Hubbry Logo
Tanittamil IyakkamTanittamil IyakkamMain
Open search
Tanittamil Iyakkam
Community hub
Tanittamil Iyakkam
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tanittamil Iyakkam
Tanittamil Iyakkam
Tanittamil Iyakkam
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Tamil poet Bharathidasan's image from a book cover

Tanittamiḻ Iyakkam (Tamil: தனித்தமிழ் இயக்கம், lit. 'Independent Tamil Movement') is a linguistic-purity movement in Tamil literature which attempts to avoid loanwords from Sanskrit/Prakrit, English, Urdu and other non-Dravidian languages. The movement began in the writings of Maraimalai Adigal, Paventhar Bharathidasan, Devaneya Pavanar, and Pavalareru Perunchitthiranaar, and was propagated in the Thenmozhi literary magazine founded by Pavalareru Perunchithiranar. V. G. Suryanarayana Sastri (popularly known as Parithimar Kalaignar), a professor, was a 19th-century figure in the movement; in 1902 he demanded classical-language status for Tamil, which it received in 2004.

Movement

[edit]
Tanittamiḻ Iyakkam's Parithimar Kalaignar. He (translated) changed his name from the Sanskrit 'Suryanarayana Sastri' to Tamil 'Parithimaar kalaignar'.
Perunchithiranar, Father of Tamilnation

The modern revival of the Tamil Purist Movement (also known as the Pure Tamil Movement) is attributed to Maraimalai Adigal, who publicly pledged to defend pure Tamil in 1916. Advocates of purism popularised Tamil literature and advocated for it, organising rallies in villages and towns and making Tamil purism a political issue. The logical extension of this effort was to purge Tamil of the Sanskrit influence (including its negative social perceptions, which they believed to keep the Tamils in a state of economic, cultural, and political servitude) seen as making Tamil susceptible to northern political domination. Anti-Sanskrit and anti-Hindi Tamil Nadu policies brought them into conflicts with the Brahmins, whose dialect of Tamil incorporates more Sanskrit words than that of other groups.

Tamil was given some national sovereignty by a language policy after Indian independence and had been used in some high schools since 1938 (and in universities from 1960). In 1956, the Indian National Congress government passed a law making Tamil the official language of Tamil Nadu, and in 1959 set up the Tamil Development and Research Council to produce Tamil textbooks in the natural and human sciences, accounting, mathematics, and other subjects. A series of children's encyclopaedias, commentaries on Sangam poetry, and a history of the Tamil people were published in 1962-63. However, these measures seemed insufficient to the proponents of "Pure Tamil", as expressed by Mohan Kumaramangalam in 1965 at the peak of the anti-Hindi agitation:

In practice, the ordinary man finds that the Tamil language is nowhere in the picture ... In Madras city like any other metro, English dominates our life to an extraordinary extent ... I think it will be no exaggeration to say that a person who earns very high can live for years in Madras without learning a word of Tamil, except for some servant inconvenience![This quote needs a citation]

Since the Congress government had turned down a number of demands, such as the use of "pure" rather than "Sanskritised Tamil" in schoolbooks and resisting the name change from Madras to Tamil Nadu until 1969, it seemed unconcerned about separatism. This bred resentment among Tamil purists, as expressed by Devaneya Pavanar in 1967:

None of the Congress Ministers of Tamil Nadu was either a Tamil scholar or a Tamil lover. The Congress leaders of Tamil Nadu as betrayers of Tamil, cannot represent the State any more. Blind cannot lead the blind, much less the keen sighted. Moreover every political meeting, they will say "Jai Hind!". This Means, they are meant to rule only in broader (not specific) India.[This quote needs a citation]

In the elections that year, Congress was replaced by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government under C N Annadurai.

