Dear Shri KRS,
I have gone through Shri Danino’s paper. Writing comments is a tedious task (slow, one-finger, typing) and so I am just giving the most important lacuna in his arguments. Danino cleverly and conveniently says – rather innocuously – “Also, I will not deal here with the origin of South Indian people and languages, or with the nature of the process often called “Aryanization of the South” (I prefer the word “Indianization,” used in this context by an archaeologist[13]). Those complex questions have been debated for decades, and will only reach firm conclusions, I believe, with ampler archaeological evidence”. And here lies the secret; many of the claims of Danino will become unsound or at least suspect if he were to also present the linguistic and archaeological evidences.
Yes, sir, I agree. The bread is buttered on both sides. What we are looking for is the unvarnished truth, backed up by concrete evidence
As for the rest, I shall try to type out my observations but by the time I present them, they may become “old”, going by the trend of discussions here.
If Tabras constitute only less than 5% of the Tamil Nadu population today, the Tabras world-wide numbers may not, in any event, be more than 6 or 7 %. This is the position after nearly two millennia. Hence the presence of Brahmans in those Cangam era must not have been more than this. We must bear in mind that all the other classes could be called in to fight for the king, thus entailing large scale deaths, but Brahmans were exempt. Thus, in those days, the trickle of Brahmans must have been like refugees coming from different parts of the country in search of livelihood, unless it is postulated that the kings/Rulers had invited Brahmans to their country, provided them with Brahmadeyams - agrahaarams and tax-free lands which will be cultivated by the other castes, but crops will go to the upkeep and maintenance of these Brahmans - and settled them in such comfortable manner. (The increasing Brahmadeyas did cause resentment among non-Brahmins in olden days. I have read such reference and will try to get more particulars.)
Sir, actually by edict, the dharma of Brahmins enjoined them to go to battle if it came down to the Kshatrias and Vaisyas not able to defend, the Brahmins were supposed to step in. This why the Brahmins were supposed to learn all the Shastras and trained in them, including the Martial Art. We have ample examples in our Puranas. By the way, our Shastras expressly forbade Shudras to take part in any defence of the territory, for obvious reasons of food production.
I wonder whether your examples that support your conclusions above are exceptions to the the rule.
We also have to consider the fact that the system of government was not even as progressive as the British colonial rule. The local ruler was all powerful and he could command all the resources even to a brutal extent if he so desired. In this sort of set-up when once the ruler decided to give power, position and landed properties to Brahmans, that was it and nobody could even whisper against it. Hence we should imagine that had as much freedom of expression existed in those days of near-dictatorships (though some of them have been eulogized in the Cangam literature by the native pāṇar as also by Brahmans who evidently found the role of the pāṇar – court musicians singing praises only of the ruler, which involved uttering falsehood also - advantageous (though this does not strictly come within the aṟutoḻil stipulated by the northern Dharmasastras. The closeness so developed helped the Brahmans immensely in their spread in Tamil land, building a caste-based society as they knew in their āryāvarta, and also obtain a hold over the rulers by luring them with Kshatriya status if only they would agree to abide by the vedic systems.
Sir, you hit the nail on it's head. Yes, the Hindu society was not progressive, in terms of the modern mores, not even in terms of the renaissance period. Please do not look at that society with today's glasses of individual freedom and justice. A system that was developed so long ago, obviously degenerated and was vulnerable to both the British rule and the accompanying industrial revolution. Our religion and it's structure never was designed to withstand such changes. So to single out a minority group, who were vested with the safe keeping of the flames of Sanatana Dharma, while taking poverty and asceticism in exchange for the knowledge, is not fair.
The honorifics of local rulers (ātaṉ) such as “rājasūyam veṭṭa peruṉarkkiḷḷi” and some other epithets is proof of the Brahmans having endeared themselves to some of the more powerful rulers of those times. 1
Again, Brahmins did not 'endear' themselves. The structure of that society was such that, each had a role and things fell in to place. Nothing to do with some mischief perpetrated by the Brahmins.
Danino’s paper is one-sided and propagates the hinutva view. Regarding his other salient arguments, I will post further.
Okay. By the way, I do not agree with the overriding political philosophy of Hindutva.
1Paalai Gautamanaar, who was patronized by palyaanai cel keLu kuTTuvan, is stated to have performed ten yagas with help from the wisest of Brahmans. (patiRRuppattu, III. 10, Patikam.)
palyagaSAlai mudukuTumi peruvazhuti had many yAgaSAlas and he is supposed to have fought as many battles as the sacrifices performed. (This is clear evidence of the Brahmans assuring victory over enemies from their yagas. It also goes without sayinf that these vedic Brahmans must have conferred kshatriya status on the ruler, because they could not violate the rules of the Dharmasastras.) (puRam no.15.)
Of course Brahmins made sure the survival of Hinduism as they knew it - otherwise we will all be following Buddhism or Jainism! Now the merits of that is a different topic.
perum cEral irumpoRai performed the putrakamEshTi. (patiRRuppattu VII.4). (We may infer therefore, that the rAmAyaNa should have been composed at around this time in its southern version.)
.
