vairamuthu as well as the book used by him to deride andal are both bunkum, sorry to spoil the fun…


​Poet(sic) Vairamuthu – in the grand tradition of the Tamil filmi nonsense – is a hilarious clown and ignorant buffoon at best, but as usual has a ‘mASS’ following.

So, it comes as  no surprise that the Poet(!) quoted some stupid statement from an even stupider & useless book full of idiocies – and tried to pass it off as a great pearl of wisdom, the fantastic DiamondPearl that he is!

And he as well as that lazily idiotic magazine calls the author of the aforesaid book/essay an ‘American Scholar’ – how sad.

Nobody does any fuckin’ homework these days… It was NOT written by any American Scholar – it was a compendium edited by SC Malik – and the contributors were all from our useless desi sociologists brigade – ie, from the left.

Of course this long list lineage of leftleaning lazy bozos (passing themselves off as ‘scholars’ & ‘journalists’) now includes our young lady – Vinita Govindarajan – who has written that Scroll stupidity, doing little research! Really sad.

Oh well.

I had read that book long back (in my wasted days of trying to understand sociology (the dismal & abysmal science(!)) and making sense of movements – but unfortunately had donated it off some time in the past – because I have barely enough space to accommodate even my favourite books in my library, and so do a periodical culling.

But I have this grand, excoriating criticism of the book, whose scans I provide below. You judge.

Name of the book referred to by DiamondPearl – Indian Movements: Some Aspects of Dissent, Protest and Reform Edited by S. C. Malik; the following review of the book was by: N. J. Bradford; it appeared in Man, New Series, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Jun., 1980), pp. 398-399 – published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.

Of course a mediocre person like Vairamuthu, can only reach this far – like reaching out to receive this mediocre wisdom from a shoddy work.


I know Vairamuthu is a lazy bozo and an useless versewallah.

However, what I still CANNOT even BEGIN to understand is this – how the hell does he call this reference – a book published by INDIANA university and that too written by ‘American Scholars’ to boot? (But, I would understand Vinitas of the world, who would cut-paste-regurgitate any useless shit as long as they ‘break news’ and write something preposterous, but…)

The book was indeed published very much in Shimla, and NOT in USA. Or may be Vairamuthu or his rent-seeking benefactors DMKwallahs — have bought this himalayan town too wholesale and donated it off to USA or what?

Can someone help please? Thanks!




14 Responses to “vairamuthu as well as the book used by him to deride andal are both bunkum, sorry to spoil the fun…”

  1. It is a typical DMK/DK style slander cum ‘reference’ designed to make you waste time by dredging up even more nonsense and which raises more questions than it answers..

  2. Anonymous Says:

    Ram, thanks for this exposure and another angle.

    Clues to ‘Indiana’ and ‘American Author’ are in (may need subscription)

    Having said that, I do not agree with your opinions on social sciences. I am a social science research scholar, but since I am studying in the land of your enemies (USA), you will rubbish me too.

    • Young man, thanks for that link. Must say – Very good debunking of the likes of DiamondPearl scumbags. :-)

      The link says I can read some 6 more articles – so I was able to read the essay. Must write separately about the Aravindan Neelakandan essay.

      About sociology:

      1. I have seriously studied sociology and anthropology for a few decades now. Hence I say that they are NOT good, worthy sciences. There is no scope for falsifiability in them – there are no rigorous theories, but only random conjectures and generalizations based on a few data points.

      2. I am willing to have a scholarly debate with you (or for that matter, anyone else) about this. I am reiterating my PoVs: Social studies are NOT sciences. They are not scholarly. They are not rigorous. There is SO MUCH fluff in them. They are one of the refuges for smart scoundrels – especially of the Leftist kind – at least, of the Indian marxist/establishment kind.

      3. I like & respect USA for many things; am not part of a liberal scum – I have written so many times about it. So am surprised about your contention.

      4. I think, being a smart guy that you are – you should do more useful things in life than waste it on Critical Theory and Subaltern studies. But, each unto his own madness, what else!

      Thanks again,


  3. Venkatesan Says:

    Wanted to read the specific article Variam is referring to, but could not find any free copies. Amazon (USA) says the book is unavailable, whereas another site by the name “India Club” is selling it for $13. Have you seen the article?

    • I have, as I mentioned. I have read it and got disgusted. But that must have been at least 23 years ago!

      If you havent already – you must MUST read that solid book by Leslie Orr – Donors Devotees and Daughters of God – Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu. If you stay in bangalore and can landup, I can lend it to you, if someone else who is also interested in borrowing the book does not pick it up before you.

    • Venkatesan Says:

      Sorry, in the urge to jump to the review you have highlighted, I skipped some of the preceding lines.

      I am in Bangalore. Will try to land and borrow the book from you. Would provide an opportunity to meet you.

      In the meantime, I read a facebook post by a prof fromTexas who was able to get access to the book via his library. It seems even that book mentions the controversial quote only as a passing remark and cites another book from 1950’s as reference! I doubt whether Vairam has read the book that he has quoted.

