1

George L.Hart---- In Defense of Classical Tamil ---Maraimalai Ilakkuvanar Introduction: Kaṇiyaṉ pūṅkuṉṟaṉ’s golden saying “Every country is my country, every man is my kinsman” is an universal maxim guiding the mankind for centuries to cherish international brotherhood, solidarity and amity, crossing the man-made barriers of race, religion and nationality. In accordance with the lofty ideal, scholars from all over the world have contributed to the development of Tamil language by their valuable works of erudite scholarship. This paper intends to put in record the outstanding service of the astounding personality, Dr.George L.Hart, indispensable for the establishment of the status of Tamil, as a classical language.

Professor George L. Hart has been named to the endowed Chair in Tamil Studies by University of California, Berkeley Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien. Chancellor Tien’s letter of appointment reads in part “Please accept the appointment of this endowed chair as an indication of my gratitude for your many years of teaching and service and for your scholarship which has reflected so favorably on the Berkeley campus.” George Hart has been a Berkeley faculty member since 1973. He was promoted to full professor in 1981. A Harvard B.A., M.A. and Ph.D., Professor Hart is a graduate of the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, where his studies included both Tamil and Sanskrit. At Berkeley Professor Hart has developed the Tamil program of language, literature and cultural studies to be the most important of its kind in North America. Professor Hart is the author of textbooks for both Tamil and Sanskrit, and of translations of classical Tamil poetry, and the Tamil Ramayana of Kampan. George Hart is married to Tamil lecturer Kausalya Hart who is also an author of several Tamil language textbooks.

This is the note shown on the website of Tamil Chair, UC Berkeley, which keeps a low profile of this multifaceted genius and myriad talented scholar Dr.Hart, an unparalleled Professor whose meticulous efforts have elevated the status of Tamil in India as well as in U.S.Prof.Hart, internationally acclaimed for his works on Sangam classics, has a high proficiency in more than eighteen languages. Statement on the Status of Tamil as a Classical Language Prof.Hart’s Statement on the Status of Tamil as a Classical Language acted as a timely help for the Tamil community to achieve the central government’s accreditation and gazette notification declaring Tamil as a Classical Language. The efforts of Umamaheswaram Pillai and the appeals of Tamil scholars, Maraimalai adigal and V.K.Suryanarayana sastri created awareness in the beginning years of Twentieth century.The end of the 20th century witnessed many demonstrations and hunger-strikes by Tamil scholars and activists to give enough pressure to the central government. The political will and determination of the Dravidian leader M.Karunanithi accomplished it. The Statement of Prof.Hart acted as a catalyst in this process. In the beginning part of his statement, Hart reveals his knowledge of

2

many languages, in a humble manner, just to give a justification to his assessment of the status of Tamil.

“Besides Tamil and Sanskrit, I know the classical languages of Latin and Greek and have read extensively in their literatures in the original. I am also well-acquainted with comparative linguistics and the literatures of modern Europe (I know Russian, German, and French and have read extensively in those languages) as well as the literatures of modern India, which, with the exception of Tamil and some Malayalam, I have read in translation. I have spent much time discussing Telugu literature and its tradition with V. Narayanarao, one of the greatest living Telugu scholars, and so I know that tradition especially well. As a long-standing member of a South Asian Studies department, I have also been exposed to the richness of both Hindi literature, and I have read in detail about Mahadevi Varma, Tulsi, and Kabir.

I have spent many years — most of my life (since 1963) — studying Sanskrit. I have read in the original all of Kalidasa, Magha, and parts of Bharavi and Sri Harsa. I have also read in the original the fifth book of the Rig Veda as well as many other sections, many of the Upanisads, most of the Mahabharata, the Kathasaritsagara, Adi Sankara’s works, and many other works in Sanskrit.”

With this vast knowledge, he comes to the conclusion that Tamil is far superior in its beauty, elegance and powerful communication, just like the great poet Bharatiyar, who proudly proclaims that of all the languages known by him Tamil alone remains as the fascinating language.

