HAZOP

by

David Gossman

In 1998 we published a GCI Tech Notes that summarized the HAZOP process.  Recently I had the opportunity to teach a class on performing HAZOPs to a group of safety professionals in Shanghai, China.  As a result of that experience further information on the process of performing HAZOPs will be presented in a new series of GCI Tech Notes starting with this issue.

Introduction

A Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study is a structured and systematic examination of a planned or existing process or operation in order to identify and evaluate problems that may represent risks to personnel or equipment, or prevent efficient operation.  The HAZOP technique was initially developed to analyze chemical process systems, but has later been extended to other types of complex systems including, as examples, transportation systems and software systems.  The  HAZOP process is just one of a large number of different techniques available to the safety professional for analyzing systems to identify and prevent hazards. It has the further advantage that it also identifies and helps to prevent operational problems.  HAZOP studies require more details regarding the systems under consideration, but produce more comprehensive information on hazards and errors in the system design.  As with any of these processes there are pros and cons to using a specific technique for a particular circumstance.  HAZOPs are not the best technique for every circumstance and it is important to understand the benefits as well as the costs and limitations of the method before making the decision to use it in a particular circumstance.

HAZOP Pros

• The HAZOP process is a systematic examination.
• The team approach to a HAZOP makes it a multidisciplinary study.
• The HAZOP team utilizes operational experience.
• The process covers safety as well as operational aspects.
• Solutions to the problems identified may be indicated.
• HAZOPs consider operational procedures.
• HAZOPs cover human errors.
• The HAZOP study led by independent person.
• HAZOP study results are recorded.
• For team members the process is easily learned and performed.
• A HAZOP does not require considerable technical expertise for technique formulation.
• As a systematic process it provides rigor for focusing on system elements and hazards.
• The HAZOP process is a team effort with many viewpoints.
• Commercial software is available to assist in HAZOP analysis.

HAZOP Cons

• A HAZOP focuses on single events rather than combinations of possible events.
• The HAZOP focus on guide-words allows it to overlook some hazards not related to a guide-word.
• Training is essential for optimum results, especially for the facilitator.
• HAZOPs are typically very time consuming and thus expensive.

Discussion

HAZOP is a hazard identification technique which considers system parts separately and systematically examines the effects of deviations on each part. Sometimes a serious hazard will involve the interaction between a number of parts of the system. In these cases the hazard may need to be studied in more detail using techniques such as event tree and fault tree analyses.  Many systems are highly inter-linked, and a deviation at one of them may have a cause elsewhere. Adequate local mitigating action may not address the real cause and still result in a subsequent accident.  Many accidents have occurred because small local modifications had unforeseen knock-on effects elsewhere. While this problem can be overcome by carrying forward the implications of deviations from one part to another, in practice this is frequently not done.  As with any technique for the identification of hazards or operability problems, there can be no guarantee that all hazards or operability problems will be identified in a HAZOP study. The study of a complex system should not, therefore, depend entirely upon a HAZOP. It should be used as a compliment to other suitable techniques. It is essential that other relevant studies are coordinated within an effective overall safety management system.  The success of a HAZOP study depends greatly on the ability and experience of the study leader and the knowledge, experience and interaction between team members.  HAZOP only considers parts that appear on the design representation. Activities and operations which do not appear on the representation are not considered.

Conclusion

An important benefit of HAZOP studies is that the resulting knowledge, obtained by identifying potential hazards and operability problems in a structured and systematic manner, is of great assistance in determining appropriate remedial measures.  While a HAZOP is not appropriate in all circumstances one of the major benefits that can be used to help justify the cost and time investment is that it also helps to avoid operating problems and can thus provide a clear return on the investment beyond the reduction in hazards.

Development of a surgically implantable, artificial kidney

Development of a surgically implantable, artificial kidney—a promising alternative to kidney transplantation or dialysis for people with end-stage kidney disease—has received a $6 million boost, thanks to a new grant from the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), one of the National Institutes of Health, to researchers led by UC San Francisco bioengineer Shuvo Roy, PhD, and Vanderbilt University nephrologist William Fissell, MD.

A team of university scientists has developed the world’s first artificial kidney technology to be implanted in the body. Their bio-hybrid approach uses living kidney cells in tandem with a series of specialized microchips powered by the human heart to filter waste from the blood stream.

The National Kidney Foundation estimates that over 100,000 patients are on the waiting list for a donor kidney, and over 3,000 are added list each year.  The average patient spends 3.6 years waiting for a viable transplant, and may be treated with dialysis while they wait, but only one in three dialysis patient survives longer than five years without a transplant.

Transplanted organs from deceased or living donors must be carefully matched in order to avoid tissue rejection, but an artificial solution could potentially bypass these complications and be manufactured to better meet the demand.  To address this unmet need, William Fissell from Vanderbilt and Shuvo Roy from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) launched The Kidney Project.

“This project is about creating a permanent solution to the scarcity problem in organ transplantation. We are increasing the options for people with chronic kidney disease who would otherwise be forced onto dialysis,” Fissell told the UCSF News Center.

In November 2015, The Kidney Project received a $6 million grant from the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). According to Fissell, the group also reached out to both the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the FDA in a more coordinated effort to bring the artificial kidney to clinical trial. Under a cooperative agreement with the NIBIB’s Quantum Program, the NIBIB will oversee funding for The Kidney Project’s research for another four years.

The prototype is roughly the size of a coffee cup and uses a combination of silicon nanotechnology and living kidney cells to filter blood. A series of 15 microchips serve as scaffolding for the living cells to grow on and around, creating a bio-hybrid device.

“We can leverage Mother Nature’s 60 million years of research and development and use kidney cells that fortunately for us grow well in the lab dish, and grow them into a bioreactor of living cells,” explained Fissell in a recent article published by Research News @ Vanderbilt.  Fissell described the device as a “Santa Claus System,” because it can reliably distinguish between waste chemicals and those nutrients a body should reabsorb.

According to Fissel, the device is powered naturally with the patient’s own blood flow, and his team is working to ensure that blood can flow through the device without clotting or causing damage. Vanderbilt biomedical engineer Amanda Buck is using computer programs to study the device’s fluid dynamics and further refine the channels for maximum blood flow efficiency.

The team announced that they were ready to begin pilot tests of their silicon filters, and they intend to launch the first human clinical trials for the artificial kidney technology as early as 2017.

Last year, CNN reported that the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) had introduced technology that would allow patients to receive continuous dialysis treatment; an advance that scientists claim reduces many of the side-effects and inconveniences of the treatment. This technology, said lead researcher Victor Gura, could be available in two years.