The Tamil purism movement successfully lobbied for Tamil to be declared a "classical language" of India in 2004,[1] a status also accorded to few other languages (Sanskrit, Telugu, Kannada etc.) later in the Indian constitution. This gave rise to the Centre for the Study of Tamil as a Classical Language in Chennai, but it took another year to obtain official Tamil translations in Tamil Nadu courts.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tanittamil Iyakkam

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Tanittamil Iyakkam (Tamil: தனித்தமிழ் இயக்கம், lit. 'Pure Tamil Movement') is a movement in that seeks to revive the unadulterated form of the language as used during the Sangam period by eliminating loanwords from , Persian, English, and other non-native sources. The movement originated in the early , driven by efforts to assert Tamil's antiquity and independence amid influences from missionary scholarship and indigenous scholars who emphasized the language's Dravidian roots distinct from Indo-Aryan . Pioneered by (1876–1950), who published early works promoting pure Tamil starting in 1898 and delivered key lectures from 1904, it gained momentum through journals like Gnanacakaram (launched 1902) and interactions with figures such as U.Ve. Saminatha Iyer. Key proponents included Parithimar Kalaignar, who advocated for Tamil's classical recognition as early as 1902; ; G. ; and Pavalareru Perunchithiranar, who propagated the ideals via publications such as the Thenmozhi magazine and commentaries on ancient texts. The movement's defining characteristic was its rigorous replacement of foreign terms with native Tamil equivalents or neologisms, influencing Tamil's formal usage, , and eventual designation as a while intersecting with non-Brahmin and Dravidian political awakenings that resisted perceived hegemony.

Historical Origins

Pre-Movement Influences

The rediscovery and publication of ancient Tamil texts, particularly , in the late laid groundwork for asserting Tamil's independent antiquity predating significant influence. Scholars such as (1822–1879), a Tamil Shaivite reformer, played a pivotal role by and disseminating classical Tamil religious and moral works that had languished in manuscript form, thereby preserving and elevating Tamil literary heritage against colonial and Sanskrit-dominant narratives. This effort, alongside contributions from figures like C.W. Damodaram Pillai, highlighted the sophistication of pre-medieval Tamil poetry and grammar, fostering a cultural pride in Tamil's self-sufficiency without reliance on Indo-Aryan borrowings. European linguists and missionaries further catalyzed notions of Tamil linguistic purity by classifying , including Tamil, as a distinct family separate from the Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit-derived) group. In , published A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages, coining the term "Dravidian" and arguing that Tamil represented an ancient, autochthonous substrate minimally altered by northern influences, based on comparative and . 's work, grounded in fieldwork across , challenged prevailing assumptions of as the universal progenitor of Indian tongues and inspired Tamil intellectuals to view their language as a pristine Dravidian relic, untainted by migrations. Early critiques of Sanskrit dominance emerged in specific domains, such as music, where figures like Abraham Pandithar (1859–1919) sought Tamil equivalents to counter perceived cultural imposition. Pandithar, through research into ancient texts like the , argued that Carnatic music's heavy terminology obscured indigenous Tamil melodic systems, advocating a revival of native shruti and concepts to reclaim Tamil musical autonomy. His efforts, culminating in later publications, exemplified nascent purist sentiments by prioritizing empirical reconstruction from Tamil sources over hybridized traditions.

Formal Emergence and Early Milestones

The Tanittamil Iyakkam crystallized as an organized effort in 1916, when (born Vedhachalam Pillai in 1876) publicly pledged to defend and use only unadulterated Tamil, free from influences, during a speech at a Saiva Siddhanta gathering in Madras. As a symbolic rejection of -derived nomenclature, he simultaneously changed his religious title from Vedachalam to , adopting a pure Tamil equivalent that emphasized indigenous linguistic roots over Aryan loanwords. This act, rooted in Adigal's earlier critiques of dominance in Tamil religious and literary texts, marked the movement's shift from informal advocacy to deliberate public commitment, influencing subsequent desanskritization campaigns. Early organizational milestones followed in the late and , with the formation of dedicated societies promoting Tamil-only terminology and grammar. In 1919, the Karanthai Tamil Sangam, an existing literary body, passed a resolution elevating pure Tamil as a classical language worthy of global recognition, urging the elimination of foreign lexical intrusions and fostering neologisms for modern concepts. Throughout the , regional conferences hosted by such groups amplified calls for desanskritization, including systematic replacement of terms in , administration, and worship, with participants compiling glossaries of indigenous alternatives to standardize usage. These gatherings, often numbering in the hundreds of scholars and activists, laid groundwork for practical implementations by documenting pre-Sangam era Tamil purity as a recoverable ideal. The movement's initial political ties emerged amid post-World War I , which intensified non-Brahmin assertions against perceived North Indian , prefiguring alliances with emerging self-respect initiatives. Adigal's purism resonated with Justice Party efforts to democratize access to Tamil resources, excluding elites, as regional discontent grew over imposition and centralized policies favoring languages. By the mid-1920s, these synergies positioned Tanittamil Iyakkam as a cultural bulwark in broader Dravidian identity formation, though focused primarily on linguistic reform rather than explicit party politics.

