• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

பரமக்குடி முதல் பாடசாலை வரை

  • Thread starter Thread starter bliss192
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bliss192

Guest
பரமக்குடி முதல் பாடசாலை வரை

பசும்பொன் முத்துராமலிங்கத் தேவர் போன்ற ஒரு தேசியவாதியின் இந்தத் தவறு இன்று இரு சமுதாயங்கள் இணைந்து தமிழ்நாட்டை மேம்படுத்த வழியில்லாமல் ஆக்கிவிட்டது…‘பாரம்பரிய’ வேத பாடசாலைகள் வேதம் ஓதும் உரிமையை தலித்துகளுக்கு மறுப்பது பச்சை அயோக்கியத்தனம் அல்லவா?


தமிழà¯￾ஹிநà¯￾தà¯￾ » பரமகà¯￾கà¯￾டி à®®à¯￾தலà¯￾ பாடசாலை வரை

.
 
I agree,they should get a chance but today it makes no sense.All they want is the government job,if u truly wnat to learn vedam u can go ahead and learn by yourself,a guru can never deny a devoted student an education.
 
Today, there is no ban on anyone learning vedas. Let an enterprising dalit or dk politician set up a veda patasala with 100% reservation for dalits. No brahmin will object to this or indulge in violent attacks. This calls for affirmative action from the ruling class. To set up a veda patasala in every town costs nothing when compared to setting up a medical college or an engineering college.
 
Today, there is no ban on anyone learning vedas. Let an enterprising dalit or dk politician set up a veda patasala with 100% reservation for dalits. No brahmin will object to this or indulge in violent attacks. This calls for affirmative action from the ruling class. To set up a veda patasala in every town costs nothing when compared to setting up a medical college or an engineering college.
Where was this generosity when Veda learning was the only means to cushy living? Now that even the Brahmins, ones who can't tire of extolling the Vedas, have rejected it in droves as a means of livelihood, you are so generous to invite the "enterprising dalit or dk politician" to set up veda patasalas and study the useless Vedas.

No sir, they don't want your useless Vedas, they want to be able to study science, technology, arts, and other such secular fields, the ones that you now want to dominate since you have now realized study of Vedas is useless.

Cheers!
 
gripe, gripe, gripe till heavens fall!!!!

If tambrahms become multiskilled and the same opportunities are available to all why this EVR response?

EVR knew only brahmin bashing will give him exposure. We will take Rajaji's advice and ignore the vocal expletives.
 
Today, there is no ban on anyone learning vedas. Let an enterprising dalit or dk politician set up a veda patasala with 100% reservation for dalits. No brahmin will object to this or indulge in violent attacks. This calls for affirmative action from the ruling class. To set up a veda patasala in every town costs nothing when compared to setting up a medical college or an engineering college.

This is like the story of a visha vaidyan (Poison(ous?) Doctor, literal translation) who had been fooling everyone with some herbs and trying to make them believe in the efficacy of the medicines and making money thereby. Times changed and people found out that the fellow was a mere charlatan and his much-touted jadi-booti were useless even for cattle. Then the fake vaidyan starts exhorting people to cultivate the same jadi-bootis but fails to reason out why at all people will do it? Ha :)
 
namaste.

Nara in his post #4 asks the question and answers it himself. What Sarang said in post #3 is very true. The DK/DMK atheists were never serious about non-brahmins learning the Vedas. Being atheists, their only consistent aim has been to trash the Hindu religion and keep silent about the practices in Islam and Christianity.

• The point is that had a non-brahmin celebrity opened a veda pAThashAla for exclusive admission of their clan, or a dalit celebrity did the same, for all their pronounced and propagated revilement against brahmins for being the exclusive guardians of the Vedas, the brahmins will never have objected or indulged in violent attacks against those institutions or the people, like the thugs employed by the kazhagams did repeatedly.

• Even today the option is open to establish such institutions, but nothing is happening on this front. Veda learning was never 'a cushy living' for brahmins even when it was at its peak. The plain truth is the rigours of discipline involved in learning the Vedas, where no concessions will be permitted!

• By sidetracking the issue that it is the politicians of the so-classified BC and MBC who form the 'creamy layer'--as has been discussed repeatedly in this forum--who create the hurdles for progress in improving the life-style of the dalits, I don't know why some members here seek to openly accuse the brahmins for anything and everything but conveniently forget to even acknowledge this issue.

• And this truth is sidetracked by the vested interests by highlighting small incidents like a two-tumbler system, separate wells and burial grounds for the dalits in some villages and hiding the reality from the downtrodden dalits. If the dalits are well to do and thereby have say in the affairs of the villages, such things will automatically vanish.

