• 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.

A Few Glimpses from South Indian History

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shri Kumar,

Gratuitous advice to learn more, read more, etc., are becoming common now in this forum when one's views are clashing with another's and some sort of "putting down the opponent" is seen to be called for for the former's ego satisfaction. Don't worry I have also received similar advice!

Remember what you commented on Durgadhasan's posts a few months back while discoursing on avatars.. I thought your observations were justified; but I make a remark on a member which is not to your liking you attribute motives. One norm for you and another for others...

Rgds.,
Swami
 
Dear Shri Swami,

"peeling onions" is a task done invariably I would say; only then can we humans eat onion comfortably. It is not one and the same when we come to regard myths which are regarded as mere myths, and myths which overrule the human mind in the form of gods. So long as these myths are regarded as mere myths and are appreciated for the imagination of the poet or the poetic excellence of the writing (as in meghasandeasam of Kalidasa) it is ok. Only when an ordinarily written purana gets to the status of a scripture and god/gods are "created" out of those puranas, do those puranas become pernicious to humans, according to me.

A similar position will hold good for the painting also (though no one will try to clean it to the destructive end); as long as it is a painting, it is OK, but the moment it starts being regarded as divinity itself, it becomes bad. And the result of our over-religiosity should be evident from the fact that a great many consumer items are packed with some picture of an otherwise worshipped deity and these packages fly around everywhere on the roads; people spit on those pictures, even urinate on them but the so-called orthodoxy does not seem to have the least botheration. It is this hypocritical attitude that will result from the myths and ever so many mythical gods.

Why the same Vyasa (real or mythical) classify Vedas and also author Srimad Bhagavatam?

Rgds.,
Swami
 
swami,

swarajya was the mouthpiece of the swatantra party. rajaji was a regular contributor. one would expect only views which build up rajaji there.

in my opinion, rajaji was the epitome of honesty and simple living. he was an erudite scholar, who was able to write difficult topics in a simple manner in both english and tamil.

like all tambram educated, of those times, compared to rest of the society he was a liberal and reformist. however the society overtook him in its expectations. it was THIS inability to gauge the rising expectations that proved to be rajaji's achille's heel.
..

Thanks.

Yes, Swarajya was the mouthpiece of Swatantra Party, but commanded great respect during its times.

To say that Periyar is well known outside Tamil Nadu is untrue. Even people in the neighbouring state like Karnataka and A.P. scarcely know him. It is appears as just another bearded man (resembling Marx) in Bahujan Samajwadi Party's posters.

In fact people in north know very little about the political figures (the irony is that Raja, Karunanidhi and Jayalalitha are known mostly through unsavoury news).

You may read my posts "Rajaji's Conservatism" in which I have given relevant excerpts from the material available with me.

Regards,
Swami
 
Remember what you commented on Durgadhasan's posts a few months back while discoursing on avatars.. I thought your observations were justified; but I make a remark on a member which is not to your liking you attribute motives. One norm for you and another for others...

Rgds.,
Swami

I do not exactly remember now what I said in the case of Durgadasan's post. If you give the link also I will be able to answer more correctly. But recently I also got a similar advice from someone else that made me start this new thread to say that i am not just talking on the basis of generalities without furnishing any supporting material. That is why I made this remark. If I have made a general remark to Durgadasan that he is not well-read, then I do apologize for it; anyway kindly send me the link.
 
Why the same Vyasa (real or mythical) classify Vedas and also author Srimad Bhagavatam?

Rgds.,
Swami

I do not believe, even for a moment, that there was anyone with the proper noun (name) Vyasa; it refers to prolixity or boring verbosity, actually and this is very well borne out by the writings attributed to the so-called Vyasa by tradition. Have you heard of a "Vyasa sutra" just like "panini sutra"? That is the fact behind vyasa concept. The people in those eras were most likely influenced by the greek traditions after Alexander's invasion and inputs by the greeks who remained here and felt impelled to write at great length. This was quite opposite to the rigvedic style where brevity of some sort seems to have been the rule, though not carried to the extremes as by Panini. Hence there must have been a group effort to write very long poetry and instead of displeasing everyone, they must have coined the term "vyasa". The vyasa coming in mahabharata does not address himself as I, mine, to me, etc., outside of direct quotes,does he? The epic always refers to him as vyasa only.

Bhagavatam is quite likely a post-Sankara concoction to launch the krishna of Mahabharata into a celestial orbit with a three-stage rocket, Mahabharata, Harivamsa and then Bhagavata, and off-he goes from an adored king or leader in folk memories to the state of Supreme Almighty!

The credit for classification and codification of vedas might, in the same way, have been a group effort at a later date by which time this idea of "vyasafying" must have appealed to the people who mattered.
 
Last edited:
Thanks.

Yes, Swarajya was the mouthpiece of Swatantra Party, but commanded great respect during its times.

To say that Periyar is well known outside Tamil Nadu is untrue. Even people in the neighbouring state like Karnataka and A.P. scarcely know him. It is appears as just another bearded man (resembling Marx) in Bahujan Samajwadi Party's posters.

In fact people in north know very little about the political figures (the irony is that Raja, Karunanidhi and Jayalalitha are known mostly through unsavoury news).

You may read my posts "Rajaji's Conservatism" in which I have given relevant excerpts from the material available with me.

Regards,
Swami

swami,

absolutely. a mouthpiece of a political party commands respect from its followers. same as viduthalai or murasoli. it is meant to pep up party morale. people who belong to other political persuasions or neutrals, will treat such mouth pieces with a grain of salt.. same as you would for murasoli.

today periyar has statues all over U.P. (yes, thanks to our dear brahmin friend Mayawati), Bihar and Delhi.

as an ex card carrying member of Swatantra Party, i am only aware of rajaji's political philosophies. it is not with his economic policies that i have gripe. it is his social failure. once again, rajaji failed the other tamil castes with his qualified reformist policies - ie changes only to a certain extent.

i am afraid much as i admire rajaji for his scholarship and honesty, as a political figure, like the proverbial dodo, rajaji is destined to oblivion.

can i also request you to just provide us the URL for rajaji's articles. we do not want to set a precedence for publishing verbatim lengthy articles. in addition, these occupy disc space, which has some cost, and we are all here as free loaders, ie do not pay for the services.

thank you.
 
You have cleverly not answered my question, just side-stepped that.

I suspect your understanding of the society is poor, much less about the Indian society.

You better equip yourselves better by careful observations and reading some material, even if quite a few of them are biased.

You have made some politically correct noises on which you appear lack conviction.

By the way, can I know your antecedents?

Rgds.

swami,

this is a very rude note. instead of explaining why you think kumar has not addressed your query, i feel, you have leapt on to personal attacks on another member of this forum, for no reason that he disagrees with you.

i do not know on what basis you can judge that kumar's understanding of society, and indian society is 'poor'. what gives you the right to make a judgement call like that. are you not aware that when one points a finger, the other fingers are pointed back towards the accuser?

again you have made a widely all encompassing recommendation for kumar to 'read up', while at the same time, you have found fault with him, for having made 'politically correct' noises, with not much conviction..

sir, the post, if you would like to read it again, is not only rude, but so confusing, that i wonder if you need to present your case in a more coherent and polite manner.

i am quite sure, you would not liked to be addressed in the manner in which you have addressed kumar. i certainly would not.

thank you
 
“…functions, creation, protection, destruction, grace and release. …
This high and noble system based on the Agamas or Saiva Scriptures, was corrupted by the puranic writers, whose sole object was to reconcile the Vedas and the Agamas and, in so doing, to give the palm to the former. Hence the modern Saivism … is full of the lovely creations of the puranic fancy and contains all the inconsistencies and improbabilities of the Aryan pantheism. The Tamilar [Tamilians] overborne by the political ascendency of the Aryans, accepted the system, which stained the white radiance of their philosophical faith, and popularised it, though it was quite against their grain.53

These feelings of resentment against the Brahmans, as representatives of the Aryan invasion, for their corruption of the original Dravidian religion were transmitted not only by the annual meetings of the Saiva Siddhanta Sabha but by numerous Saiva Siddhanta meetings held in the district towns of the Tamil areas. These meetings did much to popularise the new interpretation of Valmiki’s Ramayana, in which Ravana was not a weakling but a hero, and Rama, on the other hand, was immoral and dishonest. It was through these meetings that non-Brahman caste Hindus in Tamil country were made aware of the superiority of the Saiva scriptures, the Agamas, over the Sanskrit Vedas.54

A corollary of the belief that the Aryans had defiled the religion of the Dravidians was the accusation that they had also introduced the caste system into south India. One letter to New India in 1916 (May 3) expressed the options of many non-Brahmans when it said that the Dravidians “are outside the fourfold division of the Aryan Castes. their castes have each a distinct name of its own. It is true their position at present is very low and pitiable. That cannot justify anyone calling them Shudra, a term contemptible…”

53 M.S. Purnalingam Pillai, Tamil Literature, p. 254.
54 See the proceedings of the sixth session of the Saiva Siddhanta Sabha, New India, June 24, 1915; and the proceedings of the Saiva Siddhanta Mahasamajam, ibid., Mar. 18, 1918.”

Extract from p. 294 - Politics and Social Conflict in South India, The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929; sponsored by The Centre for South Asia and Southeast Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

“…Many Brahman villages existed in the Tamil country, but probably the most famous was Kallidaikurchi (sic), in Tinnevelly district, which proved to be a point of considerable friction between Brahmans and non-Brahmans in the decade following the first World War.

Another element that worked to transform long-standing caste rivalries into political conflict in the twentieth century centered on the question of whether or not the non-Brahmans could be classified as Sudras. In the traditional varna hierarchy, Sudras were the fourth and last, and hence were not dvijas or twice-born. Though the term Sudra was generally applied to numerous non-Brahman caste Hindu groups such as the Vellalas, Kammas, and Reddis, many British administrators and some missionaries found this usage as it denoted Tamil non-Brahmans both offensive and inapplicable. J.H. Nelson, the district officer in Madura, was perhaps the most outspoken on this question. In one passage in his Madura Country he says “There is no like necessity to use the term ‘Sudra.’ If known too, it is never used by ordinary natives, who speak of one another as being members of particular tribes, castes and families, as Maravnas, Kallans, Ayyangars and others; never as Sudras in opposition to Brahmans. In fact the term Sudra would appear to be used by Brahmans alone in speaking of persons of low condition.”21

21 Nelson, Madura Country, pp.12-13. See also J.D.M. Derrett, “J.H. Nelson: A Forgotten Administrator-Historian of India,” in C.H. Philips (ed.), Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon (London, 1961), pp. 354-372.”

Extract from pp. 11 -12 - Politics and Social Conflict in South India, The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929; sponsored by The Centre for South Asia and Southeast Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

“…In a Tamil work called Veḷāḷar ṉākarikam ( “Vellala Civilization”), published in 1923, Swami Vedachalam declaimed at length against Brahmans.58 Using the Tolkappiyam and other Tamil works as his sources, he argued that the Brahmans had come to the Tamil country, established their caste system under a code of Manu, and relegated all Dravidians to positions of servility and degradation. Unlike other parts of India where there were Kshatriyas and Vaisyas, the Tamil-speaking area had been forced by the *Aryan Brahmans into a strict division of Brahman and non-Brahman, all the non-Brahman caste Hindus being classed as Sudras and kept down by means of vicious laws. Like many other writers, Swami Vedachalam identified the Vellalas with the ancient Dravidians, the heirs of a proud and great civilization. Thus the Vellalas got a myth of their origins and degradation, from which they developed a strong drive for a sense of identity and cultural self-confidence.

58 See the second edition (Tirunelveli, 1957), which is a reprint of the 1923 edition. Swami Vedachalam later changed his name to its Tamil equivalent, Maraimalaiyatikal.”

Extract from pp. 296 - Politics and Social Conflict in South India, The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929; sponsored by The Centre for South Asia and Southeast Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

* It was in this sort of atmosphere that Tamil- and perhaps other types of Brahmans used to run hotels (eating places) in many places with the general qualifying name “Arya Bhavan - [FONT=&quot]பிராம்மணர்கள் சாப்பிடுமிடம்[/FONT] (Eating place for Brahmans)”. That doubtless was public assertion that Brahmans were Aryans, if an assertion as public as this was needed. What use will it be if we now shout at the top of our voices that Brahmans did not claim to be Aryans and that it was all the imagination of EVR and DK/DMK?