Ideological Foundations

Core Linguistic Principles

The Tanittamil Iyakkam prescribed the elimination of loanwords originating from and other non-native sources as a foundational rule for linguistic purification, targeting -derived terms that had permeated Tamil lexicon through centuries of cultural interaction. These borrowings, estimated by some observers to account for approximately 40% of the vocabulary prior to the movement's efforts, were to be systematically identified and substituted using empirical methods such as etymological analysis of ancient Tamil texts like the . Replacement strategies prioritized rediscovering dormant indigenous roots or forming compounds from verifiable native morphemes, ensuring derivations adhered strictly to Tamil's phonological and morphological patterns rather than arbitrary invention. Beyond , the principles mandated avoidance of all extraneous loanwords, including those from English, , , and European languages introduced via colonial or trade influences, to cultivate tanittamil—a form of Tamil insulated from hybridity. Guidelines emphasized rigorous scrutiny of word origins, often through , to distinguish core Tamil elements from accretions, while upholding the language's agglutinative grammar and without alteration. This approach rejected assimilation of foreign structures, insisting on endogenous adaptations to prevent erosion of Tamil's structural coherence. Central to the framework was the assertion of Tamil's status as a fully autonomous , equipped with an intrinsic capacity for precision across scientific, philosophical, and technological domains without necessitating external supplementation. Proponents argued that Tamil's historical corpus demonstrated its adequacy for conceptual , rendering borrowings superfluous and detrimental to lexical , as native derivations could encapsulate equivalent meanings through contextual extension or recombination.

Political and Cultural Underpinnings

The Tanittamil Iyakkam emerged as a response to perceived cultural subjugation, framing as an emblem of linguistic incursion and Brahminical authority that had historically marginalized Dravidian tongues. This perspective aligned the movement with broader Dravidian separatist sentiments, positing Tamil purification as a bulwark against the erosion of indigenous identity by northern Indian influences, including the promotion of as a . Such motivations reflected a causal drive toward linguistic , interpreting Sanskrit-derived vocabulary as a mechanism for enforcing social hierarchies rather than neutral enrichment. Culturally, the initiative sought to reclaim a primordial Tamil predating significant Sanskritic overlays, advocating for the resuscitation of expressions in spiritual and literary domains to evoke an unadulterated Dravidian heritage. Proponents envisioned this purism as restoring equilibrium to Shaivite devotional practices by excising foreign lexical elements, thereby emphasizing Tamil's self-sufficiency in articulating metaphysical and ethical concepts rooted in classical Sangam-era and traditions. This revivalist impulse prioritized empirical fidelity to attested ancient usages over syncretic adaptations, viewing hybrid forms as dilutions of causal cultural continuity. The movement's ideological fabric intertwined with self-respect doctrines that critiqued entrenched religious and structures, interpreting linguistic as a rational to the superstitious and elitist connotations embedded in Sanskritic . Atheistic undercurrents within allied rationalist circles reinforced this stance, portraying not merely as aesthetic preference but as resistance to institutionalized hierarchies that perpetuated inequality through sacralized language. While this nexus empowered anti-colonial assertions of , it also highlighted tensions between devotional revival and iconoclastic , with serving as a unifying vehicle for dismantling perceived theocratic dominance.

Key Figures and Organizational Efforts

Central Leaders

Maraimalai (–), born Vedachalam, established the in through a public commitment to employ Tamil free from admixtures, positioning himself as the movement's foundational figure. He produced over 100 books focused on , analysis, and Saivite themes, thereby directing the ideological core of the effort during its formative decades. Adigal advanced practical desanskritization by altering his own name to a pure Tamil form and urging the replacement of non-Tamil designations for individuals, streets, and localities with indigenous equivalents. Bharathidasan (1891–1964) shaped the movement's literary direction by embedding purist tenets in his compositions, crafting poetry exclusively in unadulterated Tamil while eschewing Sanskrit-derived meters and lexicon. From the onward, his verses disseminated Tanittamil advocacy, intertwining linguistic independence with socio-political critiques to influence public adherence to pure Tamil norms through the 1950s. Neelambikai Ammaiyar (1903–1945) served as a pioneering female leader, emphasizing women's participation in the revival and authoring works that propelled pure Tamil's adoption amid cultural resistance. Her contributions included essays on Tamil language advancement and educational initiatives targeting female scholars, fostering gender-inclusive leadership in purism from the 1930s to her death.

Supporting Networks and Initiatives

The Tanittamil Iyakkam was bolstered by linguistic societies dedicated to standardization and publication of pure Tamil works, including the Saiva Siddhanta Karakam founded by Tiruvarangam Navalar to disseminate unadulterated . Similarly, the Society, supported by figures like and Somasundara Nayakkar, focused on promoting Tamil-centric publications that reinforced the movement's core principles of linguistic purity. These groups emerged in the post-1920s period to foster collaborative efforts beyond individual advocacy, emphasizing collective development and textual revival. In the , the movement intersected with political structures like the Justice Party, which held power in from 1920 to 1937 and drew from non-Brahmin constituencies sympathetic to reducing dominance in education and administration. Proponents leveraged this alignment through petitions and discussions aimed at integrating pure Tamil terms into official usage, though direct policy shifts remained limited until later Dravidian-led reforms. Conferences during this era, often tied to broader Tamil cultural forums, facilitated debates on amid rising non-Brahmin mobilization. Publishing initiatives linked to these networks played a key role in the and , with societies producing dictionaries and texts that propagated tanittamil vocabulary during the intensification of Dravidian organizational activities. These efforts sustained grassroots dissemination, aligning with the Justice Party's era of cultural assertion before evolving into wider Dravidian platforms post-1940.

Practical Implementations

Neologism Development and Examples

The development within Tanittamil Iyakkam focused on systematically deriving replacement terms from indigenous Tamil roots to supplant loanwords, primarily Sanskrit-derived ones, by leveraging compounds and archaic forms from the classical corpus. Adherents prioritized roots attested in pre-borrowing Tamil texts, such as Sangam poetry, subjecting proposals to verification against these sources for historical legitimacy rather than arbitrary invention. This methodology aimed to reconstruct a untainted by external influences, often forming multi-root compounds to capture nuanced meanings absent in direct equivalents. Concrete examples illustrate this approach: the Sanskrit term tēkam (body) was supplanted by yākkai, a native compound evoking form or shape, drawn from classical usage. Similarly, manthiri (minister, from mantrin) yielded to amaichar, rooted in the Tamil verb amaichu (to arrange or assemble), connoting an organizer of affairs. For abstract notions like liberation, terms such as viḻipu emerged, combining release (viḻi) with extension (pu), though such coinages required iterative refinement to align with empirical textual precedents. Challenges persisted in forging functional equivalents for complex or modern abstracts, where classical offered limited precedents, prompting reliance on descriptive —e.g., adapting nāṟ (country or realm) with rule-denoting roots for concepts like (nāṟpaṭu, implying or tenure)—while guarding against over-innovation that might deviate from verifiable antiquity. These efforts were documented in specialized glossaries and dictionaries from through the , which cataloged hundreds of such terms, including both revived archaisms and formations, to facilitate consistent application.

Literary and Educational Applications

Adherents of Tanittamil Iyakkam applied purist principles in literary works starting from , particularly in and prose that eschewed Sanskrit-derived vocabulary in favor of native Tamil terms. Poets such as (1891–1964), influenced by the movement's emphasis on linguistic purity, composed verses addressing socio-political themes using exclusively Tamil roots, as seen in collections like Panchali Sapatham (1936), where narrative elements drew from indigenous lexicon to evoke classical Sangam-era styles. Similarly, his contemporaries including Suratha, Mudiyarasan, and Vaanidasan produced works that prioritized unadulterated Tamil, contributing to a body of literature that modeled the movement's ideals for broader readership. In educational contexts, the principles manifested through revisions to school curricula and textbooks in following in 1947, with accelerated efforts under the (DMK) government after 1967. Authorities formed terminology committees in the 1960s to develop pure Tamil equivalents for scientific, administrative, and pedagogical terms, mandating their incorporation into official textbooks to minimize loanwords—replacing terms like vidyalayam () with kalyana salai. This shift aimed at fostering comprehension among native speakers by aligning formal education with colloquial Tamil, resulting in measurable reductions in Sanskrit-derived words in state-approved texts; for instance, post-1960s editions of and primers exhibited over 40% fewer such loans compared to pre-independence materials, as documented in linguistic analyses of curriculum evolution. These applications extended to media and administrative documentation, where government directives from the late required pure Tamil usage in public communications and educational materials, supported by initiatives like the Textbook Society's standardization efforts. Classroom instruction increasingly emphasized pure and vocabulary, with metrics from language surveys indicating a decline in influences in student compositions and formal writing by the 1970s, reflecting the movement's pedagogical impact on generational language proficiency.

Criticisms and Controversies

Linguistic and Functional Critiques

Critics of the Tanittamil Iyakkam have argued that its neologisms, constructed to replace loanwords, frequently prove cumbersome and archaic in structure, hindering natural usage and leading to widespread rejection in everyday communication. For instance, proposed terms such as mintuukki for "" and paDapoTTi for "television" have been inconsistent in application and largely supplanted by simpler borrowings or blends like liift or Tiivii, reflecting resistance to hyperpuristic forms that evoke outdated literary registers rather than contemporary speech. This artificiality exacerbates Tamil's pre-existing , where a formal, purist literary Tamil diverges sharply from the vernacular spoken forms that incorporate organic adaptations, rendering the pure variant less accessible and functional for broad audiences. Linguistic analyses contend that historical organic borrowing, including from , has enriched Tamil's lexicon by providing concise terms for abstract or technical concepts, enhancing expressiveness without diluting core Dravidian structures. Studies highlight that classical Tamil integrated such loans seamlessly, as seen in where and elements coexisted with native roots to expand semantic range, a process purism disrupts by enforcing revivalist coinages over adaptive evolution. Andronov (1975) specifically notes that rejecting borrowings impoverishes modern Tamil's capacity for , as puristic translations struggle with precision in fields like , contrasting with languages that blend loans productively. Empirical data underscores incomplete adoption, with spoken Tamil retaining substantial loan elements despite purist efforts; analyses indicate persistence of English and residual Sanskrit-derived terms in colloquial usage, often exceeding 20% of vocabulary in informal contexts, as speakers favor pragmatic hybrids over mandated neologisms. Annamalai (1979) documents this gap, showing that while literary Tamil advances purism, spoken variants continue borrowing for efficiency, questioning the movement's viability in bridging diglossic divides or standardizing a unified, expressive form. Such patterns suggest purism's functional limitations, as enforced separation from evolutionary borrowing fails to align with speakers' natural linguistic behaviors.

Ideological and Societal Backlash

The Tanittamil Iyakkam elicited ideological backlash for its portrayal of as an instrument of Brahminical oppression, which critics argued fostered animus against Hindus and by alienating Tamil's integrated Indic traditions. Maraimalai Adikal, the movement's founder, framed linguistic purification as resistance to "" dominance, criticizing social structures and religious practices as lacking compassion and imposing hierarchical norms on Dravidian society. This approach aligned the movement with broader non-Brahminist sentiments, equating loanwords with cultural subjugation rather than historical enrichment. Opponents, including those defending syncretic Tamil , contended that such rhetoric overlooked the organic blending of influences in classical literature, where devotional works like the hymns employed Sanskritic terms to articulate shared spiritual themes without subordinating Tamil identity. Traditionalist counterarguments emphasized the movement's neglect of Tamil's syncretic heritage, as evidenced in traditions that harmonized local Dravidian elements with pan-Indic motifs, predating modern . Adikal's essays, while promoting Tamil revivalism, were seen by detractors as selectively rejecting Vedic and Shaiva integrations that had sustained Tamil religious expression for centuries, thereby promoting a narrow ethnic over empirical linguistic evolution. This purist stance, initiated in , was criticized for idealizing a pre-contact Tamil purity unsupported by archaeological or textual evidence of isolated development, ignoring mutual exchanges documented in Sangam and medieval corpora. Debates on societal divisiveness highlighted how proponents viewed the movement as essential for cultural preservation against and imposition, yet critics attributed to it an exacerbation of tensions by recasting Brahmins as perpetual outsiders and as a tool of exclusionary . In Tamil Nadu's socio-political landscape, this framing intensified non-Brahmin mobilization but was faulted for rejecting shared heritage, contributing to polarized identities that prioritized linguistic over inclusive Dravidian-Hindu continuities. Empirical observations of post-movement reveal heightened rhetorical conflicts, with traditional scholars arguing that deepened rifts rather than resolving them, as seen in ongoing resistance to hybrid vocabularies in religious and literary contexts.

Impact and Enduring Legacy

Transformations in Tamil Language and Usage

The Pure Tamil Movement facilitated a measurable decrease in Sanskrit-derived vocabulary within formal usage, with scholarly analyses estimating a reduction from about 50% in early 20th-century formal registers to approximately 20% in subsequent periods, reflecting deliberate substitutions with native Dravidian roots. This shift is evident in official documents and media, where pre-1940s texts often incorporated higher proportions of such loanwords—sometimes exceeding 40% in literary and administrative prose—contrasting with contemporary formal Tamil's lower incidence, around 18-25% of Indo-Aryan elements overall. Post-1950s institutional efforts, including glossaries from the Tamil Development Directorate and the Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology, standardized neologisms for domains like (e.g., iyarpīyal for physics), , and , drawing from Tamil roots to support precise modern expression without reliance on external borrowings. These initiatives, continuing into recent years with government corpora for technical terms, have embedded such equivalents in administrative and professional lexicons, enhancing Tamil's capacity for technical discourse. In Tamil Nadu's educational system, curricula prioritize these pure Tamil equivalents in textbooks and instruction, fostering familiarity among students despite colloquial speech retaining hybrid forms with Sanskrit and English influences. This approach, emphasizing "nalla Tamil" or refined Tamil in formal learning, has perpetuated the movement's lexical preferences across generations, as seen in state-mandated materials that avoid non-native terms where viable alternatives exist.

Connections to Broader Dravidian and Political Developments

The Tanittamil Iyakkam provided ideological ammunition for Dravidian parties, particularly the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which ascended to power in 1967 following intensified anti-Hindi agitations in the 1960s, where demands for Tamil linguistic purity were fused with opposition to perceived Hindi imposition as a threat to regional autonomy. This integration elevated purism from a literary pursuit to a cornerstone of state policy, manifesting in Tamil Nadu's official resistance to Hindi-centric national frameworks, such as the three-language formula, and reinforcing governance structures that prioritize Tamil-medium administration and education to safeguard Dravidian identity against centralizing influences. The movement's legacy extended into broader , influencing identity formation beyond , including among , where Dravidian-inspired linguistic and cultural assertions in the mid-20th century bolstered separatist narratives amid ethnic tensions, drawing parallels to Indian anti- mobilizations. However, this politicization of purism has drawn critiques for exacerbating regional fissures, as its emphasis on Tamil exclusivity clashed with pan-Indian linguistic integration efforts, potentially undermining broader national cohesion by framing or influences as existential threats rather than shared heritage elements. In the 2020s, Tanittamil Iyakkam's principles persist nominally in Tamil Nadu's through mandates for pure Tamil in official communications and , yet empirical trends indicate declining practical adherence, with accelerating English integration in urban discourse and media, reflecting a shift toward pragmatic over rigid purism. Linguistic enforcement remains a tool for Dravidian governance continuity, but surveys of contemporary usage highlight mixed reception, where purist ideals yield to functional needs in technology and commerce, tempering the movement's transformative role amid evolving regional dynamics.

References

  1. https://www.indianetzone.com/tanittamil_iyakkam
  2. https://journal.southindianhistorycongress.org/journals/articles/2020/SIHC_2020_051.pdf
  3. https://shaivam.org/scripture/English-Articles/1290/arumuga-navalar/
  4. https://sharingthesoul.wordpress.com/2021/04/02/revival-of-tamil-literature-in-1800s/
  5. https://archive.org/details/comparativegramm00caldrich
  6. https://madrascourier.com/insight/how-a-grammar-book-gave-rise-to-dravidian-identity/
  7. http://tamilkeerthanaigal.blogspot.com/2008/09/abraham-pandithar-brief-history-about.html
  8. https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2201580.pdf
  9. https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5199n9v7&chunk.id=s1.4.18&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch4&brand=ucpress
  10. http://s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/ijmer/pdf/volume10/volume10-issue5%281%29/105.pdf
  11. https://karanthaitamilsangam.in/en/history.html
  12. https://escholarship.org/content/qt7ch193mg/qt7ch193mg.pdf
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396270900_POLITICS_OF_TAMIL_NADU
  14. https://historum.com/t/which-dravidian-language-is-most-sanskritised.71490/
  15. https://www.academia.edu/38282532/Tamil_Ethno_Linguistic_Movement_in_India_and_Sri_Lanka
  16. http://www.ijelr.in/3.3.16/4-8%2520S.RAJESH%2520KUMAR.pdf
  17. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/sars238/tamil238.html
  18. https://www.academia.edu/143950862/Cultural_history_of_the_peoples_of_India
  19. https://www.mdpi.com/2313-5778/8/1/6
  20. https://thesouthfirst.com/tamilnadu/tamil-nadus-battle-against-hindi-imposition-a-legacy-of-resistance/
  21. https://countercurrents.org/2021/07/periyar-was-not-against-hindi-as-a-language-but-opposed-imposition-of-an-alien-culture-on-dravidian-people/
  22. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/sars238/subtopic/people.html
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3516775
  24. https://www.shanlaxjournals.in/pdf/ASH/V2N4/Ash_V2_N4_030.pdf
  25. https://jusst.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/NEELAMBIKAI-AMMAIYAR-THE-PIONEER-OF-THE-TANI-TAMIL.pdf
  26. https://jusst.org/neelambikai-ammaiyar-the-pioneer-of-the-tani-tamil-movement-linguistic-purity-movement/
  27. https://escholarship.org/content/qt7tt3h65c/qt7tt3h65c_noSplash_4a5bf5f58b356673bf7f17c48c40ca24.pdf
  28. https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5199n9v7
  29. https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5199n9v7&chunk.id=0&doc.view=print
  30. https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/public/AusbauTamil.pdf
  31. https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1903O19.pdf
  32. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/8/1004
  33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3517904
  34. https://www.delhievents.com/2014/03/tamizh-iyakkam-1916-1945-tamil-devotion.html
  35. https://organiser.org/2024/01/17/216670/bharat/decoding-dmks-divisive-politics-in-tamil-nadu/
  36. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/jsal/index.php/fasal/article/view/312/183
  37. https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/sars238/encybrit.html
  38. http://lisindia.ciil.org/Tamil/Tamil_lang.html
  39. https://www.cstt.education.gov.in/en
  40. https://www.dtnext.in/tamilnadu/2022/04/19/tn-govt-to-create-corpus-of-tamil-words-for-technical-terms
  41. https://cms.tn.gov.in/cms_migrated/document/docfiles/tamildev_e_pn_2024_25.pdf
  42. https://chicagotamilforum.uchicago.edu/files/2023/04/Annamalai-E_Nalla-Tamil-CTF-2014-1.pdf
  43. https://www.academia.edu/40978253/The_usage_of_contemporary_Tamil
  44. https://frontline.thehindu.com/books/dravida-munnetra-kazhagam-hindi-imperialism-tamil-nadu-post-independence-emergency-1975-periyar-ev-ramasamy/article68828841.ece
  45. https://organiser.org/2025/03/21/283099/bharat/tamil-nadu-from-1937-to-2024-how-dmk-exploits-the-hindi-imposition-narrative-for-political-gains/
  46. https://www.siasat.com/for-dravidian-parties-anti-hindi-protests-a-way-to-re-assert-tamil-identity-2660143/
  47. https://sangam.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Tamil-Militancy-in-Sri-Lanka-and-the-Role-of-Religion.pdf
  48. https://m.thewire.in/article/politics/tamil-nadu-anti-hindi-protests
  49. https://www.thehindu.com/education/decoding-tamil-nadus-new-language-policy-in-higher-education-institutes/article66865503.ece
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352181232_Linguistic_Purism_in_Indian_Languages_-_The_Case_of_Hindi-Urdu_Marathi_and_Tamil
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.