“I say this not because I wish to show my erudition, but rather to establish my fitness for judging whether a literature is classical. Let me state unequivocally that, by any criteria one may choose, Tamil is one of the great classical literatures and traditions of the world.”

Poets Bharatiyar, Bharatidasan and other poets who belong to their school sang many poema in praise of Mother Tamil. Passion and devotion were the main reasons for such poems which evoked a renaissance. But Prof.Hart avoids such an enthusiasm and is logical in his approach. “First, Tamil is of considerable antiquity”. “Second, Tamil constitutes the only literary tradition indigenous to India that is not derived from Sanskrit.” “Third, the quality of classical Tamil literature is such that it is fit to stand beside the great literatures of Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Chinese, Persian and Arabic.” “Finally, Tamil is one of the primary independent sources of modern Indian culture and tradition.” Prof.Hart gives a vivid explanation in a lucid manner so as to establish these facts. The statement which is just two pages (A4) is an essence of Prof.Hart rich experience, matured mind and a vast knowledge.

3

After the Government of India--under the leadership of Dr.Manmohan Singh and guidance from Madame Sonia Gandhi-- issued a Government Order according the status of classical language, the move was criticized by over-enthusiasts who were unable to tolerate the honor given to Tamil. Even though Sanskrit was also given the honor by another G.O. they considered it as a sin to consider Tamil as a classical language. Soon there were many agitations and demonstrations from various quarters demanding the status of classical language for Kannada and Telugu.Yielding to the political pressure, the Government of India issued separate orders according the status of classical language to Telugu and Kannada.Prof.Hart has given his opinion on these developments in his blog,as follows:

“I read with dismay that Kannada is to be recognized as a classical language. Like French, English, and German, Kannada is a rich and worthy language. But India has only two true indigenous classical languages -- Sanskrit and Tamil, each of which is considerably older than the other Indian languages and has an independent literary tradition. Tamil, not known as well as it should be in the rest of India, has an early literature that is entirely independent of Sanskrit, both in its literary forms and its vocabulary. This is not true of Kannada, whose earliest writings are deeply indebted to and imitative of Sanskrit. The earliest work in the language is Kaviraajamaarga, whose title and content are entirely based on Sanskrit.” “Telugu and Kannada are not, by any rational criterion, classical languages. That its scholars insist on what is patently false seems bizarre, for it is utterly unwarranted by the great literary traditions that they study. This rush to mythologize language suggests to me that the study of literature in India is still immature.”

While Kannada and Telugu scholars acted like this, some western scholars went to the extent of predicting that Tamil is completely dependent on Sanskrit and refuted the fact that Tamil is a classical language. This paper intends to give a brief introduction of the books and Prof.Hart’s reflections on them. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. By Sheldon Pollock, Permanent Black, NewDelhi-2009, Pages xviii+684 The first edition of this book was published by the University of California Press, Berkeley on 2006 and again it was published in collaboration with the University of California Press in India on 2007.Again it got a paperback edition on 2009.Even after its reprints and exclusive South Asian publication, there was no response of any sort from scholars in India. Sheldon I. Pollock is the William B. Ransford Professor of Sanskrit and Indian Studies and Chairman of the Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures at Columbia University. He is the author of "The Language of the Gods in the World of

