தமிழர் சமயம்

13. G.U. POPE 13.1. COLONIAL ATTEMPT TO CHRISTINAISE TIRUKKUṚAḶby R. Nagaswamy

Pope was born in 14th April 1820, to a Scottish merchant. He was a born scholar, with his mind set on learning languages but embraced the profession of a Christian missionary whose life work was to convert people to sectrarian Christianity. He came to Madras in 1840, by ship to do missionary activity of conversion and thourghout his life his primary concern was that profession. He soon realized that his knowledge of local language was essential to convert people and so started learning Tamiḻ. His love of Tamiḻ was born out of this compulsion and not because of his love of Tamiḻ which was only a tool of conversion. Soon he was sent to Sawerpuram in Thirunelveli district, where he started to convert people to Christianity. A sketch of his life published by the Śaiva Siddhānta Publishing Society which glorifies him as the embodiment of Tamiḻ studies. Any reader of his introduction to translation of Kuṟaḷ would see how he was mainly responsible for twisting Tamiḻ studies by declaring Thiruvaḷḷuvar was a Christian. The Śaiva Siddhānta publication society which published his work in 1978, has supported his disservice to Tamiḻ. Pope first work was Christava-tattva-deepika, Nannūl, Nālaṭiyār, Thiruvācakam, Purapparuḷ vembamālai, etc., cannot be understood or translated without a knowledge of Sanskrit.

Pope tried to kindle in the hearts of the Tamiḻians, a love of the noble language. His zeal for the Tamiḻ can be gathered from the following words from his preface to his Thiruvācakam the speech of a dying people may perhaps may be allowed to die. But this cannot be said of the Tamiḻ race. “Heaven forbid - Let the Tamiḻians ceased to be ashamed of their vernacular (Pope in the life of G.U. Pope - Kazagam publications P-VII)”. This was written by Pope towards the end of his life when he was getting needy to publish his Thiruvācakam. This version is unacceptable, because it was the time when two great Tamiḻ scholar Dr.U.Ve. Swaminatha Iyer and Arumuga Navalar of Yazhpanam, besides Ramalinga Vallalar and others were active in bringing out excellent works in Tamiḻ who was ashamed of Tamiḻ as claimed by Pope in 1900, he wrote. “This is to show that men must understand systems they attack them and that missionaries especially much to learn in regard to such Indian religion and my book will enable all Europeans who desire it to acquire this knowledge. (P-XXI)”. It seems clear that Pope in his own words, his writings were addressed to Europeans, especially the missionary to attack the Indian religions for which he made several attempts like calling Vaḷḷuvar a christian 1887. This was kindling Tamiḻ chauanism. While Pope appealed to what he called “Tamiḻ race” - a deliberate choice to wean them away from their parent. One can imagine when such is the approach of the author to attack native language, and religion, what kind of translations one can expect from such a person, especially the text like Tirukkuṟaḷ, Thiruvācakam, Naṉṉūl, etc., His translations in many places are either deliberately twisted or imperfect. So the claim that Pope did glorious service is to be viewed in this direction.


“East and West have influenced one another in a very real and not yet thoroughly understood way from the earliest times. It is undoubtedly a noteworthy fact that from this Mylapore on which eyes of Christendom have ever rested as the one sacred spot in India of Apostolic labour, comes the one oriental book, much of whose teaching is an echo of the ‘Sermon on the Mount’.

The name Kuṟaḷ is given par excellence to this the poet's great and only work; which consists of 133 chapters, each containing 10 couplets and thus numbers 2,660 lines.

Kuṟaḷ means ‘anything short’ and is properly the name of the couplet, as begin the shortest species of stanza in the Tamiḻ language.

Thiruvaḷḷuvar's poem is thus by no means a long one; though in value it far outs the whole of the remaining Tamiḻ literature and is one of the select great works which have entered into the very soul of which can never die. According to a custom not unknown in Europe a series of verses (most of them very modern) bearing the names of all the great Tamiḻ poets is prefixed to the Kuṟaḷ under the name of ‘The Garland of Tiruvaḷḷuvar’ and the subject of his excellence with every variety of hyperbole.

Several of those are neat. One by Paranar says that as Vishnu when he appeared as Vāmana (Kuṟaḷ means dwarf also) or the dwarf measure with two steps heaven and earth so with the two lines of his diminutive Veṇpā-footed Kuṟaḷ verse has Tiruvaḷḷuvar measured the Universe.
மாலுங் குறளாய் வளர்ந்திரண்டு மாணடியான்
ஞால முழுது நயந்தளந்தான்; வாலறிவன்
வள்ளுவருந் தங்குறள்வெண்பா வடியால் வையத்தார்
உள்ளுவ வெல்லாம் அளந்தார் ஓர்ந்து.
Complete in itself the sole work of its author, it has come down the stream of ages absolutely uninjured - hardly a single various reading of any importance being found - and every rival sect in the Tamiḻ country claims the Kuṟaḷ as its own and has furnished it with commentary and critical apparatus accordingly.

Tradition declares that Tiruvaḷḷuvar composed his Kuṟaḷ at the request of his neighbors in order that the Tamiḻ People might have a Vedam of their own; and it was doubtless intended to become the abiding authority on all ethical subjects for the Tamiḻ country. The author must have already possessed a great reputation, or this request would not have been made; yet there are no traces of any other writings of his.

The Kuṟaḷ when finished is said to have been taken by its author to Madura where there was a college of learned Tamiḻ scholars, supposed to have been founded in the days of Vamca Cekhara an ancient king of the Pandya kingdom. In this college Śiva himself had condemned to appear as forty-ninth professor, especially devoting himself to the exposition of the Tamiḻ language. The god also bestowed on the college a sacred bench of solid diamond, on which no one could sit who was not at fault as scholar. Lists are given of the forty-eight members of this academy but there are no genuine remains of their writings. The result of the appearance of Tiruvaḷḷuvar is variously stated. The general idea is that the high-caste assembly would not permit him to take his seat on the bench with learned pundits on account of his want of caste; but that meekly acquiescing in his own exclusion be simply requested permission to lay his book on the end of the seat. On this being granted the book was placed where the poet should have been seated, and the Lotus-tank. This story is obviously inconsistent with the idea which is usually prevalent that the president was Kapilar, himself a Pariah, and a brother of Thiruvaḷḷuvar.

The truth seems to be that the Madura school of Tamil Literature now too full of Sanskrit influences, was supreme till the advent of the ‘St. Thome poet’, whose fame at once eclipsed that of the southern sages.

There are no data whatever which may enable us to fix with precision the period at which our poet flourished. I think between A.D 800 and 1000 is its probable date. The style is not archaic - far less so than that of the Civaga Chintamani. Remembering that this author was not fettered by caste prejudices, that his greatest friend was a sea-captain that he lived at St. Thome, that he was evidently an ‘eclictic’ that Christian influences were at the time at work in the neighbourhood, and that many passages are strikingly Christian in their spirit, I cannot feel any hesitation in saying that the Christian scriptures were among the sources from which the poet derived his inspiration.” (Pope has not cited one single Kural reflecting Christian thought)

Dr.Graul, a devoted student of Tamiḻ Literatue, published an edition in Leipzig and in London in 1856 with German and Latin translations. It is very valuable, though incomplete owing to his lamented death and has serious misprints.

The purely native editions issued under the editorship of the late learned Pandit Saravanaperumal aiyar of Madras are very correct and valuable.

Twelve native commentators have illustrated by verbal commentaries the whole text but the student will do well to disregard the meanings read into the verses by persons native or Europeans who are anxious to prove that the Tamiḻ sage taught their own favourite dogmas. (—Pope)

Vaḷḷuvar as generally very simple and his commentaries very profound. Thus Pope dismisses all the native commentaries and his alone as true. As against see his own statement that he is not giving a true translation.

“In regard to the philosophico-theological system taught in the Kuṟaḷ various opinions have naturally been held. Every Hindu sect claims the great poet, and strives to interpret his verses so as to favour its own dogmas. Something on these subjects will be found in the notes to each chapter. The Jains especially consider him their own, and he has certainly used several of their technical terms, and seems to have been cognizant of the latest developments of that system.