Photos of Creative Photographers Who Know How To Use Shadows

'Why I am an atheist' Bhagat Singh

Bhagat Singh (born September 1907) was convicted and subsequently hanged on March 23, 1931 for his participation in the John Saunders murder case. On his death anniversary, we revisit the essay he is supposed to have written between October 5-6, 1930, in response to a prison inmate who tried to convince him of the existence of God, and upon failing, berated him, "You are giddy with fame and have developed an ego that is standing like a black curtain between you and God."  Bhagat Singh was 23 years old.

It is a matter of debate whether my lack of belief in the existence of an omnipresent, omniscient God is due to my arrogant pride and vanity. It never occurred to me that sometime in the future I would be involved in polemics of this kind. As a result of some discussions with my friends, (if my claim to friendship is not uncalled for) I have realised that after having known me for a little time only, some of them have reached a kind of hasty conclusion about me that my atheism is my foolishness and that it is the outcome of my vanity. Even then it is a serious problem. I do not boast of being above these human follies. I am, after all, a human being and nothing more. And no one can claim to be more than that.

I have a weakness in my personality, for pride is one of the human traits that I do possess. I am known as a dictator among my friends. Sometimes I am called a boaster. Some have always been complaining that I am bossy and I force others to accept my opinion. Yes, it is true to some extent. I do not deny this charge. We can use the word ‘vainglory’ for it. As far as the contemptible, obsolete, rotten values of our society are concerned, I am an extreme sceptic. But this question does not concern my person alone. It is being proud of my ideas, my thoughts. It cannot be called empty pride. Pride, or you may use the word, vanity, both mean an exaggerated assessment of one’s personality. Is my atheism because of unnecessary pride, or have I ceased believing in God after thinking long and deep on the matter? I wish to put my ideas before you. First of all, let us differentiate between pride and vanity as these are two different things.

I have never been able to understand how unfounded, baseless pride or empty vanity can hinder a person from believing in God. I may refuse to acknowledge the greatness of a really great person only when I have got fame without doing any serious efforts or when I lack the superior mental powers necessary to become great. It is easy to understand but how is it possible that a believer can turn into a non-believer because of his vanity? Only two things are possible: either a man deems himself to be in possession of godly qualities, or he goes a step further and declares himself to be a god. In both these states of mind he cannot be an atheist in the true sense of the word. In the first case, it is not an outright rejection of God’s existence; in the other, he is affirming the existence of some kind of supernatural power responsible for the working of universe. It does not harm our argument whether he claims to be a god or considers God to be a reality in existence above his own being. The real point, however, is that in both cases he is a theist, a believer. He is not an atheist. I want to bring home this point to you. I am not one of these two creeds. I totally reject the existence of an omnipresent, all powerful, all knowing God. Why so? I will discuss it later in the essay.

Incorrect allegations

Here I wish to emphasise that I am not an atheist for the reason that I am arrogant or proud or vain; nor am I a demi-god, nor a prophet; no, nor am I God myself. At least one thing is true that I have not evolved this thought because of vanity or pride. In order to answer this question I relate the truth. My friends say that after Delhi bombing and Lahore Conspiracy Case, I rocketed to fame and that this fact has turned my head. Let us discuss why this allegation is incorrect. I did not give up my belief in God after these incidents. I was an atheist even when I was an unknown figure. At least a college student cannot cherish any sort of exaggerated notion of himself that may lead him to atheism.

It is true that I was a favourite with some college teachers, but others did not like me. I was never a hardworking or studious boy. I never got an opportunity to be proud. I was very careful in my behaviour and somewhat pessimistic about my future career. I was not completely atheistic in my beliefs. I was brought up under the care and protection of my father. He was a staunch Arya Samaji. An Arya Samaji can be anything but never an atheist. After my elementary education, I was sent to DAV College, Lahore. I lived in the boarding house for one year. Besides prayers early in the morning and at dusk time, I sat for hours and chanted religious Mantras. At that time, I was a staunch believer. Then I lived with my father. He was a tolerant man in his religious views. It is due to his teachings that I devoted my life for the cause of liberating my country. But he was not an atheist. His God was an all-pervading Entity. He advised me to offer my prayers every day. In this way I was brought up.

In the Non-cooperation days, I got admission to the National College. During my stay in this college, I began thinking over all the religious polemics such that I grew sceptical about the existence of God. In spite of this fact I can say that my belief in God was firm and strong. I grew a beard and ‘Kais’ (long head of hair as a Sikh religious custom). In spite of this I could not convince myself of the efficacy of Sikh religion or any religion at all, for that matter. But I had an unswerving, unwavering belief in God.

Then I joined the Revolutionary Party. The first leader I met had not the courage to openly declare himself an atheist. He was unable to reach any conclusion on this point. Whenever I asked him about the existence of God, he gave me this reply: “You may believe in him when you feel like it.” The second leader with whom I came in contact was a firm believer. I should mention his name. It was our respected Comrade Sachindara Nath Sanyal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with Karachi conspiracy case. Right from the first page of his only book, Bandi Jivan (Incarnated Life) he sings praises to the Glory of God. See the last page of the second part of this book and you find praises showered upon God in the way of a mystic. It is a clear reflection of his thoughts.

According to the prosecution, the Revolutionary Leaflet which was distributed throughout India was the outcome of Sachindara Nath Sanyal’s intellectual labour. So often it happens that in revolutionary activities a leader expresses his own ideas which may be very dear to him, but in spite of having differences, the other workers have to acquiesce in them.

In that leaflet, one full paragraph was devoted to the praises of God and His doings which we, human beings, cannot understand. This is sheer mysticism. What I want to point out is that the idea of denying the existence of God did not even occur to the Revolutionary Party. The famous Kakory martyrs, all four of them, passed their last day in prayers. Ram Parshad Bismal was a staunch Arya Samaji. In spite of his vast studies in Socialism and Communism, Rajan Lahiri could not suppress his desire to recite hymns from Upanishads and Gita. There was but only one person among them who did not indulge in such activities. He used to say, “Religion is the outcome of human weakness or the limitation of human knowledge.” He is also in prison for life. But he also never dared to deny the existence of God.

A romantic revolutionary

Till that time I was only a romantic revolutionary, just a follower of our leaders. Then came the time to shoulder the whole responsibility. For some time, a strong opposition put the very existence of the party into danger. Many leaders as well as many enthusiastic comrades began to uphold the party to ridicule. They jeered at us. I had an apprehension that some day I will also consider it a futile and hopeless task. It was a turning point in my revolutionary career.

