Let us consider this..

[Vivek_V]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I am posting this by copying it of another post in "The Great Hindu Tradition" thread. Its been editted, but the general message remains. I post this because these are points I want the community to consider and discuss.

The central question relevant to me here is how people here seem to support DK for its anti-brahmin stance or potrayal of casteism merely as an issue of denial to temple entry - given that casteism is a much bigger problem.

I see people justifying brahmin exiling saying it was necessary - but that didn't solve the issue of casteism did it? And fighting casteism in the method many leaders (not EVR) did by actually reaching to the lowest sections is hardly spoken of here.

Some here clearly seem to support a government which is adamant to not acknowledge the actual legacy of brahmins having reduced it to ficticious ideas of "aryan invaders", when brahmins have contributed to tamil society culturally and even through the freedom struggle. All DK/DMK cares to potray is a negative view of TBs.

I see people accepting the polarization of tamil society as "brahmins and common people" (as Sangom put it, no disrespect to you sir) as correct, even though this polarized view didn't ever exist before in any earlier time.

I see people looking at the caste equation from a pov of only denial of entry to temples, when it has a much larger meaning than that - got to do with violence on dalits, lack of paying wages, ill-treatment in the wealth equation.

I see TBs like Sangom* themselves resigned to a view that it is okay for people to demonize and hate their community, despite the fact that such a judgement would not be fair to me frankly or to a TB born and growing tomorrow as a tamilian and as a brahmin.

And I feel Sangom some others with same opinions, think all this is fine because they have been only made to see a negative part of a large brahmin tradition in India, that found itself in every revolution.

For the same reason do I find Kunjuppu's comparision* to brahmins and the Egyptian dictator completely incorrect. Brahmins were a previlaged society, and like all others in the age had their share of exclusiveness. Brahmins were tamilians by heart, which is why they fought for tamil society, which is why they expanded its literature and music etc.

How is this similar to some dictator of Egypt and his actions?

If people here justify the institutional exiling of brahmins. Let me ask (rhetorically): Should the other rich classes among tamil NBs be exiled for casteism in rural areas?

Or would it be better for society to spread a message for the thinking to change, by changing attitude of seeing the lowest sections? This is why I hold the revolution of Bharatiyar, or organizations like Arya Samaj, or of Rabindranath Tagore, of the modern times higher than that of EVR - they reached to the lowest strata of people and actually wanted to change things, not use it against a community.

The message that people here accept of DK is not one of a tamil society where people can live with respect, because it already has a great deal of negativity in its content - which is why brahmins have been exiled.

TBs of course weren't affected financially because they contributed in work and commerce of other cities in India, or even abroad. But the acceptance to DK policy completely skips over other issues of casteism, for what it is. It skips over the fact that TBs consider themselves Tamilians too.

It surrounds itself around hating brahmins, ignoring their contributions completely and looking at them as "foreign aryan" and as justified in being hated and exiled.

Is all of that justified to this community members? If it is, my moral standing is far varied from that. I would like anyone who sees the anti-brahmin propaganda in good light to justify.

(* Sangom, Kunjuppu, this is not to attack you guys. But I can't understand the sympathatic view you hold for the DK/DMK against the brahmins. If I misconstrued, please explain.)

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[sangom]

I am posting this by copying it of another post in "The Great Hindu Tradition" thread. Its been editted, but the general message remains. I post this because these are points I want the community to consider and discuss.

The central question relevant to me here is how people here seem to support DK for its anti-brahmin stance or potrayal of casteism merely as an issue of denial to temple entry - given that casteism is a much bigger problem.

I see people justifying brahmin exiling saying it was necessary - but that didn't solve the issue of casteism did it? And fighting casteism in the method many leaders (not EVR) did by actually reaching to the lowest sections is hardly spoken of here.

Some here clearly seem to support a government which is adamant to not acknowledge the actual legacy of brahmins having reduced it to ficticious ideas of "aryan invaders", when brahmins have contributed to tamil society culturally and even through the freedom struggle. All DK/DMK cares to potray is a negative view of TBs.

I see people accepting the polarization of tamil society as "brahmins and common people" (as Sangom put it, no disrespect to you sir) as correct, even though this polarized view didn't ever exist before in any earlier time.

I see people looking at the caste equation from a pov of only denial of entry to temples, when it has a much larger meaning than that - got to do with violence on dalits, lack of paying wages, ill-treatment in the wealth equation.

I see TBs like Sangom* themselves resigned to a view that it is okay for people to demonize and hate their community, despite the fact that such a judgement would not be fair to me frankly or to a TB born and growing tomorrow as a tamilian and as a brahmin.

And I feel Sangom some others with same opinions, think all this is fine because they have been only made to see a negative part of a large brahmin tradition in India, that found itself in every revolution.

For the same reason do I find Kunjuppu's comparision* to brahmins and the Egyptian dictator completely incorrect. Brahmins were a previlaged society, and like all others in the age had their share of exclusiveness. Brahmins were tamilians by heart, which is why they fought for tamil society, which is why they expanded its literature and music etc.

How is this similar to some dictator of Egypt and his actions?

If people here justify the institutional exiling of brahmins. Let me ask (rhetorically): Should the other rich classes among tamil NBs be exiled for casteism in rural areas?

Or would it be better for society to spread a message for the thinking to change, by changing attitude of seeing the lowest sections? This is why I hold the revolution of Bharatiyar, or organizations like Arya Samaj, or of Rabindranath Tagore, of the modern times higher than that of EVR - they reached to the lowest strata of people and actually wanted to change things, not use it against a community.

The message that people here accept of DK is not one of a tamil society where people can live with respect, because it already has a great deal of negativity in its content - which is why brahmins have been exiled.

TBs of course weren't affected financially because they contributed in work and commerce of other cities in India, or even abroad. But the acceptance to DK policy completely skips over other issues of casteism, for what it is. It skips over the fact that TBs consider themselves Tamilians too.

It surrounds itself around hating brahmins, ignoring their contributions completely and looking at them as "foreign aryan" and as justified in being hated and exiled.

Is all of that justified to this community members? If it is, my moral standing is far varied from that. I would like anyone who sees the anti-brahmin propaganda in good light to justify.

(* Sangom, Kunjuppu, this is not to attack you guys. But I can't understand the sympathatic view you hold for the DK/DMK against the brahmins. If I misconstrued, please explain.)

Regards,
Vivek.

Shri Vivek,

In one of my posts I had requested you to prepare a write-up explaining your point of view in as much detail and in as persuasive a manner as possible for you, giving pointed attention to elaborate what you term as (1) the brahmins' contributions to eradicating castes, say during the last 200 years, (2) attempts of brahmin community to mingle with the other common people, mix with them in cultural and religious areas, including places of worship (temples and other places where poojas and other types of worship were conducted) during the last 200 years, and (3) any other points which you consider relevant in substantiating your arguments.

You did not bother to prepare such a write-up (article) and this is my second request to you in this regard. I assure you that if your article is really persuasive, in terms of the real worth of its contents - not hard-hitting usages against/denouncements of DK, EVR, myself, Nara, etc., because these tactics will not impress any impartial judge - I am willing to concede that my present pov is not correct. If you are unable to attempt even such a paper-exercise, but prefer to continue wordy duels simply, I will conclude that you have little or no materials/substantial arguments in support of your views and it is just a case of the empty drum...making the biggest noise.

 

[Vivek_V]

Sri Sangom

Consider this above post itself as a write up. I didn't post this as a "duel", but a genuine question from my side on how casteism is considered in TN.

I fail to understand under how it becomes justified for you or many others who seem to support the DK, to vilify a community as "foreign aryan invaders" and exile a community that considered/considers itself very much tamil. How does it become correct in your pov, given that casteism itself is a much bigger equation just denial of entry into temples. I fail to see how that even fought the worst forms of casteism in TN.

You are yourself part of the brahmin community, quiet elderly too; would you say this pov of brahmins by the DK and polarization of TN society is beneficial to say your children or grandchildren who will have an identity of tamils and as brahmins? Does it solve the problems at larger? Do you, yourself accept a view that brahmins have been nothing in TN except a social evil?

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[sangom]

Sri Sangom

Consider this above post itself as a write up. I didn't post this as a "duel", but a genuine question from my side on how casteism is considered in TN.

I fail to understand under how it becomes justified for you or many others who seem to support the DK, to vilify a community as "foreign aryan invaders" and exile a community that considered/considers itself very much tamil. How does it become correct in your pov, given that casteism itself is a much bigger equation just denial of entry into temples. I fail to see how that even fought the worst forms of casteism in TN.

You are yourself part of the brahmin community, quiet elderly too; would you say this pov of brahmins by the DK and polarization of TN society is beneficial to say your children or grandchildren who will have an identity of tamils and as brahmins? Does it solve the problems at larger? Do you, yourself accept a view that brahmins have been nothing in TN except a social evil?

Regards,
Vivek.

Sorry, Vivek, it is not. It does not meet the requirement of a write-up which will give the efforts made by brahmins and the brahmin community during the last two centuries nor is it persuasive to the public. It is just a repetition of your accusations made in this forum only; public will not be interested in all that. So, pl. try as if you are going to a public meeting and addressing the people at large and trying to convince them about the brahmins' contribution to removal of caste barriers made during the last two hundred years. You can have Bal Thackeray's early articles of the sixties in Saamnaa as models, in case you are conversant with Marathi and learn how to write persuasively.

 

[Iyyarooraan]

How to wish ourselves away

:Cry:At the outset let me be clear that I am not interested in joining the debates which are neither helping the Brahmins nor the so called non-Brahmins. We have enemy within ourselves. It is a fashion from independence movement days to jump on the bandwagon and shout "jay-jay" in chores with others.
These people do not become advocates of truth; they are themselves the travesty of truth. Here and there, there was goonda-giri by the thuggy Brahmins. But the majority were just lambs. With fasting on auspicious days, and other forbidden days, they were weak and could not be considered for manual work or in the fields. Had they tried that, a good number of non-Brahmins would have been wiped out by starvation. Left to starve, a good number of them seized the opportunity to work in offices of the British Raj.
British did not come to India on the strength of these "super humans" - Brahmins. They could make use of them and the Brahmins were happy being arasaanga uzhiyarkal. There were a very few Brahmin landlords and 4x more non-Brahmin landlords. The post-independence improvements were for all, including Brahmins.
They have chosen a life style of their own and wanted to live that way which never meant to inconvenience or deprive others. If you are awed by that and kept away, it was your own doing. It is a consistent propaganda for political short-cuts. Did ever any Brahmin become as rich as DMK and its clan. The oldest TVS company may never think of beating kazhaga enterprises even today. Are the protagonists will come forward to say these wealths were snatched away from those entrenched Brahmins? Enough of winding string of flowers around our ears ourselves.
Truth can and will walk alone. It is time the defeatists swerved from the sadistic self-inflicting path. If somebody gets doctorate degrees on these subjects, it is their privilege and some achievement of their own. That does not become a gospel truth. Temple entry: I have strong doubt it was ever an anti-caste idea. In the matter of hygiene and self upkeep they kept themselves away which became a practice. History and stories are replete with all kind of people scoring over others. Sooner we realize the truth than others, better it would be for us.

 

[Vivek_V]

Sri Sangom - Its a simple question to you about what you accept to be moral.

My conversation is with no public. Just yourself and the forum here.

Its a question of asking yourself and other TBs if they see TBs as only a social evil, who have done nothing for tamil society. Is this what makes you agree with the rhetoric and policy of DK?

Is it justified to you that DK acknowledges in no measure, the role of brahmins in freedom struggle or in taking India to the modern era, or of Bharatiyar, nor made an appeal to stop casteism to society in general before attacking the brahmins?

My first post is open for all TBs to answer about the community and what they feel (including yourself), about the DK policy, rhetroic being part of it. I certainly don't see why you need me to type anything more than what I already have.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[kunjuppu]

dear vivek,

in every society or group, there is the mainstream and there are the reformists. i think what i have been trying to point out is essentially mainstream tambram thinking.

bharathiyaar was a reformist. to some extent vaidyanatha iyer, rajaji et al were also reformist, though in my opinion, not enough. none of the tambram reformers bar bharathiyar went to the full extreme to get rid of systemic prejudice.

as a mainstream tambram, to claim a seal of reformism, i think, is not quite right particularly when the aims and goals of reforms are very clear - get rid of the warped thinking imposed on the entire hindu fold by manu and his cohorts.

in our society, tambrams had branded the hindu community into two - us and 'them' - the 'them' being everyone other than us tambrams. i hardly know of a tambram household where the word shudra is not used, openly or discretely.

us tambrams do not differentiate the various groupings within the shudras - probably many of us do not even know the chasm that lies between a mudaliar or saiva pillai & the dalit - because to us all of them are beyond the pale. atleast it was so, historically.

all it takes for us to appreciate the situation of the disadvantaged is to experience discrimination ourselves. had you been in bombay of the 60s, you might have had a confrontation with the then vibrant shiv sena.

you might even have wondered, how someone, who went to the same temple, had the same gods and practised the same rituals, could spew so much hatred at their fellow co-religionist?

a little bit of introspection, might give some insight into the thinking of periyar. periyar, like all leaders of those days, started off with the congress, and perhaps realized that he had no chance of swimming against the current of casteism structurally practised within the then tambram dominated congress.

our menfolk have been known to spout reformist theory, attend congress meeting, and then come and meekly bend to the madi strictures of the mami. none of the reforms came inside the agraharam. tradition ruled the roost inside the tambram household, and to an extent, it still does in many of our rituals. these such as shradham, upanayanam, pondugal idal etc are exclusive tambram function, where a scoundrel tambram has a place, but not a saintly shudra.

so, it is in this context, i think, it is not right for folks here to claim to be heirs of reformism.

i think, if at all there elements of current generation, have eschwed the worst aspects of casteism, it is due to thinking of periyar and suchlikes - who made ita social ostracism to practise the ஒத்திப்போ culture in public.

this, periyar did by asserting the numerical presence of shudras and using that to influence elections, and with that, make it structurally posisble through legal governance, to rid the tamil nadu government and society of tambram influence.

it has been a complete transformation and what we are seeing now, is the remnants of this residual hatred - on one side by folks in DK, and certain tambrams here.

today DK and tambrams are a spent force in tamilnadu. the transformation is complete, and it does not behoove of us here to waste our time and energy bad mouthing periyar. the shudras in various facets benefitted from periyar's legacy - some more so than the others. but then, between them, they consider it THEIR business, and do not want a tambram to meditate. to them, it would be like to ask a cat to split the spoils that is a jug of milk.

it is a wonder, that with periyar's fiery attitude, that the bathtub that is tamil hinduism did not get thrown away with the bathwater that was the erstwhile tambram casteism. to me, it is obvious that the socalled shudras, just wanted a fair share of the pie, and when they percieved that it was denied them, they moved ahead and grabbed it. as, over the ages, tamil hinduism is thriving, and this no thanks to periyar or tambrams. it just is tamil society.

us tambrams we lost. and as losers, some of us, are still licking the wounds, while most of us have moved on.

one word on our migration. nobody exiled us. we were the first south indian community to smell out bright career prospects out of our own home state. (the other was the bengali). starting 1920, we spanned the length and breadth of greater british india (india,burma, ceylon, malaya etcc) in search of jobs. later, post independence it was the usa, and later followed by the mid east and singapore.

all it needed was one family to send word of good job, handsome pay and good living condition. the immediate relatives and later the whole agraharam followed. this, more than any other, explains the abandoned agraharams in tamil nadu and kerala. not any organized pogroms by hordes of DK, though it would be a convenient pillow of thought for us to shed our tears of lost social standing.

to sum up, as a result of the dravidian revolution of 1967, tambrams lost job opportunities in tamil nadu government, admissions in tamil nadu government medical or engineering schools - all of which are of no consequence in the education or job world of today.

i think what hurts, is the utter contempt which periyar managed to inculcate among the 'shudras' against the tambrams - this loss of presitige and respect, only to be replaced by contempt and a comedic stereotyping as we see in tamil movies. boy, that hurts. does it not?

the tamil society found that not only can it get along fine, but prosper well enough to be among the top performing states in india, without the help of tambrams. it is upto us, as a community, whether we want to retain some part of the 'tamil' in the 'tamil brahmins' in us. the rest of the world does not care. they have moved on.

even our supposed 'friends' in new delhi, are now cohorts of the DMK. to me, it only shows, that other groups, are willing to forgive, forget, count their losses, and move on to the next game in town. we, on the other hand, appear to have been grounded to such an extent, that i think, some of us are digging deeper in despair and anger over our 'loss'. if that be the attitude, how can there be any redemption?

thank you.

ps. when i was in chennai recently, there happened to be a shraddham of a beloved uncle. when invited for the function, i excused myself, explaining my attitudes, practices (or absence of) and outlook. pat came my orthodox aunt's answer, 'kannaa, we would not do the function without you. uncle would not have had it any other way. you MUST come'. how many within our community, in this day and age, would exhibit such unconditional love. is it not the norm, to shun family members from certain functions for non conformity - whether it be of food habits or marrying outside the caste?

 

[Vivek_V]

Sri Kunjuppu - Was it necessary to present TBs as the only social evil?

"in our society, tambrams have branded the hindu community into two - us and 'them' - the 'them' being everyone other than us tambrams. i hardly know of a tambram household where the word shudra is not used, openly or discretely. "

Then tell me how this dicotomy of "us and them" with regard to brahmin thinking doesn't seem to exist before the DK came to prominance?
Was it brahmins who made up ideas of them being "aryans" and others "dravidians" or was it the DK? Brahmins in TN considered themselves Tamils, and like all upper castes had their share of exclusivist living. I agree that was wrong, but it is also wrong IMO for DK to have polarized society the way it did.

"us tambrams do not differentiate the various groupings within the shudras - probably many of us do not even know the chasm that lies between a mudaliar or saiva pillai & the dalit - because to us all of them are beyond the pale. atleast it was so, historically."

Is skin colour the issue brahmins brought up or the political ruling, in its speak of "aryans and dravidians"? When in history in TN do we see this being an issue of being paler or not?

"all it takes for us to appreciate the situation of the disadvantaged is to experience discrimination ourselves. had you been in bombay of the 60s, you might have had a confrontation with the then vibrant shiv sena. "

I was not born in the 60s (in 88), my parents would have been children at this time and they were in Mumbai. You see Kunjuppu, while I completely agree that the tendencies of tambrams were bad towards many in society, this issue was seen as "brahmins and others", not as those who discriminate and those who are discriminated.

This is why tamil dalits still face discrimination. I certainly also believe casteism is much more than just denial into temples. That was just the brahmin part of the discrimination, not the entireity of it. That is why I believe an anti-brahmin political rehtoric was categorically wrong - especially when brahmins considered themselves very much tamil and sought to expand into tamil culture - its literature, music etc. Does it then justify for labelling TBs "aryan foreigners".

"these such as shradham, upanayanam, pondugal idal etc are exclusive tambram function, where a scoundrel tambram has a place, but not a saintly shudra."

These are brahmin functions. This is what I fail to understand - why is casteism reduced (in people's minds here) to something of this sort when its much bigger. Would it matter if other castes had rituals which had no place of brahmins? Not to me. Or if Parsees don't allow me in their Agiary? Hinduism is too eclectic, and I can completely understand the feeling dalits will have when a place of worship doesn't permit them. But this is just one facet of casteism, isn't it?

"so, it is in this context, i think, it is not right for folks here to claim to be heirs of reformism. "

Well if they are inspired by it why not? I think the TB community should be interested in the reformist part of their past too.

" it is due to thinking of periyar and suchlikes - who made ita social ostracism to practise the ஒத்திப்போ culture in public. "

And why is it that in Periyar's own TN casteism still exists? I think the change in TBs has to do with having got a broader vision of our countries future, not with Periyar. Brahmins like C.V. Raman, or other freedom fighters themselves had these visions of the country's future before Periyar came to priminance.

"this, periyar did by asserting the numerical presence of shudras and using that to influence elections, and with that, make it structurally posisble through legal governance, to rid the tamil nadu government and society of tambram influence. "

It would have been good for EVR to spead the idea that education is important, instead of driving out the brahmins IMO.

"us tambrams we lost. and as losers, some of us, are still licking the wounds, while most of us have moved on."

We continue to "lose" if we have opinions like that of Sangom who believe that our only place is to keep quiet and accept our tradition as that of a social evil. Because such a view clearly doesn't justify our other positive roles in TN society.

"the transformation is complete, and it does not behoove of us here to waste our time and energy bad mouthing periyar. the shudras in various facets benefitted from periyar's legacy - some more so than the others."

You are wrapping up this issue by speaking of "sudras and brahmins". And this dicotonomical view comes from the brahmins or from DK's ideology of "aryans and dravidians"?

"i think what hurts, is the utter contempt which periyar managed to inculcate among the 'shudras' against the tambrams - this loss of presitige and respect, only to be replaced by contempt and a comedic stereotyping as we see in tamil movies. boy, that hurtrs. does it not?"

I live in Mumbai. Probably in my lifetime, I will never get to learn the tamil language, as spoken or live in tamil society. What I am uneasy with is the grossly negative image tamilians seem to have of TBs, or even TBs like Sangom seem to have of themselves. They believe there is no place for a reform, while retaining their identity because they seem to think their tradition that follows their identity is nothing but evil.

"even our supposed 'friends' in new delhi, are now cohorts of the DMK. to me, it only shows, that other groups, are willing to forgive, forget, count their losses, and move on to the next game in town. we, on the other hand, appear to have been grounded to such an extent, that i think, some of us are digging deeper in despair and anger over our 'loss'. if that be the attitude, how can there be any redemption?"

The past is indeed the past. But this is not just a loss of the past. The present loss is just that tamil society has come to label exclusively brahmins for the evils of casteism, when casteism is a much broader issue practiced by many castes. Its come to a point when some TBs themselves have been made to feel that being a brahmin was about nothing but being a social evil.

The prevailant ideology seems to not even consider TBs tamils, when TBs however, consider/considered themselves tamil and were even too proud of that identity, of the language etc. When my mom tells me how much she feels "tamil language is her life", or how much she likes TN etc, I can't understand this inclination to a society whose ruling polity (in TN) considered her an outsider and she herself used to live in MUmbai (ut visit TN in holidays). She grew in Mumbai, as my father did too.

Lastly, fighting of casteism in TN seems to have been wrapped into an issue of denial of temple entry, when actually seeing the nature of how dalits are treated its much more than that. Over this we will have people who argue that these people who ill-treat, be they even NBs, got a caste ticket from brahmins and are following brahmin instruction, for which brahmins are thus to blame. Is this view justified to you? The evil of casteism is considered to be a puppet show played by brahmins.

Kunjuppu as a personal opinion, do you agree to the DK's policy of institutionally exiling the TBs? Frankly, I would have agreed to a society that reformed as a whole, not ostracizing one group.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[kunjuppu]

Vivek,

Hopefully, I have been giving you my view, of an enlarged vision, of the ‘cause and effect’ situation re tambrams in tamilnadu.

From what I knew, it was us who initiated the divide, and for a time, it was popular to refer us as ‘aryans’ and the rest as ‘dravids’, all supposedly based on our fairness or பிராமண களை
. I cannot think of a more stupid self delusionment than this – in my own family about 50% would not qualify to be termed tambrams, based on their features.

This ignorant boast, among many others have come to haunt us.

At this point, I think, the stuructures have not only solidified and as tambrams, we can believe whatever we want. The tamil world, and increasingly the delhi world, has passed us by. We are a nonentity.

The fact that we are in small numbers, vis a vis the population of india, and we are able to prosper by our wits, has ensured our continuing existence.

There was heated discussions re intercaste marriages here a while ago. again there appears to be strong opinions expressed here against ic marriages, whereas it appears to be happening in real life.

All of which makes me think, what we believe and what is reality, may be two different things. Perhaps we feel comfortable to live in a world of our imagination and wishful thinking. It definitely will provide more solace than current realities. Who knows?

Thank you.

 

[Vivek_V]

Sri Kunujppu - Who really did start the aryan-dravidian divide?

The aryan-dravidian divide to my knowledge was made by the British originally and at one time accepted universally after which its come to doubt. The NCERT board still teaches "Aryan Invasion" like a fact, when its been challenged and numerous inconsistencies have been show in it.

All that apart, to my knowledge it was not the brahmins, but the DK which used it in its politics of TN. I never saw the aryan-dravidian idea being regarded among brahmins, or ideas of paleness and darkness - we can even see dark skinned people among TBs for that matter. At what point were they considered less brahmin?

Should we refer to the quotes of EVR?

"The tamil world, and increasingly the delhi world, has passed us by. We are a nonentity."

Does that go to say that we are regarded as non-tamilians? Or that we are seen as tacitly agreeing to the accusations and early policy of DK?

We considered ourselves tamil to the fullest extent, and have our place in the legacy of tamil culture - all of which was ignored while regarding us foreigners. We believed we are tamilians, while the ruling polity didn't.

My question is: As a TB, would you continue to behave in a manner like the DK rhetoric against our community was right in considering us non-tamil people?

While obviously one personal opinion is a drop, its the opinion of TBs in general that tell our attitude towards what had happened.

To conclude, we can possibly let this chapter of DK 's rhetoric pass, but doing that could mean to others that we tacitly agree to the label given to us, or the exclusive blame of casteism that was/is put on us.

And I don't believe that presents the truth of the matter, nor absolves our community's name with casteism in TN being put exclusively on brahmins.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Vivek Sir,

Greetings. Our academic qualifications, exposure to various literature, mastery of different languages, experience gained through maturity, experience gained through years of life on this planet.....and many other factors form individual opinions.

Our opinions vary quite dramatically about the same given subject.

I have seen through my experiences, such opinions are likely to change as we gather more and more life experiences.

In my opinion, your outlook would likely change too. I see a healthy discussion sometimes turns into unhealthy arguments when one or more participants attempt to 'prove their points'.

I am requesting you to refrain from conducting long, drawn out discussions/debates with other members. I for one, as such gets discouraged to read very long posts; if it is a very long debate, I ask myself, is it important for me to know that subject in detail? Most often than not, the answer turns out to be 'No'. I am sure, the forum is made of more members like me than the members who read them. (The 'viewed' counter is misleading; a large number of views does not mean a large number of readership.The reader may have moved on after just a glance at a long post).

I sincerely believe, if you make simple and short messages, you would have more readership and more participations.

Since this topic is 'Let us consider this....', I am adding my point of views and request you and others to consider this too, please. Thanks.

Cheers!

 

[C RAVI]

Sri Raghy,

IMHO, there are some topics, discussions on which, would lead to detailing as much as possible as arguments & counter arguments, to express views and clear the points. This is inevitable, subject to the nature/significance of the topic, that two or a group of members would like to participate & explore to the fullest. When interested parties are in debating, such topics often would attract longer posts. And such long posts would not be ignored to read by the participating members.

The only bothering point in such discussions are, one or few members of the interested group, ends in changing the tone and or usage of words/expression due, either unable to withstand others POV or disappointed to have not been accepted, one's POV and that triggers some kind of unrest. If we could determine to quit our self from that particular topic, after having been fully exhausted our self with our views, knowledge & understanding, many unpleasant situations can be thwarted. If still been challenged by other member(s) to respond to him/her, one can simply leave a note as one feels. For example - "I have enjoyed sharing my views with you (/with you all) here and have nothing to say more".

 

[Vivek_V]

Sri Raghy - I try to keep posts short

I agree that long posts become boring to read. I have tried to type my posts to the point. In this thread, apart from my first post and the previous one to Kunjuppu, I feel my posts have not been long. My question in this thread is a simple question. Instead, Sangom asks me to make a write up.

Kunjuppu refered to a division in tamil society, I have followed that and pointed to the original politics surrounding it. My post was long because I had to highlight Kunjuppu's post too, which was quiet long itself. From what I can see the negative, "abracadabra" idea Sangom has of brahmins in India, as a social evil is a wrapped up and incorrect idea. It a not disrespect for ourself from which show respect to others.

What outlook of mine would you like to change? I am saying we need to be treated like everyone else, and not as a social evil. I am saying we need to respect ourselves as we do others. I am saying our tradition is a mixed bag and we should enrich the better part of our legacy. Does this outlook need change according to you?

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

Btw, I don't see why this topic is considered a "duel" (as Sangom put it) or a "debate". All I am asking here is a simple question: If TBs here support the rhetoric DK used against brahmins, or if they consider their historical position as nothing but a social evil. I am asking if it was right presenting us as non-tamils, but instead as "aryan invaders".

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[kunjuppu]

vivek,

one of the characterestics of hinduism, as i see it, is its tendency to absorb external or reformist ideas and make it mainstream.

kushans, mauryas et al may be alient to bharat, but they have become part of bharat lore.

gautama the buddha was essentially anti brahmin. today we have many tambram boys named siddharth or gautam, we have buddha vikrahams in our home, for kolu or otherwise, occupying proud space with ganesa.

vardhamana was equally anti brahmin but today the followers of vardhamana are as many hindus or jains.

nowadays we even see jesus christ and the manger scenes in some kolus, and christian houses have kuthuvelakkus.

the only religion that has defied indianization is islam, though our sufi traditions are indeed a blur between hard hitting monotheism from arabia, and the easy going spirituality of the sub continent.

vivekananda or dayanand saraswati or narayana guru too started off as reformers. very soon they became part of the hindu establishment, their teachings watered down, and margnialized.

whether deliberately or systemically, the brahmin hinduism has its way of absorbing 'reforms' and turning it topsy turvy against the intended underclass, and succeed in floating back to the top again.

periyar realized this. his uncompromising anti brahminism was the only way, he could avoid the absorption of his DK social movement, while he was alive, and be a catalyst to the extent of social reforms that was accomplished at his urgings.

just look at it now. barely 38 years since his death, periyar is a non entity a la mohandas gandhi. periyar's views are watered down to make a mockery of him, and apparently superstition and horoscopes are the order of the day!

had periyar compromised and tempered down his anti brahmin reformistic message, i feel, tamil nadu will still be under the de facto sway of vedic hinduism as opposed to the current revived tamil hinduism. i think, he viewed that one cannot stoke out the fire without choking the firewood. even periyar realized that unless he not only initiate but enforce it during his lifetime, there was little chance of the social revolution succeeding.

today, it has also become fashion to add a political theme in one corner of the kolu. i have seen statuettes of nehru, patel, gandhi, indira, rajiv and a few others. i think it is only a matter of time we will see periyar and MK, may not be in my lifetime, but definitely within the next 25 years. such is the absorption power of hinduism - adopt the reformers and bury them in a heap of praises, but carry on as ever before.

thank you.

 

[sangom]

Shri Kunjuppu,

Though you may be otherwise aware, the atmosphere in Madras Presidency turned against tabras much earlier than EVR's coming as leader. Kindly see this post of mine.

Though "the brahmin hinduism has its way of absorbing 'reforms' and turning it topsy turvy against the intended underclass, and succeed in floating back to the top again" as you very rightly put it, in the Madras Presidency it did not succeed; the reforms which were there for discerning people to see but most probably the smug tabras of the day overlooked the omens.

 

[kunjuppu]

Shri Kunjuppu,

Though you may be otherwise aware, the atmosphere in Madras Presidency turned against tabras much earlier than EVR's coming as leader. Kindly see this post of mine.

Though "the brahmin hinduism has its way of absorbing 'reforms' and turning it topsy turvy against the intended underclass, and succeed in floating back to the top again" as you very rightly put it, in the Madras Presidency it did not succeed; the reforms which were there for discerning people to see but most probably the smug tabras of the day overlooked the omens.

thank you sangom. yes, i am aware of the anti brahmin feeling of the south have its roots in late 19th century, but i will let you unfurl it in your own elegant way, in the 'south india history glimpses thread'. i have alluded to such in other random posts of past, but these are no way as detailed and indexed as your history. good stuff. please keep going....

sangom, a flash just passed through my mind as i was penning the previous para.

i wonder if we are in the process of seeing the creation of neo brahmins. already every branch of MK's family has married into tambrams, and so has many other influential politcal families of tamil nadu (eg.Chidambaram, C.Subramaniam, Kumaramangalams etc.).

is it only a matter of time, before these group together with their earlier nemesis ie the tambram eorthodoxy, and like the proverbial phoenix rise from the ashes of the old, for yet another sway in tamil nadu?

let it only be a flash of thought.. and never be reality

 

[Vivek_V]

Sri Kunjuppu

"gautama the buddha was essentially anti brahmin."

No he wasn't Kunjuppu. The word brahmin actually had a meaning throughout India during Buddha's time. The problem today is people view religion differently compared to how people did in the past. If you notice, on large part Buddhism thrived in India and even expanded outside of it because of brahmins who accepted from earlier astika ("Hindu" to say) schools who went to spread it.

That is not a part of history the anti-brahmin brigades are interested in. And this selective potrayal of history to justify hate against a community is exactly what I am speaking against.

"whether deliberately or systemically, the brahmin hinduism has its way of absorbing 'reforms' and turning it topsy turvy against the intended underclass, and succeed in floating back to the top again."

Which reforms were made to "succeeding to float back again"?

I am not denying that as an upper caste, brahmins have a negative part history - but that is not all of it, or it was not their only existence in tamil society.

Casteism is not a brahmin-NB issue, even though this forum tends to see it as one, or DK spread it like it was. The brahmin part of the equation was denial into temples, but there are other facets to it that go unspoken of here.

I actually stand for a society were all people have equal opportunities, and one in which a person is not hated on basis of his caste (be it an upper or lower) caste. DK (not brahmins) has polarized tamil society in that way, at a time when brahmins regarded themselves tamil too.

Does it become right in your pov? It doesn't in my sense of morality. If people disliked that brahmins held positions during British India, and in the new India, its understandable.

When I do support opening doors and spreading a message to other communities so that they could work up to grab those positions fairly, I am against DK's rhetoric of spreading hate against the community and justify an institutional exile of it. Lastly, the movement hardly did anything for tamil dalits or in fighting casteism.

I am asking to you, as a tamilian, do you find it justified that you need to be considered a non-tamilian because you are a brahmin? Does it do justice to the larger role brahmins have had in tamil society? I don't feel it does.

"had periyar compromised and tempered down his anti brahmin reformistic message, i feel, tamil nadu will still be under the de facto sway of vedic hinduism as opposed to the current revived tamil hinduism."

And what is Vedic hinduism to you?

EVR could have actually been a good reformer if he spread a positive message. Of education and its place of importance in civlization. This he didn't do. Casteism hasn't been tackled either. The reform EVR did bring was to polarize tamil society, on his ticket to power. Apparently, this is so appealing to many.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

Sri Sangom

Brahmins holding posts doesn't still justify anti-brahminism. It doesn't become fair, that one community does hold positions in office, but the a message for equal opportunities is correct, while that of justifying hating is wrong. In some part it was their culture which enabled this, and due to that too, brahmins in good part, took India to the modern era too.

I would have indeed supported DK to make education avaliable to all castes, allow them to take opportunities in the New India, instead of putting reservations and institutionally exile the brahmins. Beyond that it went to spew a venom against a community of being "aryan foreigners" when TBs had themselves considered themselves tamils.

How this becomes justified in your sense of morality is beyond my understanding. I am not saying brahmins had only a negative or positive contribution - like all upper castes, it was mixed. The view DK put forward though, to play divisive against a community merely because they held a position from the British raj is not justified to me. Brahmins were in those positions because they followed the new changes in the era. At the sametime its not like brahmins invited the British to take over India, they were part of the freedom struggle too.

Regards,
Vivek.