4

Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India" and editor of "Cosmopolitanism and Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia". Sheldon Pollock is the founding editor of the Murty Classical Library of India (Harvard U. Press), and joint editor of South Asia across the Disciplines (the university presses of California, Chicago, and Columbia). He was recently awarded a Distinguished Achievement Award from the Mellon Foundation and the President's Certificate of Honour for Sanskrit and the title Padma Sri for distinguished service in the field of letters from the Government of India. This voluminous book by Pollock intends to accommodate Sanskrit in the throne and attempts to degrade Tamil as a vernacular, unmindful of its rich and unique Sangam classics. The author plays with words like “literization”,” “literarization,” and “vernacularization”According to him a language undergoes a process of ‘literization’ i.e. the commitment of the language to writing, and then only follows its “literarization,” i.e. the employment of a language for literary composition. ‘Vernacularization’, according to Pollock is “the historical process of choosing to create a written literature, along with its compliment, a political discourse, in local languages according to models supplied by a superordinate, usually cosmopolitan, literary culture.”(p.23) In South Asia, explains Pollock, “cosmopolitan” languages—principally Sanskrit, but also Prakrit and Apabhrahmsha (89–105)—became, as a result of court patronage, the dominant form of literary expression across the subcontinent beginning a little before the Common Era and it remained thus for roughly a millennium, with Sanskrit in particular spreading across “Southern Asia” from “around the fourth century on … to the places now known as Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia” (115–148, esp. 123). A culture of “hyperglossia” (50, passim), i.e. the severe division of labor for language use, was exhibited in the inscriptional corpus from the time of the Śakas (12–13), and beginning with the first public inscription in Sanskrit, a stylized panegyric (Sanskrit: praśasti),on the famed Junāgaṛh rock in contemporary Gujarat (67–68), the work of” expressive” literary production became the domain of what was formerly a liturgical and “sacred” language, while the vernaculars were employed in writing exclusively to communicate quotidian matters. Thus, “cosmopolitan” language—language that transcended regional, ethnic, and sectarian identity and was widely understood (if only by elites)—was used expressively, whereas vernaculars were written only to communicate information, when they were written at all. “The dominance of Sanskrit in literary and political text production was ended by a conscious challenge from vernacular intellectuals beginning in south India around the 9th century, with the process everywhere more or less complete by the end of the sixteenth.” (Page 572.) With a fixed agenda and pre-determined scheme-work, Pollock arrives at the conclusion as desired by him.He has a magic wand which has a power to design history and distort facts as per his commands. An ardent learner of the History of Tamilnadu will not get any astonishment if he knows about the magic wand of Pollock.“ As we have seen, the language by which political

5

power had expressed itself in Tamil country for much of the first millennium, even in the realm of the Pantiyas, the legendary site of the cankam, was Sanskrit” -- Page 384 Pollock finds it proper to quote Saradatanaya, whose Bhavaprakasana describes Tamil (language of the people of Dramida) one among the Milechcha (uncultured) languages unfit for script-writing in Drama.(p.95) Rev.Robert Caldwell is an unknown name for him. He is content with the finding of B.G.L.Swamy, a Botanist, who asserts that Tholkappiyam belongs to thirteenth century (399n39) He is unmindful of the works of either Dr.P.S.Sastry or Dr.S.Ilakkuvanar. With this sort of “selective” bibliography and fabricated methodology, Pollock comes to the conclusion that “Moreover, for almost the entire first millennium not just kavya but any sort of nondocumentary text – that is written form- in a language other than Sanskrit, Prakrit, Apabharamsha is rare.”(p. 100) I wish to quote here some portions of a review for this book, by John Smith(Reader in Sanskrit, Cambridge University, which appeared in Times higher education(6 October 2006)He vehemently criticizes both the matter and manner of Pollock’s writing.

“Here is a sentence from Sheldon Pollock's introduction to The Language of the Gods in the World of Men : "As we acknowledge the normativity of the actual (which often manifests itself in the textualisation of reality), so we need to acknowledge the actuality of the normative (which manifests itself in the realisation of texts)." Sentences such as this bring two questions to mind. First, simply: "What does it mean?" In the present case, I think the answer is probably something such as: "The written word not only reflects but also influences human behaviour." The second, more interesting question is: "Why would the author choose to express himself in such a fashion?" A part of the explanation seems likely to be that a book's rhetorical style often serves to define its intended readership: a highly abstract idiom featuring characteristic usages of nouns such as "discourse" and "representation", and verbs such as "construct" and "constitute", acts as a sign reading "theoreticians only".

