and much appreciated by everybody all over the world. “Why should we demean their greatness?” he asked (Bhaktavatsalam 1971: 246-48). [BACK]

13. MLCD 33 (1959): 181; see also Harrison 1960: 130. [BACK]

14. MLCD 33 (1959): 180. [BACK]

15. Bhaktavatsalam indeed later wrote in his memoirs that the demand for Tamil aruccaṉai was motivated less by love for Tamil than by hatred for Sanskrit. Just as there ought to be no opposition to worship being offered through Tamil if desired, by the same token there ought to be no opposition to Sanskrit as language of worship when desired. Language hatred, bad enough in any area, was especially dangerous in the domain of religion and worship, he insisted (Bhaktavatsalam 1971: 245-48). [BACK]

16. TNLAD 7 (1971): 21-22. [BACK]

17. Centamiḻc Celvi 44 (1969-70): 239; 46 (1971-72): 63. I am also indebted to Franklin Presler’s field notes here. [BACK]

18. Subsequent to the Supreme Court stay order, the government moderated its stand, declaring that the “Tamil aruccaṉai only” order had been an overzealous interpretation and that the government had only tried to establish Tamil’s legitimate place in acts of worship, with no intention of excluding Sanskrit (Presler 1987: 117-18). [BACK]

19. Centamiḻc Celvi 46 (1971-72): 112. See also Maṟavaṉ Maṭal, 7 November 1971, 9; 14 November 1971, 11; 2 January 1972, 1. [BACK]

20. Centamiḻc Celvi 46 (1971-72): 112. [BACK]

21. See also Centamiḻc Celvi 29 (1954-55): 437-39. [BACK]

22. TNLAD 7 (1971): 22. [BACK]

23. Nor was it the first time he did this. In 1897, he published a series of articles under the pure Tamil pseudonym “Murukavēḷ” (Tirumaran 1992: 139). [BACK]

24. Maraimalai Adigal’s son Tirunavukarasu remembers that if he and his brother uttered any Sanskrit words at home, they agreed to pay a penalty (M. Tirunavukarasu 1959: 324). [BACK]

25. Ņāṉapānu 3 (1915): 102, 181-84, 190-91, 197-198. See also Chidambaram Pillai 1989. [BACK]

26. Ņāṉapānu 3 (1915): 200. [BACK]

27. See also Centamiḻc Celvi 12 (1934-35): 337-39, 563-80; 15 (1937-38): 92-102, 149-55; Government of Madras Order No. 773 (Public), 27 February 1956; Order No. 2207 (Public), 22 February 1956. [BACK]

28. MLAD 5 (1957): 164. [BACK]

29. MLCD 17 (1956): 415; see also Kumaramangalam 1965: 96-97. [BACK]

30. MLAD 37 (1956): 651. [BACK]

31. MLCD 30 (1959): 34. [BACK]

32. MLAD 2 (1957): 48; 15 (1958): 606; 35 (1960): 111-13. See also Sambasivanar and Ilankumaran 1960: 104; Visswanathan 1983: 239. [BACK]

33. See also Tamiḻp Pātukāppu Nūṟṟiraṭṭu 1967. [BACK]

34. The We Tamils claimed, pace the Dravidian movement, that even within a “Dravidian” nation, Tamil speakers would remain a minority. The only solution was therefore the creation of a linguistically homogeneous Tamil-speaking nation. So enthusiastic was Adithan in his vision of Tamilizing everything that he named his party’s headquarters Tamiḻaṉ Illam, “The Home of the Tamilian” the publications unit of the party was named after Tamiḻttāy; party workers wore clothes made of cotton grown in Tamilnadu, spun by Tamil-speaking workers on looms manufactured in Tamilnadu; and so on (Kuppusami 1969: 33-34). The party eventually merged in 1967 with the DMK. For Adithan’s views on Tamil and nationalism, see his Tamiḻp Pēraracu (The Tamil empire). Published originally in 1942, it was updated and reprinted several times over the next two decades. It made a vigorous case against “North Indian” economic and political imperialism, and it called for the creation of an independent Tamilnadu comprising the Tamil-speaking areas of India and Sri Lanka (Adithanar 1965). In the Rajya Sabha, T. S. Pattabhiraman, a Congress member, declared the We Tamils to be “a virulent type of Tamilians [sic]. They say that Tamil Nad must be only for people who speak Tamil and all that” (RSD 43 [1963]: 1970). [BACK]

35. Government of Madras Order No. 2551 (Public), 15 September 1959; Order No. 1327 (Public Confidential), 19 August 1960. [BACK]

36. See also MLAD 38 (1961): 33; 5 (1967): 658. [BACK]

37. “The DMK has got nothing to do with fasting [sic]. The fasting was undertaken by a non-party man, in fact a relative of the Chief Minister of Madras, Mr. Shankaralinga Nadar” (RSD 43 [1963]: 2012). Despite this declaration by Annadurai in 1963 in the Parliament, in 1968 he reminded his colleagues in the Madras Legislative Assembly that he had visited Shankaralingam and had requested that he give up his fast (MLAD 14 [1968]: 211). Earlier, in 1956, the DMK also celebrated “Shankaralinganar Day” and invoked him as a Tamil hero in its publications (N. Subramanian 1993: 205). [BACK]

38. See also the obituary in Tīcuṭar 1, no. 24 (1956): 3-4. [BACK]

39. MLAD 14 (1968): 211. [BACK]

40. Indeed, in 1960 the Madras Corporation, now under DMK control, was Tamilized as “Ceṉṉai Mānakarāṭci,” a gesture which confirmed that party’s tamiḻppaṟṟu even as it showed up the Congress’s deficiency in this regard (Karunanidhi 1989: 369). [BACK]

