Adieu Muthiah! It’s now time to celebrate the real history of Chennai

(S Muthiah, who passed away on April 20, did a lot to dig out and record the history of Madras. His contributions helped in creating an awareness among the residents of Chennai, formerly Madras, regarding the history of the city. We at The Federal are committed to presenting all sides of any theme or issue. Below is a critical appraisal of Muthiah)

In the death of S Muthiah, the British Raj has lost its steadfast chronicler. What began for Muthiah as a hobby to write tidbits about the city in the post-1639 period became a life-defining pursuit. He would write about Britishers who built this or managed that institution, never failing to record the contribution of the British Raj. He would write stories about life in the railways, the telegraph systems, the early cars and the trams.

However, for one who was trying to chronicle the city, it was mystifying that he wouldn’t dwell on the period before the British which was close to 2,000 years, and certainly much longer than the term under British occupation.

As President of Chennai 2000 Plus Trust, an organization that seeks to throw light and create awareness about how ancient the city is, going back to at least 2,000 years and containing parts which are pre-historic, I differed with him on his approach towards the city’s history and culture.

Muthiah insisted that Madras was born on August 22, 1639. I pointed out that both the date and the year were wrong even if he was recording British history. Muthiah himself had recorded in his book, “Madras Rediscovered” that with reference to the grant of land obtained by Andrew Cogan and Francis Day for the East India Company  — “that grant is dated July 22, 1639 but since Day reached Madrasapatnam – the name mentioned in the grant – only on July 27th, the chances are that ‘July’ is an error and August 22, 1639, is more likely the date the East India Company acquired the land to found their settlement in”.

However, this was an erroneous conclusion since British writers have confirmed that the grant was in fact signed on March 1, 1637 itself, after Day made extensive visits to the area including Mylapore, which was also offered by the Portuguese.  Therefore, July 27 was not Day’s first visit, and therefore, the presumption that July was an error and the date must be August 22 was totally wrong.

When this was pointed out by me in articles in the media in the last two years, Muthiah responded by stating that if August 22 was not to be the date, several logs would have to be corrected! Mind you, he did not maintain that August 22 was absolutely the right date.

Secondly, and more importantly, Muthiah himself records as above that the name mentioned in the grant was Madrasapatnam. It is obvious from a study of the earlier records and inscriptions that Madras was not a new place discovered or founded by the British as the supporters of the Madras Week would have us believe. The place existed as Madrasapatnam long before as a port town and is mentioned in a rock inscription of Kampana II during the Vijayanagar empire found at Penneswaramadam in Tamil Nadu’s Krishnagiri district, (confirmed by the Archaeological Survey of India)  dated July 21, 1367.

Inscriptions and archaeological finds tell another story

I pointed out that it was illogical on the part of Muthiah to claim that Chennai was some 380 years old when many parts of the city were known to exist for over 2,000 years judging by inscriptions. Literature of Shaivite and Vaishanavite scholars and archaeological finds of pre-historic sites at Pallavaram/Tirusoolam, Attirampakkam exist, and many megalithic burial sites have been discovered in the city and parts of Greater Chennai. Muthiah himself had written that Thiruvalluvar lived in Mylapore 2,000 years ago and grudgingly admitted that many parts of Chennai were indeed ancient and existed much before the British came here. However, goalposts were shifted to make out a case that they existed as ancient villages but the British brought them together for the first time under the name Madras.

This was also a major error on the part of Muthiah – a historical blunder – as many parts of what we call Chennai or Greater Chennai  region were under the administrative unit called Puliyur Kottam, and this was much larger than the town which the British inhabited, and had overseas and internal trade, besides literature, music and culture, besides democratic, local bodies. So, the British did not create a new administrative unit. They merely renamed the existing administrative unit of Puliyur Kottam, the ancient name for Chennai, as recorded in inscriptions over 1,200 years old.

Muthiah also discounted the claims of the Archaeological Survey of India and the State Archaeology department that many parts of Tamil Nadu were indeed in existence from the pre-historic area, recalling the discovery of Robert Bruce Foote of paelolithic sites in and around Chennai, referring to life here right from Old Stone Age. His argument was that we cannot trace our ancestors beyond 200 or 250 years, so they didn’t exist! Muthiah forgot that the tradition of recording births and deaths is only a recent phenomenon, while our ancestors used palm-leaf manuscripts including for horoscopes which did not have shelf life of over 200 years at best. Inscriptions of Chennai record names of a large numbers of people who lived even 1,200 years ago.

As Muthiah was considered an authority on the history of the city, it has been difficult for historians and Tamil writers to drive home the fact that the city has been in existence for over 2,000 years, right from the Sangam period as Tamil writers would say.

To reduce the age of the city from over 2,000 years to just 380 or something like that is doing great disservice to the city and its culture. Instead of marketing the city as a 2,000 year plus vibrant city, with a living culture, all over the world  to attract lakhs of tourists and billions of dollars, some people want to project it as just 380 years old. Muthiah will be remembered for his contribution to write a portion of the city’s history. But he ignored the native Tamil tradition and culture of over 2,000 years. At least from now on, the records should be set right, and the city should proudly celebrate it as a place with over 2,000 years of history and culture. Some people have done enough to chronicle the British Raj. It is time to write the real history of the city, which will put it on the global map.