Sherlock Holmes seems to have got it right when he observed of the rush to theorise: "Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." It is a shame that a work of such enormous erudition as this should imperil its chances of persuading by straining to persuade too much. “

In his preface to the commendable translation of Puṟanāṉūṟu titled “The Four Hundred Songs of War and Wisdom: An Anthology of Poems from Classical Tamil, the Purananuru” what Prof.Hart explains may be considered as a befitting reply to Pollock’s observations on Sangam classics.

“Comprising one of the eight “Sangam” anthologies, the Puṟanāṉūṟu is among the earliest works in Tamil that we possess. It was written before Aryan influence had penetrated the south as thoroughly as it did later and is a testament of pre-Aryan South India and ,to a significant extent, of pre-Aryan India.Consequently,the Puṟanāṉūṟu is extremely important to the study and understanding of the development of much of South Asia’s history, culture,

6

religion, and linguistics. But beyond this, , the Puṟanāṉūṟu is a great work of literature, reflecting accurately and profoundly the life of southern India 2,000 years ago. Its appeal is universal; it has much to say about living and dying, despair, poverty, love, and the changing nature of existence. The Puṟanāṉūṟu is one of the few works of classical India that confronts life without the insulation of a philosophical facade; it makes no basic assumptions about karma and the other world; it faces existence as a great and unsolved mystery. (p.xv)

In his thesis titled “THE POEMS OF ANCIENT TAMIL – Their Milieu and their Sanskrit Counterparts” Prof.Hart gives solid evidences to substantiate the uniqueness and antiquity of Sangam Classics which I omit here for want of space and time. During the Chemmozhi conference, Hart had emphasized the antiquity and significance of the Sangam classics. To be brief ,the quotation from news article will be sufficient enough to explain his standpoint.

“Delivering a lecture on the uniqueness of classical Tamil here in the presence of Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi and Finance Minister K. Anbazhagan, among others, the 65-year-old scholar, now involved in making annotated translations with extensive introduction of ‘Akananooru' and ‘Paitruppattu,' said the Sangam literature's influence could be seen in the subsequent literary creations of Nammazhwar and Kamban.The hymns of Azhwars blossomed into the Bakthi movement of Vaishanavites which was exported from Tamil Nadu to the rest of the country.”

“On the relationship between Tamil and Sanskrit, Professor Hart said the languages of south Asia, excepting Tamil, derived their traditions from Sanskrit or Persian/Arabic. In the beginning, Tamil, like most other classical literatures, developed from an oral culture. While the Sangam poets were aware of the Sanskrit epics, they did not imitate them but referred to them a few times. “The Sangam literature is entirely independent of Sanskrit and follows its own rules and traditions.”

In his blog, Prof.Hart had refuted the misconception that Sangam classics are indebted to Sanskrit.

‘What about Tamil? It had the good fortune to gain an extensive written literature before the Sanskrit juggernaut became irresistible. Its early works owe virtually nothing to Sanskrit, but rather are indebted to the oral traditions of the local countryside. Perhaps this process was helped along by the vast distances between the Tamil areas and North India. In any event, we are fortunate that Sangam literature was valued and preserved, as it is not only one of the great world literatures, it gives us a lens through which we can see ancient Tamil culture without the distortion of Sanskrit sources, which tend to adhere to a set of conventions and ideas that are independent of any given area or culture. Whether written by Buddhists or Hindus, Sanskrit invariably adopts a sort of elitist perspective, out of touch with local developments. Tamil is quite different. As anyone reading Sangam literature knows, its works are quite thoroughly grounded

7

in local traditions and describe people of all backgrounds and classes. Because Tamil developed its own identity so early, it remained relatively immune to the influence of Sanskrit. It retained (and retains) its own writing system that genuinely fits the pronunciation of the language unlike, say, Malayalam, most of whose speakers write bhū but say pū.”( http://tamil.berkeley.edu/category/blog)

It is obvious that under the pretext of neutral and objective approach, Pollock had adhered to a hidden agenda.

“ In October 2004, after an electoral sweep in the spring parliamentary elections brought it unaccustomed influence over the ruling coalition in Delhi, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the Dravidianist party of the state of Tamil Nadu, demanded that the United Progressive Alliance declare Tamil a classical language—which it did, apparently the first such declaration by a national government in recorded history.” (Sheldon Pollock: Crisis in the Classics Social research Vol. 78: No. 1: Spring 2011 p.21)

To some degree, non-Brahmanism and Islamophobia, two widespread (and perversely complementary) early twentieth-century ethnochauvanist movements in the south and the north, respectively, have worked to weaken classical studies already weak from the sociological changes just noted. (ibid.p.31)

Pollock goes to the extent of analyzing the inner politics just like an investigative journalist, which is unbecoming for a scholar, while he blames a Director has not been employed at CICT for a long time.

“so far as I can tell, and in 2009, as a result of the classical languages mania mentioned at the start of this essay, it transformed itself into the Central Institute of Classical Tamil. The fate of this new center offers a revealing gloss on the state’s role in the crisis of the classics. An official at CIIL told me the following: For you and me, readying scholars who could devote their lives to classical studies may be important, but for the players in national and regional politics, this fact (of recognition of Tamil as a classical language) is viewed as an achievement that must be fully utilized [read: the political goals of this decision must be achieved]. The reason for this shift is to tell the people of Tamil Nadu that the fruits of the Union Government’s decision on declaration of Tamil as a classical language—on par with Sanskrit—have finally come to Tamil Nadu with creation of a Central Institute of Classical Tamil there. Now their problem is that they need to appoint people to run it and give it a direction, and they are unable to find a truly capable linguist and a scholar. . . .[In addition] the political decision to find a person amenable to the political elite and also acceptable to Tamil scholars is not easy to resolve. “(Ibid.pp.28-29)

In ‘Classical Tamil’, a Google group, Prof.Hart had shared his views on this book: “I recently had a discussion with a well-known Sanskritist regarding Pollock's ideas about the development of vernaculars. I mentioned that Tamil does not fit

8

Pollock's model, and he replied that it may well fit it, as there is considerable controversy about the dating of Sangam literature. He had Prof. Tieken's book in mind. Because of this, I believe it is important for Tamil scholars to take Prof. Tieken's arguments seriously (though not his word-frequency claims, as they are not valid) and discuss them. Prof. Tieken himself has described the situation as "trench warfare" -- but my concern is that his ideas should be examined carefully and analytically. I have made my own conclusions clear elsewhere (review in JAOS), but other Tamil scholars need to look at the book dispassionately and take the arguments seriously. I would stress that Prof. Tieken's ideas are somewhat inflammatory for those who have dealt with early Tamil, as they involve radically changing our ideas about the development of the language and literature. Because they are so controversial, it is critically important to examine them in a logical, unemotional manner. I would also add that, even though I strongly disagree with Prof. Tieken's ideas about dating, his book has made me think much more about how we date the poems and how they were anthologized -- and that is something I appreciate.”

