Protestant Textuality and the Tamil Modern: Political Oratory and the Social Imaginary in South Asia

By Bernard Bate, E. Annamalai and Francis Cody

Throughout history, speech and storytelling have united communities and mobilized movements. Protestant Textuality and the Tamil Modern examines this phenomenon in Tamil-speaking South India over the last three centuries, charting the development of political oratory and its influence on society. Supplementing his narrative with thorough archival work, Bernard Bate begins with Protestant missionaries' introduction of the sermonic genre and takes the reader through its local vernacularization. What originally began as a format of religious speech became an essential political infrastructure used to galvanize support for new social imaginaries, from Indian independence to Tamil nationalism. Completed by a team of Bate's colleagues, this ethnography marries linguistic anthropology to performance studies and political history, illuminating new geographies of belonging in the modern era.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Stanford University Press
• Release date: Aug 17, 2021
• ISBN: 9781503628663

Book preview

PROTESTANT TEXTUALITY AND THE TAMIL MODERN

Political Oratory and the Social Imaginary in South Asia

BERNARD BATE

Edited by E. Annamalai, Francis Cody, Malarvizhi Jayanth, and Constantine V. Nakassis

STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Stanford, California

Stanford University Press

Stanford, California

This book has been published with assistance from the Committee on Southern Asian Studies at the University of Chicago.

© 2021 by the Estate of Bernard Bate. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license. To view a copy of the license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Suggested citation: Bate, Bernard. Protestant Textuality and the Tamil Modern: Political Oratory and the Social Imaginary in South Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.21627/9781503628663.

Chapter 1: Originally published in Pandian, Anand, and Daud Ali, eds. Ethical Life in South Asia, pp. 101–15 © 2010 Indiana University Press. Used by permission, all rights reserved. Chapter 2: Originally published in The Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol. 42, Issue 4 © 2005. The Indian Economic and Social History Association. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of the copyright holders and the publishers, SAGE PublicaFons India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi. Epilogue: Originally published in Comparative Studies in Society and History, 55(1), pp. 142-166, © 2013. Cambridge University Press. Used by permission, all rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free, archival-quality paper

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Bate, Bernard, author. | Annamalai, E., editor. | Cody, Francis, 1976– editor. | Jayanth, Malarvizhi, editor. | Nakassis, Constantine V., 1979– editor.

Title: Protestant textuality and the Tamil modern : political oratory and the social imaginary in South Asia / Bernard Bate ; edited by E. Annamalai, Francis Cody, Malarvizhi Jayanth and Constantine V. Nakassis.

Other titles: South Asia in motion.

Description: Stanford, California : Stanford University Press, 2021. | Series: South Asia in motion | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2020050468 (print) | LCCN 2020050469 (ebook) | ISBN 9781503628656 (paperback) | ISBN 9781503628663 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Tamil language—Political aspects—History—19th and 20th century. | Political oratory—South Asia—History—19th and 20th century. | Rhetoric—Political aspects—South Asia—History—19th and 20th century. | Tamil (Indic people)—Politics and government—19th and 20th century. | Language and culture—South Asia—History—19th and 20th century.

Classification: LCC PL4751 .B38 2021 (print) | LCC PL4751 (ebook) | DDC 494.8/11—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020050468

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020050469

Cover photo: Political mobilization through oration in Marina Beach, Chennai.

Unknown date. Courtesy of Stephen Hughes.

Cover design: Rob Ehle

SOUTH ASIA IN MOTION

EDITOR

Thomas Blom Hansen

EDITORIAL BOARD

Sanjib Baruah

Anne Blackburn

Satish Deshpande

Faisal Devji

Christophe Jaffrelot

Naveeda Khan

Stacey Leigh Pigg

Mrinalini Sinha

Ravi Vasudevan

For Chalapathy

FIGURE 1. Bernard Bate. Courtesy of Gladys R. Bate.