• When it has been the kazhagams on the throne at TN for over 43 years, it is a shame that they have been lacking the poltical will and personal integrity to make the good happen for the dalit poor. For all his UNESCO recognition, even EVR could not have changed the situation had he been alive today.

If Sangom thinks that a person who practises the Vedas is like a 'poison(ous) doctor' who is really a charlaton (post #6) and that Vedas as 'jadi-bootis' offer no cure for the ills that plague the society today, I wonder why he chose to expound the Rig Veda sometime back.
 
Last edited:
namaste.

Nara in his post #4 asks the question and answers it himself. What Sarang said in post #3 is very true. The DK/DMK atheists were never serious about non-brahmins learning the Vedas. Being atheists, their only consistent aim has been to trash the Hindu religion and keep silent about the practices in Islam and Christianity.

• The point is that had a non-brahmin celebrity opened a veda pAThashAla for exclusive admission of their clan, or a dalit celebrity did the same, for all their pronounced and propagated revilement against brahmins for being the exclusive guardians of the Vedas, the brahmins will never have objected or indulged in violent attacks against those institutions or the people, as the thugs employed by the kazhagams did repeatedly.

• Even today the option is open to establish such institutions, but nothing is happening on this front. Veda learning was never 'a cushy living' for brahmins even when it was at its peak. The plain truth is the rigours of discipline involved in learning the Vedas, where no concessions will be permitted!

• By sidetracking the issue that it is the politicians of the so-classified BC and MBC who form the 'creamy layer'--as has been discussed repeatedly in this forum--who create the hurdles for progress in improving the life-style of the dalits. I don't know why some members here seek to openly accuse the brahmins for anything and everything but conveniently forget to even acknowledge this issue.

• And this truth is sidetracked by the vested interests by highlighting small incidents like a two-tumbler system, separate wells and burial grounds for the dalits in some villages and hiding the reality from the downtrodden dalits. If the dalits are well to do and thereby have say in the affairs of the villages, such things will automatically vanish.

• When it has been the kazhagams on the throne at TN for over 43 years, it is a shame that they have been lacking the poltical will and personal integrity to make the good happen for the dalit poor. For all his UNESCO recognition, even EVR could not have changed the situation had he been alive today.

If Sangom thinks that a person who practises the Vedas is like a 'poison(ous) doctor' who is really a charlaton (post #6) and that Vedas as 'jadi-bootis' offer no cure for the ills that plague the society today, I wonder why he chose to expound the Rig Veda sometime back.

Shri Saidevo,

You seem to forget history partly and/or twist some of it to suit your present day advantage. Kindly go through the following. (I am posting the image because typing the whole matter will be time-taking.)

kallidaikurichi-01.webp
kallidaikurichi-02.webp

It will be seen that the NB students were not permitted to study the vedas even though govt. funds were utilized to run the school and great personages like va.ve.su. ayyar were in the forefront of such discrimination.

It will be easy and convenient for people like you to now write opinions like "had a non-brahmin celebrity opened a veda pAThashAla for exclusive admission of their clan, or a dalit celebrity did the same, for all their pronounced and propagated revilement against brahmins for being the exclusive guardians of the Vedas, the brahmins will never have objected or indulged in violent attacks against those institutions or the people, as the thugs employed by the kazhagams did repeatedly."

If the tabras were against NB students learning vedas and interdining with the B students of the school even when the Naattukkottai Chettis had mostly financed the setting up of the school, I suppose the readers can very well imagine what would have been the position of the tabras if, as Shri Saidevo now claims, had a non-brahmin celebrity opened a veda pAThashAla for exclusive admission of their clan, or a dalit celebrity had dared to do the same in those days.

But you should not beguile yourself that others do not know past history, more so the past behaviour of brahmins, and that by closing your eyes to some selective aspects thereof, which are inconvenient to you, you can darken all those for the entire world. This is called "കണ്ണടച്ചു ഇരുട്ടാക്കുക - kaṇṇaṭaccu iruṭṭākkuka in Malayalam (closing one's eyes and thinking that it will be darkness for the whole world!)".

I presume that your immediate urge is to "support" Shri sarang; but let it be within the boundaries of plausible arguments and based on untwisted history.

Coming to the visha vaidyan story, it will be self-evident for any unbiased reader by now, I hope. Still I will explain so that your statement is clarified.

I have no basis to presume that Shri Sarang "practises vedas"; in fact this usage itself is new to me - how does one "practise vedas"? By doing the vedic yaagas?

Of course vedas seem to have "offered no cure for the ills that plague the society today, or for that matter, at any point of time in the past except some vishavaidyans here or there. I chose to expound the Rig Veda sometime back so that people will be able to understand what exactly the veda is, what it means and what all convoluted explanations have been tagged on by the pundits in order to mislead the gullible people.

Hope the matter is clear now.
 
...Nara in his post #4 asks the question and answers it himself.
Saidevo, here is the question I asked:

"Where was this generosity when Veda learning was the only means to cushy living?
"

I know I did not answer it because this is a rhetorical question. So, what is this about "and answers it himself", don't get it.

Be that as it may, I am afraid you are missing the point. I was commenting on the mendacious suggestion that a Dalit or DK is now free to start a Veda Patashala. To make the point evidently clear, what I am trying to say is, when it would have been beneficial, the Brahmins prevented anyone else from getting into Veda study. Now that even the brahmins don't care for it, except to mouth some meaningless platitudes in web sites, blaming Dalits and DK for not starting Veda Patashala is cunning propaganda.

Cheers!
 
namaste shrI Sangom and others.

You have already posted the extracts whose image(s) you have given in your post #8, here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-36.html#post72841
I am not surprised that Nara too 'likes' your posts both here and in the other thread.

• It's really puzzling that being brahmins yourselve, both of you have not even had a cursory check about the incident using google.

• I am sorry to say that the very first link using the search text "VVS aiyar" "gurukulam" in the google, gives an entirely different account of the story and here it is.

Although it is rather long, I am giving the extract from the pdf file, so the readers can know and be facilitated to look at both sides of the story.

EARLY TAMIL REVOLUTIONARY OF V.V.S. AIYAR: A HISTORICAL VIEW
by Dr. K. Vetrivel, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics,
Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli – 620 023.
and D. Senthil Kumar Assistant Professor, Department of History,
Government Arts College, Tiruchirappalli – 620 022.

http://www.aygrt.net/August/2011/August/V.VETRIVAL__History.pdf

Gurukulam and V.V.S. Aiyar

V.V.S. Aiyar on his return to India from England, set up a Gurukula at Cheranmahadevi in Tirunelveli District, designed to prepare our young men in the spirit of hoary ancient culture of India, to become true servants of their motherland. This entirely honourable and worthy effort encountered opposition from politically motivated, narrow- minded, anti-Brahmin communalists. The opposition contended that the Gurukulam idea of V.V.S. Aiyar would perpetuate caste division and backwardness of the Non-Brahmin classes of society. This was clean contrary to the magnificent idealism of V.V.S. Aiyar. He believed that there was a very noble and valuable ideal in the institution of the Gurukula, which deserved to be cherished and revived with modification required for its efficient functioning in modern times.

A perusal of the facts of the Gurukulam venture at Cheranmahadevi (Seranmadevi) will prove the highly prejudiced nature of the opinion of the reviewer. Following the decision to launch non-cooperation movement in 1920, the Indian National Congress called on the students to leave the educational institutions maintained by the British Government, and encouraged opening of 'national schools'. A few teachers at Kallidaikurichi in Tirunelveli district resigned their jobs in the schools run by the Taluk Board and started a school known as Tilakar Vidyalaya, named after B.G. Tilak. But they could not continue the same. So they requested V.V.S. Aiyar, a Brahmin scholar and previously a militant rebel, to undertake the responsibility of running the institution. Aiyar who was already having the idea of establishing a Gurukulam on a grand scale on traditional lines agreed to the request, hoping to expand the Vidyalaya in course of time.

In pursuance of this aim, appeals were made through patriotic journals for liberal financial contribution "Nava Sakthi", a magazine edited by Thiru. V.Kalyanasundaram, published the appeal on 17-11-1922. "Tamil Nadu" another one edited by Dr. P.Varatharajulu Naidu also supported the plan of Gurukulam. Rich philanthropists interested in national liberation and social reformation came forward to help financially. Through Mahadeva Aiyar, a close associate of V.V.S. Aiyar, the Nagarathars of Malaysia, a business community from Tamil Nadu, assured to give Rs.20,000. Tamil Nadu Congress Committee assured Rs.10,000 and gave Rs.5,000 as first installment. Periyar E.V. Ramasamy was the T.N.C.C. President for two years 1923 and 1924. In 1925, he became its secretary while P.Varatharajulu Naidu became its President.

Vai.Su. Shanmugam Chettiar of Kanadukathan bought a thirty acre land for Rs.3000 at Seranmadevi, a few kilometres to the south of the river Thamiraparani, and donated it to the Gurukulam which was eventually shifted to that land form Kallidaikkurichi.

He established Tamil Gurukulam to give occasional training along with education. As a mark of respect his memorial was opened to the public on 05.05.1999. His life history and photographs are displayed and also a library is functioning here regularly. It is situated at Varaganeri Agaharam, Tiruchirappalli.

But, it is often alleged that the great revolutionary and selfless freedom fighter V.V.S. Aiyar ran a Gurukulam, which segregated its Brahmin and non-Brahmin students. It is alleged that they were served food separately. Some of the notoriously false versions would claim that while the Brahmins were served superior food inside, the non-Brahmins were served inferior food outside. It is claimed that E.V.R. quit the Congress party because of this caste-based segregation, and the support Gandhiji gave it. Just like the myth of trade between the Tamils and Hebrews in 1000 B.C., this myth also has got transformed into "fact" by mere repetition and intense propaganda.

In January 1925, in the TNCC meeting, E.V.Ramasamy (EVR) charged that the Gurukulam practiced caste segregation. He alleged that the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins were forced to dine separately, and that inferior food was served to non-Brahmins, who were forced to eat outside the building. He claimed that the son of Chief Minister O.P. Ramasami Reddiar, who also studied there, had complained to him. In the meantime, EVR and his coterie also started a vicious campaign in the separatist Tamil newspaper "Tamil Nadu". They also indulged in disruptive tactics and stalled every proceeding.

But, V.V.S. Aiyar explained the scenario. The Hindu dated 15th, April 1925 reports that Aiyar explained that there was 'no' caste based segregation in the Gurukula. He explained that 'only' two Brahmin students were granted the 'exemption' to dine separately, as their parents insisted on it, and threatened to pull out the students if their demand wasn't conceded. Aiyar explained that inter-caste dining is yet unknown in Tamil Nadu, and more importantly, this was not made known to the parents when the students were admitted to the Gurukula. So, he reasoned, that the two students were granted exemption from inter-dining. He denied that separate food was served or anyone was made to eat outside the building, and invited the disruptive elements to visit the Gurukula to ascertain them. He pointed out that all the other Brahmin and non-Brahmin students dined together, barring these two students. He further said that after he raised funds from the public, that is in 1922-23, he had made it very clear that all students should inter-dine, and 'no exemptions' will be granted in the future. He also clarified that everybody was taught the same set of lessons religious and nationalistic. He was quite pained at this campaign of lies by EVR.

The explanation given by V.V.S. Aiyar should have made it clear that there was no caste based segregation in the Shermadevi Gurukula, nor was there any plan to introduce one in the future. The controversy should have died, but that was not to be. EVR and his coterie were actually interested in making political mileage through false allegations. They not only continued disruptive tactics, but also a vicious campaign in their newspapers. Varadarajulu Naidu, a supporter of EVR, had earlier (before the controversy became public) written to Gandhiji. In his letter dated 10th, March 1925, addressed to Varadarajulu Naidu, Gandhiji replied:

It seems to me that insofar as the present (2) Brahmacharis are concerned, if the parents of the Brahmin boys insist on their boys being allowed to dine separately, their scruples should be respected (as they were not told about this inter-dining before admitting the students). But for the future, it may be announced that no Brahmacharis would be accepted whose parents would not let their boys dine in the same row with the others. I understand from you(r letter) that the cook at the gurukulam (is and) would be always a Brahmin. What you object to (in your two letters) is the separating of the non-Brahmin boys from the Brahmins. I do think that all the boys should sit in the same row whilst they are taking their meals.

In TNCC meeting on 29, April 1925, Varadarajulu Naidu raised the issue of gurukul. Rajaji made three pertinent remarks, as reported by The Hindu 30, April 1925.

1. He made it clear that he was against all commensally restrictions, whether the Gurukulam practiced it or not.
1. He said that inter-dining was not practiced by 'any' section of the Tamil society, so any reform on that front should be gradual and happening without causing friction.
2. He felt that no political capital should be made out of the supposed activities of a private institution–-the Gurukulam here.

Further, The Hindu 1st, May 1925 reports that in the same resolution, tabled by S.Ramanathan and supported by Rajaji (who differed on point two mentioned above), it was recommended that gradations based on birth should 'not' be observed by 'any' organization participating in the national movement-–private or otherwise. A committee comprising of V. Thiagaraja Chettiar, S.Ramanathan and EVR was constituted (by Rajaji) to look into the gurukulam matter as well as all such related issues and report the facts.
Hence, one can understood that,

• V.V.S. Aiyar didn't practice segregation in his gurukulam.

