[Fegasderty]

Veerapandiya Kattabomman a villain !

Oh, for heaven's sake.

If Kattabomman was so hated, why are there so many folk songs - all written well after his death - celebrating his name? Why does the Kaliyuga Perunkappiyam - written many years after his death - celebrate him as an incarnation of Murugan, born to cleanse the earth of the pollution of the kali yuga? Why does Virapandiya Kattabommu Kataippadal sing of him as a just king, who ruled a prosperous and rich country? Why does the Kattapommu Petti Viruttam exult in his dealing with Jackson during that famous interview? Why did the Englishman HR Pate, writing in the early 20th century, speak of how Kattabomman's name was still such a revered one in Tirunelveli?

For that matter, if Kattabomman was such a hated villain, why did the British have to go to the extent of hanging his brothers, extinguishing his heirs, exiling every one of his relatives and forbidding their return for eighty years, demolishing his fortress and even sowing the soil of Panchalamkurinchi with castor seeds to ensure that it never rose again? Does that sound like what you'd do to a hated villain, or does it sound like what you'd do to prevent the folk rising to the memory of a beloved leader? For heaven's sake, the folk legends even said that the British hacked Kattabomman's body to prevent it coming to life again and that they took away the earth from Panjalamkurinchi to prevent the people recovering the heroism that flowed in it. Does *that* sound like a legend of a hated figure?

Are you really sure you understand the nature of the poligar reign? Tamil Nadu in the 18th century was NOT feudal, however the British might have tried to interpret it. Are you sure you understand the REAL nature of the obligation and the relationship, as it was seen by the parties, and aren't interpreting it through the lens of European feudalism, as the British did?

And are you sure you understand Tamil culture as it then was? The British launched a very successful campaign to transform Tamil attitudes after the Poligar wars. One of the things they tried hardest to eliminate was Tamil militarism - largely so that they would have a more readily subjugable nation. So are you sure you really understand what the folk songs which sing of how he burned fields and stole cattle are saying? Have you read the way the Purananuru praises kings for doing precisely this? Has it occured to you that these songs might be *praise*, rather than condemnation, because it was of such stuff that Tamil heroes were made in the 18th century? That a strong king was *expected* to be cruel to enemies? That the basis for kingship rested in the way kings protected their subjects, and that therefore a strong hero was *expected* to torment the subjects of his enemies? Are you sure that your analysis of Kattabomman isn't based on viewing 18th Tamil culture through modern eyes?

And yes, I know what scholars like M. Arunachalam and N. Subramaniam have said about Kattabomman. My questions still stand. What on earth did Arunachalam mean by the "law of the land" which he accused Kattabomman of disregarding? An 18th century Poligar equivalent of the modern notion of "the rule of law"? Oh, please - I suppose it's too much to expect historical knowledge of a literary scholar, no matter how high his accomplishments in that arena. And N. Subramaniam accuses journalists and national romanticists of having spun the tale out of empty air, conveniently glossing over the many folk songs about Kattabomman that date back to a century before the first national romanticist had even heard of him.

No, Kattabomman wasn't an angel. By today's standards, he wasn't even a just king. But you don't judge an 18th century Palayakkaran by the standards you apply to a 21st century Chief Minister. What *is* relevant is what Kattabomman meant to the Tamils of Tirunelveli in Kattabomman's time and thereafter. And the answer to that question is pretty clear.

And finally, the story of how Kattabomman has been depicted by scholars and popular writers over the years from the early 20th century to the 1990s actually tells you a lot more about the evolution of Tamil politics during that time than it does about Kattabomman himself. But that's a story for another time.