THE MALAYALAM BIBLE WAS MADE BY HINDUS

In the end, Menon became a Christian

In an era when the Christians in Kerala lacked literary scholarship, two Hindus, with the help of a Jewish scholar, did the first translation of the Bible into Malayalam. The Hindus were Palakad Ottappalam Chunangat Chathu Menon, a Malayalam scholar and Vaidyanatha Iyer, a Tamil/Sanskrit scholar. The Jew was Hebrew scholar Moses ben David Sarphati.

Even the first incomplete translation of the Bible into Malayalam, which is called the Ramban Bible, was done by a Hindu Tamil scholar, Thimmappa Pillai, which had a heavy dose of Tamil.

The details of the translation have been described in my Malayalam novel, Papasananam, based on the life of Rev Jacob Ramavarma, an associate of Herman Gundert, who got converted to Christianity.Ramavarma was the son of the Kochi King,Veera Keralavarma.Chathu Menon, after the translation, became a Christian, like Joseph Fenn. He took the name from Rev Joseph Fenn, the first principal of the  Syrian College (old seminary), Kottayam.

Ramban Bible

During an identity crisis in his life, Jacob Ramavarma met Chathu Menon, who had become Joseph Fenn by that time, working as a Munsif at Kochi. Till then, Jacob Ramavarma records in his autobiography, that he had never known praying with heart. Since he was not satisfied with rendering the prayers in the ordinary books, he spoke to his friend  Joseph Fenn, seeking a better book. He told Jacob that God looks not at the book but at a person's heart." only a man is responsible for his own actions", Joseph Fenn told Jacob Ramavarma. He began following this advice, seeking happiness.

This Joseph Fenn should not be confused with Joseph Fenn (1790-1878)  a lawyer turned missionary who resigned from Lincon's Inn, London to reach Kottayam in Travancore, in 1818. Travancore Dewan John Munro had asked him and Rev Thomas Norton to work in Travancore. Benjamin Bailey too came the same year.

Jacob's friend Joseph Fenn was Ottapalam Chunangat Chathu Menon, who had joined Benjamin Bailey, with Moses and Vaidyanatha Iyer in the translation of the Bible into Malayalam in 1817. During translation, Chathu Menon and his sons, Padmanabha Menon and Govindan Kutty Menon embraced Christianity, and Menon got acres of land in Vazhoor, Kottayam, and the home he built is still there at Kodungoor junction. Padmanabhan became Bailey Fenn and Govindankutty, Baker Fenn. Those names were a combination of the three missionary names, Benjamin Bailey, Henry Baker and Joseph Fenn.

Page from Book of Psalms, printed in 1938, Kottayam

Chathu Menon (1778-1837)  was born in Chunangat (a known Hindu family) in the Ottapalam village of British Malabar. He lost his mother when he was very young and was brought up by his Uncle who taught him martial arts. At age 15, he quarrelled with his uncle, left home, joined a survey team at Ottapalam and moved to Madras. The leader of the team helped him to continue his education and became an employee of the Madras Revenue Department, in 1800. Later, he became a tutor of the Travancore Dewan Ottapalam Ankarath Raman Menon, with whose help, he became the Tahsildar of Chengannur. He was a tutor of two princes too. Menon married Parvathiamma of Pulivelil House in Aala, a village near Chengannur Town.

Menon was an expert in Malayalam, English and Sanskrit. He was appointed as Tahsildar of Kottayam in 1816-1817. While he was working in this capacity, he became a friend of the Church Mission Society (CMS) missionary, Rev. Benjamin Bailey. Bailey was in need of a person like Menon to help him translate the Bible from English to Malayalam. Moved by Bailey’s request, Menon took leave from the Travancore Government Service and joined back after two years, completing the translation work in 1819. Dewan Munro gave Menon leave to do the work.

Transformation

The Bible translation transformed his life. He continued to stay in Kottayam for a few years. In 1830 he had confidential discussions with Archdeacon Robinson When he visited Kottayam Syrian College (old seminary) and he accepted Jesus as his personal Saviour. He gave his wife, two sons and four daughters the freedom to choose their religion. He offered them all the wealth he had acquired by then. Joseph Fenn, Principal of the College was the main stimulus for this conversion. On 2 November 1831, he was baptized in the Anglican Church in Calicut by Arch Deacon Robinson and was given the name Joseph Fenn. 

Later members of his family were also baptized. Menon had to resign from his government job as Travancore Rules dictated that “non-Hindus were not allowed to hold the post of Tahsildar.” However, he joined the British Government Service and worked as a Salt Peshkar in Ponnani, Record Keeper in Calicut; and later  District Munsif in Cochin. He passed away in 1837, at the age of 57, and was buried in St. Francis Anglican Church, Cochin. 

His descendants live on in Kerala today as Fenns.

Original Joseph Fenn

Both Rev. Joseph Fenn - the principal of the College at Kottayam - and Benjamin Bailey of the CMS Mission School next door, were in need of a Malayalam translator and Menon's talents were well known. Fenn wanted him to translate Latin Grammar into Malayalam and Bailey needed him to help him translate the Bible from English to Malayalam.

Several attempts at a Malayalam version of the Bible had already been made by Syrian Catanars when Scottish theologian Dr Claudius Buchannan - the chaplain of the East India Company - visited in the early 1800s. He suggested to Syrian bishop Mar Dionysius that another concerted attempt be made and upon his return in 1807 was delighted to find that new translations had been made of the four Gospels and the book of Acts. The translations were done by Tamil scholar Thimmappa Pillai and Philipose Ramban, a scholar from Kayamkulam, assisted by eight Tamil pandits and eight Suriyani pundits using the Tamul version of Fabricius.

It was then printed at Courier Press in Bombay in 1811. [The Bible of Every Land. London, 1848, page 124-5]. The Bombay Courier was an English-language newspaper, first printed in 1790 in Bombay, by William Ashburner. It followed the Bombay Herald, founded in 1789, and succeeded the Bombay Gazette, founded in 1791. In 1847, it merged with the Bombay Telegraph to form the Telegraph and Courier. Timmappah Pillai went to Bombay, where a font of Malayalam type had been cast, and he supervised the printing.

It was found to abound with words familiar to the Syrian Christians but almost unintelligible to other classes of the Malayalam population. Timapah Pillay was asked to make an entirely new translation without delay, however, it too was an unreliable mixture of Malayalam and Tamil - and was also unsuitable for the missionaries. It was - in the words of the British Resident Colonel Munro - "to be so very bad in every respect; in fidelity, meaning and language as to be unfit for use" [Proceedings of the CMS, V20, 1820, p170]. Munro also said that "Mr Bailey is obliged to make a complete version of the whole" [op cit].

Faced with this request, Fenn and Bailey approached Chathu in 1819 and he took two-year's leave from the Travancore Government Service to assist with translation. Bailey also sought the help of Moses Sarphati, a Hebrew scholar, and Vaidyanatha Iyer, a Sanskrit pandit. 

Ramban Bible Copy

Historian and Biblical scholar Stephen Neill says of the process that neither a Malayalam grammar nor dictionary was available to the translators and they were unaware of the contributions of the Roman Catholics in this area [Neill, 2002, History of Christianity in India: 1707-1858, p243]. As well there was no standard prose so the question of what sort of Malayalam should the Bible script be translated into was hard to resolve. Nevertheless, The Gospel of Mathew was printed at CMS press in 1819, Â New Testament in 1825 and the full Bible in 1841. 

Neill criticised the text for being too close to the original Greek" thus distorting the Malayalam idiom"; and "an excess of Sanskrit words made it difficult for the less learned Christian to read" [op cit]. Criticisms aside, it was a major achievement for the missionaries of Travancore. Menon's translation of the Bible was well received. Rev Francis Spring - chaplain at Tellicherry - had also made a complete revision of the Bible using the Sanscrit New Testament supplemented by the Greek text and various critical works. It was designed to be acceptable to the people of Malabar (to the north of Travancore). Fenn said (in a letter to Rev. Josiah Pratt of the CMS - dated 20 January 1825) regarding the Spring translation of the Bible "I greatly prefer Mr Bailey's", and "Mr Bailey's translation seems to be much more correct and faithful version".

Menon translated “Town Clerk" as  “Pattana Menavan” (Malayalam Bible Acts 19:35). Menon is a sub-sect of Nairs-they were doing clerical jobs.

It is often wondered why Chathu Menon adopted Joseph Fenn's name when it is believed that his major task was working with Rev. Bailey on the Bible translation. He worked equally hard helping Rev. Fenn and it would seem that Fenn inspired him. For example, on November 30, 1821, in a letter to the Secretary of the CMS in London, Rev. Fenn wrote that "after tea, translated with Chattoo Menon some of the Latin rules of Syntax".