An incessant desire to study filled my heart. ‘Study more and more’, said I to myself so that I might be able to face the arguments of my opponents. ‘Study’ to support your point of view with convincing arguments. And I began to study in a serious manner. My previous beliefs and convictions underwent a radical change. The romance of militancy dominated our predecessors; now serious ideas ousted this way of thinking. No more mysticism! No more blind faith! Now realism was our mode of thinking. At times of terrible necessity, we can resort to extreme methods, but violence produces opposite results in mass movements. I have talked much about our methods. The most important thing was a clear conception of our ideology for which we were waging a long struggle. As there was no election activity going on, I got ample opportunity to study various ideas propounded by various writers. I studied Bakunin, the anarchist leader. I read a few books of Marx, the father of Communism. I also read Lenin and Trotsky and many other writers who successfully carried out revolutions in their countries. All of them were atheists.

The ideas contained in Bakunin’s God and State seem inconclusive, but it is an interesting book. After that I came across a book Common Sense by Nirlamba Swami. His point of view was a sort of mystical atheism. I developed more interest in this subject. By the end of 1926, I was convinced that the belief in an Almighty, Supreme Being who created, guided and controlled the universe had no sound foundations. I began discussions on this subject with my friends. I had openly declared myself an atheist. What it meant will be discussed in the following lines.

In May 1927, I was arrested in Lahore. This arrest came as a big surprise for me. I had not the least idea that I was wanted by the police. I was passing through a garden and all of a sudden the police surrounded me. To my own surprise, I was very calm at that time. I was in full control of myself. I was taken into police custody. The next day I was taken to the Railway Police lockup where I spent a whole month. After many days’ conversation with police personnel, I guessed that they had some information about my connection with the Kakori Party. I felt they had some intelligence of my other activities in the revolutionary movement. They told me that I was in Lucknow during the Kakori Party Trial so that I might devise a scheme to rescue the culprits. They also said that after the plan had been approved, we procured some bombs and by way of test, one of those bombs was thrown into a crowd on the occasion of Dussehra in 1926.

They offered to release me on condition that I gave a statement on the activities of the Revolutionary Party. In this way I would be set free and even rewarded and I would not be produced as an approver in the court. I could not help laughing at their proposals. It was all humbug. People who have ideas like ours do not throw bombs at their own innocent people. One day, Mr Newman, the then senior Superintendent of CID, came to me. After a long talk which was full of sympathetic words, he imparted to me what he considered to be sad news, that if I did not give any statement as demanded by them, they would be forced to send me up for trial for conspiracy to wage war in connection with Kakori Case and also for brutal killings in Dussehra gathering. After that he said that he had sufficient evidence to get me convicted and hanged.

I was completely innocent, but I believed that the police had sufficient power to do it if they desired it to be so. The same day some police officers persuaded me to offer my prayers to God two times regularly. I was an atheist. I thought that I would settle it to myself whether I could brag only in days of peace and happiness that I was an atheist, or in those hard times I could be steadfast in my convictions. After a long debate with myself, I reached the conclusion that I could not even pretend to be a believer nor could I offer my prayers to God. No, I never did it. It was time of trial and I would come out of it successful. These were my thoughts. Never for a moment did I desire to save my life.

A true atheist

So I was a true atheist then and I am an atheist now. It was not an easy task to face that ordeal. Beliefs make it easier to go through hardships, even make them pleasant. Man can find a strong support in God and an encouraging consolation in His Name. If you have no belief in Him, then there is no alternative but to depend upon yourself. It is not child’s play to stand firm on your feet amid storms and strong winds. In difficult times, vanity, if it remains, evaporates and man cannot find the courage to defy beliefs held in common esteem by the people. If he really revolts against such beliefs, we must conclude that it is not sheer vanity; he has some kind of extraordinary strength. This is exactly the situation now.

First of all we all know what the judgement will be. It is to be pronounced in a week or so. I am going to sacrifice my life for a cause. What more consolation can there be! A God-believing Hindu may expect to be reborn a king; a Muslim or a Christian might dream of the luxuries he hopes to enjoy in paradise as a reward for his sufferings and sacrifices. What hope should I entertain? I know that will be the end when the rope is tightened round my neck and the rafters move from under my feet. To use more precise religious terminology, that will be the moment of utter annihilation. My soul will come to nothing. If I take the courage to take the matter in the light of ‘Reward’, I see that a short life of struggle with no such magnificent end shall itself be my ‘Reward.’ That is all. Without any selfish motive of getting any reward here or in the hereafter, quite disinterestedly have I devoted my life to the cause of freedom. I could not act otherwise.

The day shall usher in a new era of liberty when a large number of men and women, taking courage from the idea of serving humanity and liberating them from sufferings and distress, decide that there is no alternative before them except devoting their lives for this cause. They will wage a war against their oppressors, tyrants or exploiters, not to become kings, or to gain any reward here or in the next birth or after death in paradise; but to cast off the yoke of slavery, to establish liberty and peace they will tread this perilous, but glorious path. Can the pride they take in their noble cause be called vanity? Who is there rash enough to call it so? To him I say either he is foolish or wicked. Leave such a fellow alone for he cannot realise the depth, the emotions, the sentiment and the noble feelings that surge in that heart. His heart is dead, a mere lump of flesh, devoid of feelings. His convictions are infirm, his emotions feeble. His selfish interests have made him incapable of seeing the truth. The epithet ‘vanity’ is always hurled at the strength we get from our convictions.

You go against popular feelings; you criticise a hero, a great man who is generally believed to be above criticism. What happens? No one will answer your arguments in a rational way; rather you will be considered vainglorious. Its reason is mental insipidity. Merciless criticism and independent thinking are the two necessary traits of revolutionary thinking. As Mahatmaji is great, he is above criticism; as he has risen above, all that he says in the field of politics, religion, Ethics is right. You agree or not, it is binding upon you to take it as truth. This is not constructive thinking. We do not take a leap forward; we go many steps back.

Our forefathers evolved faith in some kind of Supreme Being, therefore, one who ventures to challenge the validity of that faith or denies the existence of God, shall be called a Kafir (infidel), or a renegade. Even if his arguments are so strong that it is impossible to refute them, if his spirit is so strong that he cannot be bowed down by the threats of misfortune that may befall him through the wrath of the Almighty, he shall be decried as vainglorious. Then why should we waste our time in such discussions? This question has come before the people for the first time, hence the necessity and usefulness of such long discussions.

A realistic man

As far as the first question is concerned, I think I have made it clear that I did not turn atheist because of vanity. Only my readers, not I, can decide whether my arguments carry weight. If I were a believer, I know in the present circumstances my life would have been easier; the burden lighter. My disbelief in God has turned all the circumstances too harsh and this situation can deteriorate further. Being a little mystical can give the circumstances a poetic turn. But I need no opiate to meet my end. I am a realistic man. I want to overpower this tendency in me with the help of Reason. I am not always successful in such attempts. But it is man’s duty to try and make efforts. Success depends on chance and circumstances.

Now we come to the second question: if it is not vanity, there ought to be some sound reason for rejection of age-old belief in God. Yes, I come to this question. I think that any man who has some reasoning power always tries to understand the life and people around him with the help of this faculty. Where concrete proofs are lacking, [mystical] philosophy creeps in. As I have indicated, one of my revolutionary friends used to say that “philosophy is the outcome of human weakness.”

Our ancestors had the leisure to solve the mysteries of the world, its past, its present and its future, its whys and its wherefores, but having been terribly short of direct proofs, every one of them tried to solve the problem in his own way. Hence we find wide differences in the fundamentals of various religious creeds. Sometimes they take very antagonistic and conflicting forms. We find differences in Oriental and Occidental philosophies. There are differences even amongst various schools of thoughts in each hemisphere. In Asian religions, the Muslim religion is completely incompatible with the Hindu faith. In India itself, Buddhism and Jainism are sometimes quite separate from Brahmanism. Then in Brahmanism itself, we find two conflicting sects: Aarya Samaj and Snatan Dheram. Charvak is yet another independent thinker of the past ages. He challenged the Authority of God. All these faiths differ on many fundamental questions, but each of them claims to be the only true religion. This is the root of the evil. Instead of developing the ideas and experiments of ancient thinkers, thus providing ourselves with the ideological weapon for the future struggle, – lethargic, idle, fanatical as we are – we cling to orthodox religion and in this way reduce human awakening to a stagnant pool.

It is necessary for every person who stands for progress to criticise every tenet of old beliefs. Item by item he has to challenge the efficacy of old faith. He has to analyse and understand all the details. If after rigorous reasoning, one is led to believe in any theory of philosophy, his faith is appreciated. His reasoning may be mistaken and even fallacious. But there is chance that he will be corrected because Reason is the guiding principle of his life. But belief, I should say blind belief is disastrous. It deprives a man of his understanding power and makes him reactionary.

Any person who claims to be a realist has to challenge the truth of old beliefs. If faith cannot withstand the onslaught of reason, it collapses. After that his task should be to do the groundwork for new philosophy. This is the negative side. After that comes in the positive work in which some material of the olden times can be used to construct the pillars of new philosophy. As far as I am concerned, I admit that I lack sufficient study in this field. I had a great desire to study the Oriental Philosophy, but I could get ample opportunity or sufficient time to do so. But so far as I reject the old time beliefs, it is not a matter of countering belief with belief, rather I can challenge the efficacy of old beliefs with sound arguments. We believe in nature and that human progress depends on the domination of man over nature. There is no conscious power behind it. This is our philosophy.

A few questions

Being atheist, I ask a few questions from theists:

1. If, as you believe there is an Almighty, Omnipresent, Omniscient God, who created the earth or universe, please let me know, first of all, as to why he created this world. This world which is full of woe and grief, and countless miseries, where not even one person lives in peace.

2. Pray, don’t say it is His law. If He is bound by any law, He is not Omnipotent. Don’t say it is His pleasure. Nero burnt one Rome. He killed a very limited number of people. He caused only a few tragedies, all for his morbid enjoyment. But what is his place in history? By what names do we remember him? All the disparaging epithets are hurled at him. Pages are blackened with invective diatribes condemning Nero: the tyrant, the heartless, the wicked.

One Genghis Khan killed a few thousand people to seek pleasure in it and we hate the very name. Now, how will you justify your all powerful, eternal Nero, who every day, every moment continues his pastime of killing people? How can you support his doings which surpass those of Genghis Khan in cruelty and in misery inflicted upon people? I ask why the Almighty created this world which is nothing but a living hell, a place of constant and bitter unrest. Why did he create man when he had the power not to do so? Have you any answer to these questions? You will say that it is to reward the sufferer and punish the evildoer in the hereafter. Well, well, how far will you justify a man who first of all inflicts injuries on your body and then applies soft and soothing ointment on them? How far the supporters and organizers of Gladiator bouts were justified in throwing men before half starved lions, later to be cared for and looked after well if they escaped this horrible death. That is why I ask: Was the creation of man intended to derive this kind of pleasure?

Open your eyes and see millions of people dying of hunger in slums and huts dirtier than the grim dungeons of prisons; just see the labourers patiently or say apathetically while the rich vampires suck their blood; bring to mind the wastage of human energy that will make a man with a little common sense shiver in horror. Just observe rich nations throwing their surplus produce into the sea instead of distributing it among the needy and deprived. There are palaces of kings built upon the foundations laid with human bones. Let them see all this and say “All is well in God’s Kingdom.” Why so? This is my question. You are silent. All right. I proceed to my next point.

You, the Hindus, would say: Whosoever undergoes sufferings in this life, must have been a sinner in his previous birth. It is tantamount to saying that those who are oppressors now were Godly people then, in their previous births. For this reason alone they hold power in their hands. Let me say it plainly that your ancestors were shrewd people. They were always in search of petty hoaxes to play upon people and snatch from them the power of Reason. Let us analyse how much this argument carries weight!

Philosophy of Jurisprudence

Those who are well versed in the philosophy of Jurisprudence relate three of four justifications for the punishment that is to be inflicted upon a wrong-doer. These are: revenge, reform, and deterrence. The Retribution Theory is now condemned by all the thinkers. Deterrent theory is on the anvil for its flaws. Reformative theory is now widely accepted and considered to be necessary for human progress. It aims at reforming the culprit and converting him into a peace-loving citizen. But what in essence is God’s Punishment even if it is inflicted on a person who has really done some harm? For the sake of argument we agree for a moment that a person committed some crime in his previous birth and God punished him by changing his shape into a cow, cat, tree, or any other animal. You may enumerate the number of these variations in Godly Punishment to be at least eighty-four lack. Tell me, has this tomfoolery, perpetrated in the name of punishment, any reformative effect on human man? How many of them have you met who were donkeys in their previous births for having committed any sin? Absolutely no one of this sort! The so called theory of ‘Puranas’ (transmigration) is nothing but a fairy-tale. I do not have any intention to bring this unutterable trash under discussion.

Do you really know the most cursed sin in this world is to be poor? Yes, poverty is a sin; it is a punishment! Cursed be the theoretician, jurist or legislator who proposes such measures as push man into the quagmire of more heinous sins. Did it not occur to your All Knowing God or he could learn the truth only after millions had undergone untold sufferings and hardships? What, according to your theory, is the fate of a person who, by no sin of his own, has been born into a family of low caste people? He is poor so he cannot go to a school. It is his fate to be shunned and hated by those who are born into a high caste. His ignorance, his poverty, and the contempt he receives from others will harden his heart towards society. Supposing that he commits a sin, who shall bear the consequences? God, or he, or the learned people of that society?

What is your view about those punishments inflicted on the people who were deliberately kept ignorant by selfish and proud Brahmans? If by chance these poor creatures heard a few words of your sacred books, Vedas, these Brahmans poured melted lead into their ears. If they committed any sin, who was to be held responsible? Who was to bear the brunt? My dear friends, these theories have been coined by the privileged classes. They try to justify the power they have usurped and the riches they have robbed with the help of such theories. Perhaps it was the writer Upton Sinclair who wrote [Bhagat Singh is referring to Sinclair’s pamphlet Profits of Religion] somewhere “only make a man firm believer in the immortality of soul, then rob him of all that he possesses. He will willingly help you in the process.” The dirty alliance between religious preachers and possessors of power brought the boon of prisons, gallows, knouts and above all such theories for the mankind.

I ask why your omnipotent God does not hold a man back when he is about to commit a sin or offence. It is child’s play for God. Why did He not kill war lords? Why did He not obliterate the fury of war from their minds? In this way He could have saved humanity of many a great calamity and horror. Why does He not infuse humanistic sentiments into the minds of the Britishers so that they may willingly leave India? I ask why He does not fill the hearts of all capitalist classes with altruistic humanism that prompts them to give up personal possession of the means of production and this will free the whole labouring humanity from the shackles of money. You want to argue the practicability of Socialist theory, I leave it to your Almighty God to enforce it. Common people understand the merits of Socialist theory as far as general welfare is concerned but they oppose it under the pretext that it cannot be implemented. Let the Almighty step in and arrange things in a proper way. No more logic chopping!

I tell you that the British rule is not there because God willed it but for the reason that we lack the will and courage to oppose it. Not that they are keeping us under subjugation with the consent of God, but it is with the force of guns and rifles, bombs and bullets, police and militia, and above all because of our apathy that they are successfully committing the most deplorable sin, that is, the exploitation of one nation by another. Where is God? What is He doing? Is He getting a diseased pleasure out of it? A Nero! A Genghis Khan! Down with Him!

Now another piece of manufactured logic! You ask me how I will explain the origin of this world and origin of man. Charles Darwin has tried to throw some light on this subject. Study his book. Also, have a look at Sohan Swami’s Commonsense. You will get a satisfactory answer. This topic is concerned with Biology and Natural History. This is a phenomenon of nature. The accidental mixture of different substances in the form of Nebulae gave birth to this earth. When? Study history to know this. The same process caused the evolution of animals and in the long run that of man. Read Darwin’s Origin of Species. All the later progress is due to man’s constant conflict with nature and his efforts to utilise nature for his own benefit. This is the briefest sketch of this phenomenon.

Your next question will be why a child is born blind or lame even if he was not a sinner in his previous birth. This problem has been explained in a satisfactory manner by biologists as a mere biological phenomenon. According to them the whole burden rests upon the shoulders of parents whose conscious or unconscious deeds caused mutilation of the child prior to his birth.

You may thrust yet another question at me, though it is merely childish. The question is: If God does not really exist, why do people come to believe in Him? Brief and concise my answer will be. As they come to believe in ghosts, and evil spirits, so they also evolve a kind of belief in God: the only difference being that God is almost a universal phenomenon and well developed theological philosophy. However, I do disagree with radical philosophy. It attributes His origin to the ingenuity of exploiters who wanted to keep the people under their subjugation by preaching the existence of a Supreme Being; thus claimed an authority and sanction from Him for their privileged position. I do not differ on the essential point that all religions, faiths, theological philosophies, and religious creeds and all other such institutions in the long run become supporters of the tyrannical and exploiting institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against any king has always been a sin in every religion.

Origin of God

As regard the origin of God, my thought is that man created God in his imagination when he realized his weaknesses, limitations and shortcomings. In this way he got the courage to face all the trying circumstances and to meet all dangers that might occur in his life and also to restrain his outbursts in prosperity and affluence. God, with his whimsical laws and parental generosity was painted with variegated colours of imagination. He was used as a deterrent factor when his fury and his laws were repeatedly propagated so that man might not become a danger to society. He was the cry of the distressed soul for he was believed to stand as father and mother, sister and brother, brother and friend when in time of distress a man was left alone and helpless. He was Almighty and could do anything. The idea of God is helpful to a man in distress.

Society must fight against this belief in God as it fought against idol worship and other narrow conceptions of religion. In this way man will try to stand on his feet. Being realistic, he will have to throw his faith aside and face all adversaries with courage and valour. That is exactly my state of mind. My friends, it is not my vanity; it is my mode of thinking that has made me an atheist. I don’t think that by strengthening my belief in God and by offering prayers to Him every day, (this I consider to be the most degraded act on the part of man) I can bring improvement in my situation, nor can I further deteriorate it. I have read of many atheists facing all troubles boldly, so I am trying to stand like a man with the head high and erect to the last; even on the gallows.

Let us see how steadfast I am. One of my friends asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said, “When your last days come, you will begin to believe.” I said, “No, dear sir, Never shall it happen. I consider it to be an act of degradation and demoralisation. For such petty selfish motives, I shall never pray.”

Reader and friends, is it vanity? If it is, I stand for it.

This essay, originally written in Gurmukhi (Punjabi) was converted to Urdu/Persian script by Maqsood Saqib and translated from Urdu to English by Hasan for marxists.org in 2006.

ஆகாய வீதியில் Aagaya veedhiyil மஞ்சள் மகிமை Manjal mahimai

தமிழ்மொழியின் தோற்றம்

கி.மு 14 பில்லியன்

பெரும் வெடியில் உலகம் தோன்றியது.

கி.மு 6 - 4 பில்லியன்

பூமியின் தோற்றம்.

கி.மு. 2.5 பில்லியன்

நிலத்தில் பாறைகள் தோன்றிய காலம்.

முதன் முதலில் தமிழ் நாட்டில் மனித இனம் தோன்றியது.

தென் குமரிக்குத் தெற்கே இலெமூரியா கண்டத்தில் முதலில் மனித இனம் தோன்றியது.

கி.மு. 470000

இக்கால இந்தியாவின் தமிழ் நாடு, பஞ்சாப் ஆகிய இடங்களில் மனித இனம் சுற்றித் திரிந்தது.

கி.மு. 360000

முதன் முதலாக சைனாவில் யோமோ எரக்டசு நெருப்பை கட்டுக்குள் கொண்டு வந்தனர்.