There is one couplet, however, that is destructive of the idea that Tiruvaḷḷuvar was a Jain. In the Ch.III., fourth couplet, a story regarding Indra is referred to as proving that ascetics have power over the gods. The sage was Gautama, who cursed Indra for deceiving the sage's wife, Ahalya. Now according to Jain ideas, a sage could have no wife, nor could he feel the emotion of anger, nor had he the power to inflict punishment. A Jain would not believe the story, and could scarcely use it as the author of the Kuṟaḷ has done. But in as far as it is Oriental Thiruvaḷḷuvar's teaching is just such as the study of Hinduism, in light of Śaṅkara's reforms, combined with that of the Jain system in its later developments and of the Bhagavad gita, might have produced.”

“There is no trace in the Kuṟaḷ of many things, systems, doctrine, and practices, current in South India at different periods, because, I suppose they had been eliminated form the sage's own eclectic system of faith and practice and because his work is didactic and not controversial.” (—Pope) (This is statement arising out of Tamiḻ customs and manners. Many of them are based on Dharma Śāstras and are practiced to this day even 200 years after Pope.

What philosophy he teaches seems to be of the eclectic school as represented by the Bhagavad gita.

‘Of Bhakti-that compound of, the introduction of which into India I still think (with Weber) is mainly due to the influence of Christianity - the first chapter of the Kural is beautiful exposition.’

“The Kural owes much of its popularity to its exquisite poetic form striking idea expressed in a refined and intricate metre. No translation can convey an idea of its charming effect. It is truly an apple of gold in a network of silver. Something of the same kind is found in the Greek epigrams in Martial and the Latin elegiac verse. There is a beauty in the periodic character of the Tamiḻ construction in many of these verses that reminds the reader of the happiest efforts of Propertius. Probably the Tamiḻ sage adopted it as being the best representative in Tamiḻ of the Sanskrit sloka.”

The brevity rendered necessary by the form gives an oracular effect to the utterances of the great Tamiḻ ‘Master of the Sentences’. They are the choicest of moral epigrams.

The selection of the most difficult metre in the language - one permitting no deviations from strict rule and requiring such wonderful condensation - for a long work showed that the author intended to expend upon it his utmost of power and to make it a ‘possession for ever’ a delight of many generations.

The laws of the Veṇpā metre in which the Kuṟaḷ is composed are very curious and in fact unique in prosody. They will be explained farther on; but the student of Tamiḻ is referred to my Third Tamil Grammar sublimioris Tamuliccci idiomatis, by the great Beschi, the whole subject of Tamiḻ Poetry is discussed. The late lamented Dr.A.C.Burnell, M.C.S, (among his very many benefactions to ôiental learning), issued a reprint of this valuable, which is most faithful to its native sources, the best of which are printed in my Third Grammar.

The following is an analysis of the whole Kuṟaḷ as given in the commentary of Parimēlaḻakar.

It is divided into three books treating of virtue, wealth and pleasure. The Naṉṉūl, as standard Tamiḻ Grammar of much later date has the rule.

The benefit derived from a treatise must be the attaining to virtue, wealth, enjoyment, heaven (Delivarance). In the 26th sloka of the Hitopadesa the same enumeration is given:धर्मार्थ काम मोक्षाणाम्
Our author treated of only three of these. Did he leave his work incomplete? or did he refrain from any exposition of Vīṭu or Mokṣa because he resolved to take only the practical view of things? I suppose he was not satisfied with the glimpses he had obtained of man's future and waited for light; or perhaps, he thought his people not prepared for higher teaching. Ch.XXXV- XXXVII gives us his nearest approach to the subject.” (—Pope)

13.2. A REFUTATION OF POPE

“There is no date whatever which may enable us to fix with precision the period at which our poet flourished. I think between A.D.800 to 1000 is its probable date.