                Fenn's diary for February 13, 1821, shows that he was helped by "Chattoo" Menon

Fenn also commented in his Annual Report on the College, (Cotyam, Sept 23, 1822) that "In translating, Chathu Menon is my mainstay, indeed, I ought to say that he is the translator". But not only did Chathu translate English medium texts into Malayalam, but also Sanskrit: in 1821, at the request of  Bailey, he translated the Hindu Upanishad scriptures Ishapanishad and Kena Upanishad.

The Bible translation transformed Menon's life and he accepted Christianity [Neill, 2002, History of Christianity in India: 1707-1858, p 243, note 27]. In Malayalam poetical works, he became well known through a controversial poem, Ajnana Kudaram ( "An Axe to Cut Down Ignorance" ) wherein he severely criticised some of the social superstitions that prevailed in those days. It was in the Malayalam poetical form of Kilippat. The author's name in the book was യൗസെഫ ഫെൻ, Yousefa Fenn.

He passed away in 1837, at the age of 57, and was buried in St. Andrews Anglican Church, Cochin. His descendants live in Kerala. One of them, Rev. Baker Ninan Fenn was consecrated as the eighth bishop of the North Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India in June 2013.

The children of Chathu Menon were: Govindankutty (Bailey Fenn), Born 1825, Died 1864; Kalyani (Elizabeth Fenn), Born 1829, Died 1901 married to Mathai, Konnayil, Pallam, Kottayam, Karthyayani C. (Sarah Fenn), Born 1823, Died 1877; Lekshmi (Maria Fenn), Born 1821, Died 1899, married Modayil Koipurath Oommen; Padmanabhan (Baker Fenn Sr.), Born 1818, Died 1846; Parvathy (Teresa Fenn), Born 1827, Died 1868.

Literary works

His poem, Ajnaana Kudaram written in 1835, is based on his religious search for salvation. It describes the socio-cultural background that inspired his conversion. The hero compares various religions and finds solace in Christianity. Literary critics like M Leelavathy, who wrote The History of Malayalam Poetry, have totally ignored this poetical work. But Ullur S Prameswara Iyer who wrote the History of Malayalam Literature and P Govinda Pillai, a linguistic historian were generous enough to mention it. Ponjikara Rafi wrote an article on the poem, titled, Anjana Kudaram Enna Kavithayum Balakar Enna Sankalpavum. He has pointed out that the imagery of the axe of folly is the axe of Parasurama. The caste system is the axe of ignorance in Kerala. But this interpretation seems to be incorrect since the title of the poem, as written in Fenn's book is,

Ajnana Kutharam
or
An Axe to cut down Ignorance
by
The Late Joseph Fenn
Munsiff - British Cochin

It is evident that the imagery is not of an axe of folly, but an axe to cut down ignorance. Syrian College Published it in 1876 and Malayalam Religious Tract Society in 1905 from Kottayam. Ullur has pointed out that the poem does criticise Hindu superstitions. Joseph Fenn laments:

"മൂശാരി വാര്‍ത്ത തിടമ്പമ്പലം തന്നില്‍
ഘോഷിച്ചുവച്ചു പൂജിക്കുന്നതു നേരം
ദോഷമുണ്ടാം വിപ്രനെന്നിയേ തൊട്ടീടില്‍
ദോഷമില്ലായതുടഞ്ഞിതെന്നാകിലോ
മൂശാരി തൊട്ടു കുറകള്‍ തീര്‍ത്തീടുന്നു;
മൂശയ്ക്കകത്തിട്ട് വാര്‍പ്പതവനല്ലോ.."

(The idol in the temple is made by an untouchable 

If it breaks by the touch of the Brahmin 

The untouchable will have  to repair

The untouchable is the creator...)

The poem in five parts definitely shows Fenn's scholarship in Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. It has everything from Dasavathara myth, Puri Jagannatha, and Vedanta to Nabi and Tipu Sultan.

A philosophical verse from it:

'ചിത്തമേകാഗ്രമായ് നിന്നിതെന്നാകിലോ
സത്വരം ജ്ഞാനാഗ്‌നി തന്നില്‍ ദുരിതങ്ങള്‍
കത്തിയെരിഞ്ഞുപോം, കൈത്തിരികൊണ്ടൊരു
പത്തനമെല്ലാം ദഹിക്കുന്നതുപോലെ..'

(If your mind is steady and 

If you have the inner fire of wisdom
The agony will get destroyed
Like a town in flames)

It ends in the spiritual vaccum of the untouchables:

പണ്ടൊരു ശൂദ്രന്‍ തന്നുടെ പാപം 

കണ്ടു ഭയം പൂണ്ടങ്ങകതണ്ടില്‍
തെണ്ടിനശോകാന്‍ അന്തണമേകം 

കണ്ടു വണങ്ങിക്കൊണ്ടുര ചെയ്താന്‍
'ഇണ്ടലകരുവതിന്‍ വഴിയെന്യേ 

കുണ്ഠിതരായതി പാപസമേതം
മണ്ടിയുഴന്ന് നടപ്പിതു ശൂദ്രര്‍ 

കണ്ടീലവര്‍കള്‍ക്കില്ലുപദേശം
വേദവുമില്ല ശാസ്ത്രവുമില്ല 

വേദിയരെന്യേ ശരണം നാസ്തി.
പൂജ പുനസ്കാരങ്ങളുമില്ലാ 

പൂതതയില്ലാമനസ്സിന്നേതും
മന്ത്രവുമില്ലാ തന്ത്രവുമില്ലാ 

സന്ധ്യയിലൂക്കയുമില്ലാ ശൂദ്രന്‍
ഹന്ത! നിനച്ചാലെന്തവനുള്ളു 

അന്തകനെത്തുമ്പോള്‍ ഹാഹാഹാ

(The Sudras have neither Veda, Sasthra
Nor Poojas,Mantra and Tantra
They don't have Lukose at twilight and salvation
Who will rescue them at the hour of death?)

There is a tinge of Kunchan Nambiar here. Rev Henry Baker in a letter in 1840 has recorded that this poem was very popular then. But since it had a missionary zeal, Chattampi Swamikal (1853-1924) attacked the poem vehemently in his Christhu Mathachedhanam (A Critique of Christianity). He remarked:

"By publishing heretical books like Anjanakudaram, the missionaries are trying to convert ignorant Hindus like Pulayas, Channars, and Parayas by offering them cap and dress and thereby leading them to hell."

Story of the Jew

Now, the untold story of the Cochin Jew, who assisted in the Bible translation-Moses ben David Sarphati, the Hebrew professor of Kottayam Syrian College.

The surname Sarphati is believed to have its origin in France as the word SARPAT is the Hebrew word for France. According to history, this family came to Cochin in the 17th century. They are professional writers and are seen in communal agreements of the Cochin Jewish community.

Moses ben David Sarphati was a liberally-minded Jew, who is mentioned in many missionary records for his kindness and generosity. He was one of the linguists who helped Benjamin Bailey with the Hebrew language in his complete translations of the Old Testament Bible.

He was the Hebrew Professor of the Kottayam CMS, and many of the Malpans (the Syriac word "Malpan" means teacher. Elderly Christian priests who used to teach and train candidates for the priesthood were usually referred to as Malpans) were practising Hebrew lessons under him. Thus he was a teacher to the teachers. Sarphati was a skilled Sofer (Hebrew scribe) and he is also considered a local historian. His Hebrew history record of Cochin Jews dated 1874, (which is a collection containing various records/data of an early date of 1663 to his time) is mentioned by David Solomon, in his Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscript catalogue book "Ohel David".

Sarphati's influence is seen in the different stages of publishing Bailey's Malayalam bible, as the primary stage was started by publishing Psalms, followed by the 5 Books of Moses which are of high importance in Judaism. Finally, the entire book was published in 1841-42.

Cochin Jews held many translated biblical manuscripts owned by different people. These clusters of Malayalam translations would have been an aid for Bailey's translations, few among the recorded Malayalam translations are mentioned in Ohel David, some with the name of the scribes and owners too.

Buchanan enters

The visit of Dr Claudius Buchanan, who was the vice-principal and chaplain of Fort William College, Calcutta in 1806, was the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the Christian community. On reaching Kandanad, he held discussions with the Bishop there and sought his opinion on translating the Bible to Malayalam and also on opening regional schools. With the permission of the Bishop, Buchanan apprised the British Resident Col.Colin Macaulay of the details of his interaction with the Bishop and they together visited the northern parts of Travancore and Kochi. A copy of the Bible written on parchment in Syriac was presented to Buchanan by Mar Dionysius, who was the sixth Mar Thoma at Angamaly. This was printed by the Bible Society and its copies were distributed in the churches in Malabar (Logan, William, Malabar Manual). The copy presented to Buchanan is now kept at the Cambridge Library.