CONTENTS

Editors’ Preface, by E. Annamalai, Francis Cody, and Constantine V. Nakassis

Editors’ Acknowledgments

Note on Transliteration and Citations

Bernard Bate’s Acknowledgments

Foreword: Speaking of Barney Bate, by A. R. Venkatachalapathy

Introduction: Protestant Textuality and the Tamil Modern

Part I: The Protestant Modern

1. The Ethics of Textuality

2. Arumuga Navalar and the Protestant Modern

Part II: The Tamil Modern

3. Speaking Swadeshi, Madras 1907

4. Subramania Bharati and the Tamil Modern

5. Elocutionary Incandescence

Epilogue: Home Rule, the Labor Movement, and Linguistic and Political Modernity

Afterword: Oratory and the Origins of Politics, by Sudipta Kaviraj

Notes

References

Index

EDITORS’ PREFACE

Bernard Bate, or Barney as his friends and colleagues called him, passed away in early March 2016 at the height of his powers, as one of his teachers, John Kelly, put it at a 2016 memorial at the University of Chicago. Barney was on a writing fellowship at the Stanford Humanities Center, working on his second book, this book. This manuscript was very much the prehistory of his masterful 2009 study, Tamil Oratory and the Dravidian Aesthetic, a redacted version of his 2000 dissertation in the University of Chicago’s Department of Anthropology. Bate finished his dissertation by saying:

Some definitive statements have emerged [in this dissertation regarding stage Tamil]. But I am left with far more questions than firm knowledge. Many of the questions are historical: How did stage speaking begin in Tamil? . . . What was the first oratorical revolution like when Tamil was first deployed as oratory (by Christians in Jaffna and Kanyakumari, I think)? How and why were these new models taken up outside the context of the Christian sermon (by a man named Arumuga Navalar in Jaffna, December 1847–September 1848)? . . . In the world of formal political oratory, what were the conditions in which Congressmen and others decided to stop speaking in English and begin speaking in Tamil (c. 1918–1919)? . . . I will pursue these questions further. (2000, 319)

And he did, through archival work in the American Ceylon Mission and Jaffna Diocese of the Church of South India from January to May 2005 and, later, through near seven hundred hours (Bate 2009a) in the Tamil Nadu State Archives from November 2008 to May 2009, along with numerous interviews with journalists, historians, and those with first- and secondhand knowledge and memories of the times he was exploring (including Mayandi Bharati, the late Tho. Paramasivan, Pe. Cu. Mani, A. Sivasubramanian, Krishi Ramakrishnan, Thi. Ka. Sivasankaran, Che. Divan, Nellai Kannan, J. Rajasekaran, V. Arasu, A. R. Venkatachalapathy, and V. Geetha). This intensive research resulted in a series of publications (Bate 2005, 2009a, 2010, 2012a, 2012b, 2013), as well as numerous talks that he gave in the United States, Canada, India, Sri Lanka, and Singapore, all of which were to become part of the book before you.

When we, the editorial team (E. Annamalai, Francis Cody, Malarvizhi Jayanth, and Constantine V. Nakassis), received the manuscript materials, we received something with a definitive shape and plan, though the various documents were both partial and sketchy—filled with bullet-point lists, elliptical placeholders for later elaboration, missing references, notes to self (in particular, in the Introduction)—and abundant and excessive—redundancies across chapters, long descriptions and quotations of primary materials, as well as a panoply of short fragments unconnected to particular chapters. While some of the chapters were almost fully done—for example, Chapters 1–2, versions of which had already been published (as Bate 2010 and Bate 2005, respectively)—others had to be put together from many different drafts (often from talks, in particular, Chapters 3–5) or supplemented with sections from fragments, other chapters, and notes (the Introduction). The final, concluding chapter—the Epilogue—was absent, though implied as to be carved out of existing publications (in particular, from Bate 2013).

We also had to contend with alternative outlines and titles of the book. In a truncated version of a draft of the Introduction, Barney writes in a parenthetical statement that indicates the ambitious Weberian and Durkheimian scope of the project, followed by his instantly recognizable, intimate, oral voice:

(I’m tempted to call it [the book] Protestant Textuality and the Spirit of Political Modernity, but that might be a step just a little too far. Sort of like people entitling their books with something like Elementary Forms of the . . .). Let me give you a sense of the overview of this thing, then: . . .

We have attempted to maintain that intimate voice (indeed, oratorical style) of Barney’s, as it moves from the near and familiar to the grand sweep of his sense of history and culture, one well worth, in our opinion, the appellations Weberian and Durkheimian.

