Talk:Puthandu
Tamil calendar
I'm proposing that this article be merged into Tamil calendar. The info about Tamil New Year should probably be made into a section of the Tamil calendar article. Both articles have a list of months and their corresponding Gregorian dates but the two lists are not identical. It's not something I'm remotely qualified to write about so rather than blunder it up I'll leave it to someone who knows more than me. --squirrel 14:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Tamil calendar
This should not be done as a tamil calendar should only be on the tamil calendar same way, Puthandu (tamil new year) should seperate and focusng on that. Only there should be this link and the tamil calendar article on the disambiguation tamil article. Therefore I strongly disagree with this decision as this is wrong. Please reconsider about it after what I have wrote.Pendotigers 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Do not merge
We need more information about Tamil New Year. This has to be an article in its own right. Can be modelled on Ugadi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.69.166.114 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
Can somebody include the English and Tamil greetings: இனிய தமிழ் புத்தாண்டு நல்- வாழ்த்துக்கள் Iniya Tamizh Puthaandu Nalvazthukkal
Tamil calendar, Tamil New Year and Puthandu
Tamil calendar refers to the calendar which is the shared cultural heritage of all Tamils. Tamil New Year is the celebration of the new year and is therefore forwarded to the Puthandu page. The Tamil calendar page should be limited to explaining about the calendar and its significance, while the Puthandu page should elaborate about the significance and celebration of this festival. Hope people can understand this and help expand the Puthandu page. OKtuck (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Atheistic or Secular ?
It says here that the DMK government abolished the new year due to atheistic political reasons. Is this true? Can someone please verify this? Because the Indian Constitution is a secular one. An decision made on ateistic/religious grounds can be challenged in court. Or can it be changed to read "to maintain the secular nature of the new year" or something like that? Kuamudhan (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Karunanidhi's decision to change the date of the new year on allegedly secular grounds is not universally accepted. The Sri Lankan Tamils do not follow it. Opposition parties in Tamil Nadu reject it. The issue is before court. Unless, there is finality to the issue, we need to keep the current article with reference to the new year in April - which is time honored Tamil tradition. The state can not interfere in matters of tradition unless the social good is involved. Caste can be outlawed. But not the calendar!
--Dharman Dharmaratnam (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that the ideological supporters of the DMK stop unilaterally reverting the text in this on line encyclopedia without providing a rationale for doing so in the discussion page. The original write up with citations is objective, neutral and presents tradition as having existed for the past many centuries. It should not be changed without discussion and a consensus.
--MrinaliniB (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute on the content of this page. The issue pertains to whether the Tamil new year is in April as celebrated down the centuries or in January as legislated last year by the current state government in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.
Different points of view need to be discussed in this 'discussion' page and then resolved through consensus. If individuals without a Wikipedia account such as the person with the IP number 125.17.14.100 unilaterally reverse the hard work of Wiki editors such as MrinaliniB without providing due reason on this discussion page, it would be construed as vandalism.
The Tamil new year has been celebrated for centuries in April. The state government in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu decided last year to shift the Tamil new year to January. The opposition in that state refused to accept it. The issue was referred to the Madurai bench of the High Court which rejected the petition. However, the petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court in New Delhi which directed the Madras High Court to re-hear the case.
Meanwhile, Sri Lanka continues to follow the traditiona Tamil new year in April. The Tamil new year in April coincides with the celebration of the new year in many other states of India such as Assam, Bengal, Punjab, Kerala and Orissa. It is also observed in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Burma. One can not censor the historical narrative on this page arbitrarily as is done by the IP number 125.17.14.100.
The wikipedia entry needs to present both viewpoints which MrinaliniB has done.
--Dipendra2007 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Dipendra 2007 mentioned that IP # 75.142.230.243 had introduced a consensus version reconciling the two different points of view. I tend to disagree. I reviewed his/her changes and he/she seems to downplay any reference to Hinduism. The fact remains that the first of Thai was never the Tamil new year in Tamilian tradition. It was a farmer festival and a harvest festival. Those of us who belonged to the maritime castes never really observed Pongal in a major way. Karunanidhi of the DMK party tried to make it the new year to detach Tamilian identity from the remainder of India but the move flopped. See this link
Jayalalithaa had promised to reverse the decision of the Karunanidhi administration when she gets into power. I agree with IP# 125.17.14.100 that the AIADMK and the MDMK MLAs voted for the initial bill in February last year. But the two parties since revised their position and have opposed it. One can argue that this was duplicity. But the fact remains that the Tamilian opposition parties do not support it today.