(Reason) The style is not archive far less so than that of the ‘Chivaga Chintamani’. Remembering that its father is not fettered by caste prejudice, that his greatest friend was a sea captain that lived at St. Thome, that was evidently “an ecliptic” that Christian influences were at that time in the neighborhood and that many passages are strikingly Christian in spirit and cannot feel any hesitation in saying that the Christian scriptures were among the sources from which the poet derived his inspiration.” (— Pope)

We have no hesitation to mention this date assigned to Vaḷḷuvar by G.U.Pope is absolutely absurd. 800 to 900 were the period of the Pallavas, under whom Mylapore flourished and the 10th to 11th was the Chōḻas under whom the region was ruled. There are several citations of Kuṟaḷ long before this period and Pope's dating is far off the mark, and so all he states as background to Kuṟaḷ is not valid.

Lazzarus was more objective and beyond citing the age of Ugraperuvaḻuti Pāṇḍya,in whose time it was composed. Lazzarus confined himself to the information provided by the tradition and did no attempt to inject his own date as done by Pope. Pope puts it later than Cintamani.

It is therefore evident, Pope's dating of Kuṟaḷ would itself negate the Christian source of Kuṟaḷ.

Second point the parentage of Vaḷḷuvar given by these two writers Lazzarus and G.U.Pope. Lazzarus says ‘All accounts concede that in representing him as an offspring of a Brahman and a Pariah woman. He is said to have been brought up by a Veḷḷāla's wife having found in a grove exposed in a Iluppai grove in her neighborhood. We are told that while yet a youth he had acquired so higher reputation for learning and authority that Margasagayan, a wealthy farmer who lived at Kaverippakkam. in remuneration of service rendered to him, did not disdain him to bestow the hand of his only daughter named Vasuki; and besides the highest personage in the place felt a pride on the enjoyment of his friendship’. (page 3, Lazzarus) (Pope P.X.)

Jñāna Sambandar had a companion, ‘Tiru Nīlakaṇta Yāḻpāṇar’, who was a Bāna an outcaste, he was taken by Sambandar to Śiva Temples everywhere. Once he was given a place near an altar to stay for the night. Nandan was an outcaste who visited Chidambaram, he was welcomed by the Dik****ars of Chidambaram by calling “aiyyarē varuka”.

This clearly shows that then Hindu society did not prohibit or downgrade the upward or downward movement of the caste. A Brāhmin getting a child through a Pariah woman, and a Veḷḷāḷa knowing well this back ground bringing up the child, and no bar in the learning and a wealthy farmer giving his only daughter to this youth of brilliance and also giving him a place among the list of his friends were not prohibited by the society. The honor permitted by G.U.Pope about his upbringing, marriage etc., and that only Christianity redeemed him is an absurd claim.

“It is strange that the place of birth of this poet and his work are without a name. The author himself is commonly is known as Tiruvaḷḷuva Nāyanmār (the sacred devotee priest or soothsayer of the Pariah community caste). Tradition says he was a weaver and of those who are referred as a refuse of all castes the pariah tribe their priests, sooth sayers and teachers, prophets are styled Vaḷḷuvar, but he does not write as a priest and it would be impossible to gain from his writings any idea of temple in which he lit the sacred lamp and presented the offerings of his people.” (Pope — preface i and ii)

This is a statement of Pope, first to dissociate Vaḷḷuvar from any Hindu temple. If he was a weaver he could not have been regarded as the refuse of all the castes, the ‘Pariah tribe’. Weavers were called ‘Mudaliyār’ in Tamiḻnādu, meaning heads or traders of palace house hold. The commanders were also called Mudalis for example the foremost commander of the Vishnu temple is Senai 'Mudaliyār'. Similar term of Nāyanār also stands for trader. The head of the family is called Nāyanār. The Telugu call their father of the family - as Nāyana. A 17th century Tamiḻ text by Velli-ambala-vana-tambiran refers to Tiruvaḷḷuvar as the head of a Śaiva Sanātanam religious group — who were considered siddhas like Tirumūlar, Śivavākyar and others called Santana kuravar who were highly respected.

Lazzarus, one year earlier to Pope, recorded that Vaḷḷuvar was born of a mixed caste of a Brāhmaṇa male and a Pariah woman, Pope's account is self contradictory.