A further point to note is that in his many talks on this project, Barney always began with a slightly different, and ever-developing, overview of the project as a whole (Bate 2013 offering a published snapshot of this vision ca. 2012–13). This was a project that was changing over a decade, even if it had its sights set on the questions he identified at the close of his dissertation, defended a decade or so before. We do not pretend that what we put together here is what Barney would have eventually published. It surely would have kept developing and filled out in ways we could not have anticipated or completed ourselves. Instead, we have attempted to provide something true to his vision of the project as it was developing up to and at the time of his premature death. In short, while it is from many chapter drafts, publications, talks, fragments, notes, and outlines that we have put together the book before you—a task that sometimes required filling out prose in what was indicated only fragmentarily and other times redacting or rephrasing redundancies (though we have let many remain as well), as well as inserting transitions, callouts, and the like (these different sources and emendations are indicated through editorial notes in the various chapters; see References for a list of such documents)—it is, irrevocably, Barney’s voice and arguments. We hope to have done them justice.

A word on the time line and the editorial process. After receiving the materials in May 2017, the editorial team met to discuss how to tackle the process of editing the book. First, Malarvizhi Jayanth went through the notes, fragments, chapter drafts, talks, outlines, and archival materials, cataloguing them, putting together their time line, and indicating the most definitive or complete versions to work from and supplement. From there, E. Annamalai, Francis Cody, and Constantine Nakassis went over the chapters one by one, editing them in rounds—Frank or Costas taking the first round of a chapter, then followed by the others. We proceeded chapter by chapter from July 2018 to May 2019, followed by a second round of reading, editing, and discussing in May and June 2019. This produced a (relatively) clean near-final copy, which we sent to A. R. Venkatachalapathy and Sudipta Kaviraj to read and write a foreword and afterword, respectively, as well as to two anonymous reviewers at Stanford University Press. All provided helpful feedback and suggested emendations to the text, which we integrated insofar as they explicated and clarified Bate’s arguments and points. Reviewer comments that differed from Bate’s arguments are mentioned and delineated in editorial notes. With these additions, we present you with Bernard Bate’s Protestant Textuality and the Tamil Modern: Political Oratory and the Social Imaginary in South Asia.

EDITORS’ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the help and support of the Bate family, in particular, Noah Bate and Key Jo Lee in helping us access Barney’s files and materials for the book; Blake Wentworth for getting the materials to Noah; Whitney Cox for help in the initial stages of discussing how to approach the manuscript; Magda Nakassis for editorial help and advice; Stephen Hughes and Gigi Bate for providing photographs; Era. Chiththaanai, N. Govindarajan, and Indira Peterson for help with bibliographic references; A. R. Venkatachalapathy for corrections on the manuscript and for his foreword; Sudipta Kaviraj for his afterword; Srilata Raman for consultation on aspects of premodern discourse practices; as well as Thomas Blom Hansen and Marcela Cristina Maxfield at Stanford University Press for help with the publication process. The Committee on Southern Asian Studies at the University of Chicago generously helped financially support the editorial process and provided funds for open-access publication.

NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION AND CITATIONS

In the manuscript materials, Bate uses a number of different transliteration schemes and citation styles. Regarding the first: in order to standardize the presentation of Tamil materials, we have opted to use a modified version of the Madras lexicon’s transliteration style for Tamil original materials, indicating voiced variants of particular graphemes (e.g., ṭ / ḍ corresponding to unvoiced and voiced ட், respectively; p / b for ப்; s / c for voiceless alveolar sibilant and alveolo-palatal affricative ச், etc.). Tamil materials are italicized. We use, however, conventionalized English spellings and normal font for certain Tamil proper names (e.g., Madurai instead of Maturai, Annadurai instead of Aṇṇāturai, etc.). Regarding the second: we have opted to use in-text reference citations for journal and book publications (mostly, secondary literature) and notes for archival materials. See the Abbreviations listed in the References section for how archival sources are noted.

BERNARD BATE’S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to A. R. Venkatachalapathy (to whom this book is dedicated), Mike McGovern, Doug Rogers, Haun Saussy, Pericles Lewis, and Joseph Errington for reading parts of this manuscript.

