• 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.

Aryan Migration Theory

Not open for further replies.


Well-known member
i have a question or rather a few questions to ask.
1)where did tamil brahmins originate from?
2)what was their original mother tongue? was it Sanskrit?

i want some one to shed some light on the "Aryan Migration Theory" which was presumed to have taken place around 1700 to 1300 BC.

1700 to1300 BC is technically still Kaliyuga.

Krishna was born( if i have not mistaken )around 3227 BC and even in the first Avatar of Lord Vishnu(Matsya) King Sage Sathyavrata was already practising Vedic Culture.
Vedic Culture was already in India Yugas ago, so how much does this theory hold good?
the question is Brahmins were already there in India Yugas ago so why do many people( including some Brahmins) think the Aryan race migration is a recent phenomenon per highligted by the west.

each Brahmin has a Gotra from a particular Rishis Lineage who were there much before the stipulated 1700 to 1300 BC.
kindly someone explain to me
Last edited:
Dear Sowbhagyavathi Renukakarthikeyan Ji,

From my limited knowledge:

Rishi Agasthya brought Sanskrit to the regions south of Vindhyas. But then his disciple Tholkappiar cemented the grammer of the Tamil language. Both were Brahmins.

Also, the recent studies on the genetic make up of the Tamil Brahmins have showed that our genetic imprints are closer to folks from South East Asia - like Indonesia.

A fascinating story, indeed.

AIT is a myth propagated by the British to divide and rule India. It is a theory which is not even accepted by Western Scholars these days. There are lot of books written supporting and debunking this theory and enough info. on the net as well. Suggest to read them.

Click on this link to read what the Paramacharyal says about this in Deivathin Kural. It is in Tamil so you have to download the tamil font.

Tamil Content : kamakoti.org:
Hello renuka,

Am listing the yugas, based on our sampradhaya... Astrologers would be familiar about this (there could be some minor differences between our puranas).

The 4 yugas Kritha, Thretha, Dhwapara and Kali together comprise one Chathuryugam.

1 Chathuryugam is 43,20,000 years.

71 such Chathuryugams comprise 1 Manvantharam.

14 such Manvantharams comprise 1 Kalpam.

1 Kalpam is equal to 1/2 a day of Brahma.

We are presently in the 7th Manvantharam, called as Vaivasvatha Manvantharam, in the Kalpa called Shvetha Varaha.

It is 5100 years since the birth of Kaliyuga, as of 2009.

The BC/AD calculation is only for commercial purposes and does not figure in our scheme of things.

So you can now realize the significance of the vedic culture which had existed even before thousands and thousands of years.

The British wanted to break the spiritual backbone of India to establish supremacy of the Church and also to dominate us mentally. To this end, they interpreted the scriptures with their history as the base. Were they to accept our calculations, it would mean that the church is relatively a recent phenomenon and all its theologies would fail. To prevent such a mishap, our scriptures were chronologized in a way that it succeeded their dates (or coincided with it). The Bible also mentions that there were movement of tribes to other lands. Also, western linguistics connected some letters of the hebrew language with Sanskrit, based on their usage, pronounciation and the literal, and allowed their imagination to run wild, but of course connected with the bible.

The mention of Aryans and Dravida Desam in the Sanskrit language, the difference in colour between the North/South Indians further fuelled their thinking that there could possibly be a migration from Middle Europe/Iran to India and a mixing of different races.

This conveniently fitted their ideology also, and hence was born the Aryan invasion theory. And this is what we study as part of our history too - a sub conscious initiation that India was forcibly invaded by western tribes which took over the indigenous culture.

The effect visualised by the British was that whatever was Sanskrit/Hindi would be treated as foreign and alien to the indigenous culture and eventually, would be thrown off. Once the culture was destabilized, the machinery of the church could move in to dominate the land culturally.

I have summarised the AIT, without too much elaboration. There are many sites which state elaborate reasons to debunk the theory.

AIT is a myth propagated by the British to divide and rule India. It is a theory which is not even accepted by Western Scholars these days. There are lot of books written supporting and debunking this theory and enough info. on the net as well. Suggest to read them.

Click on this link to read what the Paramacharyal says about this in Deivathin Kural. It is in Tamil so you have to download the tamil font.

Absolutely. AIT has been rejected by many scholars and has no patronage except with those who have self-serving interest in keeping the theory alive.

AIT was a British trick to keep emphasizing that Indians are not a homogenous entity. By stoking the fires of division, the british ensured that lasting unity was never achieved.

EVR latched on to it because he realized that it was a powerful anti-dote to the differential attitude of the brahmins.

As far as my personal take is concerned, it does not matter what the origins of brahmins are. They are as much sons of this soil as anyone else. The negative campaign portraying brahmins as 'outsiders' has to end.

Having said that, our history is not exactly covered in glory. I think we have to be pragmatic enough to accept that brahmins have erred in the past and not live a life of denial.

But we need not, should not, succumb to the exclusivist machinations of the Dravida politicians.

We should perhaps remind them that all in the Asian sub-continent do qualify as migrants from Africa, given the shift of the tectonic plate.
when i posted this i did not mean to "divide and rule" about the Aryan - Dravidian theory, what i meant is if Brahmins had come from some other state to settle down in Tamil Nadu or were they already there Yugas ago.( not to say that they do not belong there)
I see Bharat as Whole becauses God has walked this land from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and i just wanted geographical evidence. Thats all. Bharat is still Bharat whether its Tamil Nadu or Punjab.
the word Aryan itself denotes a state of being and state of mind of a particular individual eg when Lord Krishna admonishes Arjuna as being un Aryan in behaviour when he refuses to fight.
Lord Krishna was not refering to any particular racial group.
The word Dravidia also does not denote any racial group but rather a particular Geographical region(South Of the Vindyas)

i just wanted to highlight that Bharat was glorious all the while and never really needed anyone to "bring in" religion and culture.

Everyone in this world is a rightful Son of the Soil(Bumiputra)
Dear Renuka Karthikeyan Ji,

There is nothing called an aryan as a race, so there is nothing called an aryan invasion theory.

To go back to the beginning, the period of yugas (or its calculation methods) are subject to debate. Homo sapiens happened after the neanderthalensis about 300K-250K years ago. No one knows how the erectus died out or whether (like neanderthalensis) they merged into the sapiens or not.

Human migration is supposed to have been spurred by environmental conditions. Modern humans supposedly moved out of Africa abt 200,000 years ago around the time of the wolstonian glaciation and colonized Planet Earth. (to give you an idea of environmental changes on Earth, imagine a lush green sahara desert just 10k years back - that's how rapidly earth's climate has been changing).

Aryans, at best, might be considered groups of composite tribes, most likely native or resident to the northwest indian region who first composed the rig in that region about 10k years ago. They were enemies with other tribes, neighbouring or native to the same region. However, as composite units, it appears that they might not have been ethnically different from the rest.

In hindu literature too, devas, asuras, nagas, etc were considered step-brothers. This might probably be true, because genetically there is very little variation between south-asians no matter how dissimilar we are from one another, looks wise, culturally, etc.

As far as languages are concerned, no one knows what languages people spoke in the past, or if there was any nostratic group common to proto-indo-european and proto-dravidian. The geneology of dravidian languages has been put pictorially here: Dravidian languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia According to some, Tamil probably is not as ancient as it made out by some quarters (a topic subject to debate) as sangam literature is dated from about 200 or 300 BC onwards. The scenario of why languages die, or get absorbed by another group, is complex and fascinating. It is therefore hard to say if Sanskrit was the mother tongue of any present day linguistc group.

If am not wrong the term ariyar was used in Tamil kingdoms to designate the head of a group of nattars or a very high official. And the term "ariyar" was used from the Chola times onwards in the Tamil speaking regions. I request Shri Vikrama ji and others with interest in Tamil literature to clarify if this is right or not.

If i may say so, tamil brahmins as a lingusitic group or as a caste group may not have a common origin as a single unit. They might have been derived from various groups. In terms of genetics, some tamil brahmins are similar to southeast asians, some are similar to bengali brahmins who in turn cluster with the caste groups of mahishya and bagdi of bengal, some are similar to other tamilians such as vellalars, and so on.

Forgetting the similarities b/w present day brahmins and other castes as mentioned above...just imagine how different could people have gotten from one another if we were to go way back in time.....imagine the days when man moved out of africa and explored earth. It was all about survival. Fascinating, right?

Last edited:
:shocked:There is nothing called aryan invasion.It is a Myth.Though there are differing opinions on the Culture of the Indus Valley Civilisation (which is now termed Indo-Saraswat Civilisation) has traits of the vedic people.I will not use the term Aryan,
The majority of the historians around the world have negatived the old aryan invasion theory though it is sought to be propagted by some of our historians with their political background,
Homa kundams have been identified.The main issue being the HORSE.The vedic figure.But in some locations horse bones have beenidentified.
The latest research by molecular biologists also prove there in not much difference in the genes of those in several parts of India,
On the question of the origin of Brahmins in Soth India the earliest inscription is in a temple in Tirunelveli District whch says that the Brahmins settled down there after coming from Kashmir
There are truckloads of historians who have stood against the AIT. Quotes from some of them below

India was the motherland of our race and Sanskrit the mother of Europe’s languages. India was the mother of our philosophy, of much of our mathematics, of the ideals embodied in Christianity… of self-government and democracy. In many ways, Mother India is the mother of us all.
Will Durant, American Historian (1885-1981)

“The Western European area is regarded as a fixed pole, a unique patch chosen on the surface of the sphere for no better reason, it seems, than because we live on it – and great histories of millennial duration and mighty faraway Cultures are made to revolve around this pole in all modesty. It is a quaintly conceived system of sun and planets. We select a single bit of ground as the natural center of the historical system, and make it the central sun. From it all the events of history receive their real light; from it their importance is judged in perspective.”
Oswald Arnold Gottfried Spengler (1880 – 1936) - German historian and philosopher

" I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, - astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc." " It is very important to note that some 2,500 years ago at the least Pythagoras went from Samos to the Ganges to learn geometry...But he would certainly not have undertaken such a strange journey had the reputation of the Brahmins' science not been long established in Europe..."
Francois Voltaire (1694-1774) France's greatest writer and philosopher

"It is there in (Aryavarta) we must seek not only for the cradle of the Brahmin religion but for the cradle of the high civilization of the Hindus, which gradually extended itself in the west to Ethiopia, to Egypt, to Phoenicia; in the East to Siam, to China and Japan; in the South to Ceylon, to Java and to Sumatra; in the North to Persia, to Chaldea, and to Colchis, whence it came to Greece and to Rome and at length to the distant abode of the Hyperboreons."
Count Magnus Fredrick Ferdinand Bjornstjerna (1779-1847)

India is the origin of ancient civilization that spread to Europe along with its language and the religious stories.
Theodor Benfey (1809-1881), a German linguist

“Westerners have singularly narrowed the history of the world in grouping the little that they know about the expansion of the human race around the peoples of Israel, Greece and Rome. Thus have they ignored all those travelers and explorers who in their ships ploughed the China Sea and the Indian Ocean, or rode the immensities of Central Asia to the Persian Gulf. In truth the larger part of the globe, containing cultures different from those of the ancient Greeks and Romans but no less civilized, has remained unknown to those who wrote the history of their little world under the impression that they were writing world history."
Henri Cordier (1849 - 1925) French scholar
let me take on a different perspective on migrations of peoples.

35 years ago when i came to canada, toronto, the city where i live, was overwhelmingly (95%) white. even within whites more than half were european immigrants.

today toronto is 50% estimated non white and increasingly more multicoloured.

in the context of modern facilities like cheap transportation across oceans, we are now migrating at a level unseen and unforseen in history.

look at our own chennai. the triplicane i grew up was busy. later in santhome mylapore, then quiet and sleepy streets, today buzzing with people and traffic 24 hours.

every day, i think, an entire number of people, the size of whom makes the invaders into india pale in numbers.

whether it be kushans or their later progeny the afghans and mongols (mughals), these were small in number.

when we speak of invasion by certain central asian tribes milleniums ago, let us take into consideration, all the known migrations and the impact each one of them had on us.

with so many intervening invasions, influences and today's ever changing faster migrations, does it really make a difference about whether aryans existed at all? or migrated here?

one of the interesting mind games i have played, is how toronto would look in 50 years. we can do the same about india. or the world? there might be more worthwhile results coming out of pondering the immediate future impacts due to migrations.

the discussion of ait has caused more grief, and it may be the right time, to restore it to what it was.. a deeply sleeping baby :)
I thought the meaning of Arya & Dasau meaning the qualities of persons and not race.

I have always wondered, why they have to come to India and then start to create vedas.

If at all they originated from Europe, why they have not kept IE names instead of Saraswati etc etc and non of the names can be with any european flavor.

IMHO, this theory is only used to break Vedic Dharma so that Christianity can be spread. They have done that by creating so many intellectuals.

These History will change as and when new evidence is found.
Thanks for posting this topic.

Now time has started to take the things behind this creation of AIT.

1. The AIT has incepted to support the Christianity which believed the world has been created only 1500 years before Christ born. If they accepted the real things then their theory will be proved as wrong one.

2. If Aryans invaded and defeated Dravidian definitely they mentioned it in Rig Veda. But as per the information I got they mentioned few times about the quarrels with Dasas & Dasyus. Also Its highly idiotic after the loss the Dravidians settled in South immediately crossing such thick forest and rivers and they formed the kingdom and everything.

3. The word Aryan doesn't mean the race where it mean the character. Dravida also doesn't mean the race but it mean the land in south of Vidharpa.

4. Recent researches proves that the river Saraswathi was there once upon a time and the migration happened to Ganges once they lost the river due to change in nature. And the Harappa & Mohanchadora culture is nothing but vedic culture.

5. Another research in India which compared the DNA of different castes in different states proved all are identical and Indeanous.

6. When comes to language all south indian languages are dominated by sanskrit. The tholkapiam also has lot of sanskrit words. The tamil poets lived in sanga kalam or from tholkapiar never against sanskrit and it seems they known it. The sanskrit once the common language for the indians.

If everythings true Brahmins lived here in Tamilnadu itself from the beginning. The tamil poems were saying that Brahmins were used to do 6 type of jobs. We can not deny the migration happened here & there to learn & teach.

I have read the posts and eagerly waiting to know more things.

A research team formed under the famous Dr. Ramamoorthy has released a book "Thamizhaga Anthanar Varalaru" speaks about the AIT and the ancient tamil brahmins from tholkapiar.

A close and careful study of the Vedas and other scriptures will show that there was no caste in the early days of the vedic society and that the four-castes system was a later introduction. The Tamil brahmins did not exist from time immemmorial (as made out by the Puranas). Most probably they were the outcome of inter-mixing of the original population which existed south of the Vindhyas and others who lived in the Ganga-Yamuna doab area, as a natural process. If we now do a detailed DNA analysis we will most probably find no "great" distinction between the DNA structure of various castes in South India.
The position in North India is likely to be different; the higher castes may most likely have characteristics inherited from caucasian and other western populations.

It is also clear that there are very great similarities among a large number of languages going under the name 'Indo-European' languages. Their similarity cannot be explained away by the argument that all the other languages in this group originated from Sanskrit.

Because of the above two and some more relevant factors, it is quite likely that some foreign people came and mingled with the local people of North-West India first, and they brought to this country the Sanskrit language and the Vedic way of life.

This does not mean that there was any "invasion" or that today's brahmins are not indigenous to this country.
Somehow I missed this thread earlier and I want to throw in my two cents in this revival.

1 As has been pointed out, the term Arya and Dasyu in the Vedas, refer only to the different qualities of men and not to two different races. Nowhere in the Vedas has an Arya been contrasted with a Dravida which again is not the name of a race, but of a geographical location.

2 No Tamil literature of before 5th century contains the name, Dravida. Digambara Darshana Sara, a Jain religious work by Vajranandi, gives important information about the establishment of a separate Jain Sangha, called Dravida (Dramila) Sangha, in the year 526 of Vikrama Saka, i.e. 470 A.D., at Madurai. Scholars are of the opinion that this Dramila Sangha is only a revival of the Jaina Moola Sangha. It was a Sangham of the Jains of South India and it has nothing to do with Brahmins and non-Brahmins. Adi Sankara mentions Dravida Sisu. It may refer either to himself or Thirugnana Sambandar. Any way, this does not refer to NBs of Tamilnadu alone but includes all those who resided in the regions south of the Vindhyas.
Non-random-Thoughts: No Aryan and no Dravidian either!

3 Tolkappiam, the oldest Tamil Literature, is at least 2000 years old. This work mentions the existence of Brahmins, Vedas and Vedic rituals in Tamil land. So Tamil land is as much home to the Bs as NBs.

4 It should also be noted that in other parts of South India there is no animosity between Bs and NBs. The effort of the Kazhagams to forge a Pan-Dravidian unity by thrusting their Anti-Brahmin Dravidian culture theory failed and they have Dravida only in their names.

5 In spite of a mountain of evidence, the TNBs keep harping on AIT theory. It is not to gain political benefits only. Of course there was some exploitation of NBs by TBs in the previous centuries. But that also was not the main cause of the conflict. The hatred is deep-rooted and can not be wished away by logic and debates. Let us face it and delve deeper into the causes that could have contributed to the rise of anti-Brahmin feelings in Tamilnadu.

6 Not only is there a divide between TBs and TNBs, but there is, if not animosity, even today, at least some bitterness between Smarthas and Vaishnavas of Tamilnadu, which is totally absent in other parts of India. (I am not driving a wedge between the members of this forum, but let us call a spade a spade.)

Based on the above premises, let me propose a theory in my next post.
Among the Sangam poets, there were quite a few Brahmin poets mentioned by caste. Of them, three have the title Vadama Vannakkan. (வடம வண்ணக்கன்). Scholars opine that they could have come from north and in order to differentiate them, they were given such titles.

The term Vadama, referring to the largest group of Tbs, could also indicate their northern origin. There are two groups of Vadamas, Chozha Desam and Authram. Authram means of the northern regions. It referred to those Vadamas who had settled in the northern part of Tamilnadu, that is North Arcot, Kanchipuram and Chengalpattu Districts. Chozha Desa Vadamas were the ones who had settled in the Chola kingdom comprising the Delta Districts (Thanjavur, Thiruvarur, Nagapattinam, Cuddalore).

Vadamar is a Tamil term. The names of other groups, Vathima (corruption of Upadhyaya or Madhyama), Brahacharanam (Brhat Charanam meaning big foot. It may also mean Big Movement, indicating that they were numerous), Ashta Sahasram (meaning 8000), Swarna Keshya (golden haired) are all in Sanskrit. How can we account for this difference? My guess is that the Vadamas were the earliest settlers and they were given a name in Tamil by the local Tamil population. When new settlers came, the Tamil people would call them Vadama too. But the early settlers wanted to keep their identity separate and gave the new settlers a new name, in their language, Sanskrit.
(more to follow in the next post)
A very informative post. I am eagerly looking for your next post. I had read somewhere that the migration of a group of people from the north, speakers of Sanskrit, is indicated by the story of Agastya. Mahabharata mentions "dramiDa", Sanskrit for Dravida. Since we hold M Bh to be from the hoary past, and even the western scholars assign to it a date around 1000-500 B.C. it appears that the Dravida group existed from very ancient times.
Where did the vadamas come from?

We can reasonably guess that it was from somewhere near the banks of Narmada- A region which is partly in Gujarat and partly in Maharashtra today.

1 In the whole of India, only Maharashtra Brahmins and TBs have the custom of smearing holy ash on their foreheads. Maharashtra Brahmins used to make a paste of the homa-bhasma after the Aupasanam and apply it on their forehead as a Raksha. Still we follow this on Sraddham days. So we can assume that this custom came from Maharashtra.

One can argue that this custom could have gone from Tamilnadu to Maharashtra. There were no evidences for the immigration in the other direction. Moreover, till the time of Karaikal Ammaiyar, the custom of smearing ‘Thiruneeru’ was not known. Ammaiyar mentions that the God smears all over His body, the ‘neeru’. She does not mention anywhere that the devotees wore it.

2 Ganapati worship is very popular only in these two regions. In old Tamil literature, there was no mention of Ganapati. So this must have come from Maharashtra along with the immigrants.

3 Prof. K.A. Nilakanta Satri, a noted historian, says in history of South India that the skull of a good number of Tamil Brahmins resemble that of Chitpavan Brahmins of Maharashtra.

4 In our daily Sandhyavandanam, we bow to the River Narmada. Why is Narmada chosen when Ganga was from long ago considered the holiest river? The immigrants, by way of remembrance of their ancestral land continued to bow to the river of the place.
5 Please note that the Vaishnavas do not do this namaskaram to Narmada. This shows that they were the sons of the soil of Tamilnadu.

(more to follow in the next post)
Vaishnavas are also from northern parts,as otherwise next people will say lord krishna was a shaivaite .puranas depict him as an yadava,a cowherd of the royal yadu clan etc.if vadamas are considered northerners so are vadakalais.
When did the first migration take place?

We have seen that in Karaikal Ammaiyar’s verses, there is no mention of devotees wearing Sacred Ash. But in the times of Appar and Thirugnana sambandhar, Thiruneeru has attained a place of importance as a mark of devotees of Siva.

In the same way, Ammaiyar or any of her predecessors in Tamil literature does not mention Ganapati, whereas Ganapati is regarded as the son of Siva in the verses of Appar and Thirugnana Sambandar.

Ammaiyar is considered to belong to 5th century and Appar and Thirugnana Sambandar belonged to 7th century. Based on the above, we can assume that the first migration which brought Ganapati and Sacred Ash took place between these periods.

Brahacharanam is mentioned in the inscriptions of Pallava. So they might have come a little later. Rajendra Chola of the 11th century is said to have brought 8ooo Brahmins from the north and founded a colony for them in Kanchipuram District and this place was called Ennayiram. These were the Ashtra Sahasram.

Not much is known about the Vathimars. Perhaps they could have come from Madhya desa, that is between the Vindhyas and the Tamil region. Or, they could have been brought specifically for teaching in Veda Patasalas.

Regarding Swarna Keshyas, it is said that they were traders in gold. Such gold trading Brahmins existed in Sangam period also.

The aborigine-Brahmins of Tamil land were known variously in various places. The Deekshitars of Chidambaram, the Nambiars of Avudaiyarkoil, the Thirusuthanthirars of Thirusendoor, the Brahmarayars and Nainars of Thiruvarur, Prathama Sakhi, Thruna Bhattan and Ayya Nambi of Thiruvanaikovil, the Bhattars of southern districts and the Thenkalai Vaishnavas who are known as Cholias are all included in the list of original Brahmins of Tamilnadu.
vikrama ji
very good postings, most informative ones. i heard that shah of Iran ex king used have a title as ARYA MEHER. if you know about this you may pl update later.

What was the cause of the migrations?

Generally migration occurs under the following four circumstances. Famines, climatic changes, persecution in the homeland or royal invitations from the new land.

Famines or bad climatic conditions could not be a cause for these migrations, because except Brahmins, others did not migrate. There is no evidence of selective persecution of Brahmins in the Narmada belt. Considering the fact that these Brahmins were rewarded with gift of tax-free lands in Tamil land, it is certain that they were invited by the Kings of the times to immigrate into Tamil land.

What necessitated the Kings to bring in large numbers of Brahmins into Tamil land?

The Kalabras ruled over most of the territories in Tamilnadu between 250 and 550 C.E. They patronized Jainism and had taken away the lands of Brahmins which had been gifted to them by earlier Tamil Kings. Most of the Tamil people, including Some Brahmins, followed Jainism and Hinduism was at its lowest ebb. The old Tamil lineage Kings, Chera, Chola, Pandya and Pallavas had not been decimated totally and they were ruling over small principalities.

Among the kings, Pandyas and pallavas patronized Jainism. But the Cholas were staunch Saivites. They wanted to bring resurgence in the culture and religion of Tamil land.

Saivism had just then begun to emerge and it gained popularity among the masses due to the hymns of Karaikal Ammaiyar, the first among the Nayanmars of Saivam. The Chola kings wanted to strengthen Saivam and for this purpose invited Brahmins from the banks of Narmada.

Were there not Brahmins in Tamil land then?

Yes, there were. But some of them had embraced Buddhism and Jainism and others were not so efficient as to fight the Jains and put Hinduism back on its throne.

What made the Chola Kings decide that Narmada Brahmins were better than local ones to develop Saivam?

Laguleesa Pasupatam, a Saiva sect had been born in the Karavan District of present Gujarat in 2nd century C.E. It was also known as Kayarohana Saivam, named after the birth place of its founder. This sect had become established in the Gujarat –Maharashtra regions well by 5th century and the Brahmins of the locality were staunch followers of Saivam which was based on the Vedas. So the Chola Kings thought it fit to bring the Brahmins of this region to strengthen Saivam in Tamil land.That the Narmada Region was a great centre of Vedic learning is known by the fact that Adi Sankara went there for studies under Gauda Pada.

There are three temples in Tamilnadu with the appendage Kayarohanam or Karonam. They are Thiru Nagai Karonam (Nagapattinam), Thiru Kudanthai Karonam (Kumbakonam), and Thiruvotriyur Karonam (Thiruvotriyur). This suggests that these were the places where the immigrants landed first in Tamil land. Two of them are on the sea-shore and the other, Kumbakonam is also not far off. Hence we can assume that the early settlers came by sea.
Brahmin immigration and Sanskritization in Tamil land.

It is generally alleged that Brahmin immigration was the cause for Sanskritzation of Tamil. A close look at historical facts would prove it to be false.

Sanskrit was very much part of Tamilnadu even in the time of Tolkappiam, the most ancient of available Tamil literature. Tolkappiar has used many Sanskrit words and has also gave a name to such words, as thisai sol. It seems there were Sanskrit scholars in this land, irrespective of caste in his time.

During the Sangam age also, Sanskrit existed. But it never interfered with Tamil. Since Sanskrit had always been a literary language and never a spoken language, it was confined to literary circles.

When did the use of Sanskrit in daily life increase in Tamilnadu?

It was after the advent of Jainism and Buddhism that the use of Sanskrit increased. The two religions came from the north and their religious books were in Sooraseni and Pali respectively. (Both were corrupt and colloquial forms of Sanskrit.) The Mahayana Buddhists used Sanskrit in all their works. These people were engaged in proselytizing and they had to contact with the masses. Since some people of this land were familiar with Sanskrit here, this served as the common medium between the northern proselytizers and the local masses. The masses picked up the Sanskrit words from these missionaries. The Buddhist monks by name Dharmapala, Buddhamitra were all Tamils and they assumed Sanskrit names. In contrast, note the names of Brahmins even as late as in 10th and 11th century inscriptions- Sundara Tholudaiyan Bhattan சுந்தரத் தோளுடையான் பட்டன், Bhattan Kooththadi பட்டன் கூத்தாடி, Poovaththa Bhattar பூவத்த பட்டர், Thirukkodikavudaiyan Bhattasya திருக்கோடிக்காவுடையான் பட்டஸ்ய, Thirunageesuramudaiyan Bhattasya திருநாகீசுரமுடையான் பட்டஸ்ய, Manavala Bhattasya மணவாள பட்டஸ்ய, Thirunattamadi Bhattan திருநட்டமாடி பட்டன், Brahmin women had names like Vanduvazh Kuzhali Saani வண்டுவாழ் குழலி சாணி, Allian Kothai அல்லியங்கோதை, Umai Andal உமையாண்டாள், Uyyakkondal உய்யக் கொண்டாள், Kizhakkadaiya Ninral கிழக்கடைய நின்றாள், Thirumalidankondal திருமாலிடங்கொண்டாள், Maankondi மாங்கொண்டி. Of course there were Brahmins with Sanskrit names like Narayana Bhattan, Sarva Kritu Yaji. But all the Buddhist and Jain monks had Sanskrit names only.

Marul Neekkiyar was a Saivite at first. Then he embraced Jainism and became Dharma Senan. Due to his sister’s efforts, he reverted to Saivam again and was known as Thirunavukkarasar and Appar.

Again, Thirunavukkarasar’s poems contain a larger number of Sanskrit words than the Brahmin Saint Thirugnana Sambandar though they were contemporaries.

These all show that Sanskrit spread among the masses and Tamil became mixed only due to the Jain and Buddhist missionaries and not due to the Brahmin immigrants who did not mingle with the local masses enough to influence their speech.
Brahmins- Saivam and Vaishnavam

In the oldest available Tamil literature, the worship of Siva was not mentioned, whereas Murugan, Mayon (Krishna), Indra, Varuna and Kotravai (later identified with Durga) are mentioned as belonging to different kinds of lands. The deities were worshipped in their respective lands and there was no mention of tussle between different worshipers. In Purananooru of the Sangam age, Siva appears, but He is not related either to Muruga or to Mayon. In Thirumurugatruppadai, Paripadal and Kalithogai which are included in Sangam works but belonged to a very late period, Muruga is mentioned as the son of Siva and Uma. Till this period there was no clash between Saivam and Vaishnavam. In fact such names as Saivam and Vaishnavam were not even known.

Slowly, Siva was gaining ascendancy. Senguttuvan (of Silappadhikaram) is mentioned as having given preference to the prasadam of Siva over that of Vishnu. But even then there were no religious clashes. The first three Azhvars have sung songs which make no difference between Siva and Vishnu. It is in Ammaiyar’s songs that we see Siva being given a pre-eminent position over that of Vishnu. She mentions, for the first time, that Siva stood like a huge ball of fire immeasurable by Vishnu and Brahma. Perhaps the Chola kings took the cue from her and began to patronise Saivam in preference to other worships. They invited Brahmins from the north and gave them gifts of lands. Though they did not degrade or insult other worships, we find in the records that Saiva Brahmins were far more numerous in receiving the gifts. So the Saiva Brahmins might have become objects of envy and thus the first seed of dissonance was sown by the economic disparity. That could have also been the cause of resentment of the masses (who worshipped folk gods like Mariamman, Iyyanar etc, and patronise them even today) against the new immigrants, which continues even today.

Please note that the animosity of the TNBs is only against the TBs as a group and never against individual TBs. Individual Brahmins are highly respected by them and sought after by them. This group animosity could have been inherited from the times of immigration, when the sons of the soil found that their favourite gods had lost state patronage and the immigrants prospered economically.

Saivam was so catholic in its outlook that it took within its fold all other worships. We have seen that how Muruga was made a son of Siva in the late Sangam age. The immigrants’ god Ganapati was made another son of Siva.

Yes, there were attempts to bring in Vishnu also in the fold of Saivam. Vishnu was depicted as the brother of Uma. But the Vaishnavas, perhaps, did not like to lose their identity and went on a diverging route. This explains the non-participation of Kallazhagar in the marriage of Meenakshi in Madurai. Kallazhagar was not allowed to proceed further beyond Vaigai, probably by the hard-core Vaishnavas, who were not prepared to heed to the unifying calls of the kings of the period.

Thus ends my serial posting on this thread. For a more comprehensive view of the emergence of Saivam and the role of Brahmins in it, please see the book, வேதநெறியும் சைவத்துறையும் by S.Kothandaraman.

For the attention of Dr.Renuka:- Hope I have answered your query. The Dravidian parties only made use of AIT for their advantage, but the real cause of their resentment against TBs is inherited for more than 1500 years.

I am open to criticism.
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads