BJP has hit back saying the Cholas built some of the finest temples of the country, including in Tanjore and were devout Hindus, as Shiva worship has been an integral part of Hinduism.
The debate started when filmmaker Vetrimaran speaking in the context of recently released Mani Ratnam’s Ponniyin Selvan, a movie based on Kalki’s fictional novel inspired by Chola ruler Raja Raja Cholan, said saffronising Raja Raja Cholan as a Hindu king is part of an attempt to snatch symbols and misrepresent them. Cinema is a commoner’s medium and, hence, it is important to understand politics to protect one’s representation, he said.
Haasan endorsed Vetrimaran’s statement and said there was no name called ‘Hindu religion’ during Raja Raja Cholan’s period. “There was Vainavam, Shivam and Samanam (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Jainism), and it was the Britishers who coined the term ‘Hindu’ since they didn’t know how to refer to it collectively. It is similar to how they changed Thuthukudi into Tuticorin,” he said. There were several religions during the era and that in the 8th century Adhishankarar had created ‘Shanmadha Stabanam’, he added.
DMK leader TKS Elangovan said conflicts between Shaivite and Vaishnavite rulers of South India are well documented, and Raja Raja Chola was a Shaivite king, which is why it would be wrong to call him a Hindu king. “King Hiranya was a Shaivite who had a Vishnu-worshipping son, and Vishnu chose to kill him with his own avatar of Narasimha. The politics used to be different then. There were two different philosophies and they fought each other. They were not one.”
BJP leader H Raja stated that Raja Raja Cholan was a Hindu king. “I am not well versed with history like Vetrimaran, but let him point out two churches and mosques built by Raja Raja Cholan. He called himself Sivapadha Sekaran. Wasn’t he a Hindu then?” he said.
Ramu Manivannan, professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, at University of Madras, said it was important to look at the movie from a cultural, and not a religious perspective, because the Cholas had built an empire state influencing different areas of life, including, arts, architecture, culture, politics and religion.
They were never called Hindu kings but they can be called Hindu according to contemporary definition, but that is also challenged by many, including the Dravidian movement, he said. Allegations of appropriation rooted in Aryan-Dravidian conflict are mainly because there is little attempt to understand religions that existed on their own, and realities of today cannot be superimposed to past occurrences, he added.
“Making a religious identity universal is not apt but to remove aspects completely and say the Cholas were irreligious is not right either,” Manivannan said. “We need to understand the separation of state and religion even then. The state didn’t say it was a Hindu state as the divisions then were mainly Shaiva and Vainava of the southern tradition. Cholas are an underestimated empire state, it traversed right up to Cambodia. Tamils largely see them as that, while recognising their contribution to temples and belief systems. If you see their Nataraja temple in Chidambaram, you also see Srirangam. If you go into the debate, you have to see that none of the other sects has been demolished.”
History researcher Anjana Krishnan said the Cholas have had a tradition of building pallipadai temples or structures dedicated to ancestor worship. “It’s true they followed many cults of Shiva worship but today the debate around them is about pitting them against the Mughals by reducing them to just patrons of temples.”
For all the latest world News Click Here