The very fact he was brought up by a farmer and he was foremost in learning and that Margasagayam, a rich farmer gave his only daughter in marriage to Valluvar and he was a friend of the rich friends of the farmer's society of his time who did not treat him as outcaste and in any manner derogatory to his position, is definite that Pope was driving a wedge between Vaḷḷuvar and Hindu community to convert him to Christianity.

It is also necessary to record the Vedic tradition has a popular hymn called Śatarudrīya which is recited to this day by all the Brāhmaṇas. It lists more than 120 different professions among men in the society some of whom we may call the out-caste. It would show that the caste system is essentially profession oriented. The hymn is a set of salutations to all these professionals among which may be mentioned two, one says salutations to the player of battle drum. Namo dundubhaya; the other one prahita is salutations to the drummer (prahitāyaca namaḥ) dundubhyāya ca is the sooth sayer. prahita is the most welcome announcer of news and regulations in villages by beating the drum. India is a land of villages and in rural areas the announcer played a crucial role in spreading news of the country among the people so he was called pracuta an announcer Paraiaḥ to say. The modern word Paraiah is spoken form of ancient word Prahita the Veda says, I salute the Paraiḥ who is of the people. In the great temple of Tanjore, built by Rājarāja Cōḻa, the main announcer of festivals beginning with flag hoisting was pariaḥ. In temple festival, the first worship is to a Paraiḥ as the player of drum bheri tāḍana the word Parai is also connected with the word bheri — para.
It is not correct to say that Paraiḥ was degrading. There is an episode connected with the temple of Perur near Coimbatore. The Śiva is called “Nāda Paraiaḥ” here Śiva is himself is called Paraiaḥ. So Pope's description of the caste of Vaḷḷuvar is not based any historical analysis but mainly with the motive to inject his similar aim of isolating the section of Hindus to propagate his conversion to his sectarian Christian faith; it is evident from his following writing.

“It is strange that the name by which the greatest poet of South India is known as indicating an origin, most degrading and contemptuous in the eyes of multitude of whom he has been for ten centuries the ‘ordeal’.”

This statement of Pope is a mischievous propaganda. He has said earlier that Vaḷḷuvar was a weaver by caste. A weaver's profession was never a degrading profession. If he was a Pariaḥ ‘he was a friend of all’ which was not a degrading profession he also has said earlier ‘traditions says he was a weaver’. If this is the only source available to him what he has said about Paraiḥ is absolutely rubbish. This is taken as history that he was a son of a Brāhmaṇa and woman of Paraiaḥ caste, was not a prohibited event, according to the Dharma Śāstra. The very fact that he was brought up by a farmer, also who gave his daughter in marriage to him extolled his system of Pattini in her, shows Hindu system has not degraded him but has adored him as God incarnate, Nāyanār. The Hindus did not wait for Christian Pope to raise his status. All that is achieved by Pope's writing is hatred or enemity between one section and other. We have seen that the work of Rev.Lazzarus published one year before Pope's work is dignified and respectful. Pope's writing deserves nothing but contempt.

“The last indeed has become the first. A wild and utterly incredible tradition assigns him a Brāhmin father and a no-caste mother and represents the Poetess Avvai (an old woman) (her name too is unknown) as his sister and several other poets of whom some fragments remains were his brothers” (p. ii). All that was certainly known is that he was a paraiaḥ and weaver, lived at St. Thome, or Mylapore now a suburb of Madras and had an intimate friend probably a patron, called Elala-Singan, who was the captain of a small vessel.

Please follow this story of Pope. Pope dwells with Mylapore and venomously brings the St. Thome which he introduces to bring in the Christian source of Tirukkuṟaḷ.

“I may be pardoned for dwelling on my recollections of this interesting spot (Mylapore) since in 1840 my missionary life began there and while villages around the enthusiasm of the great Tamiḻ Poet was kindled, which has been an important factor, in life. Pope gives an interesting account of Mylapore. He calls it the ‘Town of Pea****’ indicating a place of groves and gardens around old temples (quite a number of these temples like, Kapālīśvara, Vaḷḷīśvara, Kēśavap-Perumāl, Mādhavap-Perumal, Virūpākṣa and others are still under worship) He also refers to the big tank with belt of coconut, Palm and repine trees with leaf covered native houses, in any one of which the poet might have lived”.