 The Church in Kerala is indebted to these great Hindus who translated the Bible.

Buchanan

The translated Bible contains the Old Testament and the New Testament. A collection of the works existing in Israel before the arrival of Christ constitutes the Old Testament. The collection of holy books that originated after the arrival of Christ and was written by the Apostles and his other disciples is known as the New Testament. From time immemorial, all such works were translated into different languages. Buchanan, who took up the translation initiative, translated New Testament from Syriac to Malayalam under the tutelage of Philipose Ramban, a native of Kayamkulam, with the help of Pulikkottil Thomas Ramban and Thimmappa Pillai. This is the first Bible in Malayalam and it was distributed in churches in 1815. 

Buchanan, a friend of William Carrey persuaded church leaders to translate biblical manuscripts into Malayalam and guided local scholars. At that time, Syriac was the liturgical language of Christians in Kerala. By 1807, Ittoop and Ramban—both Malankara Syrian Christian monks—had translated the four gospels from Syriac into Malayalam, assisted by Thimmappa Pillai. They then translated the Tamil version by Johann Philipp Fabricius into Malayalam. The Bible Society of India paid for 500 copies to be printed in Bombay in 1811. Timmappa completed the translation of the New Testament in 1813, but this edition too was found to include vocabulary known only to the Syriac Christian community and not to the general Malayalee population. This translation is now known as the Ramban Bible.

Bailey, who learnt Malayalam, Sanskrit, and Syriac, set up the CMS Press at Kottayam in 1821. He himself carved out wooden Malayalam scripts for the first time to print the Bible. Both the Malayalam-English Dictionary and the English-Malayalam Dictionary were published in 1846 and were printed at the CMS Press.

It was in 1817, that the Church Missionary Society of India provided Benjamin Bailey to translate the Bible into Malayalam. He completed his translation of the New Testament in 1829 and the Old Testament in 1841. Hermann Gundert updated Bailey's version and produced the first Malayalam-English dictionary in 1872. 

Benjamin Bailey

Rev Francis Spring, a Chaplain of the British East India Company, who was based at Thalasserry, had translated the Bible from Sanskrit to Malayalam with the help of regional language scholars by 1822. The Sanskrit translation of the Bible had already partially taken shape as far as 1808 and the full version appeared ten years later. But Spring’s translation into Malayalam never saw the light of day. 

Spring was part of the team that established the first school in Pallikkunnu, Thalassery on 25 June 1817, along with Parson John Laverock Oakes, Edbert (Canara), and the Magistrate Thomas Harvey Baber. The first schoolmaster was a Portuguese called John Baptist or Baptiste, a “native catechist,” who had four native assistants. Spring left for England in 1824. It was taken over by the CMS that year. In 1824, it contained 59 children of various castes and classes. Spring was able to take over control of the school to a greater extent in the years after 1820; it began to try to convert pupils to Christianity. John L. Oakes who was Master Attendant at Thalassery, died in about 1819, leaving 20,000 Rupees of his own fortune for the relief of the poor of Thalassery.

Spring wrote about Thalassery:

“Something is almost daily occurring to animate us in our course. Here, flashes of heavenly light are continually gleaming through the darkening atmosphere. I hear that there is, on every side, a readiness amongst great numbers to receive the tidings of the Gospel.”

A hospital in Thalassery was opened in 1819, which grew out of Oakes' work.

It was again Bailey whose Malayalam translation of the New Testament was officially published by the Madras Auxiliary of the Bible Society in 1835. The revised version of this Bible was published in 1859. It is also said that the first CMS Missionary named Thomas Norton prepared a translation of the Book of Psalms in 1837 but nothing further is known about it. The Basal Evangelical Lutheran Mission published a new translation of the New Testament from Thalasserry. Hermann Gundert, the renowned grammarian and polyglot, was the translator of this version.

Bailey's Press at CMS Press, Kottayam

 In 1871, the Madras Auxiliary of the Bible Society appointed a committee to prepare a translation which could be used in Travancore as well as in Kochi and Malabar. The committee was formed having representatives from CMS, LMS, Basal Mission and the Syrian Church. The committee first prepared the translation of the New Testament. It was based on a Greek source. The committee referred German translation of Luther and Sterrin, the new Tamil translation, Bailey’s Malayalam translation and Samuel Lee’s Syriac Bible. Dr Gundert’s translation was taken as the model translation. Gospels and other parts of the Bible were revised occasionally. The New Testament was launched in 1880. 

Dr Gundert once settled down in Germany after retiring from the service in India in 1859 and translated poetry (Wisdom Literature) and Books of Prophets. Poetry was published in 1881 and Books of Prophets in 1888. Besides the above translations, however, the committee appointed by the Bible Society in 1871, published in 1910, the complete Bible in Malayalam known as “Sathyavedapusthakam” which was generally acceptable to the Malayalam-speaking world. This translation is similar in style to the new testament of the Bible Society and also includes the revisions made by Bailey in his translation in the light of the English revised version. 

However, the Satyavedapusthakam cannot be claimed as a complete translation of the Bible since some portions found elsewhere are not to be found in it. For instance, the portion of Apocrypha though included in the other translations of the Bible is not found in this Bible. It could not gain popularity as other translations. One of the main reasons for this may be the language used in the translation. It was mainly used by the laity of some of the Christian denominations such as the Jacobites, even now. So it could not gain popularity as the other translations of the Bible. Even now its use is limited and confined to a small segment of the Christian community More contemporary translations of the Bible, found to be very popular among Malayalis are those brought out by Oshana and Pastoral Orientation Centre. 

Destruction

Now the story of the destruction of a library in Kerala.

Buchanan Bible at Cambridge

In the vaults of the Cambridge University library in England lies one of the most important relics of Christianity in India. It is the only surviving copy of the Buchanan Bible. The first-ever book to be translated and printed in Malayalam. Sometime between the 9th and 12th centuries, in the remote region of Tur Abdin, on the border of Turkey and Syria, someone prepared a copy of the Syriac Bible and dispatched it to India. It came into the possession of the Jacobite Church. The Portuguese were determined to convert them, and it would make a sinister turn when Aleixo de Menezes became Arch Bishop of Goa in 1559. In June 1599 he convened the Diamper Synod (Udayamperur) in Cochin.

The clerics of the Syrian Church were advised to bring their religious texts to correct the errors in their Bible. All the copies of the Syrian  Bible were declared heretical and ordered to be burnt. Before the Church had time to react, they were destroyed. This was followed by the destruction of the huge library of the Syrian Church at Angamaly. Only a single copy of the Syriac Bible survived in a remote church in central Malabar. In 1807 when Buchanan was in Kerala, Mar Dionysius showed this copy to him. The Church gifted it to Buchanan. He donated it to the University of Cambridge in 1809.

Codex Vaticanus

Syrian Orthodox Church, which follows the Patriarch of Antioch in Syria, follows its own version of the Bible known as the Peshitta Bible which was compiled at the end of the 3rd century CE. Peshitta means, straight or simple. It was written in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic. Aramaic was the language of Jesus.

Roman Catholic Church uses the Vulgate Bible, translated by St Jerome in 382 CE, from Hebrew to Latin. Vulgate means common. The oldest surviving copies of the Bible are the Codus Vaticanus (300-325 CE) in the Vatican Library and Codex Sinaiticus (300-360 CE) in the British Museum.

The Codex is named after its place of conservation in the Vatican Library, where it has been kept since at least the 15th century. It is written on 759 leaves of vellum in uncial letters and has been dated palaeographically to the 4th century.

The manuscript became known to Western scholars as a result of correspondence between Erasmus and the prefects of the Vatican Library. Portions of the codex were collated by several scholars, but numerous errors were made during this process. The codex's relationship to the Latin Vulgate was unclear and scholars were initially unaware of its value. This changed in the 19th century when transcriptions of the full codex were completed. It was at that point that scholars realised the text differed significantly from the Textus Receptus.

Most current scholars consider the Codex Vaticanus to be one of the best Greek texts of the New Testament, with the Codex Sinaiticus as its only competitor. Until the discovery by Tischendorf of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus was unrivalled. It was extensively used by Westcott and Hort in their edition of The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881. The most widely sold editions of the Greek New Testament are largely based on the text of the Codex Vaticanus. Codex Vaticanus is regarded as "the oldest extant copy of the Bible".

The Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is an edition of the Greek texts of the New Testament established by Erasmus in the 16th century. It was the most commonly used text type for Protestant denominations.

The biblical Textus Receptus constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, the Spanish Reina-Valera translation, the Czech Bible of Kralice, and most Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The text originated with the first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516, a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar, priest and monk Desiderius Erasmus.

© Ramachandran 

 

THE BUDDHA AS A HINDU AND MARXIST

The Mystery of the Adi Buddha

I had been to Bodh Gaya.Buddha got enlightenment while meditating underneath a fig tree here.Emperor Asoka's evil queen Tissarakha  thought Asoka was pouring his love and affection to the tree instead of her and used a Mandu thorn to kill the tree in the Mahamega arama.Hindus had been visiting Bodh Gaya since atleast Buddha's own life time.The site was actually maitained by a lineage of Saiva priests.

Why so?

It is because there was a Hindu Buddha.The Adi Buddha,who is considered to be an avatar of Vishnu.

In Lalita Vistara, it is described how Gautama Buddha meditated on the same spot as the predecessor Buddha. The original name of Bodhgaya is Kikata, after Gautama attained enlightment there, it came to be known as Buddha gaya. Even today the rituals of worship is preformed by sannyasis of Sankaracharya sect.

Lankavatara Sutra, the famous buddhist work says that Ravana, King of Lanka first worshipped Vishnu incarnation Buddha then successive and future Buddha.

It is very evident that Purana and Buddhist Chronology does not synchronize with each other, while they seem to be saying about the same person. When Analyzing this question. It becomes apparent that we have merged two Buddhas. The Adi Buddha or Avatar Buddha of Vishnu and Shakya Buddha or Gautama Buddha into One.

Adi Buddha was born on 1887BC to Mother Anjana in Kikata (Bodh Gaya).

He established the Philosophy of Ahimsa, Non Violence. He preached against ritual animal sacrifices that has crept into Vedic Hinduism. He emphasized the divine in all beings and divinity of all souls arousing compassion for all.

Bhagavata Purana says "At the commencement of the Kāli-yuga will Vishnu become incarnate in Kikata, under the name of Buddha, the son of Jina, for the purpose of deluding the enemies of the gods."

Puranas say that Adi Buddha was born in Ikshvaku Dynasty.

Adi Buddha is contemproary of Srenika(Sunika) whose father was Hemajit or Kshemajit or Kshetroja or Ksetrauja. Son of Srenika is Kunika. His son is Dharshaka.

Siddhartha was was born around 560BC in the royal family of Suddhodana and Mayadevi in Lumbini in Nepal. Siddhartha received his name Gautama from his spiritual Master Gautama Muni, who belonged to Kapila dynasty,as per Sundarananda Charita. He left home, his royal comforts to find enlightenment. He went to Bodh Gaya to meditate and got enlightenment.It again means Bodh Gaya was a pilgrimage centre during his time.

Gautama Buddha is the propagator of Bahyatmavada, Jnanatmavada and Sunyavada, three pillars of Atheism. He Went to Bodhgaya to meditate because of its spiritual potency as the birthplace of Adi Buddha.

If Adi Buddha was the contemporary of srenika,as stated above,again confuion arises-Bimbisāra (c. 558 – c. 491 BC or during the late 5th century BC,was  also known as Seniya or Shrenika in the Jain histories.He was a King of Magadha (r. 543 – 492 BC or c. 400 BC and belonged to the Haryanka dynasty. He was the son of Bhattiya,a chieftain. His expansion of the kingdom, especially his annexation of the kingdom of Anga to the east, is considered to have laid the foundations for the later expansion of the Maurya Empire.

He is also known for his cultural achievements and was a great friend and protector of the Buddha. Bimbisara—according to Hiuen Tsang—built the city of Rajgir (Rajagriha), famous in Buddhist writings (others attribute the city's foundation to his successor).He was succeeded on the throne by his son Ajatashatru.

Bimbisara welcomes Buddha

He became a devotee of Jainism impressed by the calmness of Yamadhar (a Jain Muni). He frequently visited Samavasarana of Lord Mahavira seeking answers to his queries.Per Jain scripture, Bimbisara killed himself in a fit of passion, after his son had imprisoned him. Consequently, he was reborn in hell, where he is currently residing, until the karma which led to his birth there comes to an end.It is further written, that he will be reborn as Mahapadma (sometimes called Padmanabha), the first in the chain of future tirthankaras who are to rise at the beginning of the upward motion (Utsarpini) of the next era of time

According to Buddhist scriptures, King Bimbisara met the Buddha for the first time prior to the Buddha's enlightenment, and later became an important disciple that featured prominently in certain Buddhist suttas. He is recorded to have attained sotapannahood, a degree of enlightenment in Buddhist teachings. Although Bimbisara let the women in his palace visit Buddha in his monastery in the evenings; the women wanted a hair-and-nail stupa they could use to venerate the Buddha any time. Bimbisara spoke with Buddha who complied with their requests.

Many biographies of the Buddha begin not with his birth in his last lifetime but in a lifetime millions of years before, when he first made the vow to become a buddha. According to a well-known version, many aeons ago there lived a Brahman named (in some accounts) Sumedha, who realized that life is characterized by suffering and then set out to find a state beyond death. He retired to the mountains, where he became a hermit, practiced meditation, and gained yogic powers. While flying through the air one day, he noticed a great crowd around a teacher, whom Sumedha learned was the buddha Dipamkara. When he heard the word buddha he was overcome with joy. Upon Dipamkara’s approach, Sumedha loosened his yogin’s matted locks and laid himself down to make a passage across the mud for the Buddha. Sumedha reflected that were he to practice the teachings of Dipamkara he could free himself from future rebirth in that very lifetime. But he concluded that it would be better to delay his liberation in order to traverse the longer path to buddhahood; as a buddha he could lead others across the ocean of suffering to the farther shore. Dipamkara paused before Sumedha and predicted that many aeons hence this yogin with matted locks would become a buddha. He also prophesied Sumedha’s name in his last lifetime (Gautama) and the names of his parents and chief disciples and described the tree under which the future Buddha would sit on the night of his enlightenment.

Over the subsequent aeons, the bodhisattva would renew his vow in the presence of each of the buddhas who came after Dipamkara, before becoming the buddha Shakyamuni himself. Over the course of his lifetimes as a bodhisattva, he accumulated merit (punya) through the practice of 6 (or 10) virtues. After his death as Prince Vessantara, he was born in the Tusita Heaven, whence he surveyed the world to locate the proper site of his final birth.

He determined that he should be born the son of the king Shuddhodana of the Shakya clan, whose capital was Kapilavastu. Shortly thereafter, his mother, the queen Maha Maya, dreamed that a white elephant had entered her womb. Ten lunar months later, as she strolled in the garden of Lumbini, the child emerged from under her right arm. He was able to walk and talk immediately. A lotus flower blossomed under his foot at each step, and he announced that this would be his last lifetime. The king summoned the court astrologers to predict the boy’s future. Seven agreed that he would become either a universal monarch (chakravartin) or a buddha; one astrologer said that there was no doubt, the child would become a buddha. His mother died seven days after his birth, and so he was reared by his mother’s sister, Mahaprajapati. As a young child, the prince was once left unattended during a festival. Later in the day he was discovered seated in meditation under a tree, whose shadow had remained motionless throughout the day to protect him from the sun.The later legend is well known.

The Nirvana of Buddha

But the irony is that,for a man who espoused Ahimsa,the end was by eating meat.At age 80 the Buddha, weak from old age and illness, accepted a meal (it is difficult to identify from the texts what the meal consisted of, but many scholars believe it was pork) from a smith named Chunda, instructing the smith to serve him alone and bury the rest of the meal without offering it to the other monks. The Buddha became severely ill shortly thereafter, and at a place called Kusinara (also spelled Kushinagar; modern Kasia) lay down on his right side between two trees, which immediately blossomed out of season. He instructed the monk who was fanning him to step to one side, explaining that he was blocking the view of the deities who had assembled to witness his passing. After he provided instructions for his funeral, he said that lay people should make pilgrimages to the place of his birth, the place of his enlightenment, the place of his first teaching, and the place of his passage into nirvana. Those who venerate shrines erected at these places will be reborn as gods. The Buddha then explained to the monks that after he was gone the dharma and the vinaya (code of monastic conduct) should be their teacher. He also gave permission to the monks to abolish the minor precepts (because Ananda failed to ask which ones, it was later decided not to do so). Finally, the Buddha asked the 500 disciples who had assembled whether they had any last question or doubt. When they remained silent, he asked two more times and then declared that none of them had any doubt or confusion and were destined to achieve nirvana. According to one account, he then opened his robe and instructed the monks to behold the body of a buddha, which appears in the world so rarely. Finally, he declared that all conditioned things are transient and exhorted the monks to strive with diligence. These were his last words. The Buddha then entered into meditative absorption, passing from the lowest level to the highest, then from the highest to the lowest, before entering the fourth level of concentration, whence he passed into nirvana.

In Tibetan Buddhism, the term ādibuddha is often used to describe Samantabhadra, Vajradhara or Kalachakra. In East Asian Mahayana, the ādibuddha is typically considered to be Vairocana.

The Guhyasamāja Tantra says of Vajradhāra, " Vajradhara, the Teacher, who is bowed to by all the Buddhas, best of the three diamonds, best of the great best, supreme lord of the three diamonds."

Alex Wayman notes that the Pradipoddyotana, a tantric commentary, states that the "three diamonds" are the three mysteries of Body, Speech, and Mind. Wayman further writes: "Tsong-kha-pa's Mchan-'grel explains the "lord of body": displays simultaneously innumerable materializations of body; "lord of speech": teaches the Dharma simultaneously to boundless sentient beings each in his own language; "lord of mind": understands all the knowable which seems impossible.

According to the 14th Dalai Lama, the ādibuddha is also seen in Mahayana Buddhism as representation of the universe, its laws and its true nature, as a source of enlightenment and karmic manifestations and a representation of the Trikaya.

Within the Nichiren school of Japanese Buddhism, the Nikko-lineage, specifically the Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu, regard Nichiren as the Adi-(primal) Buddha and dispute the contentions of other sects that view him as a bodhisattva.

Tibetan thangka of Vajradhara

Sanghyang Adi Buddha is a concept of God in Indonesian Buddhism. This term was used by Ashin Jinarakkhita at the time of Buddhist revival in Indonesia in the mid 20th century to reconcile the first principle of the official philosophical foundation of Indonesia (Pancasila), i.e. "KeTuhanan Yang Maha Esa" (lit. "Recognition of the Divine Omnipotence") that requires the belief in a supreme God, with Buddhism which strictly speaking does not believe in such monotheistic God.This concept is used by the Indonesian Buddhist Council, an organization that seeks to represent all Buddhist traditions in Indonesia such as Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana.

Adi Buddha is a term used in Tantric Buddhism to refer to the Primordial Buddha. The term Sanghyang Adi Buddha is agreed upon and used by the Indonesian Supreme Sangha and the Indonesian Buddhist Council as the designation for the God Almighty. This term is not found in Pāli Canon, but used in some old Indonesian Vajrayana texts such as Sanghyang Kamahayanikan.

Sang Hyang Adi Buddha refers to "the seed of Buddhahood" inside every being. In Mahayana Buddhism, Adi Buddha refers to the primordial Buddha that outlines the same Universal Dhamma.The Adi-buddha is not a monotheistic deity as in the Abrahamic traditions, but is rather the primordial nature of mind, the part of the mind that never enters samsara, and is thus the "primordial Buddha." As the Primordial Buddha never entertains conceptual ignorance or proliferation, all that arises is referred to as "self-liberated."

Indonesian National Encyclopedia (1988) describes Adi Buddha and the traditions that are used this term thus:

"Adi-Buddha is a term for the Almighty God in Buddhism. This title came from the Aisvarika tradition of Mahayana in Nepal, which is spread through Bengal, and became also known in Java. Aisvarika is the term for the disciples of theist view in Buddhism. This word came from 'Isvara' which means 'God' or 'Great Buddha' or 'the Almighty', and 'ika' which means 'follower' or 'disciple'. "

"This term is used by the Svabhavavak Buddhism in Nepal. This school is one of the branch of Tantrayana school of Mahayana. The term for God Almighty in this school is Adi-Buddha. Later, this view also spread to Java in the time of Srivijaya and Majapahit. The present scholars knows this term from the paper of B.H. Hodgson, a researcher who studied the religious in Nepal.

"According to this view, one can coalesce (moksha) with Adi-Buddha or Isvara through his efforts with the ascetic path (tapa) and meditating (Dhyana)."

The use of Sanghyang Adi Buddha as a name for a supreme God is controversial among Indonesian Buddhists to the present day. The reason is that the concept of Sanghyang Adi Buddha, which only exists in Tantrayana/ Vajrayana traditions, is not a god in the sense of a personal god of the monotheistic religions. The use of the name of Sanghyang Adi Buddha as a personal god, is the product of a compromise with political reality, and is contrary to the teachings of Buddhism. Because of this political compromise, Indonesian Buddhism differs from mainstream Buddhism. This controversy also extends to Very Venerable Ashin Jinarakkhita as the originator of the term Sanghyang Adi Buddha as a god in Buddhism.

Mahavamsa traces the Shakya dyansty to Ikshvaku dynasty and starts the dynasty with Ikshvaku.

Threvada Texts refer to six Preceding Buddhas (Those who have been awakened) as Vipasyin, Sikin, krakuccanda, Konagamara and Kashyapa, also they say Maitreya as the Buddha of the future.

Amara Simha, Buddhist scholar, who wrote Amarakosha gives eighteen names of Vishnu avatara including the name Sugato (Which Shankara calls Buddha) and seven names of Shakya Simha Buddha without any mention of Sugato. So we can even argue that Shankara talks about avatar Buddha not Shakya Buddha. Amarakosha states the Lord Buddha is also known as Samanta Bhadra, whereas Gautama Buddha is a human being.

Analysing Buddhist texts like Prajna-Paramita sutra, Astasahastrika prajna- paramita sutra, Sata-Shastrika Prajna, Pramita Sutra, Lalita Vistara shows three categories of Buddha namely,

Human Buddhas: Like Gautama, who came to be known as Buddha after enlightment.
Bodhisattva Buddhas: Personalities like Samanta Bhadraka who were born enlightened.
Adi(Original-First) Buddha: the Avatar of Vishnu.

Adi Shankara, who can be termed founder of Hinduism,in discussion with others treated both Buddhas as one person and did not discriminate between the two.Hindu scholars doesn't see Vedanta in Buddhism,since Buddha was a Nasthika.Maybe,Buddhism can be included only as part of the Purva Mimamsa,which dwelt only in outer spheres of human actions.With his Advaita Mayavadha philosophy Sankara not only stopped the rise of Buddhism in India, assuring its decline. 

By Combining two Buddhas Indology scholars have ignored the Purana accounts and thus the Indian mythology. Whenever the Puranas refers to Adi Buddha,the euro centric scholars will cite Gautama Buddha to discredit and vice versa.

Colonel Kennedy, argues that the Buddha of the Purana and Buddha the founder of the Buddhist system of religion have nothing in common but the name, and that the attempted identification of these two is simply the work of European scholars, who have not been sufficiently careful to collect information, and to weigh the evidence they have had before them.

The Cambridge and Oxford histories of India accept 483 B.C as the date of Buddha’s nirvana. But, William Jones, on the basis of Chinese and Tibetan records infers that Buddha lived in the 11th century B.C. Historian Fleet, who makes a study of ‘Rajatarangini’, thinks that Buddha lived in the 17th century B.C. Chinese monk Fa-Hien puts Buddha’s Nirvana at 1050 B.C. These contradictory theories arise from the euro centric existential dilemma.

Indology scholars just pick and choose to discredit Purana sources. The history that Buddha lived in the 5th century B.C was propounded by E.J Rapson who writes that the exact date of Buddha’s Nirvana is not known and hence the popularly accepted year of Buddha’s Nirvana is imaginary. Western scholars arbitrarily skipped 12 centuries of Indian history because their ‘hypothesis’ about Alexander’s invasion did not match with centuries-old Indian chronology.

We see that Early Buddhist texts distinguishes the two Buddhas, while the later ones seem to ignore the former. The Rock Edicts of Piyadasi teachings are of Adi Buddha and not Gautama Buddha. Gautama Buddha is not the avatar of Vishnu. Avatar of Vishnu is Adi Buddha.

Buddha is considered as an avatar of Vishnu, by traditions within Hinduism. Buddhists traditionally do not accept the Buddha to be a Vishnu avatar. The adoption of Buddha may have been a way to assimilate Buddhism into the fold of Hinduism.Much like Hinduism's adoption of the Buddha as an avatar, Buddhism legends too adopted Krishna in their Jataka tales, claiming Krishna the Vishnu avatar, to be a character whom Buddha met and taught in his previous births. The adoption of the Buddha in texts relating to Hindu gods, and of Hindu gods in Buddhist texts, is difficult to place chronologically. According to Alf Hiltebeitel and other scholars, some of the stories in Buddha-related Jataka tales found in Pali texts seem slanderous distortions of Hindu legends, but these may reflect the ancient local traditions and the complexities of early interaction between the two Indian religions.

Bodh Gaya

Though an avatar of Vishnu, the Buddha is rarely worshipped like Krishna and Rama in Hinduism.According to John Holt, the Buddha was adopted as an avatar of Vishnu around the time the Puranas were being composed, in order to subordinate him into the Brahmanical ideology. Further adds Holt, various scholars in India, Sri Lanka and outside South Asia, that the colonial era and contemporary attempts to assimilate Buddha into the Hindu fold are part of a nationalistic political agenda, where the Buddha has been reclaimed triumphantly as a symbol of indigenous nationalist understandings of India's history and culture.

Swami Vivekananda said:

"Buddha was a great Vedantist (for Buddhism was really only an offshoot of Vedanta), and Shankara is often called a “hidden Buddhist”. Buddha made the analysis, Shankara made the synthesis out of it. Buddha never bowed down to anything — neither Veda, nor caste, nor priest, nor custom. He fearlessly reasoned so far as reason could take him. Such a fearless search for truth and such love for every living thing the world has never seen."

He added:

"In Buddha we had the great, universal heart and infinite patience, making religion practical and bringing it to everyone’s door. In Sankaracharya we saw tremendous intellectual power, throwing the scorching light of reason upon everything. We want today that bright sun of intellectuality joined with the heart of Buddha, the wonderful infinite heart of love and mercy. This union will give us the highest philosophy. Science and religion will meet and shake hands. Poetry and philosophy will become friends.."

There are several other statements of Vivekananda on Buddha,which are contradictory;he has also termed Buddha a Hindu.In Notes Taken Down in Madras ( 1892-1893) ,Vivekananda says,"Buddha,we may say now,ought to have understood the harmony of  religions;he introduced sectarianism."

But in Vivekananda's Buddha's Message to The World ( 18 March 1900 ) Vivekananda remarked:

"Buddha was the triumph in the struggle that had been going on between the priests and the prophets in India. One thing can be said for these Indian priests — they were not and never are intolerant of religion; they never have persecuted religion. Any man was allowed to preach against them. Theirs is such a religion; they never molested any one for his religious views. But they suffered from the peculiar weaknesses of all the priests: they also sought power, they also promulgated rules and regulations and made religion unnecessarily complicated, and thereby undermined the strength of those who followed their religion."

Vedantists will never agree with Vivekananda's statement that Buddha was a vedantist.Buddhism,infact,has nothing to do with vedanta.For this too,I quote Vivekananda:"Buddhism proves nothing about the Absolute Entity. In a stream the water is changing; we have no right to call the stream one. Buddhist deny the one, and say, it is many. We say it is one and deny the many. What they call Karma is what we call the soul. According to Buddhism, man is a series of waves. Every wave dies, but somehow the first wave causes the second. That the second wave is identical with the first is illusion. To get rid of illusion good Karma is necessary. Buddhists do not postulate anything beyond the world. We say, beyond the relative there is the Absolute".

The Oxford professor and later President of India, S Radhakrishnan states that "as a matter of fact, nowhere did Buddha repudiate the Upanishad conception of Brahman, the absolute"; that Buddha, if anything, "accepted the Upanishad's position". Buddhologists like K.R. Norman and Richard Gombrich meanwhile, argue that the Buddha's anatta theory does indeed extend to the Brahmanical belief expounded in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad that the Self (Atman) is the Universal Self, or Brahman.They point to the Pali Alagaddūpama-sutta, where the Buddha argues that an individual cannot experience the suffering of the entire world.

Ambedkar,the Dalit leader who in 1935 declared his intention to convert from Hinduism to Buddhism and converted about 20 years later, rejected that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. Ambedkar, while he was a Hindu and before he launched a new form of Buddhism, reinterpreted Buddha's teachings into what he called Navayana (New Vehicle), wherein he tried a Marxist interpretation of Buddha teachings. He founded and converted to a new version of Buddhism, a version which criticized and rejected Hinduism, but also Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism because, according to Ambedkar, they all misrepresented the Buddha.

To me,arguing on philosphy is intellectual masturbation.Buddha need not be a Hindu to be accepted into its fold because Buddha is part of the great Indian tradition where the Samkhya/Charvaka primeval Marxist philosphy ruled for 700 years.Hinduism even accepts that soulless philosphy part of its tradition.Hence,the ousted Rama advised his brother King Bharatha to  honour the Charvakas,the then Marxists,while knowing the Marxists are intolerant.Hence the many lives of Buddha makes the Indian tradition vibrant and exotic.

© Ramachandran 

MARUTHANAYAGAM-CONVERSION AS OPPORTUNISM

He Had Captured Puli Thevar Too

“The mutiny in Meerut, which many claim as India’s first war of Independence, took place in 1857. However, almost a 100 years before that rebellion broke out, Marudhanayagam took on the British. To stop him, the British had to spend an amount that is almost on par with the amount that the US had to spend to vanquish Saddam Hussein in recent times",said Kamal Haasan on Marudhanayagam,while he was on a project on the so called hero.

Marudhanayagam,was Muhammad Yusuf Khan thoughout his mature life.So why the movie is titled Maruthanayagam?To appease the Hindus?

The British had his body dismembered and his body parts displayed on the principal gateways of the city of Madura for a while before despatching it to various other places as a warning to others who might harbour thoughts of rebellion against them.

Kamal had shot 30 minutes of the film and two hours were left.His then wife Sarika was the costume designer.But why Kamal shelved his dream project?As a political analyst,I infer that the movie,if made would be in hot waters,because Marudhanayagam,a Vellala Pillai,had got converted into Islam,and for long years in his life,he was Muhammad Yusuf Khan.He is not a hero of Hindus,neither of the Tamils.For people of Travancore,he was a brabarian,who looted the state every season.

His life is a contrast to the life of Chempaka Raman Pillai,the modern day anti British warrior,who never changed loyalities,unlike Marudhanayagam-It is better Kamal do a film on Chempaka Raman Pillai.

There are different accounts and versions on Marudhanayagam, but one of the most extensively researched accounts happens to be by an Englishman called Samuel Charles Hill.Hill, in his book on Marudhanayagam tilted Yusuf Khan, The Rebel Commandant, says Marudhanayagam was born a Hindu at Pannaiyur in Ramnad district and that he ran away from home as a boy. Later, he converted to Islam and took the name Muhammad Yusuf aafter which he seems to have entered the services of a couple of Europeans.

Yusuf Khan tomb

Yusuf seems to have rendered  service, both as a military general and as an administrator. From the time he provided security to the convoys bringing supplies to the forts at Tirunelveli to the countless victories he won for the British, his services were ubiquitous. As a result, he was appointed Governor of Madurai and Tinnevelly. Yusuf Khan (1725 – 15 October 1764) or Maruthanayagam Pillai (correctly Mathuranayagam Pillai) was born in Panaiyur, Ramanathapuram District, Tamil Nadu, India in 1725. From humble beginnings, he became a warrior in the Arcot troops, later Commandant for the British East India Company troops. The British and the Arcot Nawab used him to suppress the Polygars (Palayakkarar) in the south of Tamil Nadu. Later he was entrusted to administrating the Madurai country when the Madurai Nayaks rule ended. Later a dispute arose with the British and Arcot Nawab, and three of his associates were bribed to capture Yusuf Khan; he was hanged in 1764 in Madurai.

Polygar (also spelled Palegara, Palaiyakkarar, Poligar, Palegaadu, Palegar, or Polegar, or Paalegaadu was the feudal title for a class of territorial administrative and military governors appointed by the Valmiki Nayaka rulers of Southern India (notably Vijayanagara Empire, Madurai Nayakas and the Kakatiya dynasty) during the 16th–18th centuries.

The Polygars of Madurai Country were instrumental in establishing administrative reforms by building irrigation projects, forts and religious institutions. The Polygars who worshipped the goddess Kali did not allow their territory to be annexed by Aurangzeb.

Their wars with the British East India Company after the demise of the Madurai Nayakas is often regarded as one of the earliest struggles for Indian independence. The British hanged many and banished others to the Andaman Islands. Dheeran Chinnamalai, Veerapandya Kattabomman, Maveeran Alagumuthu Kone, Puli Thevar, the Marudu brothers and Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy were some notable Polygars who rose up in revolt against the British rule in Southern India. The war against the British forces predates the Indian rebellion of 1857 in Northern India.