கி.மு. 300000

யோமோ மனிதர்கள் ஆசியாவிலும் ஆப்பிரிக்காவிலும் சுற்றித் திரிந்தனர்.

கி.மு. 100000

நியாண்டெர்தல் மனிதன்

கிழக்கு ஆப்பிரிக்காவில் தற்கால மனிதனின் மூளை அளவு உள்ள மனிதர்கள் வாழ்ந்தனர்.

கி.மு. 75000

கடைசி பனிக்காலம.். உலக மக்கட் தொகை 1.7 மில்லியன்.

கி.மு. 50000

தமிழ்மொழியின் தோற்றம்.

கி.மு. 50000 - 35000

தமிழிலிருந்து சீன மொழிக் குடும்பம் பிரிவு.

கி.மு. 35000 - 20000

ஆஸ்திரேலிய, ஆப்பிரிக்க சிந்திய மொழிகள் தமிழிலிருந்து பிரிந்ந காலம்.

கி-மு. 20000 - 10000

ஒளியர் கிளைமொழிகள் தமிழிலிருந்து பிரிந்தகாலம் ( இந்தோ ஐரோப்பிய மொழிகள் )

கி-மு. 10527

முதல் தமிழ்ச்சங்கத்தை பாண்டிய மன்னன் காய்கினவழுதி தோற்றுவித்த காலம். 4449 புலவர்கள் கூடினர்.

முதுநாரை, முதுகுருகு, களரியாவிரை முதலிய நூல்கள் இயற்றப்பட்டன.

கி.மு. 10527 - 6100

பாண்டிய மன்னர்கள் காய்கினவழுதி வடிவம்பலம்ப நின்ற நெடியோன், முந்நீர்ப் விழவின் நெடியோன், நிலந்தரு திருவிற் பாண்டியன் செங்கோன், பாண்டியன் கடுங்கோன்.

கி.மு. 10000

கடைகி பனிக்காலம் முற்றுப்பெற்றது.

உலக மக்சுள் தொகை 4 மில்லியன். குமரிக்கணடம் தமிழர் 100000.

கி.மு. 6087

கடல் கொந்தளிப்பில் குமரிக் கண்டம் மூழ்கியது.

கி.மு 6000 - 3000

கபாடபுரத்தைத் தலைநகரமாகக் கொண்டவன் பாண்டிய மன்னன் வெண்தேர் செழியன்.

இரண்டாம் தமிழ்ச்சங்கத்தை நிறுவினான்.

3700 புலவர்கள் இருந்தனர்.

அகத்தியம், தொல்காப்பியம் முதலிய இலக்கண நூல்கள் எழுந்தன.

பாண்டிய மன்னர்கள் செம்பியன் மந்தாதன், மனுச்சோழன், தூங்கெயில் எறிந்த தொடிதோட் செம்பியன் அதியஞ்சேரல், சோழன் வளிதொழிலாண்ட உரவோன், தென்பாலி நாடன் ராகன், பாண்டியன் வாரணன், ஒடக்கோன், முட்டதுத் திருமாறன் ஆண்டகாலம்.

கி.மு. 5000

உலக மக்கள் தொகை 5 மில்லியன். சிந்து சமவெளி நாகரிகம் தொடக்கம். முகஞ்சதாரோ, ஹரப்பா.

கி.மு. 4000

சிந்து சமவெளி மக்கட் தொகை 1 மில்லியன்.

கி.மு - 4000

கிருத்துவ உலக நாட்குறிப்பு ஆரம்பம்.

சுமேரியாவில் புதை பொருளாராய்ச்சி சிந்து சமவெளி வணிகப் பொருள் கண்டது.

கி.மு - 3200

சிந்து சமவெளியினர் 27 விண்மீன்கள் இடைத்தொடர்பு நோக்கி சூரிய, சந்திரனின் முழு மறை வடிவங்கள் நிலைபபாடு கண்டனர்.

கி.மு - 3113

அமெரிக்க- தமிழினத்தவராகிய மாயர்கள் தொடங்கிய மாயன் ஆண்டுக் கணக்கு ஆரம்பம்.

கி.மு - 3102

சிந்து சமவெளிக் தமிழர்களின் "கலியாண்டு" ஆண்டு தொடக்கம், சிந்து சமவெளியில் தமிழர்களின் நாகரிகம் தழைத் தொடங்கியது.

மண்டையோட்டு வடிவங்களின் வகைகள்

இடமிருந்து வலம்: நெடுமண்டை நீள்வட்ட வடிவம்; இரண்டு குட்டைமண்டை வடிவங்கள்- நீளுருண்டை வடிவமும் ஆப்பு வடிவமும்; நடுமண்டை ஐங்கோண வடிவம்.

கி.மு - 3100 - 3000

ஆரியர்கள் சிந்து சமவெளி வழி நுழைந்தனர்.

துணி நெய்தல் ஐரோப்பா சிந்து சமவெளியில் ஆரம்பித்தது.

தென்னிந்தியாவில் குதிரைகள் இருந்தது.

சைவ ஆகமங்கள் முதல் தமிழ்ச் சங்க காலத்தில் பொறிக்கப்பட்டன.

கி.மு - 2600

எகிப்திய பிரமிடுகள் வேலை ஆரம்பம்.

கி.மு - 2387

இரண்டாம் கடல் கொந்தளிப்பால் கபாடபுரம் அழிந்தது. ஈழம் பெருநிலப் பகுதியிலிருந்து பிரிந்தது.

கி.மு - 2000 - 1000

காந்தாரத்தில் இருந்த ஆரியர்களுடன் வடபுலத் தமிழ் மன்னர்களும் சிந்து வெளி தமிழர்களும் போர் புரிந்த காலம்.

கடற்பயணங்களில் புதியன கண்டுபிடித்த சேர இளவரசர்கள் ஈழத்தில் ஆண்டகாலம்.

கங்கைவெளி - சிபி மரபினர் ஆட்சி. சிந்து வெளி - சம்பரன் ஆட்சி.

கி.மு - 1915

திருப்பரங்குன்றத்தில் மூன்றாம் தமிழ்ச் சங்கம் நடந்தது.

கி.மு. - 1900

வேத கால முடிவு. சரசுவதி ஆறு வற்றியதினால் மக்கள் தொகை கங்கை ஆறு நோக்கி நகர்ந்தது.

கி.மு. 1500

முக்காலத்து பிராமி மொழி வழக்கத்தில் இருந்த துவாரக நகர் வெள்ளத்தில் மூழ்கியது.

இரும்பின் உபயோகம்.

கிராம்பு சேர நாட்டிலிருத்து மத்திய கிழக்கு நாடுகளுக்கு ஏற்றுமதி செய்யப்பட்டது.