It is clear that Hart is much worried about Tieken’s work than of Pollock’s. The main reason is he had already established the classical status of Tamil, in his works, which can never be shaken by the arguments of Pollock. Kavya in South India: Old Tamil Cankam Poetry. By HERMAN TIEKEN. Groningen: EGBERT FORSTEN, 2001. Pp. 270. “One of the most difficult issues in dealing with much of premodern Indian literature is chronology. Unless we are lucky enough to have epigraphic confirmation, dating often involves considerable detective work, putting together different types of circumstantial evidence and reaching a generally accepted conclusion. We do not have firm dates even for such seminal figures as Asvaghosa, Kalidasa, and Kampan. With regard to the old Sangam literature in Tamil, we are similarly lacking in firm dates--though there has been a great deal of evidence adduced to suggest strongly that the poems were composed between the first and third centuries A.D.” ‘ In Kavya in South India: Old Tamil Cankam Poetry’, Herman Tieken argues that these dates are incorrect, and that the corpus of Sangam literature rather belongs to the ninth or tenth century A.D., when it was written by a poet (or poets) in the Pandyan kingdom who wished to create a classical Tamil tradition to rival that of Sanskrit. The writer(s) of this literature, he argues, used old names and old history to accomplish their deception, which was extraordinarily successful. He further argues that the poems have Prakrit counterparts, and that they can actually belong to genres of Prakrit literature. In this way, he suggests that almost everything that has been written about this literature is mistaken. It is not original, he claims, but a derivative of northern literatures. And it is quite late, so that it cannot be used to make generalizations about early history, culture, or even language. He also spends some time discussing the esthetic implications of the akam (interior or love) poems, and claims they constitute a condescending and often sarcastic urban and sophisticated take on village life. Prof.Hart’s main concern is “If accepted, Tieken's conclusions would cause a revolutionary reevaluation of Tamil studies--virtually everything written about the history of Tamil and its literature would have to be rewritten.”

9

‘ For this reason,’ he advises us ‘it is important to consider his arguments carefully and dispassionately to see whether they have any credibility.’ Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Fault lines-By Rajiv Malhotra & Aravindan Nilakantan- Publisher: Amaryllis, 2011.Pp.650 This voluminous book is a waste of paper and energy. It is nothing but an attempt to slander progressive forces under the garb of patriotism. It accuses Prof.Hart as a dividing force. According to the authors, the Tamil chair had been funded by FETNA which is a pro-LTTE outfit. This book is not worth mentioning in an august forum of learned scholars. But just to show the nature of its content I wish to cite a portion: The first visiting Professor invited to Berkeley as part of the work done by the Chair was Professor Ilakkuvanar Maraimalai from Chennai. Ilakkuvanar had previously visited the U.S.A. in 1987 to attend a linguistic conference. At that conference, he expressed his delight to have learned ‘many things about the Mormon religion and the Church of the Latter Day Saints’. The Mormon Bible reminded him ‘of a prominent religious literature in Tamil, TIRUVACHAGAM’. Like a true Dravidianist, Ilakkuvanar believes that the Government of India discriminates against its Tamil citizens and that ‘India remains North’, and that present-day India is a ‘torture camp for religious minorities’. His writings feature topics like ‘sexual assault on Christian nuns’ in India, and, ‘I love America’. He praised the ‘nobility and greatness of George Hart’, and in turn, Hart wrote to the Government of India, supporting Ilakkuvanar’s Dravidianist positions, including his opinions on the status of Tamil studies in India.” The main intention of the authors is to portray Prof.Hart as an enemy of Hinduism. They are of the firm conviction that Prof.Hart’s statement on the status of ‘Tamil as a classical language’ is the driving force which culminated in the announcement of the Government of India declaring the status. They may be of the opinion that this deed has diminished the importance of Sanskrit. Prof.Hart clarified in his blog at the website of UC Berkeley,that he is neither opposed to the Hindu religion nor an enemy to the development of Sanskrit. “Among other organizations, the Berkeley Tamil Chair is listed in the book as a phenomenon that is “subversive” to India and Hinduism. Very well, let’s look at some of the projects of our students. 1. A Study and translation of Āṇṭāḷ’s works. This is done with the greatest respect and reverence. 2. A study of the Tirumantiram. 3. A translation and study of Krishnadevaraya’s great Telugu poem the Āmuktamālyadā, showing how it is indebted to the Tamil works of the Āḻvār saints. 4. A respectful study of Puja practices in the great temples of Tamil Nadu, showing how they differ. 5. A translation of the Maturai Mīṉāṭci Piḷḷaittamiḻ, which glorifies the goddess Minakshi. 6. A study of the great medieval commentators on the Tolkāppiyam (most of whom, like Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar, were Brahmins and who used a pure Tamil without Sanskrit borrowings).

