Arul,
Sub :Different view on Kannagi
I have been having this query for a while and this was bolstered by a program I watched in Podhigai on Tamizh New Year’s day that presented a different view on Kannagi torching Madurai.
It was a program where Dr A Siva Subramanian (a medical professional) came up with his interpretation of how she could not have torched Madurai, citing a few verses, before and after torching that is found in the epic.
It may have been his interpretation, but definitely a new thought.
My thoughts around the same are:
Kannagi was a Karpukkarasi.
If she was wronged and she torched Madurai, where there no Pendir with Masaartra Karpu in Madurai.
What if all of them decided to take revenge on Kannagi for torching their beloved city?
Or was Kannagi’s Karpu on a higher pedestal than the others?
If so, why?
The error of judgement was that of the king.
Even he is not depicted as a villain in the epic.
He himself regrets his mistake and is so overcome by emotion of his wronging Kannagi, even by mistake, that he dies on realizing his mistake.
The real villain here is the Porkollan who tried to hide his treachery by blaming Kovalan who was new to the city.
So if anyone was to be punished, it was the Porkollan.
The king had anyway died.
Why torch the city where many live?
How is that a good act by Kannagi and everyone praises her for torching a city?
If Kannagi was the model of Karpu, a great soul, she would have only wished well for others.
There is no way she would have put the innocent citizens of Madurai into misery by torching their city.
Her problem was with the king and I’ve already highlighted that in the earlier point.
The trial was not public, the hanging was not public and hence there is no way that the citizens of Madurai can be held guilty, even by association, as they were not party to the trial.
So torching of the whole city, just because she was wronged (one woman, even if she was a karpukkarasi), just doesn’t make sense.
We view the decimation of cities by warring armies and the victors wrong. Then how is what Kannagi did right?
My take is that in the interest of glorifying Kannagi, latter day scholars have attributed the torching of the city to her and added that to her greatness.
The city could have been torched by a natural calamity and that could have been associated with her revenge and made to look like she did that.
No Madharkarasi or Karpukkarasi will wish such misery to befall a city and hence I feel the whole thing needs a fresh study.
Kindly discuss this with Appa and let me have your views.
Cheers,
Saiseshan
Appa reply
கற்பரசிகள் கட்டளையிட்டால் வான் மழை பெய்யும் ஊர் எரியும் என்று மக்களிடையே ஒரு நம்பிக்கை இருந்தது.
அந்த நம்பிக்கையை நாம் பெரிதாகக் கருதவேண்டியதில்லை.
Add a Comment