“How The ‘Thani Tamil’ Project Trapped Thiruvalluvar In An Identity War”, Swarajya, June 01, 2026
“Déjà vu. For this is an issue that refuses to die, cropping up from time to time with predictable, clockwork precision.
On one side, Hindu groups present the saint-poet Thiruvalluvar in saffron robes, his forehead smeared with vibhuthi (sacred ash), which is, admittedly, imagery consistent with older paintings, line drawings, and temple sculptures.
On the other side, the Dravidian political and cultural ecosystem fiercely counter-claims that the author of the Thirukkural was entirely beyond religion, demanding he be depicted strictly in pristine white robes, shorn of any visible religious markers……”
Read full article at swarajyamag.com
The saffronisation of Thiruvalluvar and the fiction of “secular” Thiruvalluvar rising above all religions (as a excuse to hate Sanatan dharm) are weaponizations that will only weaken us.
The Shraman dharm and Thiruvalluvar teachings in Dravidian world seems like a carcass over which both Periyarists and many Shaivic groups and Vedic Sanatanis are scavenging. And then Christians there too have joined the fray, claiming Thiruvalluvar as Christian!
Thiruvalluvar has invoked Hindu specific diety concepts not in relation to Bhakti, but in discussion of ethics. And though the word Inthirane (for Indra) is directly found in Vedas, it is also part of the Shraman vocabulary, as is the concept of Lotus godess Lakshmi. But the semantical meanings are different:
Kural 610: “Indra, the Lord of the inhabitants of the wide heavens, is himself living proof of the power of him who has conquered his five senses.”
Indras in Jin (Jain) dharm are leaders in Urdhvalok, and the Kural 610 is referencing a very core concept in Shraman Jin dharm of conquering senses (the concept behind terms like Jain and Jin ).
There is just a sarcastic reference to Creator (Ulagiyatriyaan), not Brahma, in Kural 1062.
The concept of Adi Bhagwan in Jain dharm is very different. Bhagwan means those who became free of life cycle and so Arhants may become Siddha – proven ones who are free from the cycle of birth and death, therefore called Bhagwan. So Adi bhagwan in Jain dharm is Tirthankar Adinath Bhagwan.
Translation of first Kural :
“Just as all letters have the letter ‘A’ as their starting point, so the universe has the Primal Lord (Adi Bhagwan) as its beginning.”
There is no mention of Brahman or Parabrahman or Sagun Brahman. Now if Parabrahman created this universe, it may be referencing Parabrahman as the beginning. But, to me, Parabrahman must be outside of beginning and end of universe, not as first! In Jain concepts, universe is cyclic in nature, endlessly cycling each cycle in our sansār starts with Adinath as first tirthankar.
Thiruvalluvar texts do not directly reference godess Lakshmi, but as Thamaraiyinaal (She of the Lotus.) Lakshmi is not found as goddess in Vedas but as a word for good fortune, but Vedic godess Shri was later equated to godess Lakshmi as Godess of good fortune. Again Jain references to Lakshmi as representing good fortune is similar in treatment to Indra as far as divinity is concerned.
We first need to understand why there is such a stark lack of direct names of dieties of Vedic/Vedantic pantheon, and only references dieties common to Vedic/Vedantic and Shraman ones, or as reference to refutation of a state, with only ethics discussion and total absence of Bhakti. So contrasting to Shankaracharya’s dharm!
So, all the participants in this fight – Vedic Sanatani, DMK Dravidians, Christians, have common interest to just ignore Shraman dharm. All are okay to call it as an offshoot of Vedic Sanatan dharm, without any basis or any interest to provide basis. Ultimately, for rigorous epigraphical, linguistic, historical, genetic studies, etc. we become like servants of West, because we cannot rise above our own passions and envy. What an irony, O Thiruvalluvar!