10

7. Reading and appreciating the greatest work of Indian literature, Kampaṉ’s Rāmāyaṇa, in class. 8. Reading and appreciating the great Sangam classics, including the great bhakti works of the Paripāṭal and the Tirumurukāṟṟuppaṭai, classics that use 98% pure Tamil (not Sanskrit-derived) vocabulary. .During the release of this book a VIP had stated that Tamil and the other Dravidian languages are derived from Sanskrit. Prof.Hart replies in his blog: ” Perhaps if he learned to count to 10 in any of these languages, he would discover that they are actually separate and come from a different source than Sanskrit.”(http://tamil.berkeley.edu/category/blog) Besides establishing the classical status of Tamil by his research works and elaborating the enrichment of Sangam classics through his translations, Prof.Hart is forced to face the tirade carried on him by reactionary forces. A detailed survey of his services to the Tamil language and literature together with an appraisal of his works is my intention. This paper is a beginning and I thank Dr.Murugaratnam for encouraging me to take a proper initiative. Prof.George L.Hart-CV 1915 Napa Ave. Berkeley, CA 94707 (510) 525-1793 Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies 7303 Dwinelle Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 (510) 642-8169; 642-4564 glhart@berkeley.edu Education: Harvard, B.A., Sanskrit and Indian Studies, 1964 Harvard, M.A., Sanskrit and Indian Studies, 1967 Harvard, Ph.D., Sanskrit and Indian Studies, 1970 Experience: 2009-present, Emeritus, Chair in Tamil Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Professor of the Graduate School, UC Berkeley 2004-2006, Chair, Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies 1996-Present, Holder, Chair in Tamil Studies, University of California, Berkeley 1981-2009, Professor, University of California, Berkeley. Summer, 1989: Visiting Professor, Harvard University. 1975-1981, Associate Professor, University of California, Berkeley. 1974-1975, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 1973-1974, Visiting Assistant Professor, University of California, Berkeley. 1969-1973, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

11

Honors, Awards: 1977: awarded a grant by the Office of Education to rewrite A Tamil Primer. 1980: Awarded a 3-year grant by the National Endowment for the Humanities to translate part of the Tamil Ramayana. 1980: Poets of the Tamil Anthologies nominated for the best translation, The American Book Award. 1985-86: computer grants from Apple Computer for the development of South Asian scripts for the Macintosh. 1996: Appointed holder of Chair in Tamil Studies. 2001: Reappointed holder of Chair in Tamil Studies 2002 Winner, 2002 Ramanujan Prize for Translation 2006 Iyal award for lifetime achievement in Tamil studies from the University of Toronto 2010 Kural Peedam, award presented by President of India for excellence in Tamil scholarship Published Writings and Writings in Press Books A Tamil Primer, Part II. Madison, Wisconsin, 1970. (Published offset form by The Department of Indian Studies). The Poems of Ancient Tamil: Their Milieu and Their Sanskrit Counterparts. Berkeley, California: The University of California Press, 1975. Poets of the Tamil Anthologies: Ancient Poems of Love and War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979. Beginning Tamil. (Co-author: Kausalya Hart). A first-year textbook for Tamil published in offset form by the Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies, Berkeley. This was revised and rewritten, before being republished in September, 1982. A Rapid Sanskrit Method. Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984. Now in its third edition. The Forest Book of the Råmåyaïa of Kampaú. (With Hank Heifetz). Berkeley, California: The University of California Press, 1988. The Päõanåúäõu, translated and annotated. (With Hank Heifetz), New York, Columbia University Press, 1999. Articles “Woman and the Sacred in Ancient Tamilnad.” Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. XXXII, No. 2 (Feb., 1973). To be republished in a collection of articles on South Asian anthropology from the University of Chicago. “Related Literary Elements in Ancient Tamil and Indo-Aryan.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. XCIV, No. 2 (April-June, 1974), pp. 157-167. “The Monsoon in Ancient Tamil and Indo-Aryan Poetry.” Proceedings of the Second International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies II: 168-170. Madras: International Association of Tamil Research, 1972. “Common Elements Between Early Tamil and Indo-Aryan Literature.” Proceedings of the Second International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies II: 170-173.