Maruthanayagam Pillai (or Mathuranayagam Pillai) alias Yusuf Khan was born circa 1725  in a Hindu farming family of Saiva Vellalar caste.Being too restless in his youth, he left his native village, and converted to Islam. To make a living, he served as a domestic hand at the residence of the French Governor Monsr Jacques Law in Pondicherry. It was here he befriended another French, Marchand (a subordinate of Jacques Law), who later became captain of the French force under Yusuf Khan in Madurai. Whether Yusuf Khan was dismissed from this job or left on his own is unclear. He left Pondicherry, for Tanjore and joined the Tanjorean army as a sepoy (foot soldier).

Around this time, an English captain named Brunton educated Yusuf Khan, making him a learned man well-versed in several languages. From Tanjore he moved to Nellore (in present day Andhra Pradesh), to try his hand as a native physician under Mohammed Kamal, in addition to his career in the army. He moved up the ranks as Thandalgar (tax collector), Havildar and finally as a Subedar and that is how he is referred to in the English records ('Nellore Subedar' or just 'Nellore'). He later enlisted under Chanda Sahib who was then the Nawab of Arcot. While staying in Arcot he fell in love with a 'Portuguese' Christian (a person of mixed Indo-European descent) girl named Maasa (?Marsha /?Marcia), and married her.

In 1751, there was an ongoing scuffle between Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, (who was the son of the previous Nawab of Arcot Anwaruddin Muhammed Khan hence the rightful claimant) and Chanda Sahib his relative and a pretender, for the throne of Arcot. The former sought the help of British and the latter the French. Chanda Sahib initially succeeded and became the Nawab, forcing Muhammed Ali to escape to the rock-fort in Tiruchirapalli. Chanda Sahib followed and with the help of the French, besieged Trichy. Muhammed Ali and the English force supporting him were in a grim position.

 

 Robert Clive, (who had earlier joined the East India Company as a writer) with a small English force of 300 soldiers made a diversionary attack on Arcot to draw away Chanda Sahib's army from Trichy. Chanda Sahib dispatched a 10,000 strong force under his son Raza Sahib to retake Arcot. Raza Sahib was aided by the Nellore Army and Yusuf Khan as a Subedar must have been in this force. At Arcot, and later at Kaveripakkam, Chanda Sahib’s son was badly defeated by Robert Clive, and it was now Chanda Sahib's turn to escape to Tanjore where he was killed by Mankoji, a Tanjorean general. The English quickly installed Muhammed Ali as the Nawab of Arcot and most of Chanda Sahib's native forces defected to the English.

Madurai during Yusuf Khan

Yusuf Khan's military career started during the Carnatic Wars. Under Major Stringer Lawrence, Yusuf Khan was trained in the European method of warfare and his natural talent in military tactics and strategy blossomed to its full potential.Over the next decade, as the Company fought the French in the Wars of the Carnatic, it was Yusuf Khan's guerrilla tactics, repeatedly cutting the French lines of supply, that did the French in, particularly during Lally's siege of Madras in 1758.Thomas Arthur Lally was to later describe the role of the Nellore Subedar's sepoys in these words: "They were like flies, no sooner beat off from one part, they came from another.

His greatest supporter during this period was George Pigot, the English governor in Madras. 

George Pigot

In March 1956 Yusuf Khan was sent to Madurai to collect taxes and restore order. But during that time Madurai was under control of one Barkadthullah of Chanda Sahib days, with the support of Hyder Ali of Mysore. During this time an old Fakir climbed the top of the Madurai Meenakshi Temple and was preparing to build a dargah for himself, which angered the locals. Barkadthullah justifying the Fakirs attempts further added fuel to the fire. During this time Yusuf Khan arrived with little as 400 troops to take control of Madurai, showing his brilliance in defeating Barkadthullah’s large army, with Barkadthullah fleeing to Sivaganga Zamin and the Fakir, got whacked out of the town.

Once again Yusuf reached Madurai on May 20, 1759, only to find the place in total chaos. He is believed to have restored order swiftly and was able to remit his rent regularly. 

Puli Thevar statue in  Nerkattumseval

During this time Yusuf Khan battled with Puli Thevar, (pronounced Pooli Thevar; the correct full name was 'Pooludaiya Thevar' or in short 'Poolu Thevar') a polygar of Nerkattumseval(Original Name was Nelkettaanseval), a small town to the south-west of Madurai. Puli Thevar was rebelling against the Nawab and the British. Yusuf Khan quickly separated Travancore Raja from Puli Thevar's group after entering into an agreement. Yusuf Khan captured several of Puli Thevar's forts which were earlier tried unsuccessfully by the British. Later in a battle Puli Thevar was captured by Yusuf Khan, however Puli Thevar disappeatred in Sankarankovil (some believe he disappeared in Sankarankovil Gomathi Ambal Sannithi ). It is believed that Puli Thevar  escaped to regions of Hyderabad Deccan along with his followers where he was planned to be hanged. Puli Thevar remains a legend in the area and no further details about him is available.

Hill in his book points out that apart from remitting his rent regularly, Yusuf Khan managed to create and equip a force with which he could take on the combined forces of the Nawab and the British.

Reports of Yusuf Khan's victories  filled the Arcot Nawab with jealousy and alarm that he might depose him. Yusuf Khan  instructed all the traders to render taxes directly to him, while the Arcot Nawab wanted to have taxes routed through him. The British Governor Pigot diplomatically advised Yusuf Khan to do as per Arcot Nawab’s order, also some British traders supported the same citing Yusuf Khan as Nawab’s employee. To make matters worse the Nawab’s brother Mahfuz Khan started planning to poison Yusuf Khan, with the whole hearted support of the Nawab.

In 1761, and again in 1762,Yusuf Khan  offered to lease Tinnevelly and Madurai for four years more at seven lakhs per annum. His offer was refused, and whether he was enraged at this, or whether he thought himself powerful enough to defy his masters, he shortly afterwards threw off his allegiance and began to collect troops in an ambition to be the lord of Madurai.

Charles Hill book 

Around this time some British traders reported  to the Nawab and the Company, on Yusuf Khan "as encouraging people with anti-British sentiments, spending vast sums on his troops”. Nawab, in turn with the British sent Captain Manson with orders to arrest Yusuf Khan.

Yusuf Khan sent a note to Sivaganga Zamindari reminding them on their pending Tax arrears.Sivaganga’s Minister and General came to meet Yusuf Khan in Madurai, and after not getting their expected respect, got a rude warning, citing annexure of certain territories for the failure of arrears. The enraged Sivaganga Zamindar, immediately ordered Yusuf Khan to be “captured and hanged as like a dog”. Ramnad Zamin’s general Damodar Pillai and Thandavarayan Pillai met the Arcot Nawab in Trichy,complained on Yusuf Khan’s plunderings of Sivaganga villages, his cannon manufacturing plant in association with a certain French Marchaud, whom he a befriended earlier, with plans for a war against the Nawabs.

Arcot Nawab and the British quickly acted by amassing a huge army. For a start they aroused Travancore Raja against Yusuf Khan.In the ensuring battle the Travancore Raja was defeated and the British flags in his domains were chopped and burnt, and joined hands with the French and also hoisted the French flag on the Madurai Fort. When Governor Thomas Saunders in Madras called Khan for a meeting, he refused evoking the wrath of the East India Company.Delhi’s Shah and Nizam Ali of Hyderabad, the Arcot Nawab’s overlords proclaimed Yusuf Khan as the rightful legal governor of Madurai and Tirunelveli regions. Arcot Nawab along with the British was hell bent on finding a reason to capture and kill Yusuf Khan.

Yusuf Khan had enemies lurking around him everywhere. Earlier working for the Arcot Nawab and British he earned the wrath of Mysore, and had slaughtered most of all rebellious Polygars who were anti-British, and the remaining were on the prowl. Now the Tanjore, Travancore, Pudukkotai, Ramnad, Sivaganga kingdoms joined with the British and the Arcot Nawab to attack Yusuf Khan, who by this time had proclaimed himself independent ruler of Madurai and Tirunelveli. In the First siege of Madurai in 1763, the English could not make any headway because of inadequate forces and the army retreated to Tiruchi citing Monsoons.

Nizam Ali of Hyderabad once again proclaimed Yusuf Khan as the Rightful governor, while the Arcot Nawab and the British issued death sentence for Yusuf Khan as “to be captured alive and hanged before the first known tree as like a dog”.

