Yet another typical instance of "Whatever you did, I will undo. Whatever you undid, I will do". But this "kannagi statue" issue prompted a discussion with my family friend yesterday. There is no denying the DMK-ADMK spat and I am neither a ADMK supporter nor a DMK basher.
For the record, Kannagi statue was installed in the DMK rule in 1968 to commemorate the "World Tamil Conference" as it was considered a symbol of Tamil culture. Removed by Jayalalitha Govt. after an "accidental" hit by a lorry and a new service lane is operational where the statue once stood. I have not seen the now re-installed statue.
I have nothing against Kannagi or her statue but I have some doubts whether Kannagi really deserves a statue or not. These are some questions that keep pestering in my mind.
1. Silappadigaram is a great work in Tamil, created by Ilangovadigal. Why can't we have a statue of Ilangovadigal instead of Kannagi?
2. Kannagi is definitely a symbol of chastity, but one of my relative contended that Kannagi is hyped up by male-chauvinistic males as she symbolizes that a 'chaste' wife should do anything for her wayward and unfaithful husband who realises his mistakes after sunset.
3. If Kovalan was sinning, Kannagi should have set him on fire in the first place. Why destroy a city for the sake of king's mistake?
4. That Pandian king deserves a statue: He died the moment he realised he has erred in his judgement.
5. That queen deserves a statue: She died seeing her husband die (Not that I am a votary of Sati!) - which shows her abundant and unconditional love for her husband.
6. How can we have a statue for a city destroyer - for whatever reasons she destroyed it - it is like encouraging violence if Madras High court (which is very close to Marina as well) makes a wrong judgement.
7. I guess Silappadigaram is a work of fiction(?!!!!), this statue might hurt the sentiment of Madurai people - remember how the current Ban Drowns the Code! Also, is it alright to have a statue for a fictional character?