• He allowed exemption for two Brahmin boys to dine separately, only because their parents insisted, and he allowed it because inter-dining wasn't clause when those students were admitted. Aiyar himself was opposed to segregation.

• Gandhiji never supported segregation. In fact, he insisted on common dining. He only allowed those 2 exempted students to continue as it is, because a promise had already been made.

• Rajaji never supported segregation. He was also for common dining and asserted that all nationalistic institutions should never allow such practices. His only contention was that the Congress party shouldn't interfere in the affairs of private institutions for entirely politicized reasons. He also felt that changes, at individual level, should be gradual.

• EVR didn't quit the Congress party because of the alleged segregation. He quit because of his hatred for Brahmins, and because he had been sidelined after all his attempts to communalize and indulge in autocratic and hateful politics.

• EVR never again fought for either independence or for removing untouchability, after quitting the Congress. So, that could have never been his reason for quitting.

Conclusion

Hence, it is obvious that V.V.S. Aiyar had been the most selfless revolutionary and a freedom fighter. He was a man of great moral scruples. Even before the Congress party gave any money, on his own volition he had raised funds to impart Vedic as well as nationalistic education to the Brahmins and non-Brahmins alike. Finally, V.V.S. Aiyar drowned in the Papanasam falls in June 1925 in circumstances, which remain controversial.

*****

So, readers, what account would you choose to believe in this case?

The book titled "Politics and Social Conflict in South India (The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929)": Sponsored by the Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

because it is a Western Publication, so must automatically have a halo of authenticity and malign the memory of a great freedom fighter, or

the above native publication highlighted in a research paper by two Asistant Professors (whose names do not sound as those of a brahmin) of a University in TamizhnADu,

and refuse to believe the pack of lies some brahmin fans of EVR choose to spread here knowingly, unknowingly or delibrately?

Although I knew something about the Gurukulam controversy, I did not know the full facts until I read the above account. The point is that it is easier to find the truth than believe in the lies.
 
Last edited:
... It's really puzzling that being brahmins yourselve, both of you have not even had a cursory check about the incident using google. .
Saidevo, first, I don't consider myself a Brahmin, and have no particular sympathy or animosity towards anyone on the basis of caste.

Next, with due respects to VVS Aiyer, in the case of the Gurukulam matter he behaved in less than honorable way. He employed devious methods to continue funding for the school while at the same time refusing to integrate. All this is well documented, I presented them in this forums many months ago.

Cheers!
 
Shri Saidevo,

The discussions are now getting deranged from your firm announcement here http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...006-2994-3016-2997-2992-3016-a.html#post97957 as follows:

"The point is that had a non-brahmin celebrity opened a veda pAThashAla for exclusive admission of their clan, or a dalit celebrity did the same, for all their pronounced and propagated revilement against brahmins for being the exclusive guardians of the Vedas, the brahmins will never have objected or indulged in violent attacks against those institutions or the people, like the thugs employed by the kazhagams did repeatedly."

I give certain extracts from what you have quoted in detail; my own remarks are in blue.

1.In pursuance of this aim, appeals were made through patriotic journals for liberal financial contribution "Nava Sakthi", a magazine edited by Thiru. V.Kalyanasundaram, published the appeal on 17-11-1922. "Tamil Nadu" another one edited by Dr. P.Varatharajulu Naidu also supported the plan of Gurukulam. Rich philanthropists interested in national liberation and social reformation came forward to help financially. Through Mahadeva Aiyar, a close associate of V.V.S. Aiyar, the Nagarathars of Malaysia, a business community from Tamil Nadu, assured to give Rs.20,000. Tamil Nadu Congress Committee assured Rs.10,000 and gave Rs.5,000 as first installment. Periyar E.V. Ramasamy was the T.N.C.C. President for two years 1923 and 1924. In 1925, he became its secretary while P.Varatharajulu Naidu became its President.

Vai.Su. Shanmugam Chettiar of Kanadukathan bought a thirty acre land for Rs.3000 at Seranmadevi, a few kilometres to the south of the river Thamiraparani, and donated it to the Gurukulam which was eventually shifted to that land form Kallidaikkurichi.

So, the gurukul was mostly financed by NBs and even the appeals for funds were carried by NB –run papers.

