Wednesday, January 24, 2018

ஆண்டாள் சர்ச்சை பற்றி

ஒரு இணைய ஆங்கில சஞ்சிகையின் கட்டுரைக்கு என் பதில்

The book quoted by Vairamuthu, " Indian Movements: Some Aspects of Dissent Protest and Reform", edited by S.C. Malik. was thoroughly debunked in the respected anthropological magazine 'Man' Man, New Series, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Jun., 1980), pp. 398-399 – published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland "The book contains no sociological studies based on first hand knowledge of any Indian social... ..Many of the papers indulge in good deal of unsubstantiated speculation...". Vairamuthu is no academic and his first foray in to academic reference is an utter disaster. The article by Narayanan and Kesavan was shoddy ; it thinks Andal was a devadasi based on a 1927 book by T.A.Gopinath Rao page 5. That page or anywhere in the book makes no such claim . It shows how shoddy Indian scholarship on India is. The issue with Vairamuthu was not that he relied on tendentious sources , but he said it on the birthday of Andal, in her birth place in front of a traditional, orthodox crowd. If he had said it in some Dravidar Kazhagam meetinng, where wild speculation is the norm , nobody would have objected. In spite of expressing 'sadness' Vairamuthu has not understood where lies the rub. i.e. talking wrong things to wrong audience at wrong place.

ஒரு நுணிப்புல் மேயும், தன்னை `கவிப்பேரரசு` என நினைத்துக் கொள்ளும் அற்ப சினிமா பாடல் எழுத்தாளரை  `அறிவுஜீவி` யாக பாவித்தால் இப்படிப்பட்ட சங்கடங்கள்தான் வரும். பாத்திரம் அறிந்து பிச்சையிடு .  

No comments: