One of the mistake we often do is to look at the values of another era with ours. I think this is what is happening here. By the same token, there is no ruler today who can give an instant justice like Nedunchezhian did in Silappathikkaram. My take is we may never be able to figure the reason why Kannagi acted the way she did and being judgemental on it just unjust. On the other hand, I have an explanation. What Kannagi did or did not do to correct her wayward husband is her personal matter. But a king giving a verdict without looking into the matter is a social ill. While Kannagi did tolerate the personal injustice perpetuated on her by Kovalan (which is none of anyone's business anyway), she couldn't do the same when the social justice system failed (which ofcourse is everyone's business). It is an interesting thing. Illango Adigal has a very subtle yet strong message here. I think Kannagi is the first and great social activist and that itself makes her a divine entity.
She should have only punished the person responsible for causing the 'social ill'. Instead she chose to punish everybody else too,which I think was completely SELFISH. All she thought was the injustice that had happened to HER and all she got after putting the city on fire was the title "KARPUKARASI" or whatever. The woman who put a whole city on fire to avenge the injustice caused to HER husband! All she thought was about her husband, what she'd do without him!!! In a way, her allowing Kovalan to Madhavi without any objections is also a social ill. THAT is the concept of Polygamy. And her not objecting to it, indirectly encouraged it. WHAT SHE DID is infact a social ill, to all other women in the society. She may be a great example of a wife but a poor and wrong example of a woman.
Besides, whatever happened between her and Kovalan is personal, but then if people chose to bring it to light, well aware that it would become a subject of public discussion, then there's nothing wrong with discussing it. Besides, that part of the story has been well used to create a feeling of sympathy. So there's NOTHING PERSONAL about it!
Coming back to the fire part, destoying a whole city for the folly of its king IS UNJUST. Where does social welfare come here and why should she be called a social activist?
hi all are the citizens of a country responsible for a unjust king whose rule they have no power to control( not having elected him or not able to dismiss him)?
forget the era it happened. they just cant be held responsible. in some versions of the story (I HAVE not read the original) kannagi spares the aged , the invalid and the children from the fire. in case it is in the original story who is she to judge all this?
and the story has nothing to do with her chastity why the title of karpukarasai at all? venketesh
though not directly connected with this argument i was reminded of a nice incident i happened to witness once
in govt arts college mount road a couple of decades ago I happened to witness a college programme in which naavalar nedunchezhian presided.
since it was 5. 30 pm and he did not seem to be finishing the monolougue a lot of girls started deserting the audience. nedunchezhian got visibly angry and commented on it.
almost immedietly arasu. manimekalai a poetess who happened to be the tamil professor in that college came on stage and said" in history a nedunchezian made a hasty judgement in madurai. today too another nedunchezian is making a hasty comment" for that nedunchezian got up and quoted from silapathikaaram "finally in the aftermath of madurai's fiery end, kannagi absolves the pandya king of wrongdoing blaming it on fate."
and he went on to add "when kannagi herself gives a clean chit to nedunchezian what locus standi does a manimekalai have??" though a couple of decades or more have passed this word play is fresh in my mind.
I just wanted to add one more argument into this. If you've read Silappathigaram, you will know that Kannagi exempts a whole lot of people and animals from getting burnt in fire (pasu, anthanar, good people, old, children etc). Thus not everyone got burnt. The city burnt as the result of the miscarriage of justice. Also, I dont remember reading anywhere about the civilian casualties in the fire. Thus my conclusion is that Kannagi destroyed the city and let the people live. This in itself is an amazing feat. I do not believe while taking avenge for the injustice done to her husband, Kannagi will be commiting the same injustice (killing of innocents) to others. It just defeats the purpose of the revenge. She attains divinity because of that.
If you look at any injustice, at the micro level it is a personal one. In a justice system, where there is no appeal and where the King is deemed God, it takes a lot of guts to stand in a King's court and tell him that what he has done is wrong. Pray tell me how many such instances you can quote in the history of the world?. Living in a democratic society as we do today, it may not seem such a big thing to do, but a monarchy is an autocratic state and to stand up for a cause (personal or otherwise) is an act of courage (usually you will lose your head for lesser offences). It also tells a lot about Pandian Nedunchezhian who was able to understand the situation and die hearing that he has done injustice.
A social activist is one who takes up a cause (in this case injustice in Kings court) and fights for it. Kannagi did that and made sure she destroyed the system that abet such a incident. If it meant burning the city that stood and watched the miscarriage of justice, so be it.
As for Kannagi allowing her husband to go awry, I think again it is only a simplistic explanation. In silappathikkaram, Madhavi(the other woman) is treated on par with Kannagi. The social setup of the day allowed men to marry many wives and have relations with public women like Madhavi. Kannagi was just following the norm of her day. By that standard, will you be blaming Sundarar for marrying two women, that too with Lord Shiva's help?. Silappathigaram differs in condoning the act and not the persons (Kannagi or Madhavi) involved. Again putting these acts under scrutiny using todays standards, the entire society can be described as one that encouraged licentitous acts and basically amoral. This is the danger we are to fall interpreting history with our standards.
Again, I think we need to really sit back and look at things, as SPS said, the way Ilango adigal and Cheran Chenguttuvan heard 2000 years back. I actually sat through an argument (in Thirunelveli 10 years back in a festival for writers) which analyzed the feminist virtues of Kannagi. I could only laugh!!
Kannagi was probably only a tool/excuse for the city to be burnt. Also, was it not common those days for an enemy to destroy a king's city if the enemy won? I guess people were used to rebuilding their cities every time they lose a war. Also, houses may not have been elaborate those days. Must have been easier/quicker to build.
King dying immediately on realising his folly was punishment enough. City getting destroyed hence had other reasons, as mentioned.