2.But, it is often alleged that the great revolutionary and selfless freedom fighter V.V.S. Aiyar ran a Gurukulam, which segregated its Brahmin and non-Brahmin students. It is alleged that they were served food separately. Some of the notoriously false versions would claim that while the Brahmins were served superior food inside, the non-Brahmins were served inferior food outside. It is claimed that E.V.R. quit the Congress party because of this caste-based segregation, and the support Gandhiji gave it.

But, V.V.S. Aiyar explained the scenario. The Hindu dated 15th, April 1925 reports that Aiyar explained that there was 'no' caste based segregation in the Gurukula. He explained that 'only' two Brahmin students were granted the 'exemption' to dine separately, as their parents insisted on it, and threatened to pull out the students if their demand wasn't conceded. Aiyar explained that inter-caste dining is yet unknown in Tamil Nadu, and more importantly, this was not made known to the parents when the students were admitted to the Gurukula. So, he reasoned, that the two students were granted exemption from inter-dining.


We all know how an accused will try to deny the charges against him, first, failing which his next effort will be to diminish the level or importance thereof. V.V.S. Aiyar saying that only two Brahmin students were served food separately is, imo, not convincing nor acceptable. Why should those two Brahmin students be so special that the school could not loose them at any cost? The only answer is Aiyer also supported discrimination in his heart of hearts but at the same time wanted to perpetuate his image of a revolutionary with new ideas.
பாலுக்கும் காவல், பூனைக்கும் தோழன் (pālukkum kāval, pūaikkum toa) ;)

The explanation given by V.V.S. Aiyar should have made it clear that there was no caste based segregation in the Shermadevi Gurukula, nor was there any plan to introduce one in the future. The controversy should have died, but that was not to be. EVR and his coterie were actually interested in making political mileage through false allegations.

In TNCC meeting on 29, April 1925, Varadarajulu Naidu raised the issue of gurukul. Rajaji made three pertinent remarks, as reported by The Hindu 30, April 1925.

1. He made it clear that he was against all commensally restrictions, whether the Gurukulam practiced it or not.
1. He said that inter-dining was not practiced by 'any' section of the Tamil society, so any reform on that front should be gradual and happening without causing friction.
2. He felt that no political capital should be made out of the supposed activities of a private institution–-the Gurukulam here.

Further, The Hindu 1st, May 1925 reports that in the same resolution, tabled by S.Ramanathan and supported by Rajaji (who differed on point two mentioned above), it was recommended that gradations based on birth should 'not' be observed by 'any' organization participating in the national movement-–private or otherwise. A committee comprising of V. Thiagaraja Chettiar, S.Ramanathan and EVR was constituted (by Rajaji) to look into the gurukulam matter as well as all such related issues and report the facts.


It will be seen that Rajaji himself was not coming forward to support VVS and he further supported the formation of a committee to investigate and report the matter. When an eminent lawyer of Rajaji’s stature does that, the conclusion is inescapable that he too was, like EVR, not convinced by VVS’ explanation. Hence, the lame excuse of “only two Brahmin boys being given food separately” appears to mimic the popular joke about “the prospective groom eating onions occasionally”.

Saidevo, Let me once again request you not to divert the discussions from the earlier declaration made by you viz., "The point is that had a non-brahmin celebrity opened a veda pAThashAla for exclusive admission of their clan, or a dalit celebrity did the same, for all their pronounced and propagated revilement against brahmins for being the exclusive guardians of the Vedas, the brahmins will never have objected or indulged in violent attacks against those institutions or the people, like the thugs employed by the kazhagams did repeatedly." cited at the top with link.

Having read both the explanations – by me and by yourself – do you still think or are you still convinced that any unbiased observer will buy the apologetic version contained in the paper by vetrivel & senthil kumar, which seems to be an effort to eulogize VVS Aiyer? or, will he depend more on the factual account given by http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-36.html#post72841?

Let us once again consider the facts. Even in 1920 “inter-caste dining was yet unknown in Tamil Nadu” (as per V.V.S. Aiyer himself, as in the pdf file furnished by Shri Saidevo). Brahmin parents still believed in the caste segregation. Vedas were taught only to the Brahmin students in the Gurukul, and not to the NB students though it was NBs who financed the setting up of the Gurukul. So, even hypothetically assuming that there was to be some NB who set up a common veda pAThashAla for all castes, or, as Saidevo says, “for exclusive admission to their clan”, who was to teach the Vedas? Only the conservative Brahmins who would not teach Vedas to NBs. Would Shri Saidevo’s dream have been a fact in those days or whether the chances would have been for the dreamer to get ostracized from society, if he went public? Think and decide for yourself.
 
Where was this generosity when Veda learning was the only means to cushy living? Now that even the Brahmins, ones who can't tire of extolling the Vedas, have rejected it in droves as a means of livelihood, you are so generous to invite the "enterprising dalit or dk politician" to set up veda patasalas and study the useless Vedas.

No sir, they don't want your useless Vedas, they want to be able to study science, technology, arts, and other such secular fields, the ones that you now want to dominate since you have now realized study of Vedas is useless.

Cheers!

Friends,

Nara is very confident that dalits do not want to learn vedas because vedas are useless. They want to study only science, technology, arts and other such secular(!) fields. Because he knows the minds of dalits he says this. He knows their mind because he has studied them taking a lot of pain and investing a lot of time. He is not saying this as a mere arm-chair human-rights champion intellectual. So let us hope that he will not have any grudge from today at least in this forum against people who talk about vedas as a treasure left by our ancestors. Nara will have nothing to write about brahmins as long as they consider vedas as scriptures par excellence, as source of ancient knowledge relevant today etc., If they give up vedas and come to knock at his doors he can kick them and say 'why do you come to me now'.

Friends please watch the developments closely. People who live on the diet of criticism of brahmins and anti brahmin rhetoric can not keep quite for long.

Cheers.
 
Sangom said in #12:

But, V.V.S. Aiyar explained the scenario. The Hindu dated 15th, April 1925 reports that Aiyar explained that there was 'no' caste based segregation in the Gurukula. He explained that 'only' two Brahmin students were granted the 'exemption' to dine separately, as their parents insisted on it, and threatened to pull out the students if their demand wasn't conceded. Aiyar explained that inter-caste dining is yet unknown in Tamil Nadu, and more importantly, this was not made known to the parents when the students were admitted to the Gurukula. So, he reasoned, that the two students were granted exemption from inter-dining.

We all know how an accused will try to deny the charges against him, first, failing which his next effort will be to diminish the level or importance thereof. V.V.S. Aiyar saying that only two Brahmin students were served food separately is, imo, not convincing nor acceptable. Why should those two Brahmin students be so special that the school could not loose them at any cost? The only answer is Aiyer also supported discrimination in his heart of hearts but at the same time wanted to perpetuate his image of a revolutionary with new ideas.
பாலுக்கும் காவல், பூனைக்கும் தோழன் (pālukkum kāval, pūaikkum toa) ;)



I have this to ask Sangom:

Don't you think you should find out how many brahmin students were there in the Gurukulam? If there were many and only two were allowed to dine separately, it has less to do with VVS Iyer's so called casteist feelings. Did you try to find out this vital information before accusing VVS Iyer and discounting Saidevo? We can be passionate about our convictions but in the process we should not allow the passions to blind us.

Cheers.
 
namste shrI Sangom.

This is with reference to your post #12.

In reply to my statement which you have been quoting in RED in your posts #8 and #12, all that you (and Nara) can offer is the supposed controversy that surrounded the Gurukulam run by the great patriot VVS Aiyar, and the personal inferences and conclusions of you people. Let us have a look at the facts vis-a-vis your opinions in the extract from a native account I have quoted.

01. It is clearly mentioned that the Gurukulam was a national school and not as a veda pAThashAla.

Following the decision to launch non-cooperation movement in 1920, the Indian National Congress called on the students to leave the educational institutions maintained by the British Government, and encouraged opening of 'national schools'.

02. Although VVS Aiyar wanted to start a Gurukulam on traditional lines, he was asked to assume the responsibility of running an institution that was already started by some people.

Following the decision to launch non-cooperation movement in 1920, the Indian National Congress called on the students to leave the educational institutions maintained by the British Government, and encouraged opening of 'national schools'. A few teachers at Kallidaikurichi in Tirunelveli district resigned their jobs in the schools run by the Taluk Board and started a school known as Tilakar Vidyalaya, named after B.G. Tilak. But they could not continue the same. So they requested V.V.S. Aiyar, a Brahmin scholar and previously a militant rebel, to undertake the responsibility of running the institution. Aiyar who was already having the idea of establishing a Gurukulam on a grand scale on traditional lines agreed to the request, hoping to expand the Vidyalaya in course of time.

When the Gurukulam was started for students who were asked to quit the institutions run by the British Government, I doubt if Vedas were taught in such a national school.

03. Yes, the Gurukulam was funded by NBs as per details given in my extract and quoted by you. The point is that admission was NOT restricted to ONLY BRAHMINS. Neither is there any clear indication that Vedas were taught in the Gurukulam, as seen from this extract:

In his life, Aiyar had two dreams. One was to produce a Tamil periodical to serve the Tamil language. The other was to start and run an educational institution on purely national lines, to inspire the youth and mould their ideas and rejuvenate the country’s life, which he felt was fast being denationalised. After seeing the Gujarat and Kashi Vidyapeeths and admiring Gutukul Kangri (founded by Swami Shraddhanand) and Shantiniketan (started by Rabindranath Tagore), he wanted to create one, which according to his ambition, would be “another Nalanda or Takshasila.” The result was the Tamil Gurukulam at Shermadevi in Tirunelveli District. It was comprehensive in its intent, covering moral instruction and physical education as well as teaching in academic subjects–humanities and sciences. It was an all-round exercise in self-help, with training in handicrafts.
V. V. S. Aiyar and Duggirala Gopalakrishnayya....


04. You might think of anything about VVS Aiyar--that he was a 'guard of the milk and a friend of the cat', that he was the accused who tried to deny the charge and dilute the impact; and that his allowing two brahmin boys to eat separately smacks of casteism, etc.

But the fact is that the allegations of EVR and Varadarajulu Naidu were brought to the notice of the one man whose decision was final--Gandhiji--and he approved the sentiments of the two orthodox brahmin parents, whose boys were the only exemptions among the nearly two hundred boys who were taught in the Gurukulam.

05. Rajaji might have formed a committee to investigate the allegations but then the extract I have given clearly states Rajaji's opinions and options on this issue:

1. He made it clear that he was against all commensally restrictions, whether the Gurukulam practiced it or not.
1. He said that inter-dining was not practiced by 'any' section of the Tamil society, so any reform on that front should be gradual and happening without causing friction.
2. He felt that no political capital should be made out of the supposed activities of a private institution–-the Gurukulam here.

This makes it clear that Rajaji understood the traditional compulsions VVS Aiyar was under in running the Gurukulam. It was also decided in 1922-23 that "'no exemptions' will be granted in the future".

*****

What you have quoted in RED is not my 'declaration' but only my observation. I certainly don't know as much history, specially about the Tamizh brahmins of the previous decades as you know, but I would always like to find and know both sides when any controversy is raised.

• In this case, as I have observed, EVR or his coterie, for all their allegations of partiality towards brahmin boys, did not establish a veda pAThashAla for NBs and dalits, which they could easily have done, had they wanted to. And secondly, the NBs who funded the Gurukulam run by a brahmin and included brahmin boys, respected the tradition and gave their consent to its continuation.

As to your other impressions about me, from the facts of this Gurukulam case, anyone can easily see for himself/herself:

• When Gandhiji and Rajaji were not in favour of discrimination by caste, brahmins IMO could not have objected to a NB or a dalit vedic school, had anyone of them took the initiative and opened it.

• Readers and members would know who is trying to darken the world by closing his eyes to inconvenient facts.

• What I have presented in the extract is untwisted history, unlike the Western account you--as a man much acquainted with history--have presented. As I said above, I do not know or want to read into past brahmin history, but would certainly try to check if there is another side to any controversy where I can.
 
Shri Saidevo,

We all know how an accused will try to deny the charges against him, first, failing which his next effort will be to diminish the level or importance thereof. V.V.S. Aiyar saying that only two Brahmin students were served food separately is, imo, not convincing nor acceptable. Why should those two Brahmin students be so special that the school could not loose them at any cost? The only answer is Aiyer also supported discrimination in his heart of hearts but at the same time wanted to perpetuate his image of a revolutionary with new ideas. பாலுக்கும் காவல், பூனைக்கும் தோழன் (pālukkum kāval, pūaikkum toa) ;)

Shri Sangom,

In the article there is no elaboration as for what Mr.V.V.S Iyer had to offer exclusive previledge to the parents of two boys to please their demand of serving foods seperately for their boys.

Just because he offered such exclusivity for just 2 boys, you could clearly determine and conclude yourself as what must be the reason and highlight in bold that V. V. S. Iyer also supported discrimination in his heart?

His revolutionary ideas of offering Gurukulam to all irrespect of caste and practically making it happen should be considered just as self image perpetuation in disguise and nothing truly honorable/appreciable/acceptable just because of seperate food serving for 2 boys?

Don't you feel during those period when such caste discriminations were on peak, V.V.S Iyer's initiatives and successful implimentations were absolutely unimaginable and need to be honored?




Dirty politics indeed have the highest powers to corrupt any one doesn't matter how educated and how matured a person seem to be. May God provide wisdom to all..May all the soul rest in peace and be spared from rebirth to suffer bad karmas of their present life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top