Even today the vestiges of this practice can be found in the use of the term “aariya” in the names of eating places, sweet stalls, etc., even in Chennai city itself, but these are perhaps not owned by Brahmans any longer. --sangom

Brahman Reactions

In the face of these challenges south Indian Brahmans made increasing attempts to illustrate the contribution of Brahmans to ancient Tamil Civilization. One of the attempts was that of M. Srinivasa Aiyangar in his Tamil Studies. In his work Srinivasa Aiyangar reviewed all the materials available for research on the Tamil past and arrived at a number of conclusions, some of which would not be accepted by scholars today. He agreed with many of his non-Brahman contemporaries that the ancient Dravidians were to be identified with the Tamil Vellalas, but he also argued against the ideas of Caldwell, Somasundaram Pillai, and Somasundara Bharati that Tamil and Tamil culture were free from Sanskrit: “THe Early Dravidians are considered by Dr. Caldwell as the framers of the best moral codes, and by the new school of non-Aryan Tamil Scholars as the inventors, independent of the slightest Aryan or other influence, of grammar, philosophy, theology, and in fact of every science and art. It is enough to remind them that the earliest grammarians of Tamil were Brahmans, their first spiritual instructors were Brahmans, and their first spiritual instructors were Brahmans, and their first teachers of philosophy were also Brahmans.”62

Another Brahman scholar, R. Swaminatha Iyer, a retired deputy collector, took up the argument from the philological point of view. Evidence showed, he wrote, that “what are known as Dravidian languages are in all their present essential features a creation of Aryan and Aryanised immigrants from the North…It also follows… that the tradition about Agastya’s immigration to the south is not a mere myth and that what is known as Dravidian civilization of the South is merely the civilization of these Aryan and Aryanised immigrants.”63 A Tamil Brahman novelist named A. Madhaviah wrote an article in New India (Aug. 10, 1916) denouncing those who called the Bhagavad Gita and the Ramayana and other sanskrit works “the cunning invention of a diabolical priesthood.”64 Wife-lifting, he said, like cattle-lifting, was not a vice peculiar to any race or civilization. K.S. ramaswami Sastri commented that the theory suggesting Rama’s inferiority and Ravana’s superiority, thus reversing the traditional meaning of the Ramayana, was “really going too far.”65

It is evident that many Brahmans thought the best way to defend their position in south Indian society was to join Mrs. Besant – either as members of the Home Rule movement, or as Theosophists, or at least as readers of New India. Others joined the Varnashrama Dharma movement. This movement was centred on a belief in so-called “pure” Hinduism, including a respect for, and adherence to, caste duties and to the four ashramas. In April, 1915, a group of Tamil Brahmans mainly from Srirangam and Kumbakonam formed a Varnashrama Sabha, and later that year they began to publish a journal, Varnashrama Dharma.



62 Srinivasa Aiyangar, Tamil Studies, pp. 42-43.
63 Hindu (weekly ed.), Dec. 18, 1924.
64 Madhaviah, who wrote in both English and Tamil, was one of the
first novelists to deal with Tamil Brahman Life. His works include
Muthumeenakshi: The Autobiography of a Brahmin Girl (1915), Thillai Govindan
(1916), Manimekalai (1923), and Lieut. Panju: A Modern Indian.
65 new India, July6, 1916.

Extract from pp. 298 – 300, Politics and Social Conflict in South India, The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929; sponsored by The Centre for South Asia and Southeast Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

Since I could not get to view more continuous pages in googlebooks, I will post further as and when I get such opportunity.
 
namaste shrI Sangom.

In this post Shri Kunjuppu has copied another post which refers to the Durbar of King George V in Delhi in 1911. It was on this occasion, in praise of the Emperor that Rabindranath Tagore's song "Jana Gana Mana" was sung (by whom and all I don't know).

You appear to be incorrect in your statement.

Tagore did not compose the song 'jana gana mana' "in praise of the Emperor" King George V, although the English Press of the time made it appear that way. The Indian Press and the report of the annual session of the Indian National Congress of December 1911 at which meeting the song was sung, stated it clealy that the sessions began with "a patriotic song" by Tagore, followed by a resolution expressing loyalty to the King, and afterwards a song ("Badshah Humara" written in Hindi by Rambhuj Chaudhary) welcoming King George V and Queen Mary was sung.

Tagore himself refuted the erroneous English perception in strong words thus:

On 10 November 1937 Tagore wrote a letter to Mr Pulin Bihari Sen about the controversy. That letter in Bengali can be found in Tagore's biography Ravindrajivani, volume II page 339 by Prabhatkumar Mukherjee.

"A certain high official in His Majesty's service, who was also my friend, had requested that I write a song of felicitation towards the Emperor. The request simply amazed me. It caused a great stir in my heart. In response to that great mental turmoil, I pronounced the victory in Jana Gana Mana of that Bhagya Vidhata [ed. God of Destiny] of India who has from age after age held steadfast the reins of India's chariot through rise and fall, through the straight path and the curved. That Lord of Destiny, that Reader of the Collective Mind of India, that Perennial Guide, could never be George V, George VI, or any other George. Even my official friend understood this about the song. After all, even if his admiration for the crown was excessive, he was not lacking in simple common sense."

Again in his letter of 19 March 1939 Tagore writes,

"I should only insult myself if I cared to answer those who consider me capable of such unbounded stupidity as to sing in praise of George the Fourth or George the Fifth as the Eternal Charioteer leading the pilgrims on their journey through countless ages of the timeless history of mankind." (Purvasa, Phalgun, 1354, p738.)

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Gana_Mana_(the_complete_song)
 
namaste shrI Sangom.

Note that even in 1911 a person of the eminence of Shri Tagore has used the term "dravi?" to bracket the south Indians as a whole. Further, in the same stanza we find "Bindhyo Himaachalo Jamunaa Gangaa, Uchchhalo Jalodhi Tarango"; is it not very clear that even for Tagore, India meant "aaryaavarta" only and the area between "Bindhyo" and "Himaachalo"?

This statement from an erudite member like you is unfortunate(Edited - KRS - Please do not ascribe ill motive to a fellow member). The official translation of Tagore's song as given in the GOI portal is as follows:

Thou art the ruler of the minds of all people,
Dispenser of India's destiny.
Thy name rouses the hearts of Punjab, Sind,
Gujarat and Maratha,
Of the Dravida and Orissa and Bengal;
It echoes in the hills of the Vindhyas and Himalayas,
mingles in the music of Jamuna and Ganges and is
chanted by the waves of the Indian Sea.
They pray for thy blessings and sing thy praise.
The saving of all people waits in thy hand,
Thou dispenser of India's destiny.
Victory, victory, victory to thee.

National Anthem - National Symbols - Know India: National Portal of India

• It is clear from the official version above that the terms 'Bindhyo' and 'Himaachalo' do not refer to regions--only to the hills which echo the name of the Goddess Mother India.

• Similarly, the phrase "Jamunaa Gangaa, Uchchhalo Jalodhi Tarango" does not just refer to the GangA-JamunA rivers of the Aryavarta, but only means that the waters of these rivers and the waves--taraMga, of the Indian Sea, chant--uchchala, thy praise.

• At the time this song was first sung, the provinces Punjab, Sindh, Gujarat, Maratha etc. were under the British rule and there were princely states such as Kashmir, Rajasthan, Andhra, Mysore or Kerala. So the English press assumed that Tagore included only those states under their control to sing their King's glory.

This was refuted by patriotic Indians who stated that Tagore mentioned only the borders states of India to include complete India, since it was a matter of debate if the princely states would join the Indian Union when India got independence.

• In 2005, there were calls to delete the word "Sindh" and substitute it with the word Kashmir. The argument was that Sindh was no longer a part of India, having become part of Pakistan as a result of the Partition of 1947. Opponents of this proposal hold that the word "Sindh" refers to the Indus and to Sindhi culture, and that Sindhi people are an integral part of India's cultural fabric. The Supreme Court of India declined to change the national anthem and the wording remains unchanged.

(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Gana_Mana_(the_complete_song))
 
Last edited by a moderator:
• At the time this song was first sung, the provinces Punjab, Sindh, Gujarat, Maratha etc. were under the British rule and there were princely states such as Kashmir, Rajasthan, Andhra, Mysore or Kerala. So the English press assumed that Tagore included only those states under their control to sing their King's glory.
At that time Madras State was under the British rule.Then why Tagore did not refer to Madras or the famous river Cauvery or the Sahya mountains.Also there was no border state called drAviDa. So IMO the entire South India was referred to as drAviDa.
Alsoi If it is a song addressed to Mother India the words bhArata bhAgya vidhAtA (Thou dispenser of India's destiny would be out of place.So it can be an address to the Almigthy.
 
Last edited:
Dear Sri SwamiTaBra Ji,

I have added a Moderation note in your post below.

Now, as an observer, let me add a few notes here, not as a Moderator, but as a fellow Forum member.

You asked Sri Kumar Ji a question. He, I think answered it well, to my satisfaction, may be not yours. In a circumstance like this, the normal way to approach this is to probe further with appropriate question(s). Instead you go on a questioning/evaluating spree on a person, who you do not know. This is not a good standard of behavior. Please refrain from this type of posting in the future. Thank you.

Regards,
KRS
You have cleverly not answered my question, just side-stepped that.

I suspect your understanding of the society is poor, much less about the Indian society.

You better equip yourselves better by careful observations and reading some material, even if quite a few of them are biased.

You have made some politically correct noises on which you appear lack conviction.

By the way, can I know your antecedents?
From here onwards, only the Moderators reserve the right to question any bonafides or antecedents of any member in this Forum - KRS


Rgds.
 
Vivek, I was only trying to show that your assertion,
"I am just saying it was wrong to polarize society and to spread hate."
is factually wrong. Now you have tweaked your statement to,
"... it doesn't mean they become accepted amongst them or by the ruling polity".
The answer to this is the same as before, if the Brahmins are not accepted as part of society by the Tamil population in general, there is no way Brahmins could be doing so splendidly well in Tamil Nadu.

But, I know this will not convince you, so I will leave it at this. However, I have to correct a factual error and make a few observations.

...On one hand you have a view of the DK which places being tamil and being brahmins as dicotonomical perspectives, ...
This is what I was complaining about when I was teetering on leaving the forum. I don't appreciate people simply making things up about me. I have never said Brahmins are not Tamils. If I may say so, you are making a habit of this kind of misquotations, yesterday it was Shri sangom's turn and today it is mine. I request you to not do this kind of thing again.


on the other you have Bharatiyar who actually performed thread ceremony for a low caste
Bharathiyar was a great revolutionary. His revolutionary spirit came from his love for humanity. He was a progressive not because he was Brahmin, but in spite of it. He was one of the greatest critics of Brahmins himself. He ridiculed Brahmins in the most debasing terms.

The upanayanam you are citing shows what I was saying, that he did not go far enough. While this action was great, but it also shows he still believed in the Varna system and wanted to reform it. What would have been better was for him to throw away his own poonal and declare himself a human and nothing else. Perhaps he did throw away his poonal, I don't know, if he did that would have been awesome.

But, I just can't judge him harshly on that count because I do believe he did go to the limit to which he could go in his time. If he was living in our times I am sure he would have rejected the Varna system outright. This is my considered opinion.

You go ahead to slyly call casteism "brahminism"
Even though this web site's grading system labels me as an unknown quantity, nobody is more of an open book here than I am. There is nothing "sly" in what I write. I try to be as honest as I can be, what I write is what I believe, nothing more nothing less. So, please, enough with such characterizations.

To be a Tamilian and a brahmin is like to be a German and a Jew. While the Nazi rhetoric is unfamous,....
The Nazis murdered 6 million Jews. How many Brahmins did Tamils murder as state policy or otherwise? All you have done with this grotesque comparison is prove the validity of Godwin's law.

Cheers!
 
To All Members,
Recently one member in another Forum(iyer123.com) has mentioned about a book,called 'Kasi Sesha Sastry and his descendants' which was first published in 1925. This well documented chronicle is available in most libraries in the world.This book is used as a learning tool in one of the American University to study the life style and historical biography of the Brahmin community in those days.
Some interesting information from the Book is also mentioned which I am reproducing.
"IF one goes through the History,how brahmin community laid down lives to safeguard the Vedic Scriptures, such skewed perception of the brahmin community should go away.My own family chronicle which dates back to AD 1792 gives an account as to how the Moghuls were slaughtering the Pundits in Kashi.On one particular day alone 880 Brahmin Pundits were ordered to be slained by the Moghul Ruler.
The Pundits hid all the Scriptures in a well with a Shivalinga and committed mass suicide.One of the Pundit who took shelter under the Peshwas and came down south and from where my family roots are supposed to have originated."
Courtesy:- Dr.Praveen Kumar. '[email protected]'
I request learned members of this forum to discuss the contents of this book for information of Tabra community.
 
Last edited:
namaste shrI Sangom.



This statement from an erudite member like you is unfortunate(Edited - KRS - Please do not ascribe ill motive to a fellow member). The official translation of Tagore's song as given in the GOI portal is as follows:



• It is clear from the official version above that the terms 'Bindhyo' and 'Himaachalo' do not refer to regions--only to the hills which echo the name of the Goddess Mother India.

• Similarly, the phrase "Jamunaa Gangaa, Uchchhalo Jalodhi Tarango" does not just refer to the GangA-JamunA rivers of the Aryavarta, but only means that the waters of these rivers and the waves--taraMga, of the Indian Sea, chant--uchchala, thy praise.

• At the time this song was first sung, the provinces Punjab, Sindh, Gujarat, Maratha etc. were under the British rule and there were princely states such as Kashmir, Rajasthan, Andhra, Mysore or Kerala. So the English press assumed that Tagore included only those states under their control to sing their King's glory.

This was refuted by patriotic Indians who stated that Tagore mentioned only the borders states of India to include complete India, since it was a matter of debate if the princely states would join the Indian Union when India got independence.

• In 2005, there were calls to delete the word "Sindh" and substitute it with the word Kashmir. The argument was that Sindh was no longer a part of India, having become part of Pakistan as a result of the Partition of 1947. Opponents of this proposal hold that the word "Sindh" refers to the Indus and to Sindhi culture, and that Sindhi people are an integral part of India's cultural fabric. The Supreme Court of India declined to change the national anthem and the wording remains unchanged.

(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Gana_Mana_(the_complete_song))

Dear Shri Saidevo and members,

We all know the erudition of Rabindranath Tagore and his command of languages. I do not know much of Bengali but I have a vague idea that it follows Sanskrit in many respects. So, if this song was in praise of Bharata Mata, I feel instead of the word "vidhaataa", he ought to have used "vidhaatree"; it is not the same for both genders anyway.

What I have read in many other sources is that it was really in praise of King George V when it was sung but after getting Nobel Prize in 1913 and getting knighted in 1915, for reasons which are not very clear, Tagore changed his attitude to British, relinquished his knighthood, etc. Hence there is every possibility that the story was rewritten. What is relevant is to find out whether it was customary in the All India Congress sessions to have benedictory songs on the second day (Vande Mataram was sung on the first day (26-12-1911) before start of the session) from well-known poets; if it was then we may accept the bonafides of Tagore's claim with some reservation because of the suspicion aroused by the word "vidhaataa".
Again "Shuni Tabo Udaaro Baani", "Purabo Pashchimo Aashey, Tabo Singhaasano Paashey, Premohaaro Hawye Gaanthaa ", "Tabo Karunaaruno Ragey, Nidrito Bhaarato Jagey ", etc., cannot be easily explained away as addressed to God or Bharat Mata. If it was so, what God or Bharat Mata were doing when the bharat was asleep; did we people then not have the idea of a god or bharat mata? When was it that God or Bharat mata awakened a "nidrit bhaarat" - in 1911 A.D.? Before that they were allowing us to sleep?

I can only say that Tagore's attempt to disown truth was not befitting a man of his stature.
 
@ Sri Nara, Sri Sangom, Sri Kkumar 29 - Selected narration of TBs in Tamil history is what I am asking about.

I asked Sangom and the community one simple question about the version of history spread by the DK and whether it is acceptable to them. This has spiraled into answering "reasons for anti-brahminism" (which we all know) and SC's 69 percent reservations.

Kkumar 29, there is no need to find the causes of anti-brahminism, its well known. Something having a reason doesn't mean its justified though.

Already in my previous post to you I mentioned how an anti- and negative feelings can be generated against any upper section of society through a selective narration. It doesn't become justified. It doesn't become justfied to support that decades later either (as we are seeing here). Neither is such a view progressive to society. I find in DK supporters, moral bankruptcy.

***
Quoting Sri Nara

"if the Brahmins are not accepted as part of society by the Tamil population in general, there is no way Brahmins could be doing so splendidly well in Tamil Nadu."

Indian bussiness men are doing good in UK, USA - are they considered Americans or British? The fact here is that TBs in TN as well as tamilians in TN (in general) have a bad view of brahmins or their place in history and this is built from a half-factual, half-ficticious account of history. Its built from a selected narration of history highlighting them as the oppressors, and a social evil.

Yet, people here support DK, EVR to them is a great leader. Clearly, if you are just speaking about bussinesses or how successful TBs are, its not because of DK welcoming them - its because they aspired and did well.

The vilification of Jews by Nazis is what I compared TBs and DK with. DK is a state government, if it did anything like "killing the brahmin before the snake", Indian government would have taken action.

At the sametime TBs of the past didn't retaliate, they knew they would find opportunities elsewhere and they did. All of that doesn't change what DK did though.

"I don't appreciate people simply making things up about me. I have never said Brahmins are not Tamils. "

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was speaking about the DK my friend, not anything you said. "On one hand you have a view of the DK which places being tamil and being brahmins as dicotonomical perspectives" didn't go to say you (Nara) have the view of DK, just that we have that view being displayed to us.

I will be honest though that you, as well as Sangom seem to support the DK and its vilification of brahmins. Their version that brahmins were nothing but an oppressing evil - that view is what I am asking you and Sangom about.

"His revolutionary spirit came from his love for humanity. He was a progressive not because he was Brahmin, but in spite of it. He was one of the greatest critics of Brahmins himself. He ridiculed Brahmins in the most debasing terms"

But Bharatiyar still didn't give up his brahmin identity. Shockingly Nara, its possible to be humane and be brahmin. What you have shown in this comment is exactly what I was speaking about when I said that tamilians have already got a negative image of brahmins from a selective narration of history, and another "aryan-dravidian" ficticious version of it. Its possible for the ruling polity in US to spread such poisonous ideas about whites too - from a selective narration of history detailing on slave trade, anti-miscegenation etc. But to have a message to make society progressive is something else. EVR didn't have that.

The reason for anti-brahmin sentiment was because of brahmins holding office in majority (most important reason). But was it understood as to why this was the case following independence or during the time of the British presidency? Because brahmins found it an imperative to educate themselves and keep up with changing times. Thus they went ahead with modern times. EVR's family itself on the other hand didn't educate him past 4th grade despite the fact that he was rich. You want to blame brahmins for holding those government office? Face facts. EVR would have done well to spread the idea of how important education was, to actually make society equal by allowing everyone education on the same level.

"The upanayanam you are citing shows what I was saying, that he did not go far enough. While this action was great, but it also shows he still believed in the Varna system and wanted to reform it."

Yes, because he knew the varna system was not an inherit "evil brahmin" thing. Being brahmin doesn't mean to ill-treat others and that is what Bharatiyar said through his actions too. Tamilians today associated anything of evil of Hinduism to brahmins (and thus attribute brahmins to evilness).

TBs are in TN, but they are vilified if they even keep their identity. Then you speak to me about successful owning of property. I gave you a fine analogy of rich Muslims in Mumbai and the Shiv Sena ideology.

Regards,
Vivek.
 
Last edited:
Sri Sangom - Please read about the Aryan-Dravidian idea

“…functions, creation, protection, destruction, grace and release. …
This high and noble system based on the Agamas or Saiva Scriptures, was corrupted by the puranic writers, whose sole object was to reconcile the Vedas and the Agamas and, in so doing, to give the palm to the former. Hence the modern Saivism … is full of the lovely creations of the puranic fancy and contains all the inconsistencies and improbabilities of the Aryan pantheism. The Tamilar [Tamilians] overborne by the political ascendency of the Aryans, accepted the system, which stained the white radiance of their philosophical faith, and popularised it, though it was quite against their grain.53

These feelings of resentment against the Brahmans, as representatives of the Aryan invasion, for their corruption of the original Dravidian religion were transmitted not only by the annual meetings of the Saiva Siddhanta Sabha but by numerous Saiva Siddhanta meetings held in the district towns of the Tamil areas. These meetings did much to popularise the new interpretation of Valmiki’s Ramayana, in which Ravana was not a weakling but a hero, and Rama, on the other hand, was immoral and dishonest. It was through these meetings that non-Brahman caste Hindus in Tamil country were made aware of the superiority of the Saiva scriptures, the Agamas, over the Sanskrit Vedas.54

A corollary of the belief that the Aryans had defiled the religion of the Dravidians was the accusation that they had also introduced the caste system into south India. One letter to New India in 1916 (May 3) expressed the options of many non-Brahmans when it said that the Dravidians “are outside the fourfold division of the Aryan Castes. their castes have each a distinct name of its own. It is true their position at present is very low and pitiable. That cannot justify anyone calling them Shudra, a term contemptible…”

53 M.S. Purnalingam Pillai, Tamil Literature, p. 254.
54 See the proceedings of the sixth session of the Saiva Siddhanta Sabha, New India, June 24, 1915; and the proceedings of the Saiva Siddhanta Mahasamajam, ibid., Mar. 18, 1918.”

Extract from p. 294 - Politics and Social Conflict in South India, The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929; sponsored by The Centre for South Asia and Southeast Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

“…Many Brahman villages existed in the Tamil country, but probably the most famous was Kallidaikurchi (sic), in Tinnevelly district, which proved to be a point of considerable friction between Brahmans and non-Brahmans in the decade following the first World War.

Another element that worked to transform long-standing caste rivalries into political conflict in the twentieth century centered on the question of whether or not the non-Brahmans could be classified as Sudras. In the traditional varna hierarchy, Sudras were the fourth and last, and hence were not dvijas or twice-born. Though the term Sudra was generally applied to numerous non-Brahman caste Hindu groups such as the Vellalas, Kammas, and Reddis, many British administrators and some missionaries found this usage as it denoted Tamil non-Brahmans both offensive and inapplicable. J.H. Nelson, the district officer in Madura, was perhaps the most outspoken on this question. In one passage in his Madura Country he says “There is no like necessity to use the term ‘Sudra.’ If known too, it is never used by ordinary natives, who speak of one another as being members of particular tribes, castes and families, as Maravnas, Kallans, Ayyangars and others; never as Sudras in opposition to Brahmans. In fact the term Sudra would appear to be used by Brahmans alone in speaking of persons of low condition.”21

21 Nelson, Madura Country, pp.12-13. See also J.D.M. Derrett, “J.H. Nelson: A Forgotten Administrator-Historian of India,” in C.H. Philips (ed.), Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon (London, 1961), pp. 354-372.”

Extract from pp. 11 -12 - Politics and Social Conflict in South India, The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929; sponsored by The Centre for South Asia and Southeast Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

“…In a Tamil work called Veḷāḷar ṉākarikam ( “Vellala Civilization”), published in 1923, Swami Vedachalam declaimed at length against Brahmans.58 Using the Tolkappiyam and other Tamil works as his sources, he argued that the Brahmans had come to the Tamil country, established their caste system under a code of Manu, and relegated all Dravidians to positions of servility and degradation. Unlike other parts of India where there were Kshatriyas and Vaisyas, the Tamil-speaking area had been forced by the *Aryan Brahmans into a strict division of Brahman and non-Brahman, all the non-Brahman caste Hindus being classed as Sudras and kept down by means of vicious laws. Like many other writers, Swami Vedachalam identified the Vellalas with the ancient Dravidians, the heirs of a proud and great civilization. Thus the Vellalas got a myth of their origins and degradation, from which they developed a strong drive for a sense of identity and cultural self-confidence.

58 See the second edition (Tirunelveli, 1957), which is a reprint of the 1923 edition. Swami Vedachalam later changed his name to its Tamil equivalent, Maraimalaiyatikal.”

Extract from pp. 296 - Politics and Social Conflict in South India, The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929; sponsored by The Centre for South Asia and Southeast Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

* It was in this sort of atmosphere that Tamil- and perhaps other types of Brahmans used to run hotels (eating places) in many places with the general qualifying name “Arya Bhavan - [FONT=&quot]பிராம்மணர்கள் சாப்பிடுமிடம்[/FONT] (Eating place for Brahmans)”. That doubtless was public assertion that Brahmans were Aryans, if an assertion as public as this was needed. What use will it be if we now shout at the top of our voices that Brahmans did not claim to be Aryans and that it was all the imagination of EVR and DK/DMK?

Even today the vestiges of this practice can be found in the use of the term “aariya” in the names of eating places, sweet stalls, etc., even in Chennai city itself, but these are perhaps not owned by Brahmans any longer. --sangom

Brahman Reactions

In the face of these challenges south Indian Brahmans made increasing attempts to illustrate the contribution of Brahmans to ancient Tamil Civilization. One of the attempts was that of M. Srinivasa Aiyangar in his Tamil Studies. In his work Srinivasa Aiyangar reviewed all the materials available for research on the Tamil past and arrived at a number of conclusions, some of which would not be accepted by scholars today. He agreed with many of his non-Brahman contemporaries that the ancient Dravidians were to be identified with the Tamil Vellalas, but he also argued against the ideas of Caldwell, Somasundaram Pillai, and Somasundara Bharati that Tamil and Tamil culture were free from Sanskrit: “THe Early Dravidians are considered by Dr. Caldwell as the framers of the best moral codes, and by the new school of non-Aryan Tamil Scholars as the inventors, independent of the slightest Aryan or other influence, of grammar, philosophy, theology, and in fact of every science and art. It is enough to remind them that the earliest grammarians of Tamil were Brahmans, their first spiritual instructors were Brahmans, and their first spiritual instructors were Brahmans, and their first teachers of philosophy were also Brahmans.”62

Another Brahman scholar, R. Swaminatha Iyer, a retired deputy collector, took up the argument from the philological point of view. Evidence showed, he wrote, that “what are known as Dravidian languages are in all their present essential features a creation of Aryan and Aryanised immigrants from the North…It also follows… that the tradition about Agastya’s immigration to the south is not a mere myth and that what is known as Dravidian civilization of the South is merely the civilization of these Aryan and Aryanised immigrants.”63 A Tamil Brahman novelist named A. Madhaviah wrote an article in New India (Aug. 10, 1916) denouncing those who called the Bhagavad Gita and the Ramayana and other sanskrit works “the cunning invention of a diabolical priesthood.”64 Wife-lifting, he said, like cattle-lifting, was not a vice peculiar to any race or civilization. K.S. ramaswami Sastri commented that the theory suggesting Rama’s inferiority and Ravana’s superiority, thus reversing the traditional meaning of the Ramayana, was “really going too far.”65

It is evident that many Brahmans thought the best way to defend their position in south Indian society was to join Mrs. Besant – either as members of the Home Rule movement, or as Theosophists, or at least as readers of New India. Others joined the Varnashrama Dharma movement. This movement was centred on a belief in so-called “pure” Hinduism, including a respect for, and adherence to, caste duties and to the four ashramas. In April, 1915, a group of Tamil Brahmans mainly from Srirangam and Kumbakonam formed a Varnashrama Sabha, and later that year they began to publish a journal, Varnashrama Dharma.



62 Srinivasa Aiyangar, Tamil Studies, pp. 42-43.
63 Hindu (weekly ed.), Dec. 18, 1924.
64 Madhaviah, who wrote in both English and Tamil, was one of the
first novelists to deal with Tamil Brahman Life. His works include
Muthumeenakshi: The Autobiography of a Brahmin Girl (1915), Thillai Govindan
(1916), Manimekalai (1923), and Lieut. Panju: A Modern Indian.
65 new India, July6, 1916.

Extract from pp. 298 – 300, Politics and Social Conflict in South India, The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929; sponsored by The Centre for South Asia and Southeast Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

Since I could not get to view more continuous pages in googlebooks, I will post further as and when I get such opportunity.

Sri Sangom, I will again ask you to read the genesis of the aryan-dravidian idea. All ideas of Aryan-brahmins in Dravidian-Tamilian society are very very recent (just over a century or so), TBs were part of tamil society for centuries before such a dicotonomical view (based on skin colour) came from the British or DK.

And brahmins didn't join the Home Rule movement for the reasons you stated. For that matter so many non-brahmins joined the movement. What were their reasons? You can post anything, but in none it do you answer my question.

The aryan-dravidian idea was also not started by brahmins. Secondly, giving reasons like the ones you have here, still don't justify vilifying a community through a selective reading of history. You are posting paras over paras ignoring the one most important question I asked.

Regards,
Vivek.
 
Last edited:
namaste.

Many reformists (some of our members included), IMO, speak and act like automatons of the West, without really doing research into--or even have the willingness to find out--how our own systems of varNa and caste have sustained our culture and civilization for eons. They are blind to the ideas that varNa and caste did and does exist in the West in their own forms of discrimination, and simply fall for the vested interests of the West to decimate the Hindu culture and civlization of India, with the motivated propaganda against the present day caste system in the name of human rights violation; and our reformers do not gave the guts to question such human rights violations in the West that is basically due to discriminaions in status and class. Here are two posts in another forum that the reformers could do well to explore and realize how they are often used as tools to suppress Hindu voice in India for ultimately Christianizing the country.
Hindu Dharma Forums - View Single Post - The Idiocy of Hindus - HAF's 'Not Cast in Caste'
Hindu Dharma Forums
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=59184&postcount=24

Our system of jAti and varNa is not on the same lines as the system that existed/exists in the Western countries as exemplified by the Portuguese term 'caste'. Here are some links to articles that reveal how we blindly follow the western perspective of looking at our system with their perspective of castes as it existed in their systems. Any reformation should aim at improving how we Indians feel about our jAti-varna system as it exists today and what we can do to make it fair (since it cannot be wished away), and NOT at how the West wants us to change.

HAF Caste report
Hinduism Not Caste in Caste Full Report | Hindu American Foundation (HAF)

Critiques on the damages that the report can cause abroad:
Rajiv Malhotra's Critique of HAF Report on caste

Casteism not exclusive to Hinduism
https://sites.google.com/site/hindunew/jaati
 
Last edited:
Dear Sri saidevo Ji,

Wow! Are you Prescribing the caste system for today's society? Or are you justifying the caste system of the past? I could not tell.

Caste system as it has been practiced in recent India of pre-independence is largely dead. Do you agree with this statement?

Caste system as it is practiced today in India, post-independence is nothing to do with the Varna system, but rather a political division (because practicing castes is outlawed). Do you agree with this statement?

If you do with both statements, then I do not understand your post, and so, please elaborate.

If you do not with either of my statements - please post on the reasons for you not agreeing.

Either way, we will have a discussion.

Regards,
KRS
 
To All Members,
Recently one member in another Forum(iyer123.com) has mentioned about a book,called 'Kasi Sesha Sastry and his descendants' which was first published in 1925. This well documented chronicle is available in most libraries in the world.This book is used as a learning tool in one of the American University to study the life style and historical biography of the Brahmin community in those days.
Some interesting information from the Book is also mentioned which I am reproducing.
"IF one goes through the History,how brahmin community laid down lives to safeguard the Vedic Scriptures, such skewed perception of the brahmin community should go away.My own family chronicle which dates back to AD 1792 gives an account as to how the Moghuls were slaughtering the Pundits in Kashi.On one particular day alone 880 Brahmin Pundits were ordered to be slained by the Moghul Ruler.
The Pundits hid all the Scriptures in a well with a Shivalinga and committed mass suicide.One of the Pundit who took shelter under the Peshwas and came down south and from where my family roots are supposed to have originated."
Courtesy:- Dr.Praveen Kumar. '[email protected]'
I request learned members of this forum to discuss the contents of this book for information of Tabra community.


Dear Shri Krishnamurthy,

The book you cite does not seem to be available for a person like me, who is mostly at home and is not a member of any library. It is not available for purchase also.

Having said that I find the whole idea of hiding the scriptures (which must have been in the form of palm-leaf manuscripts, and not copper plates, I suppose) in a well (again it is not clear whether it was a dry well or had water), adding a Sivalinga on to it (so that the mss do not float and get ruined fast?) is, to say the least, not an intelligent way "to safeguard Vedic Scriptures". If at all those pundits had a modicum of practical shrewdness they should have buried the mss in such a way that those had some chance of surviving the ravages of time, or else, they should have given the mss to any trusted non-brahman or even Candala to carry and deliver to some pundit in a far-off place where the Mughals had not reached then.

It was because one of the pundits was shrewd enough to look after his own welfare that now, after more than 200 years we come to know of this incident.

One natural doubt which arises in my mind is how come only one of those pundits could take shelter under the Peshwas? Why not more?
 
namaste shrI KRS.

Let me state at the outset:

• Although I am a brahmin who would like our community to be as traditional and orthodox as we can be today, I am NOT for discrimination towards other castes, high or low, by brahmins, or by any other caste.

• Brahmins by and large today, maintain peaceful co-existence with other castes, whether or not they have the traditional feeling of superiority.

• IMO, the caste system as it exists today cannot be wished away, and is going to stay that way for decades--may be centuries--to come. This is because our politicians would need it to stay in one form or another, for their divide and rule policy.

• Even if India becomes a Christian country--may God forbid it--and Hindus become a minority, the caste system would definitely stay with them as it does today, as Nadar Christians, Naidu Christians and so on, and would be further complicated by the hundreds of denominations of the church.

• No brahmin today, young or old, wants to practise caste discrimination in the outside world to harass other castes, as many of them did decades back.

• Caste discrimination at home for reasons of religion and ceremonial purity might be inevitable and legitimate, because such distinction does exist in a different form in the homes of higher caste people too, or in the homes of people who are in a high class.

• Therefore, it would be prudent, IMO, on the part of us brahmins to follow our traditional gurus and practise our dharma, niyama, and anuShThAnas as much as we can, and discuss ways and means to do it, rather than be confused by talks about the misdeeds of our past and get motivated to even discard the identity of a brahmin.

With these opinions and ideas of mine,--which may be right or wrong--I shall try to answer your questions, but please note that I neither have the time nor the inclination to go deep into the ramifications and repercussions of varNa and caste.

Your Que:
Caste system as it has been practiced in recent India of pre-independence is largely dead. Do you agree with this statement?

My opinion:
If you mean the linkage of caste and varNa, which was largely adhered to before the European invasion of India, yes, I agree that the system is dead, mainly because of the advent of the democracy as the only sustainable modern form of government.

YQ: Caste system as it is practiced today in India, post-independence is nothing to do with the Varna system, but rather a political division (because practicing castes is outlawed). Do you agree with this statement?

MO: As I said in another post of mine, varNa today does exist in a mixed form, the same caste person pratising more than his/her varNa in practical life. I agree that the caste system as practised today is sustained by political motivation and propaganda, but this does not mean that every person today practises his/her caste only for political ambition. The ambition of the common people is reasonable money and comforts, while it is unlimited money and power for the polticians and corporate business people. Ironically, this ambition of the common people makes them want to move lower and lower in the caste ladder, with the cunning politicians motivating it, rather than move up in the religious ladder.

All I have done in my post no.69 is to highlight the fact that it is the West that drives the efforts of reforms in our own caste system with the hidden agenda to destroy Hinduism and make India a Christian country. It is common knowledge that our politicians have fallen for it, so I only cautioned the individual reformists to really know what they seek to do, instead of simply aping and parrotting Western and political influences.

PS:
You said "practicing castes is outlawed", but ironically, just two days back the census woman took the census of our family, with a specific query about our caste and religion, implementing the Government's drive for a caste-based census.
 
Last edited:
Shri Saidevo,

This is wrt to your post above to Shri KRS ji.

Please do not mind these 2 questions, but am curious for views on it (i request others also to kindly ponder over these 2 questions):

1) Would it not be a good idea to bring in reforms within hinduism to stop religious conversions ?

2) If reforms do happen, don't you think politicalians will be forced to change?

Sir, caste as we know it has changed enormously in the past years. Unfortunately, the dharmashastras or hindu theology do not recognize Sanskritization events. To a strict follower of the dharmashastras, the caste system descended unchanged since centuries (or even millenia). However, historically, sanskritization events (varna cross overs) have been recorded. In such a scenario, i would think that it is incorrect to connect all the present day brahmins with the brahmins of the medieval and ancient period who had indulged in violence or other negative things socially.

As regards the current caste system, it is quite possible that the system as we know it today did not exist the same way even 200 years back. Apparently, people had changed their profession even in most recent times. Example: My Mother's Grandfather (MG) was born and raised in Srirangam where a part of his family were SSV temple servants doing kainkaryams in the Ranganathaswamy temple. MG got himself an education and moved to Madras. As of today no one in that family is a SSV serving in a temple. In their case, caste (occupation) changed within just 150 years.

Regards.
 
Dear Shri.Sangom,
I was not even aware such a book was published in 1925.I came to know about this book only through a mail posted in iyer123.com.The name of one gentleman and his mail address as noted in the mail
has also been posted in my post.Perhaps that gentleman is from this family and he may be knowing full details about the book.
As you may be aware I am in USA with my son and my only friend and companion is my Lap TOP.
I enjoy reading various posts in this forum and other websites just to pass my time(as Shri.Nara has said).
So,I am not in a position to throw more light.Members, who visit libraries, may perhaps go through this book or get in touch with this person to have a clear picture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top