41. MLAD 38 (1961): 122-27; MLCD 41 (1961): 559-60. [BACK]

42. RSD 43 (1963): 1921-2053. [BACK]

43. MLCD 55 (1964): 383-89. [BACK]

44. LSD 21 (1968): 232-61. [BACK]

45. RSD 43 (1963): 2045; MLAD 36 (1956): 170. [BACK]

46. MLAD 36 (1956): 169. [BACK]

47. RSD 43 (1963): 1972. [BACK]

48. MLCD 55 (1964): 384; MLAD 5 (1967): 656-58; RSD 43 (1963): 2005-6. [BACK]

49. RSD 43 (1963): 1979-80. [BACK]

50. MLCD 55 (1964): 388. [BACK]

51. RSD 43 (1963): 1973. [BACK]

52. MLCD 55 (1964): 388. [BACK]

53. RSD 43 (1963): 2025. [BACK]

54. MLCD 55 (1964): 387; see also RSD 43 (1963): 1975. [BACK]

55. MLAD 5 (1967): 650. [BACK]

56. RSD 43 (1963): 1936. [BACK]

57. RSD 43 (1963): 1969. [BACK]

58. RSD 43 (1963): 2023, emphasis mine. [BACK]

59. RSD 43 (1963): 2043. [BACK]

60. RSD 43 (1963): 2011-7. [BACK]

61. MLAD 5 (1967): 656. [BACK]

62. MLAD 37 (1956): 633, 636-38. [BACK]

63. MLCD 10 (1955): 757. [BACK]

64. References to Tamiḻttāy may be found in MLAD 37 (1956): 619, 622, 638, 639-41, 643-44, 647, 651, 656; MLCD 17 (1956): 393-94, 397, 402, 407, 422. [BACK]

65. MLAD 37 (1956): 619-20, 656-57. [BACK]

66. MLAD 37 (1956): 618; MLCD 17 (1956): 394. [BACK]

67. MLAD 37 (1956): 631-32. [BACK]

68. MLAD 37 (1956): 619. [BACK]

69. MLAD 37 (1956): 639. [BACK]

70. MLCD 10 (1955): 757; 22 (1957): 336-7; It was not until January 1968 that a time limit of five years was set for the complete Tamilization of government. [BACK]

71. MLAD 5 (1957): 162. [BACK]

72. In November 1957, one government report claimed that there were only forty Tamil typewriters available for official use, as opposed to more than four thousand English typewriters (Government of Madras Order No. 1027 [Public], 31 March 1958). [BACK]

73. MLCD 22 (1957): 336-37; MLAD 28 (1960): 608-12. [BACK]

74. MLAD 37 (1956): 620-22. [BACK]

75. The collector of Tiruchirapalli district wrote to the government in 1952, “Regarding the experiment of conducting the official proceeding and correspondence in the regional language in this district, I submit that on the whole the system cannot be said to be working satisfactorily. Much difficulty is experienced in writing drafts in Tamil in the absence of appropriate terms in Tamil. Further, a draft in Tamil does not always convey the spirit of the expressions correctly and in full, which may involve even legal complications in the long run” (Government of Madras Order No. 2225 [Public], 12 September 1952). See also MLAD 31 (1956): 460-61. [BACK]

76. MLAD 11 (1939): 609. [BACK]

77. MLAD 11 (1939): 542, 597-617, 804-8; 23 (1955): 633-35. [BACK]

78. MLAD 37 (1956): 625, 647; MLCD 33 (1959): 12-13. [BACK]

79. MLAD 37 (1956): 629, 631, 656; 5 (1957): 163; MLCD 17 (1956): 394; 30 (1959): 30. [BACK]

80. MLAD 16 (1958): 396. [BACK]

81. MLAD 37 (1956): 622-23; see also MLCD 30 (1959): 23-27. [BACK]

83. MLCD 33 (1959): 13. [BACK]

84. TNLAD 30 (1970): 561-63. [BACK]

85. MLCD 49 (1963): 217. [BACK]

86. MLCD 49 (1963): 199. [BACK]

87. Government of Madras Order No. 911 (Education), 21 April 1938. [BACK]

88. Government of Madras Order No. 1343 (Education and Public Health), 14 June 1938. [BACK]

89. Government sources conceded that on 26 January alone, more than two thousand were taken into custody, of whom thirty-two were DMK legislators; police opened fire in at least thirty-six places and 50 were killed, 130 wounded (MLAD 28 [1965] 90-92; MLCD 63 [1965] 87-89). DMK sources give larger numbers for the dead and the wounded. [BACK]

90. India Today, 31 March 1992, 92; Aside, 15 May 1993, 23-25; The Week, 25 July 1993, 25-26. [BACK]

91. Intippōr Muracu 1985. [BACK]

92. See also the interview in Poṉṉi (Ponḳal Malar) 1951: 36-41. [BACK]

93. Intippōr Muracu 1985: 34-36. [BACK]

94. Maraimalai Adigal thus noted in his diary: “My son Tirunavukarasu has been sent to prison for six months for-speaking out against Hindi in order to protect Tamiḻttāy. May Shiva punish all those who harm Tamil” (M. Tirunavukarasu and Venkatachalapathy 1988: 83). [BACK]

95. Centamiḻc Celvi 17 (1939-40): 55; see also 16 (1938-39): 407-16; 18 (1940-41): 191-92. [BACK]