So while Pongal remains a vibrant harvest/farmer festival, it has not cut ice with the vast majority of Tamilians as the traditional start of year. The two issues are different. Its not about secular vs Hindu. The Tamilians in Mauritius fought hard to obtain Government recognition of April 14 as Tamil new year in that country. The Tamilians in Singapore are making strenuous efforts to revive April 14 as New year in the traditional lives of the Tamilians there. And the Tamil Tigers in Eezham refuse to accept the Karunanidhi decision.
In short, the decision is open-ended and the current entry needs to reflect the entire spectrum of opinion. We can not be too ideological. I invite the opinion of IP # 125.17.14.100 on this talk page. We also need to hear him/her
--Tolkaapiyanaar (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the latest edits of # 75.142.230.243 are a somewhat acceptable reconciliation of the two viewspoints i.e. the DMK-led vs the traditional Tamil Hindu perspective shared by many of us in this discussion thread and elsewhere.
I agree with Tolkaapiyanaar that # 75.142.230.243 replaces any reference to the word 'Hindu' with the term 'Tamil' when it comes to the calendar. The Tamil calendar is Hindu in inspiration just as Pope Gregory helped redefine the calendar used in Europe and North America.
We turn to the Panchangam when it comes to defining both the traditional Tamil New Year in April i.e. Chitterai 1 or the Tamil farmer festival/Thai Pongal in January or Thai 1. The Panchangam is as religious as it gets and is used to define the start and end of all Tamil months, Thai included.
This said, the current version of the Wikipedia text on the Tamil new year as revised by # 75.142.230.243 seems broadly ok. I propose that we freeze any edits for a few days. Should we propose changes, let us do so on this discussion page and await comments before unilaterally making changes. That would be the consensus way to move ahead. After all, we are all Tamils despite Karunanidhi's move which many of us consider offensive!
--Dharman Dharmaratnam (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
IP Number 125.17.14.100 is back once again reverting editorial changes that we had worked so hard to synthesize. He removes footnotes that conclusively indicate the opposition of the AIADMK and MDMK parties to the current law introduced by the DMK state administration. The Tiruvalluvar era may have been in existence for a while. But the DMK had abolished the earlier 60 year cycle of years in use and replaced it exclusively with reference to the Tiruvalluvar era. Anyone who has studied Tiruvalluvar's work would know that it is a post-Sangam work and is possibly quite late. To argue therefore that it is more than 2,000 years has no conclusive literary evidence.
There has to be discussion on contentious points on this page before they are introduced on the main text. --MrinaliniB (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is one of many evidence for 125.17.14.100 that Jayalalithaa of the AIADMK and Vaiko of the MDMKK refused to accept the change proposed by Karunanidhi of the DMK!
http://news.webindia123.com/news/articles/India/20080412/930922.html
DMK working to segregate Tamil people using religion
Are there studies or news articles regarding Karunanidhi's or DMK's plan to segregate people based on religion? Tamil new year is for the people of Tamil origin. This notion that it is a new year for Hindus but not for Buddhist, Jew, Christian, Muslims, atheist, agnostic or any other religion or belief is news to me. I don't see any reason other than segregation or for topic diversion one would make this a issue. Unfortunately I don't live in India so I don't have any idea on the state of affairs in Tamil Nadu. Can any one please research this angle and put any references if you find one.
Hello. I suggest you go through each of the footnotes provided at the end of the article. This would give you a sense of the politics of the legislative enactment which remains controversial. National parliamentary elections in India would be held in the next three months. Given the anti-incumbency factor, it is likely that the DMK may not fare well at the Tamil Nadu segment of the national elections. It would need the support of the Congress party to retain power in Tamil Nadu state itself. The state elections itself would be held in 2011.
The DMK is part-heir to Dravidian politics that commenced largely under Periyaar. Periyaar in many ways suggested a break with Tamil classical tradition - be it the Tamil calendar or even the Tamil alphabet. But the AIADMK retains a pan-Indic sensibility which explains its continued support for the return to the traditional calendar that commences in April each year.
But please realize that Tamilian identity is not confined to Tamil Nadu. Sri Lanka has had a vibrant Tamilian presence for 2,200 years. Jaffna was the epicenter of a separate Tamil kingdom since 1215 AD. And those chaps are very traditional - even more than in my own Tamil Nadu!
Best regards
--Tolkaapiyanaar (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know what was Karunanidhi doing during his previous tenures. Why didn’t he change the New Year then? I would appreciate if the “IP number-friend” could throw some light on this.