Chapter 1 appeared as The Ethics of Textuality: The Protestant Sermon and the Tamil Public Sphere, in Ethical Life in South Asia, ed. Anand Pandian and Daud Ali, 101–15 © 2010 by Indiana University Press. Reprinted with permission of Indiana University Press. Research for this chapter was made possible by a research grant from the American Institute of Sri Lankan Studies (2005) and by generous support from the Department of Anthropology and the MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies, Yale University. Earlier drafts were presented at Vernacular Public Spheres/South Asia, Yale University (6 April 2007); Vernacular Social Imaginaries: Public Spheres, Modernities, Nations, CASCA/AES, Toronto, Canada (8–12 May 2007); and Genealogies of Virtue, University of Vancouver (6–8 September 2007). Thanks to all the members of those presentations for constructive interventions. For very helpful comments on earlier drafts and general encouragement, I thank Anand Pandian and Daud Ali. Thanks also to Rebecca Tolen of Indiana University Press and one outside reader for their helpful suggestions. Very special thanks to M. S. S. Pandian, who originally brought the Bazaar Book to my attention in 2003.

Chapter 2 appeared in Language, Genre, and the Historical Imagination in South India, special issue of the Indian Economic and Social History Review 42, no. 4 (2005): 467–82 (used here with permission), translated into Tamil by Cho. Patmanaban, as Arumukanaavalar: c. 1850 Alavil Caivap Piracanka Marapum, Camaya Nirnayamum, Panuval (Jaffna) 3 (2005): 166–87; and into Sinhala by Anuruddhika Kularatne and Harindra Dassanayake, as Arumuga Navalar, Shaivagamika Anushasana saha Agamehi Seema Nirnaya, 1850 Ashrithawa, in Shri Lankeya Samajaya saha Sanskrutiuya Patanaya Kireema: Thoragath Nibandha, 2000–2006, ed. Sasanka Perera and Harindra Dassanayake (Colombo: Institute for the Advanced Study of Society and Culture, 2007). Versions of this chapter were previously presented as Arumuga Navalar and the Advent of a Prose Orality in Tamil Public Discourse at the annual conference on South Asia, University of Wisconsin, Madison (16 October 1999); Arumuga Navalar, Protestant Textual Practice, and the Objectification of Saivism, the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC (29 November 2001); as an invited lecture, Arumuga Navalar and the Materiality of Speech, to the Department of Anthropology, Yale University (19 March 2001); as a paper, Protestant Textual Practice and the Objectification of Saivism, at the annual conference of the Asian Studies Conference, New York (27–30 March 2003); and as a paper, Appropriating Rhetoric: Christian and Saivite Sermons in Tamil, c. 1850, delivered at the conference Language, Genre, and the Historical Imagination in South India, Yale University (20 February 2004).

Chapter 3 was delivered as a paper, Speaking Swadeshi, Madras 1907, at City Talk: Language and the Urban Sensorium, Department of Anthropology, Stanford University (28 October 2011). Versions of this chapter or portions of it were also delivered as papers at Matruveli Uraiyadal (Alternative Conversations), Bookpoint Auditorium, Chennai (9 February 2009), and as an invited lecture at the French Institute in Pondicherry (25 March 2009). Thanks to V. Arasu, Kannan M., and Rajesh for helpful comments.

Chapter 4 was presented as a paper, Swadeshi Bharati: Protestant Textuality and the Poetics of Tamil Political Modernity, circulated for Economy, Reason, Affect: Anti-colonial Sensibility, 1860–1950, Nehru Museum and Library (7–9 January 2014), the Chicago Tamil Forum at the University of Chicago (21 May 2015; thanks to Amanda Weidman for discussant commentary); and the Workshop on Meaning: Language and Sociocultural Processes, Institute of Social and Economic Research and Policy, Columbia University (23 April 2012). It was also delivered as an invited lecture to the University of California, Berkeley (1 March 2016); the Department of Anthropology, Johns Hopkins University (9 October 2012); CLIC Symposium, Political Language and the Crises of Democracy, UCLA (8 February 2013); and at the Faculty Seminar, South Asian Studies Program, National University of Singapore (23 October 2013). Portions of it were presented at the Language, Culture, and History Conference, University of Wyoming, Laramie (2 July 2010); the annual conference on South Asia, University of Wisconsin, Madison (16 October 2010); the South Asia Colloquium, Yale University (10 November 2010); the annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans (17 November 2010); and the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Montreal (16 November 2011, as "The Poetic Structure of the World—an Introductory Fragment to Speaking the Public Sphere: Protestant Textuality and the Tamil Modern"). Thanks to participants at these various events for feedback.