In 1764 again the British troops surrounded the Madurai Fort, this time cutting supplies to the fort.Yusuf Khan and his troops went without food and water for several days inside the fort,surviving on horse and monkey meat according to European sources,but held on with great energy and skill, renovating and strengthening the fort at great expense, and repelling the chief assault with a loss of 120 Europeans including nine officers,killed and wounded. At the end of that time little real progress against him had been made, except that the place was now rigorously blockaded.

The Arcot Nawab consulted Sivaganga General Thaandavaraaya Pillai, along with Major Charles Campbell, hatching a  plot to bribe Yusuf khan’s Dewan Srinivasa Rao, Marchand the captain of the French mercenaries and Khan’s doctor Baba Sahib. One morning, when Yusuf Khan was offering his prayers inside the fort, Marchand, Srinivasa Rao and Baba sahib went in quietly and pinned Yusuf Khan to the ground and tied him up using his own turban. Hearing this commotion, one youth called Mudali, close to Yusuf Khan, raised an alarm. He was quickly caught and cut down. As the news of the coup reached Yusuf Khan's wife, she rushed to the scene with a small posse of troops. But they were helpless against the well armed French and other European mercenaries, standing guard around the fallen ruler. Under cover of darkness and an even darker veil of secrecy, Marchand whisked away Yusuf Khan out of the fort and handed him over to Major Charles Campbell, who commanded the English among the besiegers. The major part of Yusuf Khan's native forces remained totally unaware of the fateful drama that had been enacted inside his house.

The next day, in the evening of 15 October 1764, near the army camp at Sammattipuram, on the Madurai- Dindigul road, Yusuf Khan was ignominiously hanged as a rebel by Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, the Nawab of Arcot. This place is about two miles to the west of Madurai, known as Dabedar Chandai (Shandy), and his body was buried at the spot.

What motives forced the three main conspirators, who were Yusuf Khan's close confidantes, to betray him? It is said that Yusuf Khan had once flogged Marchand with a whip (the first time a European officer had been whipped by a native ruler) and so he was waiting for an opportune time to take revenge. It is also possible that extreme misery of the people and soldiers inside the fort  might have forced the Dewan Srinivasa Rao and Baba Sahib, the physician of Yusuf Khan to decide that handing Yusuf Khan over to the English, would make them lift the siege and relieve the people of their intense agony and suffering.

Records show that the British tried to hang yusuf Khan thrice and twice the rope broke.Twice the noose broke down and he fell down alive, for which Yusuf Khan ordered the troops to remove a neck brace before hanging.The agitated Nawab ordered his men to chop his body into several parts and place them all over his domains. As went his head to Tiruchirappalli ,arms to Palayamkottai, legs to Tanjore and Travancore for public viewing and later buried at Periyakulam city near Madurai. The remaining body was buried at Madurai.In 1808, a small square mosque was erected over the tomb in Samattipuram, in Madurai, which exists to this day on the left of the road to Theni, at Kaalavaasal, a little beyond the toll-gate, and is known as 'Khan Sahib's pallivasal'. 

Hill's book sums up his life with this quote: “Of Yusuf Khan, there now remains only a little white mosque, a street in Madura known to the people by his name though officially it bears another designation and a fast fading memory of one who, though he died a rebel, had been a gallant and skilful soldier...."

Why Yusuf Khan got converted in the first place? We can only guess based on his other actions and the signs of those times. Between the fall of the Nayak Kingdoms and British take over, Tamil Nadu was total mess, with Arcot, Mysore, Palayakaras, Travancore, French, British, Dutch, Zamindars and all trying to feast on the pieces.

Each bent on betraying the other, making and breaking alliances turns and twists.

Yusuf Khan reminds us of the Condottieri ,mercenary adventurer captains, who switched allegiances by the day. French today, tomorrow Arcot. Day after the British-always looking to make money and aggrandize himself.

For such a person, faith is also matter of convenience. Being a Hindu in those tumultuous times would not have been any advantage and given his colour, Europeans hardly are going to accept him as one of his own.

Condottieri were Italian captains contracted to command mercenary companies during the Middle Ages and multinational armies during the early modern period. They notably served European monarchs and Popes during the Italian Wars of the Renaissance and the European Wars of Religion. Notable condottieri include Prospero Colonna, Giovanni dalle Bande Nere, Cesare Borgia, Andrea Doria, the Duke of Parma, and the Marquis of Pescara.

The term condottiero in medieval Italian originally meant "contractor", given that the condotta was the contract by which the condottieri put themselves in the service of a city or of a lord, but became a synonym of "military leader" during the Renaissance and Reformation era. Some authors have described Guido da Landriano (the real figure behind the legendary Alberto da Giussano) as the "first condottiero" and Napoleon Bonaparte (in virtue of his Italian origins) as the "last condottiero". According to this view, the condottieri tradition would span a huge diverse period from the battle of Legnano in 1176 to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. Most historians would narrow it down to the years from c.1350 to c.1650, with a particular focus on the rise of the commanders of free companies (capitani di ventura) and their transformation into captain generals fighting for the major powers during the struggle for political and religious supremacy in Europe.

In 1494, the French king Charles VIII's royal army invaded the Italian peninsula, initiating the Italian Wars. The most renowned condottieri fought for foreign powers: Gian Giacomo Trivulzio abandoned Milan for France, while Andrea Doria was Admiral of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In the end, failure was political, rather than military, stemming from disunity and political indecision, and, by 1550, the military service condotta had disappeared, while the term condottiere remained current, denominating the great Italian generals (mainly) fighting for foreign states; men such as Gian Giacomo Medici, Ambrogio Spinola, Alexander Farnese, Marcantonio II Colonna, Raimondo Montecuccoli and Prospero Colonna were prominent into the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries. The political practice of hiring foreign mercenaries, however, did not end. For example, the Vatican’s Swiss Guards are the modern remnants of a historically effective mercenary army.

The end of the Thirty Years' War in 1648 and the birth of Westphalian sovereignty diminished Roman Catholic influence in Europe and led to the consolidation of large states, while Italy was fragmented and divided. The condottieri tradition greatly suffered the political and strategic decline of Italy and never recovered.

Portrait of a condottiero by Ermanno Stroiffi

Contrast Yusuf Khan with Puli Thevan.Puli Thevar, one of Yusuf Khan’s enemies, fought for his own heritage, land and freedom and died for it.Puli Thevan was a Tamil Polygar who ruled Nerkattumseval, situated in the Sankarankoil taluk, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. He is notable for fighting against the imperial British rule in India.Puli Thevar was born in the Maravar community in Puli Nadu, a part of Pandya Nadu.Venni Kaladi, was the general of Puli Thevar's army.

Yusuf Khan’s loyalties changed by the hour. Finally he grew too large for his boots and the same Nawabs and Colonials who aided his growth, ganged up on him and killed him.

He is not worthy of any honour, just because he was eventually killed by India’s oppressors.

While an adventurer’s story would be an exciting read/movie, Kamal Haasan maybe trying to make him into  some kind of an oppressed lower caste hero who rebels against his society, converts and fights against oppression. That is just hijacking an opportunist for his own agendas.

Going to the other conversion,Yusuf Khan had married a christian.

The Catholic Mission in North Arcot dates back to 1604. 

The last great prince of the declining Vijayanagar empire (now in Andhra Pradesh), Venkatapathy Deva Rayalu, conquered the kingdom of Vellore in January 1604 and named it Raya Elluru. Elapuri or Elluru in Telugu language would mean city or town. Raya Elluru was meant a town conquered by the king Rayalu and thus the town was named after him - combination of two words Raya and Elapuri.

There were then some Jesuit Fathers at the court of King Rayalu at Chandragiri. He took them also to his new court at Vellore. The word Vellore derives from the Tamil word ‘Vel’ which means 'spear'; according to another conjecture there were idols of Tamil God ‘Murugan’ holding ‘Vel’ in and around Vellore. Vellore was formerly called Velappadi (a place thickly surrounded by a particular tree called ‘Velamaram’) and for this reason and background the name Vellore came into existence. 

Ancient Jesuit documents show that among these Jesuits, there was one named Fr. Antonious Rubunus, a preacher and confessor, who was commuting between Chandragiri and Vellore. He was sent to Japan on 12th August 1642. On 22nd March 1643 he was killed at Nagasaki.

In 1610, there was a general upheaval against the Jesuits,because of persecution.It was due to the dishonourable conduct of the Jesuits that their residences both at Chandragiri and at Vellore were suppressed by a Royal order of the king Philip III of Spain and Portugal in 1611.

© Ramachandran