12

“Some Aspects of Kinship in Ancient Tamil Literature.” Kinship and History in South Asia. Edited by Thomas Trautmann. Pp. 29-60. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1974. “Ancient Tamil Literature: Its Scholarly Past and Future.” Essays on South India. Edited by Burton Stein. Pp. 41-63. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 1975. “The Relation Between Tamil and Classical Sanskrit Literature.” A History of Indian Literature. Edited by J. Gonda. X: 317-352. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1976. “The Nature of Tamil Devotion.” Aryan and Non-Aryan in India. Edited by Madhav Deshpande and Peter Hook. Pp. 11-33. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979. “The Theory of Reincarnation Among the Tamils.” Karma and Rebirth. Edited by Wendy O'Flaherty. Berkeley, The University of California Press, 1981. “The Little Devotee: Cèkkiôår's Story of Ciõuttoïìar.” Sanskrit and Indian Studies: Essays in Honour of Daniel H. H. Ingalls. Edited by Masatoshi Nagatomi et al. Pp. 217-236. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1980. “The Maïikkuõavaú Story: From Ritual to Entertainment.” Another Harmony edited by Stuart Blackburn, University of California, 1986. “Early Evidence for Caste in South India.” Dimensions of Social Life: Essays in Honor of David G. Mandelbaum. Edited by Paul Hockings. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 1988. “Integrating the Indian Languages.” Computers Today, Vol. 1, Number 8 (October, 1985). Pp. 17-20. New Delhi, India, 1985. “Synthesis and Paradox in Kampaú: àarabhaíga Passes Beyond Rebirth.” Published 1989, in Sri Lanka. “Archetypes in Classical Indian Literature and Beyond,” in a felicitation volume for V. Narayana Rao, edited by David Shulman, 1997. “Syntax and Perspective in Tamil and Sanskrit Classical Poetry” in Gros, François, Jean-Luc Chevillard, Eva Wilden, A. Murugaiyan, Institut français de Pondichéry., and Ecole française d'Extreme-Orient. 2004. South-Indian horizons: felicitation volume for Francois Gros on the occasion of his 70th birthday, Publications du Département d'indologie, 94. [Pondicherry]: Institut Français De Pondichery, [and] Ecole Française D'Extreme-Orient. Review Article of Kåvya in South India: Old Tamil Caíkam Poetry by Herman Tieken, in Journal of the American Oriental Society, 2004. Introduction in Tamil as a Classical Language by V. S. Kulandaiswamy, Chennai, 2005. Introduction in Kannan M. and Mena, Carlos (editors), Negotiations with the Past: Classical Tamil and Contemporary Tamil, Joint Publication of the Berkeley Tamil Chair and Publications du Département d'indologie. [Pondicherry]: Institut Français De Pondichery, 2006. Foreword in Câvakacintåmaïi by Tiruttakkatèvar, translated with notes and an introduction by James D. Ryan, Fremont, CA 2006 Reviews The Simhachalam Temple, by K. Sundaram. Journal of Asian Studies. Love of God According to Saiva Siddhanta: A Study in the Mysticism and Theology of Saivism, by Mariasusai Dhavamony. Journal of Asian Studies. Proceedings of the Second International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies, Vol. I. Journal of Asian Studies.

13

The Smile of Murugan: On Tamil Literature of South India, by Kamil Zvelebil. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Speaking of Siva, by A. K. Ramanujan. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1975. Toda Songs and Ritual Structure and Language Structure of the Todas, by M. B. Emeneau. The Indo-Iranian Journal. Songs of Experience: The Poetics of Tamil Devotion, by Norman Cutler. In Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1988 Tamil Love Poetry and Poetics by Takanobu Takashi. In The Indo-Iranian Journal, 2000.