கி.மு. - 1450

உபநிசத்துக்களும் வேதங்களும் உண்டாக்கப்பட்டன.

கி.மு. - 1316

மகாபாரத கதை வசிஸ்டரால் அமைக்கப் பட்டது.

கி. மு. 1250

மோசஸ் 600,000 யூதர்களை எகிப்திலிருந்து வெளியேற்றினார்.

கி. மு . 1200

ஓமரின் இல்லயாய்டு, ஓடசி பாடல்கள் மேற்கோற்படி கிரேக்க துரோசன் சண்டை.

கி. மு. 1000

உலக மக்கள் தொகை 50 மில்லியன்.

கி. மு. 1000-600

வடக்கில் சிபி மரபினர், தெற்கில் திங்கள் மரபினர் ஆட்சி நிலவியது.

கி. மு. 950

அரசன் சாலமன் வர்த்தகக் கப்பலில் யூதர்கள் இக்காலத்து கூறப்படும் இந்தியா வருகை.

கி. மு. 950

வடமொழி முழு வளர்ச்சியடையாது பேச்சு மொழி உருவெடுத்தக் காலம்.

கி. மு. 925

யூதர்களின் அரசன் தாவிது இப்போதைய இசுரேல், லெபனானை பேரரசாகக் கொண்டிருந்தான்.

கி. மு. 900

இப்போதைய இந்தியாவில் இரும்பின் உபயோகம்.

கி. மு. 850பின்

இபபோதைய இந்தியாவின் பொதுவான மொழி தமிழ், வடமொழி, (வடதமிழ், தென்தமிழ்) என மொழிகள் உருவாயின.

வடபுலத்தில் பிராமி எனவும் தென்புலத்தில் தமிழி எனவும் பெயர்பெற்றன.

பிராமிக்கும், தமிழுக்கும் எழுத்திலக்கண ஒற்றுமை உண்டு.

வடமொழி பாகதமாகவும், தென்மொழி தமிழாகவும் பெயற்பெற்றன.

(சமசுகிருதம் வடமொழி அல்ல.

காரணம் அது போதுமான வளர்ச்சி அடைந்திருக்கவில்லை.)

தொல்காப்பியம்- பிராகிருதப் பிரகாசா இலக்கண நூற்கள் எழுதப்பட்டன, கடைச் சங்க காலத்தில் நற்றினை, குறுந்தொகை, அகநானூறு, புறநானூறு, கலித்தொகை, பதிற்றுப்பத்து, பரிபாடல், பத்துபாட்டு, எட்டுத்தொகை, பதினெண்கீழ்க்கணக்கு நூல்கள், திருமுருகாற்றுப்படை, சிறுபாணாற்றுப்படை, பெரும்பாணாற்றுப்படை, பொருநராற்றுப்படை, கூத்தராற்றுப்படை, மருதக்காஞ்சி, முல்லைப்பட்டு, குறிஞ்சிப்பாட்டு, பட்டினப்பாலை, நெடுநல்வாடை, முதலிய நூல்கள் தோன்றின.

திருக்குறள் தலையாய நூல், பின்னர் சங்க கால முடிவுக்குப் பின் சிலப்பதிகாரம், மணிமேகலை, சீவகசிந்தாமணி, வளையாபதி, குண்டலகேசி முதலிய ஐம்பெரும்காப்பியங்களும், முதுமொழிக்காஞ்சி, களவழி நாற்பது, கார்நாற்பது, நாலடியார் திரிகடுகம், நான்மணிக்கடிகை, சிறுபஞ்ச மூலம், ஏலாதி, ஆசாரக்கோவை, பழமொழி நானூறு, இன்னா நாற்பது, இனியவை நாற்பது, முத்தொள்ளாயிரம் முதலிய நூல்களும் தோன்றின.

கி. மு. 776

கிரேக்கத்தில் (கிரிஸ்) முதல் ஒலிம்பிக் விளையாட்டுப் போட்டி.

குழந்தைகள் குகையில் கண்டு எடுக்கப்பட்ட மண்டையோடு. மென்டோனா, இத்தாலி.

பித்திக்காந்திரோப் பஸ் 1 யின் மண்டையோடு.

(தூபுவா 1891ல் கண்டு எடுத்தது) சீனாந்திரோப்பஸின் மண்டையோடு (மீட்டமைப்பு: கெராஸிமவ்)

கி. மு. 750

பிராகிருத மொழி மக்கள் மொழியாக ஆரம்பித்தது.

கி. மு. 700

சொரோஸ்டிரேணியிசம் பெர்சியாவில் சொரோஸ்டரால் துவக்கப்பட்டது, இவருடைய மதப்புத்தகம் செண்டு அவெசுடா.

கி. மு. 623- 543

கெளதம புத்தர் காலம், தற்போதைய உத்திரப்பிரதேசத்தில் பிறந்தார்.

கி. மு. 600

லாவோ - துசு காலம். துவோசிசம் சைனாவில் புழக்கம், எளிமை, தன்னலமின்மை சீனர்கள் வாழ்வானது.

கி. மு. 600

கோதடிபுத்தர் அறிந்த மொழிகளில் தமிழும் ஒன்று, கி.மு. நான்கு, ஐந்து, ஆறாம், நூற்றாண்டுகளில் குறிப்பிடத்தக்க மன்னர்கள் இளைஞன் கரிகாற்சோழன், பெருஞ்சோற்று உதயஞ்சேரலாதன்.

பழந்தமிழ் இசைக்கருவிகள் வடநாடு முழுவதும் வழக்கில் இருந்தன.

(தோற்கருவிகள்) தமிழிலக்கணத்தைப் பின்பற்றி சமஸ்கிருதத்திலும் எழுத முயற்சி மேற்கொள்ளபட்டது.

புணர்ச்சி இலக்கணம் சமஸ்கிருதத்தில் திணிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

கி. மு. 599 - 527

மகாவீரர் காலம்.

ஜெயின மதம் தோற்றம் உயிர்த்துண்பம் தவிர்த்தல் இவரின் பெருங்கருத்து.

கி. மு. 560

பித்தகோரசு கிரேகத்தில் (கீரிஸ்) கணிதம், இசைக் கற்றுக் கொடுத்தக் காலம்.

மரக்கறி உண்ணல், யோகாசனம், ஓவியம் தமிழ் நாட்டில் கற்பிக்கப்பட்டன.

கி. மு. 551-478

கன்பூசியஸ் காலம்.

சீனர்களின் கல்விக்கு அடிப்படையே இவருடைய சமுதாய கல்வி, மக்களின் வாழ்முறை, மதம் யாவும்.

