Wikipedia article about Kerala Iyers

[subbudu1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sangom,
I read through the Gurkkal Brahmins wikipedia entry. It says

Rajaraja – I and the later Kings were given diksha by the Madhya Gouda desa Sivacaryas

If this quotation is true, then most certainly we have a clear link of Gurukkals with North India. I would then see that the claim of Gurukkals that they were vadamas not bogus at all. Which would be madya gauda desa. While the link mentions kashmir, I would most certainly read it as Bengal or Madya pradesh as we till now have evidences of people immigrating from these regions. May be there were more than one divisions among them and one of the divisions would point to Kashmir. How did they be vegetarians if they were from Bengal? There are clear pointers that there were many vegetarians among Bengali brahmins with fish being the only form of non vegetarian consumption. May be that too was not universal but there are some bengali brahmins who say that their ancestors converted to meat eating during the numerous famines of Bengal. The subject is interesting.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom,
I read through the Gurkkal Brahmins wikipedia entry. It says

If this quotation is true, then most certainly we have a clear link of Gurukkals with North India. I would then see that the claim of Gurukkals that they were vadamas not bogus at all. Which would be madya gauda desa. While the link mentions kashmir, I would most certainly read it as Bengal or Madya pradesh as we till now have evidences of people immigrating from these regions.

Dear Shri subbudu,

Many many things in history of India are unclear; only we can go on discussing probabilities. IMO saiva siddhanta is an offshoot of Kashmiri Saivism, which is based on the Tantric system of belief. Naturally, there must have been some link with Kashmir for Saivism to have taken roots here as Saiva siddhanta, even though Linga worship, siva worship etc., might have been existing in ancient (pre-cangam even) Tamilakam.

One set of scholars believe that the agastyar legend signifies one mass exodus from the present day Dwaraka area, under the leadership of some brahmins. The only things which we may somewhat confidently assert may be,
1. there must have been movement of people between north and south from pre-historic times themselves.
2. since IV type graffiti has been found in recent excavations from Coimbatore areas, and these samples belong to the megalithic era, there was awareness of IVC even in those days.

Our theories of caste system, absence thereof, etc., etc., may not be the final words.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

One set of scholars believe that the agastyar legend signifies one mass exodus from the present day Dwaraka area, under the leadership of some brahmins.

It is often claimed that only arya brahmins came from north and with them brought this varna classifcation and subjugated native south dravidian people. However, evidences contradicting this theory can be found in sangam tamil literature.

For example, this புறநானூறு song talks about தமிழக வேந்தர் வேளிர் குடியினர் coming from north.

நீயே வடபால் முனிவன் தடவினுட் தோன்றி
செம்பு புனைந்தியற்றிய சேணெடும் புரிசை
உவரா வீகைத் துவரை யாண்டு
நாற்பத் தொன்பது வழிமுறை வந்த
வேளிருள் வேளே விறற் போரண்ணல்" (புறம் : 201)

இப்புறநானூற்றுப் பாடலில், தமிழக வேளிர் குடியினர் சங்ககாலத்திற்கு 49 தலைமுறைக்கு முன் வட இந்தியாவிலுள்ள துவாரகையை ஆண்ட அரசகுலத்தவரின் வழிவந்தவர்கள் என்ற செய்தி பதிவாகியுள்ளது.

There are references to this agasthiyar legend that Sangom is talking about in Tolkappiyam.

துவராபதி போந்து நிலங்கடந்த
நெடுமுடியண்ணல் வழிக் கண்ணரசர்
பதினெண்மாயும், பதினெண்குடி
வேளிருள்ளிட் டாரையு மருவா
ளரையுங் கொண்டு போந்து காடு கெடுத்து நாடாக்கி". (தொல்: எழுத்ததிகாரம்)

That is the groups identified as தமிழக அரச குலத்தவர் came from the north with agasthiyar and brahmins.

 

[Yamaka]

It is often claimed that only arya brahmins came from north and with them brought this varna classifcation and subjugated native south dravidian people. However, evidences contradicting this theory can be found in sangam tamil literature.

For example, this புறநானூறு song talks about தமிழக வேந்தர் வேளிர் குடியினர் coming from north.

நீயே வடபால் முனிவன் தடவினுட் தோன்றி
செம்பு புனைந்தியற்றிய சேணெடும் புரிசை
உவரா வீகைத் துவரை யாண்டு
நாற்பத் தொன்பது வழிமுறை வந்த
வேளிருள் வேளே விறற் போரண்ணல்" (புறம் : 201)

இப்புறநானூற்றுப் பாடலில், தமிழக வேளிர் குடியினர் சங்ககாலத்திற்கு 49 தலைமுறைக்கு முன் வட இந்தியாவிலுள்ள துவாரகையை ஆண்ட அரசகுலத்தவரின் வழிவந்தவர்கள் என்ற செய்தி பதிவாகியுள்ளது.

There are references to this agasthiyar legend that Sangom is talking about in Tolkappiyam.

துவராபதி போந்து நிலங்கடந்த
நெடுமுடியண்ணல் வழிக் கண்ணரசர்
பதினெண்மாயும், பதினெண்குடி
வேளிருள்ளிட் டாரையு மருவா
ளரையுங் கொண்டு போந்து காடு கெடுத்து நாடாக்கி". (தொல்: எழுத்ததிகாரம்)

That is the groups identified as தமிழக அரச குலத்தவர் came from the north with agasthiyar and brahmins.

Hello KB:

The two examples you have cited confirm the migrations from the North.

For a very different angle of thought, I want to know what convincing evidences you have to contradict the migration from North?

(I develop a hypothesis that the low-melanin (lighter skinned) people of the North (40 -45 degree North) slowly migrated towards the South India over a long period (starting in 3000 BCE) spreading their theology and politics. They have inter-married with the high-melanin people of the South to create a hue of skin colors in the contemporary India.)

I am collecting support for this hypothesis from very many sources and angles.

Cheers.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Hello KB:

The two examples you have cited confirm the migrations from the North.

For a very different angle of thought, I want to know what convincing evidences you have to contradict the migration from North?

Hello Yamaka,

As you may be aware, these migration or invasion theories are often propounded to create an impression that

a) only the brahmins migrated
b) the tamil brahmins are a different race from all other groups in TN.

The examples that I posted show that it is NOT only the brahmins who were migrating.

The verse from Tolkappiyam even claims that the groups that came from Dwaraka were involved in building the tamil country as was known to exist. Refer to "காடு கெடுத்து நாடாக்கி.."

 

[Yamaka]

Hello Yamaka,

As you may be aware, these migration or invasion theories are often propounded to create an impression that

a) only the brahmins migrated
b) the tamil brahmins are a different race from all other groups in TN.

The examples that I posted show that it is NOT only the brahmins who were migrating.

The verse from Tolkappiyam even claims that the groups that came from Dwaraka were involved in building the tamil country as was known to exist. Refer to "காடு கெடுத்து நாடாக்கி.."

KB:

I get the point.

I don't want to use word like "Invasion", but prefer "human migration" which is normal.

For example, I believe the Southern and Northern Migration of humans from the Great Rift Valley of Africa (near Lake Victoria) where early humans evolved from our predecessors...This Migration probably happened about 50,000 years ago.

I believe about 5000 years ago, some of the people from the North (about 45 degree N from the Equator) starting moving Southward toward India (Indonesia etc) ..

From the melanin content of my own family, we have genetic evidence of both wild type gene(s) for melanin AND its mutant allele(s) of the North, thus proving the inter-marriage between the two groups.

Therefore, I don't support any form of Aryan/Dravidian bigotry as a matter of RACE - I strongly oppose racial bigotry anywhere in the world, including India and North America.

That's my sociology and politics.

Cheers.

 

[happyhindu]

In short, NB casteists will not be faulted. But brahmin casteists will be! Sheer hypocrisy.

No one said that.

It appears that it matters even today. Unabashed NB casteists in this forum are able to get away as long they indulge in brahmin bashing.

Please spell out who are the unabashed casteists?

Casteism was created to benefit NB varnas such as kshatriyas and vaisyas. As long as these NBs hold on to caste, nothing can be done about it!

There was nothing ever called Khsatriya and Vaishya varnas. The dominant brahmins of the colonial period themselves said so. Period.

EVR gave a pittance to dalits and kept a lion's share to NBFCs. This fraud is perpetrated until this day in TN.

Proof please?

Thanks for politely asking the brahmins to get out of TN.

No one needs 'brahmins' for tamilnadu to prosper -- this was said wrt to your canard allegations about reservations. It does not mean 'brahmins' need to get out.

Non-tamil Outsiders asking Tamil brahmins to get out is not new to them.

Spell out your definitions of who is a non-tamil outsider.

 

[prasad1]

Using caste, race, color, place of birth, family or any other dividing factor is human bias. This bias codified and allowed by public or private agency is wrong. I can understand that some minority groups had to be given preference for certain time after independence, to level the playing field. This preference should end. The quota system based on race should be abandoned. It will not happen in a society where it is voting block.

I do not have to challenge anyone to produce proof. It happens all the time. If Brahmins used it in the past, the next level used it to their advantage, then the next group cries foul, and they in turn subjugate the next level It is the nature of human working.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Sir,

Thanks for the clarification. As for the points in blue:

However, we do not know if the early cholas imposed birth-based caste rigidity as the later cholas did. (If it was the later Cholas who imposed caste-based rigidity then the smarta brahmins were probably only accessories to the crime, and not the criminals themselves.

The cholas themselves were brahmanical vishwamitras from the puranic view. The period of later Cholas (871 AD to 1279 AD) was when caste-system had rigidified so much that various groups had to fight for basic rights. Please refer to this post. For more details please look up the paper "Struggles for Rights during Later Chola Period" published in "Social Scientist, Vol. 2, No. 6/7 (Jan - Feb 1974), pp. 29-35".

I do not know on what basis can we say brahmins were only accessories to the crime. Please do explain your basis on which you feel so. To me, if one group created loyal vellalar soilders from harems, clamped down social structures, and did such things just to maintain their power, they would come across as power-hungry sadists if not criminals.

Further Vaishnavism must have gained ground only during Rajendra Chola II's time; till then all brahmins were smartas.)

I do agree all brahmins were once upon a time smarthas.

Of course varna system must have been introduced at some point of time and so, a casteless, varnaless society must have existed prior to that; this will be true for any region. But my point is we must furnish adequate material to show that there are literary or epigraphic evidence to show that the caste-varna segregation was not in practice. Buddhist society in the north also survived with castes/varnas only.)

Sir, am not able to understand your proposition. Are you saying castes and varnas are one and the same? That varnaless means casteless?

Have already explained in arakshan thread that caste and varna are 2 different thing. Various tribes professed various occupational categories within them; and such castes (occupational divisions) are ancient and older than varna system (B Chattopadhyaya, 1999). Again caste by itself is not discriminatory. But the moment castes are arrranged in an hierarchy, discrimination starts. There will be a continuous attempt to put and keep the next lower caste low.

Between 200 BC to 200 AD Manusmrithi specifically arranged and ranked a very vast number of tribes and castes postulating that each of them was a byproduct mixture between varna categories. Which is why it is not surprising that varna terms started replacing caste terms in the Satavahana period. Because before the Satavahana period, the concept of caste-linked-to-varna did not exist in the southern lands. Hierarchial varnas which explicitely puts the brahmin on the top and the rest below created strain on existing tribal structures and this topic has been dealt with extensively by Kosambi, Ray, etc. I could email the relevant papers to you if you wish.

(Is it possible to provide some references dealing with these protests against hardening of caste structures and from the said period?)

Have already provided these References:
1) Old Tamil Cahkam literature and the so-called Cankam period, by Herman Tieken.
2) Patikam Patuvar: Ritual Singing as a Means of Communication in Early Medieval South India, by R Champalakshmi.
3) "Struggles for Rights during Later Chola Period" published in "Social Scientist, Vol. 2, No. 6/7 (Jan - Feb 1974), pp. 29-35".

Please do let me know if these references do not suffice.

Nara sir had also provided some details from pasurams about the time period of anti-caste protests (forgot which thread -- hope nara sir will help in locating them).

I am not too sure if the early Tamizhakam was any less rigorous than the dharmasastra-led system which came in later on. Are there literary evidences to show that a person could chose his occupation and, as a consequence thereof move upward socially?)

Prof. Noboru Karashima produced a researched monograph in which the feudal character of Chola and post-Chola society is outlined. See Noboru Karashima, South India History and Society (Studies from Inscriptions, A.D. 850-1800), Delhi, 1985.

See also M.G.S. Narayanan, 'Review Artide: South Indian History and Society' in Tamil Civilization, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1985, pp.57-91.

Bhakti and temple roles increasingly became a birth-right in the chola period which did not exist earlier. Here the emphasis is not exactly on castes, or how rigid they were, but on the fact that anyone professing any occupation could take to religious roles. Meaning, religion was open and free in an earlier period, and this became restricted by the late-chola period. Here the emphasis is specifically on religious roles, not any other role.

(since this blanket statement unsupported by anything other than some "notice" of priestly duties for vatious castes - which will not make the vellalar to be connected with temples- is the only thing that can be brought up, I think we cannot accept Vellalar's interest in temples.) though imo the vellala ouduvars (Othuvaars were singers and possibly received payments for their services; why they wanted control over temple management is not clearly brought out.)are more properly documented than the rest.

I did not say Ouduvars wanted to control temple management. Why would they want control over the management of a temple? I said vellalars wanted a greater role in temple functions and thus created mutts. The very creation of the saiva siddhanta mutts shows vellalar interest in temples and religion.

Reply contd below...

 

[happyhindu]

Reply to Sangom sir's post continued --

Temples in Tamil Nadu are rarely rock-cut I suppose. Also if the priests were Jain I do not think Appar would have tolerated it nor the other two whose verses spew venom on camaNarkaL. And, if the Jains were demoted to non-brahmin positions, there must be some reference to it in history, I think. All available accounts generally say the buddhists and jains were killed or that they ran off to the mountains for safety.

There are enough publications on rock-cut temples of tamilnadu (pallava rock-cut temples, those depicting pandyan art, etc). Appar lived in the times when tevarams were created. Not in the times when rock-cut temples were created.

(Not clear; do you say that the Saiva Siddhanta was well developed even before the medieval cholas or the opposite?)

It was expanded and compiled under the medieval cholas. Already clearly explained how it was expanded to bring the siddha culture also within it.

Gurukkals must have some code regulating their samskaras and prescribing the dos and donts for them. Whatever that is, it is their Dharmasastra. If they still follow Baudhayana - which is one of the early smritis - then the gurukkals must have belonged to vedic brahmanism at some point of time.

Will merely following smrithis indicate that one was following vedic-brahmanism? Please elaborate on this point. We would need to deal with how and why smrithis got created.

(Since temple priesthood was considered unfit for smarta brahmins, I tried to use the word true brahmins to denote those who did not take up the temple jobs.)

ok. So this would mean those who took to temple jobs are not true-brahmins?

(is any record available to support this observation? AFAI have read, the Brahmadeya lands were common property for a large group and the agricultural lands were managed by a group - like trustees - which later on can be identified with the Brahmana samoohams. Naturally, the brahmins other than the trustee managers could not be landholders under the brahmadeyam system. Is my info wrong?)

Narayan Rao and Schulman traced the downgrading of daanams to brahmins, in the nayak period, wherein annadanam replaced brahmadeyams. In the times of frequent wars, and muslim invasions, it became unfeasible to give lands to brahmins (as brahmadeyams) and get people to protect it on their behalf. Anyways, I will make a seperate post on this in the arakshan thread. So that it will be known how and why brahmins were a landed class...

(not at all clear to me; here is a group which does not differentiate on the basis of birth-based caste. All saiva devotees are equal. Then how could anyone make an observation that the rights of preceptorship passed on from Brahman to shudra, unless it is agreed that caste awareness was alive and vigorous within the saivite fold?)

Ofcourse the vellalas wanted rights of perceptorship passed on to themselves which by now was under brahminical control. I don't know why you think it goes against non-differentiation based on caste.

(for what, how and in what approximate period)

8th and 9th centuries AD.

(Can you provide the links from where these can be accessed, downloaded?)

I could pass on papers to you by email. Please let me know which ones you want.

Martin Orans described an early case where a munda tribal attracted brahmins; and the brahmins sanskritised his rituals and manufactured a rajput geneology for him (ref: "A tribe in search of a great tradition" by Orans). (Can you provide the links from where these can be accessed, downloaded?)

This link (p.119) may help.

If they were Mallars (that is mavalis / mallas), they should be able to provide the requisite historical basis. (if they now turn around and quote you "it is quite apparent i prefer not "insist" historical backing in caste issues" how will you react please?)

Sir, i think you are making too much out of that one sentence. Already calrified. So please let go of it.

(Vaishnavism in any significant form must have arisen only after Ramanujacharya imho and by then medieval chola regime was more than half-way. So, Vaishnavism originated in a strongly saivite environment and probably its very strong anti-siva streak has something to do with this fact. I am not so well-versed in the devotional literature but my general impression is that these depict an egalitarian society or at least a desire therefor but there is no direct anti-caste exhortation or condemnation of the caste system. may be you can elaboraate with suitable examples. If what I say is right, the conclusion "so it obvious that by this time rigidification of castes existed" will not be relevant.)

IMO, Vaishnavism pre-dates Swami Ramanujacharya. Since Vaishnavism is a spin-off topic, maybe we can deal with it an other time. Nara sir, had put forth condemnation of caste-system from divaprabandhams. Please elaborate what fails to convince you that by this time castes became rigid. Let me know your views on it.

If brahmins had not taken over temples what was the necessity for velalas to go to such lengths to get a role in temple functions / activities? (can there not be any other possibility like making their aagamic style of worship? Since there is no clear evidence to show that brahmins had taken over temples, I think it may not be correct to jump to this one probability as the definite truth.)

Even if the Vellalas wanted agamic worship, will it not mean by this time brahmins took over temples?

Crossing aryavarta itself was prohibbited. If one has already crossed the boundries i suppose he wud not be threatened by demotion of caste if he takes up a job of temple-priest to make a living.(Since neither you or I implemented the smriti dictats and since the smritis themselves do not clearly state that "these laws will not apply outside aaryaavarta", I will not make such comments. If this were true the brahmins must not have even implemented the caste system at all.)

Sorry sir, does any smrithi say "all these laws apply outside aryavarta"? Now this is infact an important point.

If one had already crossed aryavarta, was there objection from any smrithi that he must not take to the role of a temple-priest?

Here we are not at all talking about implementing caste-system. We are talking about implementing varnas and making caste-system pertaining to religious roles rigid.

Perhaps since the smrithis gave only the brahmin the right to interpret shastras, maybe it was his wish whether he wanted to take up a temple job or assign varnas.

I think i have been providing sufficient evidence and quoting relevant sources.
(But you may also give the urls and if these are not accessible to the public - like academic papers - pl. provide some sufficient information contained therein which will buttress your arguments.)

Please let me know you want URLs and details for which specific points. Also, sir, my arguments can swing either way (i suppose this trait is common to both of us). So lets deal with it in an impartial manner instead of getting emotional. Infact am surprised to see you making out points (like rock cut temples and saiva siddhantam) for which i feel you must be already knowing enough details.

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

Many many things in history of India are unclear; only we can go on discussing probabilities. IMO saiva siddhanta is an offshoot of Kashmiri Saivism, which is based on the Tantric system of belief. Naturally, there must have been some link with Kashmir for Saivism to have taken roots here as Saiva siddhanta, even though Linga worship, siva worship etc., might have been existing in ancient (pre-cangam even) Tamilakam.

Sisnadeva identified as pindi / lingam may mean that lingam worship was ancient. Anyways, please could you elaborate what are the difference between Saiva Siddhanta and Kashmiti Saivism, so that we can know in what ways they are linked ??

One set of scholars believe that the agastyar legend signifies one mass exodus from the present day Dwaraka area, under the leadership of some brahmins. The only things which we may somewhat confidently assert may be,
1. there must have been movement of people between north and south from pre-historic times themselves.
2. since IV type graffiti has been found in recent excavations from Coimbatore areas, and these samples belong to the megalithic era, there was awareness of IVC even in those days.

It is claimed the exodus was under Velirs -- any clues / evidence these velirs were brahmins ?

I will definitely agree there were movements and settlements in all directions by all kinds of people since ancient times.

 

[happyhindu]

Hello KB:

The two examples you have cited confirm the migrations from the North.

For a very different angle of thought, I want to know what convincing evidences you have to contradict the migration from North?

(I develop a hypothesis that the low-melanin (lighter skinned) people of the North (40 -45 degree North) slowly migrated towards the South India over a long period (starting in 3000 BCE) spreading their theology and politics. They have inter-married with the high-melanin people of the South to create a hue of skin colors in the contemporary India.)

I am collecting support for this hypothesis from very many sources and angles.

Cheers.

I dunno if this helps, but Yamaka, some jain tirthankaras are depicted as dark-skinned. Also Krishna, Vishnu, are depicted dark-skinned.

Also, Y, can we discount the presence of light-skinned muslims, french, british, coming in as invaders, or light-skinned traders coming in from central-asia, southern europe, etc leaving their light-skinned imprints? As had mentioned earlier, even if aryan invaders had come into india, after 2000 years they should have become dark-skinned, so the point would be how are people light skinned now?

 

[கால பைரவன்]

In short, NB casteists will not be faulted. But brahmin casteists will be! Sheer hypocrisy.

No one said that.

HH should read her own posts!

There was nothing ever called Khsatriya and Vaishya varnas. The dominant brahmins of the colonial period themselves said so. Period.

According to HH, history starts and ends with colonial period. Even here, she blatantly ignores all that were done by NB castes. I pointed out the case of vellalars denying ksathriya status to Nadars. The final authority did not rest with brahmins. Caldwell's works were considered final. HH might even claim that Caldwell is a brahmin as she does with the Cholas. Such is her objective take on history!

If one were to argue like her, one can conclude based on works by vellala scholars that the caste system was created by vellalars themselves and that they were the original high varna/castes. But HH wants everyone to ignore these facts because Vellalas are NB casteists! How convenient!

EVR gave a pittance to dalits and kept a lion's share to NBFCs.

Proof please?

This was already discussed in the reservation thread. The original communal GO reserved close to 43% seats to Non-brahmin FC hindus, 14% to backwards hindus (in reality all these 57% would have gone to dominant NB castes as backwardness was not even properly defined) and only 14% to SC/ST. That was the grand plan of dominant NB castes. Unfortunately for them the court stuck down this quota because it was deemed unconstitutional. Of course, the dominant NB castes circumvented it by amending the constitution, declaring themselves backward and usurped the quota benefits.

No one needs 'brahmins' for tamilnadu to prosper -- this was said wrt to your canard allegations about reservations. It does not mean 'brahmins' need to get out.

Readers can understand what is being said and implied.

Spell out your definitions of who is a non-tamil outsider.

There can be, but, only one definition.

But I will give the one that the NB casteists love!

Tamil Lexicon created by NB casteists defines tamils as - "பறையனொழிந்த இதர சாதியான்".

The very definition of tamils include castes!

Let me also add that according to Vaiyapuri Pillai, the definition is "பார்ப்பானொழிந்த பறையனொழிந்த தமிழ் பேசுவோரே தமிழர்கள்."

 

[happyhindu]

HH should read her own posts!

According to HH, history starts and ends with colonial period.

Caldwell's works were considered final. HH might even claim that Caldwell is a brahmin as she does with the Cholas. Such is her objective take on history!

Since you are specialist in pot-shots, i shall leave you to your specialisation.

I pointed out the case of vellalars denying ksathriya status to Nadars. The final authority did not rest with brahmins.

Just like the Vellalars, Maravars and Nayars denied kshatriya status to Nadars, similarly the claims of Rajus as Kshastriyas was not admitted by various other NB castes. These things went on at every level with every caste. The final authority did rest with the brahmins. I have already started posting on that in the Aarakshan thread.

If one were to argue like her, one can conclude based on works by vellala scholars that the caste system was created by vellalars themselves and that they were the original high varna/castes. But HH wants everyone to ignore these facts because Vellalas are NB casteists! How convenient!

Which are the works of Vellala Scholars that Caste System was created by Vellalars? Please mention them. Do they take into account that Vellalars were created for that very purpose from brahmanical chola harems?

Vellala casteists i know of are turning around a new leaf (giving up rigidly holding on to caste). Hope more and more vellalas marry nadars and finish off the old rivalries.

This was already discussed in the reservation thread. The original communal GO reserved close to 43% seats to Non-brahmin FC hindus, 14% to backwards hindus (in reality all these 57% would have gone to dominant NB castes as backwardness was not even properly defined) and only 14% to SC/ST. That was the grand plan of dominant NB castes. Unfortunately for them the court stuck down this quota because it was deemed unconstitutional. Of course, the dominant NB castes circumvented it by amending the constitution, declaring themselves backward and usurped the quota benefits.

The allocation of reserved seats to SC/ST is based on their population size. New readers, please go thru the posts on the Aarakshan thread.

Readers can understand what is being said and implied.

There can be, but, only one definition.

But I will give the one that the NB casteists love!

Tamil Lexicon created by NB casteists defines tamils as - "பறையனொழிந்த இதர சாதியான்".

The very definition of tamils include castes!

Let me also add that according to Vaiyapuri Pillai, the definition is "பார்ப்பானொழிந்த பறையனொழிந்த தமிழ் பேசுவோரே தமிழர்கள்."

What is "your" definition of who is a non-tamil outsider ?

 

[sangom]

Shri Yamaka,

Regarding melanin, I have a doubt; is it purely genetic or susceptible to increase with continuous exposure to more sunlight? Especially after a few generations without any intermixing?

 

[sangom]

The cholas themselves were brahmanical vishwamitras from the puranic view. The period of later Cholas (871 AD to 1279 AD) was when caste-system had rigidified so much that various groups had to fight for basic rights. Please refer to this post. For more details please look up the paper "Struggles for Rights during Later Chola Period" published in "Social Scientist, Vol. 2, No. 6/7 (Jan - Feb 1974), pp. 29-35".

Smt. HH,

As I said in my post, it will be difficult for me to respond to your prodigious outputs. So, my posts will be in bits. Please excuse me for that. (I am not able to keep looking at the monitor screen continuously for long.)


I am not at all in agreement with using Puranic material when it suits our purpose and discarding puranic propositions when these are inconvenient to us. Hence, I do not give any importance to what puranas say about a particular dynasty and things like that. And if I am not wrong, you yourself have said that sanskrit prasastis earned mythical ancestry for aspiring royalty. Hence the Puranic pronouncements could merely be to corroborate such mythical lineages, and hence interpolations. Your liberal use of Puranic material lowers the standard of your posts imho.

I find the issue of Social Scientist is available only through Jstor, once again, the same predicament.

I do not know on what basis can we say brahmins were only accessories to the crime. Please do explain your basis on which you feel so. To me, if one group created loyal vellalar soilders from harems, clamped down social structures, and did such things just to maintain their power, they would come across as power-hungry sadists if not criminals.

It is very difficult to carry on any meaningful discussion when you just make pronouncements like "if one group created loyal vellalar soilders from harems, clamped down social structures, and did such things just to maintain their power", as all these are not matters of general public knowledge (like EVR, DK or any historical point generally known to the common populace) and are, at best your conclusions, as of now. The reader has every right to doubt whether you have formed the only possible and proper conclusion or whether your particular line of thinking has prodded you into a ceratin line. In many other topics under discussion here - like advaita, karma, etc., almost all material is available to everyone and so there is an equal playing field for all those who wish to contribute. In this case, you have the advantage of certain materials to which others do not have. Hence I feel it will be appropriate if you also furnish the relevant material on which you have based your conclusions. Otherwise, this will be a prophet or oracle giving out revelations which others have to meekly accept and abide by. The appropriate place for presenting such papers will be the Social Scientist publication, some historians' conference, etc.

You may recall that in the thread "some glimpses of South Indian History" I knew I was basing my observations on a book which is not available in the public domain. So I furnished relevant scanned pages and typed extracts in certain others. I think that should be the course followed.

My view, bereft of the advantage of the various supporting materials to which you seem to have access, is that brahmins could at best have been gurus, teachers or advisors to the kings and hence imposition of strict caste segregation and making them rigid must have been through royal fiats and the support of the royal administration in enforcing these fiats and punishing those who transgressed those fiats. In this sense brahmins could at best have egged on the kings and rulers to adopt rigid caste rules, and could not have of their own implemented any such social changes.

 

[pbkhema]

most wikepedia pages are filled and edited by users help.So it will NOT be correct to blame the site

 

[happyhindu]

As I said in my post, it will be difficult for me to respond to your prodigious outputs. So, my posts will be in bits. Please excuse me for that. (I am not able to keep looking at the monitor screen continuously for long.)

No problem sir, please take your time...we can discuss as and when time permits.

I am not at all in agreement with using Puranic material when it suits our purpose and discarding puranic propositions when these are inconvenient to us. Hence, I do not give any importance to what puranas say about a particular dynasty and things like that. And if I am not wrong, you yourself have said that sanskrit prasastis earned mythical ancestry for aspiring royalty. Hence the Puranic pronouncements could merely be to corroborate such mythical lineages, and hence interpolations. Your liberal use of Puranic material lowers the standard of your posts imho.

Am very sorry to ask this sir, but may i ask where have i used puranic material liberally in this thread? I have dealt with the origin of cholas from puranas, aitareya brahmana, and shatapatha brahmana here. I will agree that puranic material is not to be trusted. Fake geneologies have always been built. The Pallavas give their earliest ancestor as Ashokavarman and yet claimed descent from Dronacharya. This shows that such kings / men were just ordinary men, who upon coming to positions of power, took on a brahmanical status to go with it.

I find the issue of Social Scientist is available only through Jstor, once again, the same predicament.

It is very difficult to carry on any meaningful discussion when you just make pronouncements like "if one group created loyal vellalar soilders from harems, clamped down social structures, and did such things just to maintain their power", as all these are not matters of general public knowledge (like EVR, DK or any historical point generally known to the common populace) and are, at best your conclusions, as of now. The reader has every right to doubt whether you have formed the only possible and proper conclusion or whether your particular line of thinking has prodded you into a ceratin line. In many other topics under discussion here - like advaita, karma, etc., almost all material is available to everyone and so there is an equal playing field for all those who wish to contribute. In this case, you have the advantage of certain materials to which others do not have. Hence I feel it will be appropriate if you also furnish the relevant material on which you have based your conclusions. Otherwise, this will be a prophet or oracle giving out revelations which others have to meekly accept and abide by. The appropriate place for presenting such papers will be the Social Scientist publication, some historians' conference, etc.

You may recall that in the thread "some glimpses of South Indian History" I knew I was basing my observations on a book which is not available in the public domain. So I furnished relevant scanned pages and typed extracts in certain others. I think that should be the course followed.

Sir, as mentioned in earlier posts please let me know on which points you want me to do a copy-paste from the relevant papers. As mentioed earlier, i cud send papers across to you by email also. So am surprised to see this tone of message from you, which is bordering on somewhat not-ok.

As regards creating vellalars and things they did, i have already mentioned some details on the Aarakshan thread. I could definitely mention more. Please do mention on which specific points you want material.

Ofcourse readers have every right to form their opinions as they wish. Infact the feedback gets to be very interesting.

My view, bereft of the advantage of the various supporting materials to which you seem to have access, is that brahmins could at best have been gurus, teachers or advisors to the kings and hence imposition of strict caste segregation and making them rigid must have been through royal fiats and the support of the royal administration in enforcing these fiats and punishing those who transgressed those fiats. In this sense brahmins could at best have egged on the kings and rulers to adopt rigid caste rules, and could not have of their own implemented any such social changes.

Even if brahmins had egged on kings/rulers to adopt strict caste rules or rigidify castes, definitely they had a role to play in implementing social changes, is it not.

For all this talk (on varna allocations in colonial period and creating caste-rigidity), the question to be asked is 'who are brahmins'. My considered view is that groups who went on to gain eminence as (hindu) kings/chieftains adopted and proclaimed a brahmanical varna position. The process of such brahmanical-hinduisation is intrinsic to the semantic change from tribal-statehood into a hindu-state. The kings (now brahmanical) and his harem men fought to keep their varnas, position, state power and eminence. Explanations and researsh by social historians can get very fascinating.

Now there are those who think brahmins were/are vedic-IE speakers. So, the questions to be asked are -- from where did the vedic-IE speakers originate, which IE tribes did they come from, when and how did they become brahmins, and so on. This ofcourse is a seperate topic. And as we go along hope we can discuss on this as well.

Regards.

 

[prasad1]

Is it just me or others do not see it? The discussion about Casteism in Tamil nadu has no bearing on Kerala Iyers problems. Everything in the world is not controlled by what happened 1000's of years ago.

As a modern democratic society we have rise about our past mistakes. The framers of constitution were trying to do that.
HH even you have to understand that the quota system is purely for the present day ruling class (not for Brahmins). So supporting the present policy and punishing one group for supposedly their crimes decades ago is wrong, unless it helps you in your quest for domination over the downtrodden. The TB have lost power, money, etc, and now people want to strip them of their dignity.
But let us get back to Kerela Iyers.:focus:

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Sangom Sir,

Previously i had mentioned about lack of information on the worship forms in tamilkam before 3rd century BC.

I would like to produce some excerpts from "Situating the Beginning of Early Historic Times in Tamil Nadu: Some Issues and Reflections", published in Social Scientist, Vol. 36, No. 1/2 (Jan. - Feb., 2008), pp. 40-78:

----------------------------------------------------------
"As far as Tamil Nadu and Kerala are concerned, the large number of graffiti marks and subsequent Tamil-Brahmi script unearthed in Tamil Nadu and Kerala clearly suggest that this part of the country might have reached linguistic cohesiveness well before 4th-5th century BC. The language and script noticed on metal like on gold, copper, silver coins, rings and seals; on ceramics like black and red ware, red ware and russet coated ware; on rocky surface like Jain beds and memorial stones collected from the vast geographical area covering Bay of Bengal in the east and Arabian Sea on the West and Venkata hills on the north and Kanniyakumari in the south clearly points to the existence of extensive cultural interaction within the region.

The spread of uniform language and script suggests an institutionalised and structured society. The widespread archaeological sites both in Iron Age and Early Historic times supports this view. The emergence of script in Tamil Nadu and Kerala (ancient Tamizhakam) coincides with the age popularly called Early Historic."

[.....]

As far as Tamil Nadu is concerned, the occurrence of Tamil-Brahmi script is generally considered as the beginning of Early Historic. Therefore, the date of Tamil-Brahmi is very crucial to understand the beginning of Early Historic in Tamil Nadu. The historical input received from these Tamil Brahmi script based data (like inscriptions, coins and inscribed potsherds) is considered as the chronological anchor. The appearance of script along with so many other social parameters like the usage of coins, formation of trade routes, the size of the settlement, the formulation of various clan groups, the emergence of state and so on so forth is the product of the previous culture that flourished before the Early Historic times.

[...]
[on iron age, but am not posting on various details of megalithic burial sites as it is too long]

The habitation-cum-burial site Kodumanal provided a good picture on the nature of habitation and the burial. This site was excavated by Tamil University in four seasons in which 13 burials in the graveyard and 44 trenches in the habitation were opened. A Tamil-Brahmi inscribed potsherd, beads of carnelian and agate, few pieces of russet coated painted ware and black and red ware collected from graves are identical to the one found in habitation. Besides the above repertoire, the habitation met with innumerable cultural objects which demonstrated various dimensions of the society.

The furnace material demonstrated the technological level of iron technology; graffiti marks and inscribed potsherds established their literacy level and linguistic pattern; presence of Prakrit words and raw materials like carnelian, cat eye, lapis lazuli and agate proved their external contact; the availability of beads in different stages of manufacture proved the bead making technology; collection of cotton piece with woven pattern and large amount of spindle whorls demonstrated the existence of weaving industry. All in all, the habitation material gave a holistic view of the society that practised megalithism.

[...]

They call them as black and red ware culture, Iron Age culture and Megalithic culture based on the impact or prominence of one of the cultural traits namely BRW, iron or burial monument. In some of the excavations, the mere presence of black and red ware alone is considered sufficient to call them as Iron Age culture. For instance, the excavations like Mangudi, Mangadu, Perur, Vallam and Adichchanallur could be cited.

[...]
In fact, urn burial sites in the southern part of Tamil Nadu do not carry any massive lithic appendage as one sees in the cairn circles or stone circles of northern Tamil Nadu.... As far as Tamil Nadu is concerned, the accepted norm for the emergence of historic period is the presence of deciphered script.

[..]

Thousands of newly prepared pots of black and red ware, black slipped ware and red ware were placed as grave goods but not even a single russet coated full new pot is placed as a grave good. The pots placed in the burials are not well-fired as they were meant for a single time deposit and not for daily utility whereas the pots that are found in the habitation are well-fired. This clearly shows that they followed certain norms in performing the ritual.

[...]
[early historic contd..]

The term Early Historic is substituted with the terms like Mauryan culture, Sunga culture, Satavahana culture, etc. with overtones of political authority rather than social process. In few cases, the occurrence of potsherd like NBP is suffices to designate the culture as Early Historic. For some, the establishment of the historicity of the great personalities like Mahavira and Buddha are suffice to designate the culture as Early Historic (Dhavalikar 2002).

The evidences embedded in epigraphical, numismatic, literary and archaeological records clearly points to the emergence or formation of new social order henceforth unnoticed in the previous Iron Age culture. The occurrence of bronze objects, carnelian and agate beads in Iron Age context well before the traces of NBP and Punch Marked coins suggest that Tamil Nadu had long distance trade well before the so called Mauryan incursion in Karnataka.

Besides Kodumanal, the recent excavations like at Modur in Dharmapuri district, Perur in Coimbatore district, Alagankulam in Ramanathapuram district, Mangudi in Virudhunagar district, Thandikudi in Dindugal district and other similar sites provide a clue to the emergence Early Historic phase. Irrespective of this emerging scenario, majority of the sites in Tamil Nadu have been dated to 3rd century BC.

The reason for assigning all the sites to 3rd century BC is with the assumption that the script is introduced in Tamil Nadu after Asoka. Unless one gets a pre-Asokan inscription in North or Deccan, it is unlikely to push the date beyond uniformly 3rd century BC...

[..]
Any official language cannot be taken as the language linguine of the region. For instance, all the early Pallava royal inscriptions are either in Prakrit or in Sanskrit language. These two languages are considered to be the official languages of the dynasty and the official script is Pallava grantha. In contrast to this, we find vatteluttu script and Tamil language in all contemporary memorial stones. These memorials stones are raised by the common people for the heroes who died for the sake of society.

[..]
All Tamil-Brahmi cave inscriptions that found in Tamil Nadu are dedicated to Jains. If one takes these epigraphical records alone as a source material then one may feel that Jainism alone is existed in Tamil Nadu during 3rd century BC. If one takes the contemporary Sangam literature, there is hardly any reference on Jainism but it has plenty of references on Hindusim.

[...]
In Tamil Nadu, all the archaeological sites yielding Early Historic cultural deposit invariably start with 3rd century BC and ends with 3rd cent. AD. The fine examples are Uraiyur, Teriruveli, Mangudi, Kodumanal, Korkai, Karur, Vallam, Tirukampuliyur, Alagankulam and host of other sites. These sites yielded Tamil-Brahmi inscribed potsherds...

[..]
It is now imperative that the combine study of archaeological, epigraphical, numismatic and literary alone can provide better vision on the past. As stated above, if one takes the Tamil-Brahmi cave inscriptions alone then one may be trapped in a view that there was no inscription other than that of Jains. Likewise if one takes the inscribed potsherds alone then one may feel that there was no religion at all. In the same way, one does not come across any stone inscriptions in Chola territory due to the non-availability of the stone. But inscribed potsherds that are found in the excavations at Kaveripattinam, Uraiyur, Vallam and Tirukampuliyur clearly suggest that this region is not differ much from other region. This can be also put in other way too. The Cholas, it seems, did not patronize Jainism but instead they patronized Buddhism. The available literary and archaeological evidences suggest that the inland trade was under the influence of Jains whereas the maritime trade was with Buddhists. All the Jain inscriptions and Jain centres were found on the in land trade routes or near the in land trade centres. It seems Jains were economically more powerful than Buddhists and welts a greater influence on Tamils. Later day outburst against Jains by Hindus may be due to their economic power, which the rulers wanted to alter in their favour...

[...]

It proves that different strata of the society both rural and urban, used the Tamil-Brahmi script. The Sangam literature calls the land north of Tamil country as moli peyar teyam (other language speaking area) (Akannanuru 31; 27; 295). In conformity with this statement, the inscriptions that are found in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka State are in Prakrit but again that are not in Telugu or Kannada. However the recent linguistic study clearly rs suggests that the language used by the common man was Telugu and Kannada (Krishnamurthy 1994:163-165). This phenomenon continued till 6th c.AD. It would have been in the interest of the ruling elite to protect their 5 privileges by perpetuating their hegemony of Prakrit in order to exclude the common people from sharing power (Mahadevan 1995a: 173-188).
-------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Nara]

....IMO, Vaishnavism pre-dates Swami Ramanujacharya. Since Vaishnavism is a spin-off topic, maybe we can deal with it an other time. .

HH, I certainly agree. But, Sangom sir's point was not that it did not exist, but it became popular during Ramanuja's period. However, I think this is only partially true. R made SV a Brahminical religion with his Sri Bhashyam, yes, but long before R, the corpus of what later became Dhivya Prabhandam was already written, all the major temples that form part of 108 Dhivya Desam were already Vishnu temples, even the controversial Thiruvengadam was a Vishnu temple. So, Vaishnavam was quite well established, to the extent it ever was, long before R.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

Thus from the above, it would seem that iron age culture was still being followed with jain influence around 3rd century BC. So the society was still tribal, so to say, based on clans, following their (tribal) ritualism. They either had no religion, or were influenced by jainism. Cholas patronised buddhism before making Saivism their royal religion.

Sangam literature indicates presence of hinduism; interaction with neighbouring lands speaking other languages; and represents a development stage of social organisation; with new social orders being formed in the early historic period.

In later period, from linguistic evidence (compositions by nayanmars, and divyaprabandhams), and from the inscriptions of the late-chola period where ordinary people fought for basic rights, it becomes obvious that caste had become a rigid phenomenon by the 9th century AD.

IMO every human's intrinsic inherent need is to feel happy, content, without being put down as an incapable wretched shudra to be kept away from god. The creation of rigidity between castes, linking castes to varnas is imo a devious design extremely far away from any godliness and goodness. Those who indulge in this, irrespective of whether you are B or NB, please give it up.

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

HH, I certainly agree. But, Sangom sir's point was not that it did not exist, but it became popular during Ramanuja's period. However, I think this is only partially true. R made SV a Brahminical religion with his Sri Bhashyam, yes, but long before R, the corpus of what later became Dhivya Prabhandam was already written, all the major temples that form part of 108 Dhivya Desam were already Vishnu temples, even the controversial Thiruvengadam was a Vishnu temple. So, Vaishnavam was quite well established, to the extent it ever was, long before R.

Cheers!

Dear Sir,

I agree. The ongoing discussions have forced me to look up more papers and details. My hypothesis is that elements of what we call jaina and hindu religions have a common tribal past, with common gods, and diverged into 2 different religions. When this divergence happened from the historical pov am not able to say.

Now how we define elements of religion makes a difference to this. If we say a set of people just observed rituals, prayed to a god and had simple views of the universe, etc, then it will get categorised as no-religion or tribal-religion with few defined characteristics. To call it a religion per se, a set of people need to produce text corpus, with defined knowledge concepts or ontologies.

Jain agamas seem to coincide with buddhism. Though the dates are controversial, so far it seems to me that jain agamas pre-date hindu agamas. This would mean idol worship methodology is actually jain.

Now am faced with a dilemma and several questions coming out of it. Would this mean vaishnavism and saivism are divergent faiths whose religious elements are actually derived from jainism?

Sir, from the SV theology pov, what was the nature of Vaishnavism as a religion before Swami Ramanujacharya?

 

[prasad1]

HH,
How did you come to the conclusion that jains used idols worship and common gods?
Or is that in a different thread? We are in a Hindu-jain community and there is constant differences. Some of the south Indians complain that the jains clean their idol even in the temple with Windex. It would be nice to find commonality.

I am a novice compared to your knowledge. I do not subscribe to any organised religion. Having the advantage of being away from the crowd, I am able to pick and choose my version of Hinduism.

Some of the religions conveniently do not have everything written down. Even written versions gets edited, and biased by the authors who came much later. In a world where everything is evolving, how do you fix a practice as the correct one?

 

[கால பைரவன்]

How did you come to the conclusion that jains used idols worship and common gods?

Both Jainism and Buddhism are agnostic religions. They do not believe in a supreme creator or personal gods. Therefore, I am skeptical about claims of Jain influence on tribal practices of adoring personal gods!