Dear Shri KRS,
On the contrary, I think Danino's views are ideologically motivated. I find his paper utterly lacking in academic rigor. If you find him persuasive, that is fine, I don't.
Can you tell me why do you think so? Does the lack of rigor, if it exists also negates his arguments and how?
You have cited a long paper and are asking me to critique it. Once before you did the same thing, and I took the bait and did just that. I even contacted one of the authors of the paper, which BTW was a well written one, published in a peer reviewed academic journal. Finally you just refused to accept even the author's own clarification.
I did not agree with the author when he was spousing his opinion that the quota system should continue, even though his own research showed that there was scant correlation between BC&BT advancement and the quota system. His opinion was not rooted in the results of his study, rather it was based on his own ideology as yours and so I did not accept it.
Again, it seems to me that instead of accepting the fact that the quota system did not have any measurable impact on the uplifting of the disadvantaged folks, you still want to continue it!
You have this particular outlook that just because one may have an agenda to push means that one's research and citations are not valid. Of course conveniently, you dismiss these out of hand, by either demonizing the person or saying that the person has a particular agenda! Seems to me, this is a very convenient tool to use when you can not adequately counter the points raised, point by point.
Now, you have cited a long paper, published in the author's own web site and with a statement from the author that a summarized version of the paper was presented at some Vedic Workshop and a seminar on origins of united vedic culture. This paper so obviously lacks any academic authenticity I am surprised you are taking it so seriously. Anyway, why must I spend my time reading through and refute such a paper, which I am sure you will simply refuse to accept in the end.
You do not need to, sir. I did not say that this is a serious academic paper, I said it seems so. I did not know anything about this person till I came across this citation in Wkipedia.
You don't need to waste your time, if you are not inclined to do so. I only disagreed with your statements, when I disagreed with them on factual grounds.
If you think this paper is convincing, then fine, let it be so. I have already spent more time on this paper than I should have.
Okay.
One more thing, IMO, it is unfair to simply cite a paper and demand that it be refuted. I think you should first summarize the paper, make your points, give references, and then ask those disagree with the points to refute them.
Dear brother, I thought you were the one arguing that the Brahmins were hated even during the Sangam period by some. I cited this paper to question that validity as a universal truth. Does not matter if you respond or not.
Unlike Danino, Prof. Hart has impressive credentials and has spent a life-time studying Tamil and Sanskrit. His views must be given serious consideration. He does say that Brahmins made significant contributions to Tamil literature. This is not in dispute at all. Prof. Hart is quite sympathetic to the role of Brahmins in Tamil country. But, that is strictly on a literary level, not on a social level. The point of contention here is not about Brahmin contribution to Tamil literature, but only how they were viewed/treated socially.
I can not compare the two. But I also came across Professor Hart only a couple of days ago. But tell me one thing - how does one separate the role that is responsible for the pride of dravidian culture, namely Tamil and not say it could not have been carried over socially? Just does not make sense to me. If I am vilified in a foreign land socially, why would I take up the study of that land's language to the tune of improving it, while the supposition is that I am more enamored with my mother tongue, which was Sanskrit? One can not separate out and compartmentalize these things.
I am not familiar where and in what context, as you say, Hart, "thrashed the idea that the Brahmins in TN promoted the supremacy of Sanskrit over Tamil". Please cite a reference for this 2007 interview please. The context must be clear to fully understand what he was saying, if you have quoted his words accurately.
Sorry it was a speech. Please read, Criticism of Tamil Brahmins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The speech citation was posted here in our Forum long time ago by Sri Lotus-Quartz Ji, but the original citation is now gone.
Not just Shri Sangom's excellent compilations, but I think I made a good case in my
post #381. The one thing that I did not mention in that post is the fact that Brahminism was almost eliminated from Tamil country during the Kalabhra period. So, I think there was opposition to Brahmins even at that time, perhaps more severe than the present times.
Brahmins always made nice with the people wielding political power, often occupying the king-maker positions. This gave them enormous clout. Not all Brahmins used this clout wisely. Compounding this was branding everyone else as Shudras and the practice of ritual separation from them all. In an undemocratic political system they were able to go on without any opposition due to the royal patronage they enjoyed. Still we see textual evidence of opposition to Brahminism all along Tamil literary history. The Brits did take advantage of the divisions, but they are not the root cause for the divisions themselves.
Brahmins fate of existence waxed and waned besed on the condition of Hinduism at any time in the past. I did not say that there was no opposition to Brahminism at any time. But from the way of village life, it seems to me that this can not be overtly emphasised looking through today's values. If that were the uniform case, the 3% of the population would have been easily driven out / wiped out.
Cheers!