  4. A.Seshagiri Says:

    கொஞ்ச நாளா நம்மாளை எங்கே காணோம் என்று பார்த்தேன்! சரியான நேரத்தில் சரியான தரவுகளோடு வந்து விட்டீர் !! உம் கொற்றம் வாழ்க :-)

  5. […] thanks and h/t to that mousy ‘anonymous’ guy who gave me the link to the sparkling essay of Aravindan Neelakandan – though I hope the youngman would recover […]

  6. bmniac Says:

    Armed with some theoretical knowledge of economics and havin been involved in economic and policy both at the Centre and the states i approvingly quote Prof Peter Medawar’s famous words from an article (The original is “googlable”)

    The term ‘unnatural science’ was introduced by Sir Peter Medawar in an excellent short article on the IQ controversy. Having borrowed it for the title of this chapter, we think it appropriate to quote his own explanation of the term:

    If a broad line of demarcation is drawn between the natural sciences and what can only be described as the unnatural sciences, it will at once be recognised as a distinguishing mark of the latter that their practitioners try most painstakingly to imitate what they believe — quite wrongly, alas for them — to be the distinctive manners and observances of the natural sciences. Among these are:


    the belief that measurement and numeration are intrinsically praiseworthy activities (the worship, indeed, of what Ernst Gombrich calls idols quantitates);


    the whole discredited farrago of inductivism — especially the belief that facts are prior to ideas and that a sufficiently voluminous compilation of facts can be processed by a calculus of discovery in such a way as to yield general principles and natural-seeming laws;


    another distinguishing mark of unnatural scientists is their faith in the efficacy of statistical formulae, especially when processed by a computer — the use of which is in itself interpreted as a mark of scientific manhood.1

    And that is quite succinct.

  7. ஆனந்தம் Says:

    இந்த விஷயம் பற்றி எழுத நீங்கள் ஆங்கிலத்தைத் தேர்ந்தெடுத்தது ஏனோ? தமிழில் (சில சமயம் சென்னை) கிழிகிழியென்று கிழிக்கும்போது உண்டாகும் ராமசாமி விளைவு இதில் ஏற்படவில்லை. தமிள் வாள்க! ஆங்கிலம் ஒளிக!! தமிழண்டா!!! ஜிகிர்தண்டா!!!!!
    கொள்கை பரப்பு செயலாளர், அகில உலக (4.5) ஒத்திசைவு ராமசாமி நற்பணி மன்றம்

  8. ஆனந்தம் Says:

    //ஆணாழ்வார்களை விடவும், பெருமாளுக்கென்றே முந்தி விரிக்கத் தலைப்பட்டவள் முந்தி நிற்கிறாளே!//
    எகனை மொகனையாக இருக்க வேண்டும் என்று வலிய எழுதப்பட்ட அடுக்குமொழி பொறுக்கி நடையில் தெரிவது அசல் அக்மார்க் நயம் திராவிடச் சரக்கு. நாயக நாயகி பாவம், பாவம் நம் டை’மண்டு’விடம் மாட்டி முந்தி விரிப்பது என்று எவ்வளவு எளிமையாக்கிக் கொச்சைப் படுத்தப் பட்டிருக்கிறது பாருங்கள்! கவிஞ்சர் என்று போலி செய்யப்பட்ட ஒருவருக்குக்கூட இவ்வளவு கவித்துவம் வறண்ட சிந்தனை தோன்றுமா? போகும் போக்கைப் பார்த்தால் யான பீடத்தில் ஏறாமல் விடமாட்டாரோ என்று பீதியாக உள்ளது.

  9. RC Says:

    முத்துவின் உளறலை முடிந்தளவு சமநிலையுடன் அணுகும் இரு பதிவுகள் தங்கள் பார்வைக்கு.
    1. [ தள நிர்வாகி யாரென்று தெரியவில்லை.]
    2. [திரு.அரவிந்தன் கன்னையனின் தளம்]
    மூலம் சரிபார்த்தல் என்ற அணுகும் முறை ஒன்றெனினும், மேற்கண்ட கட்டுரைகளின் முடிவுகள் விலகி நிற்பதை உணர முடியும்.
    படிப்பவர்க்கு தொகுத்து பார்க்க உதவும் என்பதால் மேற்கண்ட பதிவுச் சுட்டிகளை இணைக்கிறேன்.

    • Thanks. I know the vedprakash gent.

      Read Aravindan Kannaiyan. Good assemblage. I also have a lot of respect for MGS Narayanan. But the latter has, unfortunately committed some errors in the article – the ONLY article in the ENTIRE book worth reading.

      Have read Saskia Kersenboom’s Nithya Sumangali. Great work of scholarship. But her PoVs are not exactly as assembled by AK.

      One of these days, should write about this entire devadhasi deal collecting/assembling some thoughts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: