Besides, anything could possibly be affirmed and by anybody only subject to the circumstances of time and space. On the other hand, to parrot like the parppanar do, that anything and everything has been uttered by god, hence true for all times is not acceptable in our times. Whether these two great people truly existed or not, it needs to be accepted that the period in which such moral literature came to be articulated was certainly of Aryan domination. We need also to accept the fact that the authors, who propagated this literature either in the name of Avvai or Valluvar, were men and women just like us. Here, as mentioned above, one ought to bundle up and put aside what has been termed as divine nature, that is above human nature and only after that truth will become clear. Otherwise anything could be said by anybody. Only in this way one can reach a fair understanding of why they said what they did. That is given the times that were, were conclude, anybody could have articulated only similar morals at that time.
There could be no difference of opinion that Kamban is a poet of great versatility. Such a great poet if he sang Ramayana, in the times of Aryan domination, times when people were subjected to Aryanism, he could only do so by changing Valmiki’s ideas, removing the obscenities from it, granting full greatness to the Aryans and projecting them in such a way that people at large would celebrate them. In the same way, even today, many pundits though of profound erudition and great learning are afraid of rising against Aryan domination, they also speak of the greatness of the Aryans. The reason being, though claiming to be not out of fear, their own Aryan practices, habitual reading of Aryan stories, worshipping of the divinities of Aryan creation and repeated singing and writing of Aryan stories, such practices will necessarily engender only such behaviour. Those who right from childhood onwards, through their own body and the very pores of their skin have been developing and filling their brain in Aryanism, what else could they do? Therefore if they are considered person of greatness and of pure nature, it is better to cut the story short, saying that they wrote according to the times. On the other hand, if it is claimed, that their sayings are valid for all times then they are plainly blameworthy and blameworthy even if one reveals one’s third eye. Again, our comrade has asserted several unrelated things on the question of equality, though for the purpose on hand, it is not necessary to make an issue out of them, if one looks at what he has said on the principle of equality, in that too, he has escaped without stating anything logically. That is, women obtaining their rights and needs without hindrance from men, so men too, getting theirs from women without causing them any difficulty, and thus living in mutual support, he says, is what is gender equality. But in the same breath, he has closed the matter saying that to go into what the rights of men and what those of women are, and what their separate needs are, will open another matter. But the core issue of the matter under discussion in this essay is precisely to understand what is the male right, what is that of the female, and why is there to be a difference between the two. This being so our comrade’s excuse for not opening the different matter, we are constrained to suggest, is nothing but excusing oneself out of fear of going into the core of the very matter on hand and face the issue squarely. He says, that the male is characterized by valour, hardness, anger and domination, while the female by love, softness, peace and caring. It now becomes clear to us that it is this, his conclusion that has proved him to come forward taking up cudgels on behalf of Tiruvalluvar. To say that men are characterized by valour etc. and women by love etc. is tantamount to saying that vaolour etc. are characteristics of tiger on the one hand and love etc. are the qualities of goat on the other, and not otherwise. But the notion of women’s rights we are advocating, is to assert that women also like men are characterized by valour, hardness, anger and domination and that men ought to accept this fact.