The Dravidian-Missionary nexus is well established in Tamilnadu and this combine is working together to alienate the Tamils from the Hindu fold. That is why the Chief Minister Karunanidhi had promulgated this ‘Thai-Tamil New Year’ ordinance and that is why the Christian forces propagate the stupid concept of “Thomas-Christianity’ (Adi Christhuvam) and try to ‘babtise’ Thiruvalluvar in the process, saying that Thiruvalluvar was the disciple of Thomas and his Thirukkural contains a lot of teachings from the Bible. As a continuation of this fraudulent concept, the Mylapore diocese is planning to produce a movie on the so-called St.Thomas and the Chief Minister, despite having a good knowledge on Thiruvalluvar and Thirukkural, had presided over the inauguration of the film. This idiotic concept of Thomas Christianity says that Shaivism and Vaishnavism are byproducts of “Adi Christhuvam”. Do we need any more examples to establish this farce and the nexus?
The Chief Minister made the announcement of changing Tamil New Year during the ‘Sangamam’ Festival last year in Dec 2007-Jan 2008 and enacted the Law subsequently. The opposition (AIADMK & MDMK) without any application of mind and due to fear of votes and anti-Tamil image stupidly supported the legislation. Later on these parties reconciled after seeing the huge celebration of Tamil New Year by the people of Tamilnadu on 13 April 2008 (Chiththirai-1). Even though the DMK government prevented the Temple celebrations through the HR&CE Department, the other temples, which do not come under the purview of HR&CE, celebrated with gaiety and fanfare as per the religious norms.
And this month again the Tamil people celebrated only Pongal (not Tamil New Year) on Thai-1 (January 14) and just ignored the government’s call for the celebration of New Year. All the political leaders except Karunanidhi, Ramadoss and Thirumavalavan greeted the people only for Pongal and not for New Year.
The Tamil speaking Christians celebrate only the Christian New Year of January-1 and the Tamil speaking Muslims celebrate only the Arabic New Year. They simply don’t bother about Chiththirai-1 or Thai-1. The Tamil Hindus (including the DMK cadres) have been celebrating and will be celebrating Tamil New Year only on April-14 (Chiththirai-1).
The Christian missionaries are behind the legislation of the DMK government and it has been done with a motive of taking the Tamil New Year to January, which has the Gregorian New Year too. By this way, they could merge the so-called Thiruvalluvar calendar with the Gregorian calendar and nullify the Tamil-Hindu calendar. This will also help the missionaries to Christianise Thiruvalluvar and if allowed, they will replace Thirukkural with Bible! It must be noted that the so-called cultural festival ‘Sangamam’ is the brainchild of Dravidian Kanimozhi (DMK) and Christian Jagat Gaspar Raj (Thamizh Maiyyam). Do we need any more examples for Dravidian-Church nexus? Let us not fall into this dangerous trap, which is being laid in the name of Tamil.
Let us be very clear. Tamil is Hindu and Tamils are Hindus. The Tamil and Hindu traditions are one and the same. No one on this earth, whether it is Maraimalai Adigal or Kalaignar, has the authority to change it.
Dhraavidan (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
125.17.14.100 mentions that 'secular' Tamils (what ever that means!) celebrated the new year on January 14. If one had read the Tamil Nadu press or watched Tamil Nadu television, hardly anyone celebrated the Tamil new year on January 14 except for the DMK and affiliated parties. What was celebrated was the harvest festival - which is very different! The new law merging the two came into effect this year and is unlikely to remain on the statute books for long.
We need rigorous evidence of a broad based celebration of the ethnic new year in January - as opposed to the farmer festival or harvest festival - before such subjective points of view can be included on the whims of an anonymous IP number.
He likewise deletes information supported with a media reference that the heads of the opposition AIADMK and MDMK parties in the Tamil Nadu legislature had criticized the decision of the DMK to change the date of the traditional new year. One can not arbitrarily delete key pieces of information supported by evidence.
Regardless, the harvest festival in January is just as rooted in the Hindu calendar as is the traditional new year in April. Both have religious origins!--Dipendra2007 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The one page to express disagreement and resolve disputes over content is this one - not the main text itself. Anonymous IP numbers should suggest new wording here before introducing it in the main text.
There is one statement in the encyclopedia entry which indicates that the leadership of two opposition political parties in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu (AIADMK and MDMK) condemned the change in the date of the Tamil new year. This statement was supported with a media reference.
IP 125.17.14.100 can not just delete information that he does not like and introduce wording according to his whims and fancies. At one point, he claims to remove a pro-Brahmin and anti-Tamil stance. Who is Brahmin and who is not Brahmin here to begin with. I for example am not Brahmin but like the wording of the text - except for the subject header which can be changed to Tamil New Year instead!
Such casteist comments on his part are not welcome. This is an international encylopedia on line. It is not a DMK journal!!
It is important to mention that the Tamil Nadu legislature passed the bill. There are Tamils who live outside Tamil Nadu who are not bound by that legislature! --Nedunchezhiyan (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)