The sea shore is close yet where Elala singam's (p. ii) descendent (much degraded after) dwelt there yet. The poet could hear the boons of the surf waves and pondered over doubt often calls her the shore of gruesome waves.

A higher interest is imparted to the spot and the neighborhood to Christians, by the tradition(so long and highly discredited) but now generally acknowledged to be authentic, St.Thomas preached and here met his death by the spear the poet often speaks about and buried Mylapore is known to us better known as San Thome, in this neighborhood commonly existed from earliest times. Here are five Armenian and Portuguese churches and a Christian inscription of the 5th century. Here Paurtenanus preached Alexanderian's thoughts and we are quite warranted in imagining that Thiruvaḷḷuvar, the thoughtful poet to which the leading of the Jains was as familiar to every sect of Hindu sect.

Having injected his venomous wedge between Vaḷḷuvar's caste and admittedly utter imagining, fictitious account of Vaḷḷuvar listening to Christian sermon-according to his own account, Pope continues his myth of Vaḷḷuvar being a Christain.

Having questioned the parentage of Vaḷḷuvar as given by the tradition, he refers to a tradition which he swears as history about the myth of St. Thomas preaching here.

Pope cites orgermans artecate work - ‘Kirothe Thomas- Thomas Christians’. He does not give any publication particulars. This may be seen with statement that this account was purely and was discredited and rejected before his time. Thus Pope's accountwhich he brings in St. Thomas is not history but his imaginary invention.

As against this we may cite the writing of Rev. Lazzarus, who wrote about one year earlier, makes no mention of Christianity in the neighbour-hood, St.Thomas birth, preaching and death through spear etc, Lazzarus asserts that beyond the native traditional account as told, no information is available about the life of Valluvar as told in the following lines.

“Having given the traditional account nothing further is known of Valluvar which can be relied upon”.Lazzaurus account gives no account like to Pope's account.

Pope is aware of Lazzarus and as such no historian worth the name can consider Pope's writing as history.There is no evidence where this information was found originally, who discarded and highly discredited it and now who have acknowledged “it authentic”.

These are the main points which Pope imports from his fertile imagination. This is the centre of St. Thomas myth. (Pope is aware of Lazzarus writing but brushes aside Lazzarus's work not seen by him. Obviously Lazarus account must have posed him a serious challenge to his bluff and so simply brush aside as not seen).

We may see how Pope proceeds “We are quite warranted in imagining Tiruvaḷḷuvar the thoughtful poet, the eclectic to which of the Jains was as familiar as that of every Hindu sect, who was not himself hindered by any caste prejudices with familiarintercourse of with foreigners, whose one thought was to gather knowledge from every source, whose friend the sea captain would bring of every stranger arrival coming from Ceylon perhaps in his own thony we may fairly say picture him, pacing along the sea shore with the Christian teachers and imbibing Christian ideas tinged with the peculiarities of the Alexandrian school and day by day working them into his own wonderful Kuṟaḻ”.

According to his own admission all these are his imagination and not history (p.iii) Pope is a clever interpolator of his myth as history. Any historian would throw this claim into gutter.

“Whatever may be thought of these characteristic traditions, it is the singular glory of the poet to have drawn this picture of the perfect householder; and it speaks loudly in favour of the Tamiḻ race that these couplets are enshrined in the hearts of the whole people. Dynastic changes, Muhammadan raids, and irruptions of alien races, through a dozen centuries have changed many things in the south;
'Old times are changed, old manners gone,
and strangers fill the Pandyan throne'
But the Tamiḻ race preserves many of its old virtues, and has the promise of a noble future. Their English friends, in teaching them all that the West has to impart, will find little to unteach in the moral lessons of the Kuṟaḷ rightly understood. Sir A.Grant says: ‘Humility, charity and forgiveness of injuries, being Christain qualities are not described by Aristotle’. Now these three are everywhere forcibly inculcated by the Tamiḻ moralist. These are the themes of his finest verses.