Chapter 5 was presented at the annual Tamil conference, University of California, Berkeley (4 May 2013); the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Chicago (22 November 2013); Singapore Anthropology Exchange, National University of Singapore (29 November 2013); Tamil Studies Conference, University of Toronto (17 May 2014); and as an invited lecture for the keynote of the inaugural meeting of the Chicago Tamil Forum at the University of Chicago (29 May 2014). Thanks to Prof. A. Sivasubramanian, who accompanied me on a tour of the port and mill areas of Thoothukudi in January 2009, where we thought about where these events may have taken place. I am very grateful to him for his hospitality, generosity, and guidance.

Parts of the Epilogue appeared in ‘To Persuade Them into Speech and Action’: Oratory and the Tamil Political, Madras, 1905–1919, Comparative Studies of Society and History 55, no. 1 (2013): 142–66 (used here with permission). The research was made possible by senior fellowships from the American Institute for Sri Lankan Studies (2005) and the American Institute of Indian Studies/NEH (2008–9). Time, further financial resources, and support were provided by the Department of Anthropology and the MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies, Yale University. Versions or portions of the Epilogue were presented at American Institute of Indian Studies/Indian International Center, Delhi (18 May 2009); Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai (18 June 2009); South Asia Colloquium, University of Pennsylvania (8 October 2009); South Asia Seminar, Harvard University (30 October 2009); South Asia Institute, Columbia University (7 December 2009); and the Departments of Anthropology at Vassar College (30 May 2011), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (2 March 2012), and Bennington College (12 March 2012). Thanks to organizers and participants for their invitations, provocation, and encouragement. Special thanks to Doug Rogers, Mike McGovern, A. R. Venkatachalapathy, and five anonymous reviewers and the editors of Comparative Studies of Society and History for their close readings and helpful comments.

Foreword

SPEAKING OF BARNEY BATE

A. R. Venkatachalapathy

Barney, as all his friends will emphatically agree, was an animated conversationalist. But our first meeting was rather quiet. We met at a cinema hall in Madurai, toward the end of 1992, to watch Kamal Haasan’s Thevar Magan (dir. Bharathan). Barney had apparently been told that I did not like to be distracted when watching a movie, and I had in turn taken him for a serious Chicago academic who did not entertain idle talk. When we soon became thick friends spending long hours chatting—in his adopted hometown of Madurai, in Tirunelveli, in Chicago, and at Yale University—we laughed heartily at this misunderstanding. These memories well up in me as I struggle to write this foreword, made poignant by the knowledge that, of all his friends and interlocutors—and Barney had many—he chose to dedicate this book to me.

Barney’s reputation preceded him—as a white man who spoke Tamil like a native and as a scholar fascinated with platform speaking. He was one of the earliest anthropologists whom I knew and from whom learned much about how anthropologists work in the field. His home—on Munichalai Road, a lower-class neighborhood that he chose over posher localities such as Visalakshipuram or Tapal Tanthi Nagar—easily conformed to an anthropologist’s home in the field.

I was a fundamentalist Rankean historian then, besotted with sources. Barney was theoretically oriented and prone to discursive analysis. We were, one could say, following Bernard Cohn, inhabiting Historyland and Anthropologyland. Our conversations continued over the years—a committed correspondent, he would pen long letters and, after the advent of email, his responses were unfailingly swift—and gained a new edge when I spent the fall term of 1999 at the University of Chicago. Shortly before he turned in his PhD dissertation, I read its final draft and learned an enormous lot from it. In my comments and conversations, I pushed him into thinking historically. (Another deep influence on Barney’s thinking about Tamil culture historically from the ground up was the late, great Tamil scholar Tho. Paramasivan whom he referred to respectfully as gurunatar, meaning mentor or preceptor.) I plied him with historical material—excerpts from documents, collections of speeches, Tamil writings on oratory and orators—but Barney was diffident about taking the historical turn.

FIGURE 2. Barney Bate and his gurunatar, Professor Tho. Paramasivan. This photograph was posted by Barney on his Facebook page on 27 June 2009 with the caption Me writing down things that Tho.Pa. says.

In March 2003, Barney, along with Rama Sundari Mantena and Lisa Mitchell, put together a panel on Language, Genre, and Identity in Colonial South India at the Association of Asian Studies Conference, New York, and the conversations continued next year at Yale as an international roundtable, Language, Genre, and the Historical Imagination in South India, resulting in a special issue, of the same name, of the Indian Economic and Social History Review. It was here that Barney first rehearsed and published his work on Arumuga Navalar.¹ In the first half of 2005 he spent some months in the missionary archives in Jaffna working on Navalar; he was, however, reticent about his time there, and I can only speculate why.