கி. மு. 500

கரிகாற் சோழன் காலம். உலக மக்கள் தொகை 100 மில்லியன்.

இப்போதைய இந்திய மக்கள் தொகை 25 மில்லியன்.

கி. மு. 478

இளவரசன் விசயா 700 துணையாளர்களுடன் இலங்கையில் சிங்கள அரசு ஏற்படுத்தல்.

கி. மு. 450

ஏதேன்சில் சாக்கரடீஸ் புகழோடு இருந்த காலம்.

கி. மு. 428 - 348

சாக்கரடீஸ் மாணவர் புளுட்டோவின் காலம்.

கி. மு. 400

கிரேக்கத்தில் மருத்துவமேதை இப்போகிரட்டீசின் காலம்.

பனினி வடமொழி இலக்கணம் அமைத்தார்.

கி. மு. 350 - 328

உதயஞ் சேரலாதன் காலம் (செங்குட்டுவன் நெடுஞ்சேரலாதன்)

கி. மு. 328 - 270

மகன் இமயவரம்பன் - நெடுஞ்சேரலாதன் ( ஆரியரை வென்றவன் - கிரேக்க யவனரை அடக்கியவன்)

கி. மு. 326

அலெக்சாண்டர் சிந்துப் பிரதேசத்தின் மீது படையெடுப்பு. வெற்றி அமையவில்லை.

கி. மு. 305

சந்திரகுப்த மெளரியரின் அட்சிக்காலம்.

கிரேக்க பேரரசு அமைத்த செலுக்கசை தோற்க்கடித்தவர்.

கி. மு. 302

சந்திரகுப்தரின் அமைச்சர் கெளடில்யர் அர்த்தசாத்திரம் எழுதல்.

கி. மு. 300

சீனர்கள் வார்த்த இரும்பு கண்டுபிடித்தல்.

கி. மு. 300

கல்வெட்டுகளில் சோழ, பான்டிய, சத்தியபுத்திர, சேர அரசுகள் இருந்தன.

கி.மு. இரண்டாம் நூற்றாண்டு வரை தமிழ், பிராகிருதம் இரண்டும் எழுத்து மொழியாகவும் பேச்சு மொழியாகவும் விளங்கின.

பிராகிருதம் - மக்களின் மொழி.

நாணயங்களின் ஒரு பக்கம் தமிழ், மறுபக்கம் பிராகிருதம் என அமைந்திருந்தன.

கி.மு. 273-232

மெளரிய பேரரசர் அசோகர் காலம்.

தமிழ்நாடு தவிர மற்றவை இவர் வசம் இருந்தது.

கலிங்க போர் இவரை புத்த மதத்திற்கு மாற வைத்தது.

இவரது அசோக சக்கரம் இன்று இந்தியக் கொடியில் உள்ளது.

கி.மு. 270-245

சேரன் பல்யானை செல்கெழு குட்டுவன், சோழன் பெரும்பூண் சென்னி, பாண்டியன் ஒல்லையூர் பூதப் பாண்டியன், ஆகியோரின் காலம்.

கி.மு. 251

புத்த மதம் பரப்ப அசோகர் தன் மகனை இலங்கைக்கு அனுப்பினார்

கி.மு. 245-220

சேரன் களங்காய்க்கண்ணி நார்முடிச்சேரல் காலம்.

கி.மு. 221

புகழ் வாய்ந்த சைனாவில் 2600 கல் நீளமுள்ள பெரும் சுவர் கட்டப்பட்டது.

கி.மு. 220 - 200

கரிகாற்சோழனுக்கும் பெருஞ் சேரலாதனுக்கும் போர்.

கி.மு. 220-180

குடக்கோ நெடுஞ்சேரலாதன் ஆட்சி.

உறையூர்ச் சோழன் தித்தன், ஆட்டணத்தி, ஆதிமந்தி, ஆகியோர் வாழ்ந்த காலம்.

கி.மு. 200

முனிவர் திருமூலர் காலம். 3047 சைவ ஆகமங்களின் தொகுப்பான திருமந்திரம் எழுதினார்.

கி.மு. 200

தமிழ்நாட்டில் பதஞ்சலி முனிவர் யோக சூத்திரங்கள் எழுதினார்.

18 சித்தர்களில் ஒருவரான போகர் முனிவர் பழனி முருகன் கோவிலை ஏற்படுத்தினார்.

கி.மு. 125-87

ஆடு கோட்பாட்டுச் சேரலாதன் காலம்.

கி.மு. 87-62

செல்வக் கடுங்கோ வாழியாதன் ஆட்சி.

பாரி, ஒரி, காரி, கிள்ளி, நள்ளி முதலிய குறுநில மன்னர்கள் ஆட்சி

கி.மு. 62-42

யானைக்கட்சேய் மாந்தரஞ்சேரல் இரும்பொறை ஆட்சி, சேரமான் மாரி வெண்கோ தொண்டியில் ஆட்சி. இக்காலத்தில் வாழ்ந்தவர்களில் குறிப்பிடத்தக்கவர்கள் தலையாலங்கானத்துச் செருவென்ற நெடுஞ்செழியன், மாங்குடி மருதனார் கல்லாடனார்.(கல்லாடம்)

கி.மு. 42-25

பெருஞ்சேரலிரும்பொறை ஆட்சி, சேரமான் மாரிவென்கோ இராசசூயம் வேட்ட பெருநற்கிள்ளி, கானபெரெயில் கடந்த உக்கிரப்பெருவழுதி ஒற்றுமையாய் இருந்தார்கள்.

இவர்களை இன்றே போல்கநும்புணர்ச்சி என அவ்வை பாராட்டினார், மோசிக்கீரனார், பொன்முடியார் கொண்கானங்கிழான் நன்னன், கரும்பனூர்கிழன், நாஞ்சில் வள்ளுவன் குறிப்பிடத்தக்கவர்கள்.

கி.மு. 31

உலகப் பொது மறையாம் தமிழனின் நன்கொடையாம் திருக்குறளைத் தந்த திருவள்ளுவர் பிறந்த ஆண்டு.

கி.மு. 25-9

இளஞ்சேரல் இரும்பொறை ஆட்சி. பாண்டியன் பழையன் மாறன்.

கோப்பெருஞ்சோழன், பிசிராந்தையார், பொத்தியார், புல்வற்றூர் ஏயிற்றியனார் ஆகியோரின் காலம்.

கி.மு. 9-1

கருவூர் ஏறிய ஒள்வாட் கோப்பெருஞ்சேரல் இரும்பொறை, பாண்டியன் கீரன் சாத்தன் வாழ்ந்த காலம்.