So far, then, we may call thisTamiḻ Poet Christian; and to understand him, to free him from mistaken glosses, to teach his works, to correct their teaching where it is misleading, and to supplement it where it is defective, would seem to be the duty of all who are friends of the race that glories in the possession of this poetical masterpiece. Sir A. Grant Moral Philosophy’, says truly; It is obvious that such a code as this precisely what I claim for the Tamil-speaking people, and on the same ground. We shall not do all the good we might do among them till we more unreservedly recognize this.

No doubt many couplets in this remarkable work say more to us than they did to those for whom they were written. Many of these epigrammatic masterpieces have a profound significance, of which their author himself was hardly conscious. Their resemblance to the gnomic poetry of Greece is remarkable as to their subjects their sentiments, and the state of society when they were uttered.

Something must be said regarding the Third Book on ‘Love’.

Of this Mr.Drew said that 'it could not be translated into any European Language without exposing the translator to infamy.' But this is only true in regard to certain of the commentaries upon it, which are simply detestable. I am persuaded that it is perfectly pure in its tendency and in the intention of its wise and high-souled composer. Its title is Kāmattupal the division which treats of Kama' and this means Lust or Love." Every temple festival begins with ‘beating the drum’ called ‘Bheri tāḍana’ in which the drummer is given new clothes, garland with flowers and is first as ‘divine announcer’ and asked toinaugurate and announce the festival. He plays thus the lead role.

Śaiva saints like Appar (a high caste farmer) declares that even the Pulaya who skins the dead cow is God we worship if he is a devotee of Śiva. If Christianity gives a place to Pulayas equal status if only they become Christians. One can reach equality only if he gets converted. Even here there were differences. In the 18th-19th century, when the white men converted locals- blacks into Christianity in the churches to the whites did not treat the black Christians on par with them in churches and kept them separately. This led in course of times rebellion in churches and after lot of conflict they were allowed equality at Pondicherry. It is documented in Ananda Rangan Pillai dairies, as an eye witness account- this was because of racial and superiority they were treated like in their soil. Pope could not have been unaware all this happenings at Pondicherry and when he wrote disparagingly about - Hindus as evils and glorified Christianity he was not honest to his mission. Its such a racial outlook could create outcaste, within a span of one hundred years in Pondichery one can imagine divisions among different classes of people that have lived here for thousands of years. So Pope's description of Hindu society was through his jaundiced eyes than reality.

I shall show in the sequence that Valluvar believed fully in Varnāshrama dharma castes. Pope has openly displayed his prejudice because of white men's superiority but also paid missionary activity. The statement of Pope about Valluvar as 'He does not write as a priest and it would be impossible from his writings any idea of the temple in which he lit the sacred lamp and presented theofferings of his people. It is strange by which the greatest poet of South India is known, should be one indicating and origin, most degrading and condemned in the eyes of the vast multitude of whom he has been for ten centuries the oracle is totally distorted.”

It is an attempt by Pope to divide. Valluvar and Hindus, as against the way in which Vaḷḷuvar's work is cited in other literary text through the centuries for the past 2000 years, especially before the colonial rule, would show that the Hindu society did not treat Vaḷḷuvar as mischievously described by Pope.

Pope says Vaḷḷuvar was despised by the Hindu society. Please see the poem 361 of Puranānūru, where in a patron king is making gift. He gifts to learned Brāhmaṇa and performing Vedic sacrifice. The Poem list a number of people he gifted, the soldiers who fought for the country with motherly affection and other men and women singing his praise, presented gift those who saluted him and to the Padini (virali) dancer and her companion (pāṇan) golden lotus flower. He did not differentiate Brāhmaṇas from Pāṇan and Padini. Pāṇa are considered as outcaste. This poem belongs to the same age of Vaḷḷuvar. One should not forget that Vaḷḷuvar belonged to this age and the claim of Pope is imaginary and not substantiated by any fact.

Finally the Elela Singa belongs to the 1st Century BCE and if Vaḷḷuvar belonged to 800 to 900 CE, as held by Pope, how Vaḷḷuvar could have learnt, Christianity from Elala Singa. That is the finest joke of Pope.