By this time, Barney was deeply taken in by the Swadeshi movement and, on discovering Sumit Sarkar’s classic monograph on the Swadeshi movement in Bengal, could never stop speaking about it. However, his archival diffidence continued even when he arrived in Chennai to spend the academic year of 2008–9 to work at the Tamil Nadu Archives, but he soon took to the archives like fish to water. The editors of this book state that he clocked about seven hundred hours there. Like a born-again historian, he spent long days at the archives, often working over weekends. Enjoying the minutiae of archival research, his detailed notes, written in black ink, filled many moleskin notebooks. As historians are wont to do, he even wrote a vignette on a Vellala woman’s Swadeshi lecture in Madurai—a piece that Economic and Political Weekly unfortunately turned down (but was eventually published, in Tamil).² I write this to show how quickly he grasped and mastered the historian’s craft.

Like many of us, Barney suffered from writer’s block. It was during his work on his second book, I believe, that he fully overcame it, the publication of his first monograph, Tamil Oratory and the Dravidian Aesthetic: Democratic Practice in South India, providing the spur.³ For many years from the middle of the first decade of this century Barney experienced professional anxieties, material worries, and personal travails. But he breathed Swadeshi during these days, and it probably helped him overcome much of them. In the years before his shockingly untimely death he was writing at a furious pace and presenting various versions at seminars and conferences. Barney obsessed over details and could never stop refining his text; he would toss endlessly in bed the night before a presentation. For whatever reason, he conceived this book to a manageable size, stopping at the time of the Non-cooperation movement rather than logically extend it to the rise of Dravidian oratory in the 1940s. But even in its present form Protestant Textuality and the Tamil Modern: Political Oratory and the Social Imaginary in South Asia is a patently pathbreaking work. I am not aware of another monograph that treats oratory in any of the South Asian languages. The editors of this book, apart from paying their tribute to a dear friend, have put the scholarly world in debt by patiently and diligently piecing together this text.

The purpose of this foreword is to fill in some of the gaps and complement this splendid monograph, based on the material I remember sharing with Barney and other sources. Hopefully, younger scholars will pick up the threads and extend the history.

Dissolving in the Wind

Sundara Ramaswamy’s evocative obituary of the Communist leader P. Jeevanandam—which not incidentally focuses on his legendary oratorical skills—is titled Kattril Kalantha Perosai (The thundering voice that dissolved in the wind).⁴ It could not be more apt. Speech vanishes into thin air. Unlike printed material to which historians take first recourse, speech poses an extraordinary challenge to access and reconstruct its history.

For the colonial period, historians need to rely on police reports, contemporary newspaper reports, the speaker’s personal files, and testimonies of contemporaries—rare indeed is an autobiography of those times that does not speak of attending public meetings and auditing the speeches. Apart from the fact that much of the intelligence archive remains closed and personal papers of the actors sparse, each source comes with its own problems. As Barney shows in this book, until shorthand for vernacular was invented, there could be no reliable transcripts.⁵ What we do have in the colonial archive are English translations and redactions of Tamil speeches. Rarely do we find—at least until much after the time of the Civil Disobedience movement—the original Tamil versions. These translations are surprisingly rather faithful (but awkward), though the original vernacular transcripts, presented in the courts of law, remain to be unearthed by historians.⁶ When some of them came up for discussion in the government for prosecution, we get more analysis. When speeches actually went to court, they were discussed threadbare. In the decade after independence, elaborate transcripts of Tamil speeches came to be bound together in government files. Colonial Police Abstracts of Intelligence provide detailed translations purporting to be verbatim.

Early Tamil newspapers—which, until the beginning of the First World War, virtually meant only Swadesamitran—offer some recourse to Tamil originals. But newspaper reports are even more unreliable. Vernacular newspapers did not have trained reporters but only nirubars (literally, correspondents)—who were amateurs if not actually the speakers or organizers of the meeting themselves—to send a report to the newspaper. In this situation, the quality of the reported speech can well be imagined. Here is Thiru. Vi. Kalyanasundaram Mudaliar (Thiru. Vi. Ka.) writing in 1928 (my translation):

Correspondents of the Tamil press do not take the trouble to learn shorthand. Shorthand is now largely