Dear kunjuppu,
Your post #308:
1. There is no proof that manu smriti was the handiwork of brahmins.
2. EVR did not say anything new. It was already thought of by brahmins who were members of the Constituent Assembly which framed the Indian Constitution. If affirmative action is a reality in India we owe it to the foresight of those learned members of the Constituent Assembly. EVR's contribution to that was a big zero. He was at that point of time asking the Colonial power to stay in India and continue for ever. The forced equality did not affect me because I could obtain a loan scholarship for my higher studies and I paid back the amount to the central government with interest to the last paisa. Perhaps a brahmin boy was the best bet and would not cheat them on repayment of principle and interest.
My perception in this matter is quite different from yours. Thank you.
dear vaagmi,
1. manu smrithi is what we all tend to quote for our current day practices. no? i think it is immaterial whether manu was a brahmin. he put the brahmin at the head of the totem pole and the rule stayed for milleniums, till today's current morality challenged, a stratification by birth, the unfairness of the concept of panchamas, and above all the treatment of women. vaagmi i am quite sure you know what manu had suggested for women. and i am sure you are not following that inyour own household.
2. i am talking of periyar during his congress days, when he was outvoted on all power sharing issues by the brahmins. the congress representation from the erstwhile madras was overwhelmingly brahmin, and protected brahmin interests. i can dig up relevant documents but it is of no point as much water has flown under the bridge. i would rather discuss today and tomorrow's issues. we cannot change the past, but we can influence tomorrow. i hope.