Proof?
-
This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
-
Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
What's in "Aarakshan"?: Is Reservation Debate Resuming?
- Thread starter Yamaka
- Start date
- Status
Proof?
sangom
0
"The social position of the Mahārs is one of distressing degradation. Their touch is considered to defile and they live in a quarter by themselves outside the village. They usually have a separate well assigned to them from which to draw water, and if the village has only one well the Mahārs and Hindus take water from different sides of it. Mahār boys were not until recently allowed to attend school with Hindu boys, and when they could not be refused admission to Government schools, they were allotted a small corner of the veranda and separately taught. When Dher boys were first received into the Chānda High School a mutiny took place and the school was boycotted for some time. The people say, ‘Mahār sarva jātīcha bāhar’ or ‘The Mahār is outside all castes.’ Having a bad name, they are also given unwarrantably a bad character;
...
Mahār is commonly engaged for carrying fuel to the funeral pyre. Under native rule the Mahār was subjected to painful degradations. He might not spit on the ground lest a Hindu should be polluted by touching it with his foot, but had to hang an earthen pot round his neck to hold his spittle.24 He was made to drag a thorny branch with him to brush out his footsteps, and when a Brahman came by had to lie at a distance on his face lest his shadow might fall on the Brāhman. In Gujarāt25 they were not allowed to tuck up the loin-cloth but had to trail it along the ground. Even quite recently in Bombay a Mahār was not allowed to talk loudly in the street while a well-to-do Brāhman or his wife was dining in one of the houses."
(The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India - Volume IV of IV, by R.V. Russell )
Proof enough, sir?
sarang,
i come from malabar district of erstwhile madras state. which is current kozhikode and vicinities.
i have personally seen, people yodelling to announce their arrival. and my grandma saying taht these were parayans who should not be near the brahmin's houses, especially on holy days.
also, many local folks, when they spoke to my grandpa, used to stand about 10 feet away, and speak with their hands covering their mouth. i never thought much of it, till i was in twenties, when i learned the significance of this subservient action. needless to say, i was horrified, albeit an 'innocent' particpant. i personally do not consider myself ever 'innocent', having been tainted into participating in such demeaning activities against a fellow human being. sarang, as a tambram, we have a lot be ashamed of.
about 400 years ago, the brahmin peshwas issued edicts that any dalit caught hearing the vedas should have lead poured in his ears. and should he utter the gayatri, his tongue cut off. not too far back. and that too in the pune town of those times.
the only horror that could be compared, is the disfigurement of widows, who were shorn of their hair, and while uttering abuses removed of her fine jewellery and forced to wear white for the rest of her life. i call them fondly 'mottai pattis', but my paternal grandma was 28 and at the height of her beauty when she was disfigured. what do you say?
One has to keep in mind that identification of backwardness and classification of communities into different segments (FC/OBC/SC/ST etc) is being done in other states too. The expectation that TN's high position in HDI relative to the other states would also result in a lower percentage of people classified as backward is not unreasonable.That TN features in the very top in both HDI and backwardness, at the least, points to an anomaly. It points to the fact that dravidian parties have sold the interests of truly backward people by including, wrongly, several communities in the OBC list.
First, the term "backwardness" cannot imply only social backwardness. As pointed out many times here, it should include economic and educational backwardness. Second, the social neglect and ostracism of yester years could have been used in the initial classification. It cannot be used as a criteria today.
The rest of Sangom's post has all the standard pitfalls - convenient mixing of dalits with BCs, neglecting current realities and harping on past ostracization, brahmin bashing (no one is making the case for reservation for brahmins).
One cannot say that a large portion (in TN's case: 88% of the people), who are also politically dominant, are socially ostracized by the rest 12% today.
Taking potshots at fellow participants cannot be the prerogative of a select few.
I see that people here are more interested in protecting the interests of dominant OBC communities, glorifying dravidian rule and in bashing brahmins. These people have no interest in social justice. Describing them as dravidian apparatchiks is not far off the mark.
Last edited:
N
Nara
Guest
KB, first, the above reveals a certain bitterness on your part. I request you to not give in to your emotions. You make good points, but then comments like this only tend to muddy the water. I have recorded my request, rest is up to you.கால பைரவன்;95428 said:
May be so, but it is not reasonable to expect each and every state to have the same standard or expectation to uplift a broad cross section. For instance, the Americans at the bottom 5% of poverty live better than 2/3rds of the world population. The U.S. government cannot use this statistic to take away schemes implemented to help them.
Tamil Nadu being in the top 5 states in HDI does mean impressive strides since the emergence of Dravidian parties, but that does not automatically mean social and economic justice is at hand.
KB, you need to realize OBC is not a single monolithic group. I agree, some OBC may not belong there. Like you rightly insist that OBC reservation cannot be justified based on Dalit oppression, you can't throw out the entire OBC because there may be "several" communities that may have to be removed from OBC and grouped as FC. In fact this will benefit the remaining OBCs more and affect the FCs adversely. So, it must be politically possible to sell this idea. But, to do this, solid data must be gathered and based on it public opinion must be shaped. Until this is done, taking pot shots can only bring momentary satisfaction.
This is a consequence of the insidious effects of Brahminism -- I don't consider this Brahmin bashing as you say, lot of NBs will fall into this category. The caste by design splits the society into small hierarchical groupings, making each group a minority with respect to the rest. Further, each group defends its social status vis a vis those below them. Given this system, it is not at all surprising that a large portion of the society remain backward in terms of the criteria enumerated by Mandal Commission. Note, "Backward" here does not mean they are backward people, only that they deserve government help to climb out of the imposed backwardness.
Cheers!
p.s. KB, please, once again, stay on topic and stop making unnecessary comments about people who have some disagreements with your arguments.
S
subbudu1
Guest
I personally feel the arguments are in this thread are all lacking some point
1. It is certainly true that brahmin landlords, Nayak landlords , Reddys , Zamindars of Bengal including the muslim landlords, the Jat Landlords, the Rajputs, the Vermas , landlords of kerala of yesteryears all of them treated the downtrodden section badly. The worst part of it all was bonded labour( nothing but slaves because even their dress , their behavior was controlled by the upper caste a domination of all sorts, one cannot even be free to run away to the forest or a different land) which is nothing less than a nightmare. Before the East India company, things were somewhat better as there was no additional tax to be paid. But later things went from very worse to worst. There is no need for argument on proof. The proofs are there in colonial time documents. However I dont see this bonded labouer practice to be practiced from time immemorial because rebellion would have been the trend. What we have seen in the last century a kind of mini rebellion but did not become a civil war as uppercastes moved out of their landed roles.
2. Did brahmins themselves conquer people and make them adimai, did they force them to be their slaves. Well I did not find a direct record in that regard but they definitely forced circumstances upon the people to continue to work as bonded labourers. When the labourers protersted they hired other non brahmin goons and rogues to beat these people up. And when they still probably did not relent force them out of livelihood. This is nothing short of worst blackmail as the landowners at that time were the brahmins and vellalars.. I think some erudite members can prove this with records. Some brahmins even kept concubines with Muslim converts and other low castes. But they were not good for other things. What kind of logic is this?
3. Are brahmins the completely innocent paapas who cannot even do fighting. Rest assured our erudite members can prove this to be false based on actual records. The practice of wresting and stick fighting continued until quite recently among some artistocratic brahmin communities, even in TN, who are regarded high in the brahmin ladder. However the art of learning to fight cannot be called wrong. As some of these people stood to defend their kingdoms. But one must remember that not all brahmins were incapable of using violence especially when in need and for opportunistic reasons. This said, how people became slaves of brahmins is not known. But slaves were attached to all land owning classes of tamil nadu. The legacy started even during the times of Kings and happened with the encouragement and management of the KIngs. Though I dont think brahmins were the sole guilty party, they sided with these atrocities. Who were these people who suffered, possibly low castes and people who lost and defied the kings during wars and other times. The punishment was probably so severe that nothing more needs to be said. If a brahmin were to undergo this suffering there would be tears of blood in this forum. I would expect the same degree of feeling for our pallan and parayan brothers and not push the issue under the carpet
4. My 3 points are not brahmin bashing. I dont subscribe to the view that brahmins were the sole perpetuators and that all brahmins realized the enormous penalty on their low caste brothers. But it is a fact that suffering did happen whoever started it and brahmins by accepting food for generations and generations through such activities, had become guilty themselves.
5. However there is a disconnect here. Past generations and present generations are related only if the present continue to realize the fruits of a previous generation. Let me take a hypothetical situation.A brahmin who married a different caste might be an upper caste , does not matter, due to circumstances has become very very poor. There is no trace of caste in his lifestyle does the system have a mechanism to pull him up? I think the redressal can be by having reservation solely based on parameters that put an individual at a disadvantage. Obviously the bulk of low castes will fill the slot but the one or two children of upper-caste ricksha-wallahs or servants or uneducated parents can also stand to gain. Let us not waste our time on the percentage because if a system is robust it should favor the disadvantaged not the relations of mayawati or paswan who any way have their means to send their relations to where they want. Morever society is not a static setup. New castes are being formed even without us knowing and the economic structure is changing, The present TB as a landowner does not exist. Probably the vaidikas among TB are back to the economic situation of the pre-gupta periods. That does not matter , a system should look at specific disadvantages suffered by a specific individual not unknowing bracket him in the name of some caste. The sins of forefathers cannot carry on forever. If that were so, all humans are third rate sinners. All of us here in India, have had sinful ancestors, some beat their wives , some played with concubines, some beat their low caste brothers and some were all of the above. Then all of us as sinners should throw this stupid concept of paying for ancestors deeds which is nothing but a new jathi system based on actions of the past ancestors.
1. It is certainly true that brahmin landlords, Nayak landlords , Reddys , Zamindars of Bengal including the muslim landlords, the Jat Landlords, the Rajputs, the Vermas , landlords of kerala of yesteryears all of them treated the downtrodden section badly. The worst part of it all was bonded labour( nothing but slaves because even their dress , their behavior was controlled by the upper caste a domination of all sorts, one cannot even be free to run away to the forest or a different land) which is nothing less than a nightmare. Before the East India company, things were somewhat better as there was no additional tax to be paid. But later things went from very worse to worst. There is no need for argument on proof. The proofs are there in colonial time documents. However I dont see this bonded labouer practice to be practiced from time immemorial because rebellion would have been the trend. What we have seen in the last century a kind of mini rebellion but did not become a civil war as uppercastes moved out of their landed roles.
2. Did brahmins themselves conquer people and make them adimai, did they force them to be their slaves. Well I did not find a direct record in that regard but they definitely forced circumstances upon the people to continue to work as bonded labourers. When the labourers protersted they hired other non brahmin goons and rogues to beat these people up. And when they still probably did not relent force them out of livelihood. This is nothing short of worst blackmail as the landowners at that time were the brahmins and vellalars.. I think some erudite members can prove this with records. Some brahmins even kept concubines with Muslim converts and other low castes. But they were not good for other things. What kind of logic is this?
3. Are brahmins the completely innocent paapas who cannot even do fighting. Rest assured our erudite members can prove this to be false based on actual records. The practice of wresting and stick fighting continued until quite recently among some artistocratic brahmin communities, even in TN, who are regarded high in the brahmin ladder. However the art of learning to fight cannot be called wrong. As some of these people stood to defend their kingdoms. But one must remember that not all brahmins were incapable of using violence especially when in need and for opportunistic reasons. This said, how people became slaves of brahmins is not known. But slaves were attached to all land owning classes of tamil nadu. The legacy started even during the times of Kings and happened with the encouragement and management of the KIngs. Though I dont think brahmins were the sole guilty party, they sided with these atrocities. Who were these people who suffered, possibly low castes and people who lost and defied the kings during wars and other times. The punishment was probably so severe that nothing more needs to be said. If a brahmin were to undergo this suffering there would be tears of blood in this forum. I would expect the same degree of feeling for our pallan and parayan brothers and not push the issue under the carpet
4. My 3 points are not brahmin bashing. I dont subscribe to the view that brahmins were the sole perpetuators and that all brahmins realized the enormous penalty on their low caste brothers. But it is a fact that suffering did happen whoever started it and brahmins by accepting food for generations and generations through such activities, had become guilty themselves.
5. However there is a disconnect here. Past generations and present generations are related only if the present continue to realize the fruits of a previous generation. Let me take a hypothetical situation.A brahmin who married a different caste might be an upper caste , does not matter, due to circumstances has become very very poor. There is no trace of caste in his lifestyle does the system have a mechanism to pull him up? I think the redressal can be by having reservation solely based on parameters that put an individual at a disadvantage. Obviously the bulk of low castes will fill the slot but the one or two children of upper-caste ricksha-wallahs or servants or uneducated parents can also stand to gain. Let us not waste our time on the percentage because if a system is robust it should favor the disadvantaged not the relations of mayawati or paswan who any way have their means to send their relations to where they want. Morever society is not a static setup. New castes are being formed even without us knowing and the economic structure is changing, The present TB as a landowner does not exist. Probably the vaidikas among TB are back to the economic situation of the pre-gupta periods. That does not matter , a system should look at specific disadvantages suffered by a specific individual not unknowing bracket him in the name of some caste. The sins of forefathers cannot carry on forever. If that were so, all humans are third rate sinners. All of us here in India, have had sinful ancestors, some beat their wives , some played with concubines, some beat their low caste brothers and some were all of the above. Then all of us as sinners should throw this stupid concept of paying for ancestors deeds which is nothing but a new jathi system based on actions of the past ancestors.
Kunjuppu:
You have said all these earlier; let me add my experience.
In mid 1950s, our town we had dry type letrins and these were cleaned every day by the so called 'oddar' community. We wanted to convert to the flushing type. Permission was denied for two reasons - the sewer will not take the load and the cleaning community would lose earnings. We did convert and we paid the cleaners also. The cleaners, though employed by the municipality, collected a small amount from all households serviced by them. They were given left-over food, clothes periodically and were given extra money during festivals. There was no bar on their movement and nobody treated them badly.
Even today manual scavenging is prevalent in most of the railway stations. All passengers waiting in the platform give the unfortunate cleaners a wide berth!
Shaving the head of widows is not connected with untouchability. Still I will say that it is more to do with the parents and immediate relatives; again, in mid fifties, nearly half the widows among my relatives did not shave their heads or wear white dresses. They wore normal cotton sarees; kept a low profile in family functions but were active in other social activities including temple visits. Other communities too have special treatment for widows - why blame brahmins only?
All references to untouchability lead to ambedkar and his writings. Even today untouchability or exclusion is practised in some areas with no brahmin involvement - still brahmins are blamed. Even ambedkar has said in passing that other castes also practise untouchability, but they are absolved. Even ambedkar knew that brahmins will accept whatever is put on them and will not retaliate.
Those brahmins who have a guilt complex are free to wallow in the assumed guilt. Rest should realise that it is unfair to assign the blame on all brahmins. Even in those days brahmins had as much political, wealth power as they have today.
You have said all these earlier; let me add my experience.
In mid 1950s, our town we had dry type letrins and these were cleaned every day by the so called 'oddar' community. We wanted to convert to the flushing type. Permission was denied for two reasons - the sewer will not take the load and the cleaning community would lose earnings. We did convert and we paid the cleaners also. The cleaners, though employed by the municipality, collected a small amount from all households serviced by them. They were given left-over food, clothes periodically and were given extra money during festivals. There was no bar on their movement and nobody treated them badly.
Even today manual scavenging is prevalent in most of the railway stations. All passengers waiting in the platform give the unfortunate cleaners a wide berth!
Shaving the head of widows is not connected with untouchability. Still I will say that it is more to do with the parents and immediate relatives; again, in mid fifties, nearly half the widows among my relatives did not shave their heads or wear white dresses. They wore normal cotton sarees; kept a low profile in family functions but were active in other social activities including temple visits. Other communities too have special treatment for widows - why blame brahmins only?
All references to untouchability lead to ambedkar and his writings. Even today untouchability or exclusion is practised in some areas with no brahmin involvement - still brahmins are blamed. Even ambedkar has said in passing that other castes also practise untouchability, but they are absolved. Even ambedkar knew that brahmins will accept whatever is put on them and will not retaliate.
Those brahmins who have a guilt complex are free to wallow in the assumed guilt. Rest should realise that it is unfair to assign the blame on all brahmins. Even in those days brahmins had as much political, wealth power as they have today.
Last edited:
Series on Slavery - Part 1
Some folks here have asked for proof of slavery. Before i begin i wud like to give readers some background info.
First I must point out from the historic POV that Varna and Jati are two different things. Jaati as a system (of occupational categories) has been in existence since primitive tribal times. Whereas chaturvarna figures in literature starting only from ~1500 – 1000 BC; appearing for the first time in Purushasukta of Rigveda.
Purushasukta is considered a late interpolation into Rigveda. The term Shudra occurs only once in the whole of Rigveda (in Purushasukta). Frits Staal points out anomalies in the poem and asks why should the Purusha (from whose body parts various varnas are born), be dismembered and killed? Does it imply that castes (jaatis) are therefore dead?
It is apparent that Varna as a late concept sought to push its way into being accepted by tribal states (janapadas) with pre-existing Jaatis (occupational categories). This would position the proponents of Varna as outsiders, who wanted a foothold in an existing society by superimposing (and merging) their concept of social organization (varnas) with an existing tribal system (of jaatis). Whether these outsiders were Kurus in whose domains the Brahmana-texts were created is an other topic which we will deal with later.
Frits Staal puts forth that the word “Brahmana” originally did not mean a caste (jaati), instead it meant a learned man or priest. However, whatever the terms Rajanya, Kshatram, Vaisya, Brahmana, etc originally meant from the vedic POV, what we see is that Mahabharat and Smrithis sought militant organization of society.
The Ashvamedha Parva of Mahabharat achieved the military expansion of the Pandavas. The following next 4 parvas after the Ashvamedha Parva are steeped in brahmanical lore and performances of fire sacrifices. The social society obtained was one in which duties were assigned.
The earlier smrithis like Apasthamba and Baudhayana are somewhat accommodative (they allow a dvija to consume food prepared by a shudra). But the later new Smrithis, like Manusmrithi and Vishnu Smrithi, got tyrannical.
Since the smrithis sought violence to impose their (varna) system of social organization, it only means that Chaturvarna system penetrated existing tribal structures by force.
With their state power, the new smrithis achieved something unusual, that is, giving slavery a spiritual twist. Though slavery is found in other parts of the world, nowhere do we find a spiritual ordination given to it. The smrithi view of “dharma” is an objective aspect of religion. The object was to get religion to preordain the birthright of one being born as a brahmana (to be the lord above all else), with shudras terrorized into smoldering submission.
While Manusmrithi (200 BC – 200 AD) provides a list of castes (most of which ‘Manu’ designated using varnas), the Vishnu dharmasutra provided for the first time the term Asprashya (untouchable). Untouchability became a legalized institution in the smrithi view.
Next, brahmanical Hinduism (that is, Smrithi-ism) declared through the mouths of Puranas that Kshatriyas ceased to exist with the advent of the Nanda dynasty (that is with the shudra Nandas -- Nanda antam kshatriya kulam), replacing thereby the four-varna system with the two-varna system of Brahmins and Shudras (without the 2 other varnas in between) [Ref: P V Kane, History of Dharmasastras, Vol II, pp 381-382.].
There were commentators like Medhatithi (825 AD – 900 AD) who allowed inclusiveness into the dvija state based on occupation alone (and not birth). Purushottama Pandita’s treatise Pravara Manjari (12th century AD) even allowed a Chandala to have a gotra (he justified it based on an older smrithi, that is, Baudhayana Smrithi). However, intolerance and exclusivity grew.
Medhatithi’s bhasya was destroyed over time. What we finally get from commentators like Raghunandana Bhattacharya (15th century AD) and Nagabhatta (18th century AD), is the re-establishment of the puranic view and justification that in Kaliyuga there are only 2 classes – Brahmins and Shudras.
So was this puranic-smrithi view so popular in the colonial period that the government recognized only the Brahmins as Forward Caste and all Non-Brahmins as Backward Class (irrespective of caste) until 1956 ?? Or did the British really find evidence of agreeing with the brahmanical view?
There are people who claim that the social nature of smritis and slavery was nowhere to be seen in India. In the forthcoming posts i will be giving slavery records of Southern India. For colonial records, my sources are the Wilson Anti-Slavery Collection (1834) and details of various Slavery Acts of Colonial India.
But first, lest it all be called a “british ploy”, I would like to start with the institution of slavery in (ancient) Tamilakam. I will be completing this over the coming week. So please bear with me for the intermittent posts.
Some folks here have asked for proof of slavery. Before i begin i wud like to give readers some background info.
First I must point out from the historic POV that Varna and Jati are two different things. Jaati as a system (of occupational categories) has been in existence since primitive tribal times. Whereas chaturvarna figures in literature starting only from ~1500 – 1000 BC; appearing for the first time in Purushasukta of Rigveda.
Purushasukta is considered a late interpolation into Rigveda. The term Shudra occurs only once in the whole of Rigveda (in Purushasukta). Frits Staal points out anomalies in the poem and asks why should the Purusha (from whose body parts various varnas are born), be dismembered and killed? Does it imply that castes (jaatis) are therefore dead?
It is apparent that Varna as a late concept sought to push its way into being accepted by tribal states (janapadas) with pre-existing Jaatis (occupational categories). This would position the proponents of Varna as outsiders, who wanted a foothold in an existing society by superimposing (and merging) their concept of social organization (varnas) with an existing tribal system (of jaatis). Whether these outsiders were Kurus in whose domains the Brahmana-texts were created is an other topic which we will deal with later.
Frits Staal puts forth that the word “Brahmana” originally did not mean a caste (jaati), instead it meant a learned man or priest. However, whatever the terms Rajanya, Kshatram, Vaisya, Brahmana, etc originally meant from the vedic POV, what we see is that Mahabharat and Smrithis sought militant organization of society.
The Ashvamedha Parva of Mahabharat achieved the military expansion of the Pandavas. The following next 4 parvas after the Ashvamedha Parva are steeped in brahmanical lore and performances of fire sacrifices. The social society obtained was one in which duties were assigned.
The earlier smrithis like Apasthamba and Baudhayana are somewhat accommodative (they allow a dvija to consume food prepared by a shudra). But the later new Smrithis, like Manusmrithi and Vishnu Smrithi, got tyrannical.
Since the smrithis sought violence to impose their (varna) system of social organization, it only means that Chaturvarna system penetrated existing tribal structures by force.
With their state power, the new smrithis achieved something unusual, that is, giving slavery a spiritual twist. Though slavery is found in other parts of the world, nowhere do we find a spiritual ordination given to it. The smrithi view of “dharma” is an objective aspect of religion. The object was to get religion to preordain the birthright of one being born as a brahmana (to be the lord above all else), with shudras terrorized into smoldering submission.
While Manusmrithi (200 BC – 200 AD) provides a list of castes (most of which ‘Manu’ designated using varnas), the Vishnu dharmasutra provided for the first time the term Asprashya (untouchable). Untouchability became a legalized institution in the smrithi view.
Next, brahmanical Hinduism (that is, Smrithi-ism) declared through the mouths of Puranas that Kshatriyas ceased to exist with the advent of the Nanda dynasty (that is with the shudra Nandas -- Nanda antam kshatriya kulam), replacing thereby the four-varna system with the two-varna system of Brahmins and Shudras (without the 2 other varnas in between) [Ref: P V Kane, History of Dharmasastras, Vol II, pp 381-382.].
There were commentators like Medhatithi (825 AD – 900 AD) who allowed inclusiveness into the dvija state based on occupation alone (and not birth). Purushottama Pandita’s treatise Pravara Manjari (12th century AD) even allowed a Chandala to have a gotra (he justified it based on an older smrithi, that is, Baudhayana Smrithi). However, intolerance and exclusivity grew.
Medhatithi’s bhasya was destroyed over time. What we finally get from commentators like Raghunandana Bhattacharya (15th century AD) and Nagabhatta (18th century AD), is the re-establishment of the puranic view and justification that in Kaliyuga there are only 2 classes – Brahmins and Shudras.
So was this puranic-smrithi view so popular in the colonial period that the government recognized only the Brahmins as Forward Caste and all Non-Brahmins as Backward Class (irrespective of caste) until 1956 ?? Or did the British really find evidence of agreeing with the brahmanical view?
There are people who claim that the social nature of smritis and slavery was nowhere to be seen in India. In the forthcoming posts i will be giving slavery records of Southern India. For colonial records, my sources are the Wilson Anti-Slavery Collection (1834) and details of various Slavery Acts of Colonial India.
But first, lest it all be called a “british ploy”, I would like to start with the institution of slavery in (ancient) Tamilakam. I will be completing this over the coming week. So please bear with me for the intermittent posts.
Series on Slavery - Part 2.
In the Chola Kingdom, slaves were treated as personal property. They could be sold, mortgaged and transferred. Their sale deeds were called Aal Vilai Prahamana Isaivu Chittu [1]. The Periyapuranam refers to the sale deeds as Aal Olei [2].
Daud Ali documented the mechanism by which Cholas used enslaved women as reproductive items to create an elite cadre of military men called the Kaikollars [3]. The daughters of the enslaved women remained with their mothers in their dwellings named velam, and inherited their mothers’ slave status, thus serving as a pool to keep creating elite Chola soldiers. But the boys joined military units and disappeared from the slave society [4].
Here are some excerpts from the book, “Slavery and South Asian History”, by Indrani Chatterjee and Richard Maxwell Eaton:
-----
The Cholas killed women, children and brahmins, thus upsetting the order of castes and this is attested in an inscription dated 1007 AD at a village Hottur in Dharwar.
The meykirtis of Vijayarajendra Chola boast of decapacitating the dead body of a Chalukya mahadandanayaka named Chamundaraja and severing the nose of his only daughter Nagalai (the wife of Irugaiyan). Rajadhiraja Chola did the same thing to a Pandyan king’s mother.
When the Chola Kulotunga III defeated Vira Pandya of Madurai, he “caused the best of his women to enter his velam”. Here velam = harem.
Another Chola captured the wives of the Chalukya Ahavamalla after defeating him in war. Cholas meykkirtis are full of details about the women they captured in wars. They either defaced them, or added them to their harems.
The Kalinkattuparani poem describes the gentle women of the pandya country from tulu nadu, malai nadu, karnata, entering the velam of kulotunga chola. The boasts about “seizing women” (pendiram pididu) in royal eulogies are all over walls of several Chola temples.
------
So wars were the way thru which men and women were enslaved.
Nandanar was born in the Kingdom of Cholas. Caste system was in strict enforcement [5].
Karikala Chola invaded Ceylon and brought back thousands of slaves whom he employed to build a dam on Cauvery. An instance has been mentioned from a record of Thirupamburam, where a vellala sold himself and his daughters as slaves to a temple in the reign of the Chola king, Kulothunga, as he was unable to repay debts [6]
So as we see slavery existed since the Chola times, if not earlier. In the Sangam literature, Silapaddhikaram refers to Urumai Sutram interpreted as adimaittiral or a group of slaves [7].
Much later, slavery was also documented in the Vijayanagar empire. The Vijayanagar rulers too added women to their harems as war booties. They used slaves, both men and women, as serfs to till the state-owned land and produce crops.
So, as we can see, before the arrival of British, there were slaves who tilled land as bonded laborers, produced crops, were not allowed to own wealth and could be abused at the will of the master. Basically they lived a life as described in Manusmrithi.
Next week, we shall proceed to the colonial period to see how slaves lived, who they were and what was the slave-ownership pattern.
References:
[1] S.Maickam. Slavery in the Tamil Country, p.65.
[2] Raj Sekhar Basu. Nandanar's Children: The Paraiyans' Tryst with Destiny, Tamil Nadu 1850 – 1956, page.378.
[3][4] Indrani Chatterjee and Richard Maxwell Eaton. Slavery and South Asian History, pages 4 to 8.
[5] Raj Sekhar Basu. Nandanar's Children: The Paraiyans' Tryst with Destiny, Tamil Nadu 1850 - 1956.
[6][7] Śrī puṣpāñjali: recent researches in prehistory, protohistory, art, architecture, numismatics, iconography, and epigraphy : Dr. C. R. Srinivasan commemoration volume, Volume 1, p.308.
In the Chola Kingdom, slaves were treated as personal property. They could be sold, mortgaged and transferred. Their sale deeds were called Aal Vilai Prahamana Isaivu Chittu [1]. The Periyapuranam refers to the sale deeds as Aal Olei [2].
Daud Ali documented the mechanism by which Cholas used enslaved women as reproductive items to create an elite cadre of military men called the Kaikollars [3]. The daughters of the enslaved women remained with their mothers in their dwellings named velam, and inherited their mothers’ slave status, thus serving as a pool to keep creating elite Chola soldiers. But the boys joined military units and disappeared from the slave society [4].
Here are some excerpts from the book, “Slavery and South Asian History”, by Indrani Chatterjee and Richard Maxwell Eaton:
-----
The Cholas killed women, children and brahmins, thus upsetting the order of castes and this is attested in an inscription dated 1007 AD at a village Hottur in Dharwar.
The meykirtis of Vijayarajendra Chola boast of decapacitating the dead body of a Chalukya mahadandanayaka named Chamundaraja and severing the nose of his only daughter Nagalai (the wife of Irugaiyan). Rajadhiraja Chola did the same thing to a Pandyan king’s mother.
When the Chola Kulotunga III defeated Vira Pandya of Madurai, he “caused the best of his women to enter his velam”. Here velam = harem.
Another Chola captured the wives of the Chalukya Ahavamalla after defeating him in war. Cholas meykkirtis are full of details about the women they captured in wars. They either defaced them, or added them to their harems.
The Kalinkattuparani poem describes the gentle women of the pandya country from tulu nadu, malai nadu, karnata, entering the velam of kulotunga chola. The boasts about “seizing women” (pendiram pididu) in royal eulogies are all over walls of several Chola temples.
------
So wars were the way thru which men and women were enslaved.
Nandanar was born in the Kingdom of Cholas. Caste system was in strict enforcement [5].
Karikala Chola invaded Ceylon and brought back thousands of slaves whom he employed to build a dam on Cauvery. An instance has been mentioned from a record of Thirupamburam, where a vellala sold himself and his daughters as slaves to a temple in the reign of the Chola king, Kulothunga, as he was unable to repay debts [6]
So as we see slavery existed since the Chola times, if not earlier. In the Sangam literature, Silapaddhikaram refers to Urumai Sutram interpreted as adimaittiral or a group of slaves [7].
Much later, slavery was also documented in the Vijayanagar empire. The Vijayanagar rulers too added women to their harems as war booties. They used slaves, both men and women, as serfs to till the state-owned land and produce crops.
So, as we can see, before the arrival of British, there were slaves who tilled land as bonded laborers, produced crops, were not allowed to own wealth and could be abused at the will of the master. Basically they lived a life as described in Manusmrithi.
Next week, we shall proceed to the colonial period to see how slaves lived, who they were and what was the slave-ownership pattern.
References:
[1] S.Maickam. Slavery in the Tamil Country, p.65.
[2] Raj Sekhar Basu. Nandanar's Children: The Paraiyans' Tryst with Destiny, Tamil Nadu 1850 – 1956, page.378.
[3][4] Indrani Chatterjee and Richard Maxwell Eaton. Slavery and South Asian History, pages 4 to 8.
[5] Raj Sekhar Basu. Nandanar's Children: The Paraiyans' Tryst with Destiny, Tamil Nadu 1850 - 1956.
[6][7] Śrī puṣpāñjali: recent researches in prehistory, protohistory, art, architecture, numismatics, iconography, and epigraphy : Dr. C. R. Srinivasan commemoration volume, Volume 1, p.308.
Last edited:
I am asked why new smrithis got tyrannical, and why smritis sought violence to impose their varna system.
IMO there are some difference between older smrithis like Apastamba and Baudhayana and new smrithis like Manusmrithi. Older smrithis permit some leeway. New smrithis are comparatively rigid imo.
Though older smrithis have a few punishments, they do not have a long list of gross punishments like that of the new smrithis (such as Manu-smrithi, Gautama-smrithi and Vasishta-smrithi). IMO, the use of violence is a lot more in new smrithis.
Some difference from my viewpoint are:
1) Older smrithis merely give a 4-fold division of society with relevant rules for the 4 varnas (Baudhayana differs in this - he gives a list of various birth orders. Apasthama recognises a few like the Chandala, Shudra and Apapatra).
But Manusmrithi (a new smrithi) designates plenty of social groups (which existed during his time). Vashishta and Gautama Smrithis also do a similar designation of 'castes'.
Manusmrithi mentions various tribes and even designates vratyas of each dvija varna. Manu even gives a blanket definition of a 'dasyus' (as people of all tribes who do not come within chaturvarna).
Quite obviously anyone cannot designate anyone just like that. This means 'Manu' or those who commissioned such new smrithis must have achieved considerable state power. Which possibly the older smrithis did not achieve.
2) Though there is prohibition wrt food, earlier on in the Apasthamba smrithi, some leeway is seen. If in distress, a brahmana is allwoed to eat food offered by a shudra (which some other smrithis also allow). But the surprising difference is that Apasthamba Smrithi permits Shudras to perpare food for the Vaisvadeva ceremony (under the supervision of a dvija).
To 'purify' food cooked by a shudra, all that was required was to place the food on fire and then sprinkle it with water. Such food became worthy of even being offered to Gods. (Apasthamba Smrithi, Prasna 2, Patala 2, Khanda 3).
On the contrary, a new smrithi like Vashista smrithi (which was written after Manu smrithi) completely bans brahmans from consuming food cooked / offered by a shudra. No leeway is allowed.
3) Apasthamba and Baudhayana allows Shudras to come to a Brahmana household as guests. Such shudras guests are also fed by Brahmana households. New smrithis do not mention this.
4) Towards the end of the Apasthamba Sutra we find a few punishments being meted out. The verses similar to that of Manu -- like
(a) The tongue of a Shudra who speaks ill of virtous dvijas shall be cut off;
(b) A Shudra who assumes an equal position in conversation with a dvija on the road, on a couch, in sitting, etc shall be flogged.
As such, Apathamba has very-very few punishments. I do not know if these few verses are later interpolations because they sound so similar to Manu, Gautama and Vashista.
But despite the punishments Apathamba smrithi declares "The Knowledge which Shudras and Women possess is the completion of all study...this knowledge is a supplemet of the Atharvaveda". So obviously it indicates Shudras possessed the knowledge of Atharva-veda.
Most likely the creators of smrithi belonged to the trayi-veda (rig, sama, yajur) traditions which to them was "the vedas". Earlier on in this forum we already discussed the status of atharva-veda and why it was not recognized as a veda in an earlier period.
5) Older Smrithis like Apasthamba and Baudhayana asks vedic (trayi-veda imo) recitation to be stopped when a shudra is in a hearing distance. There are no grotesque punishments prescribed for shudras (like pouring lac into the ears).
But in Manusmrithi and Gautama smrithi, there are plenty of punishments (punishments got streamlined and very well defined in new smrithis, i feel).
Punishments of Manu are already discussed in this forum. So here are Gautama's punishments (but one must note that Gautama smithi allows caste change in 5th generation and says that in the seventh generation men obtain a change of caste by being raised to a higher one or degraded to a lower one).
From Chapter 12 of Gautama smrithi :
(a) The limb of a Shudra who involves in abuse (speaking ill) of dvijas (brahmadvesha) shall be cut off.
(b) If a Shudra listens to Vedas with intent, his ears shall be filled with molten tin and lac.
(c) If a Shudra remembers the Vedas, his body shall be cut in twain.
(d) If a Shudra assumes an equal position to that of a dvija in conversation, in sitting, etc, he shall undergo corporal punishment.
In Chapter 18 of Gautama dharmasutra, there is more:
(e) If a brahmana wants to defray wedding costs or performance of a rite, he can take money by fraud or force from a shudra. There is no punishment for this. The generosity does not end there. A brahmana is allowed to accept gifts from all castes.
Manu is the worst of all. For he prohibits shudras from owning wealth. And permits use of violence to maintain "order" of the 4 castes.
6) Older smrithis like Apastamba, Kausika, Baudhayana permit swa-gotra marriages. They only avoid the same pravara. But new smrithis completely ban same-gotra marriages. This may have affected same-caste and inter-caste marriages (earlier in some threads there were discussions about how inter-caste marriages went out of vougue from around 9th century AD).
7) New smrithis like Vashista Smrithi designated an Anthyavasayin. Vishnu dharmasutra designated an Asprashya. Manu's designations are well known. Such streamlined definitions are not common in old smrithis. Nor do we see enforcement of strict social "orders" by use of force as is permitted in Manusmrithi. Which is why i think new smrithis got tyrannical.
8) Vashista smrithi even says that a shudra wife of the "black race" is for pleasure not for fulfillment of laws (so there is some inherent "racism" here, which the old smrithis seem to miss out).
Regards.
IMO there are some difference between older smrithis like Apastamba and Baudhayana and new smrithis like Manusmrithi. Older smrithis permit some leeway. New smrithis are comparatively rigid imo.
Though older smrithis have a few punishments, they do not have a long list of gross punishments like that of the new smrithis (such as Manu-smrithi, Gautama-smrithi and Vasishta-smrithi). IMO, the use of violence is a lot more in new smrithis.
Some difference from my viewpoint are:
1) Older smrithis merely give a 4-fold division of society with relevant rules for the 4 varnas (Baudhayana differs in this - he gives a list of various birth orders. Apasthama recognises a few like the Chandala, Shudra and Apapatra).
But Manusmrithi (a new smrithi) designates plenty of social groups (which existed during his time). Vashishta and Gautama Smrithis also do a similar designation of 'castes'.
Manusmrithi mentions various tribes and even designates vratyas of each dvija varna. Manu even gives a blanket definition of a 'dasyus' (as people of all tribes who do not come within chaturvarna).
Quite obviously anyone cannot designate anyone just like that. This means 'Manu' or those who commissioned such new smrithis must have achieved considerable state power. Which possibly the older smrithis did not achieve.
2) Though there is prohibition wrt food, earlier on in the Apasthamba smrithi, some leeway is seen. If in distress, a brahmana is allwoed to eat food offered by a shudra (which some other smrithis also allow). But the surprising difference is that Apasthamba Smrithi permits Shudras to perpare food for the Vaisvadeva ceremony (under the supervision of a dvija).
To 'purify' food cooked by a shudra, all that was required was to place the food on fire and then sprinkle it with water. Such food became worthy of even being offered to Gods. (Apasthamba Smrithi, Prasna 2, Patala 2, Khanda 3).
On the contrary, a new smrithi like Vashista smrithi (which was written after Manu smrithi) completely bans brahmans from consuming food cooked / offered by a shudra. No leeway is allowed.
3) Apasthamba and Baudhayana allows Shudras to come to a Brahmana household as guests. Such shudras guests are also fed by Brahmana households. New smrithis do not mention this.
4) Towards the end of the Apasthamba Sutra we find a few punishments being meted out. The verses similar to that of Manu -- like
(a) The tongue of a Shudra who speaks ill of virtous dvijas shall be cut off;
(b) A Shudra who assumes an equal position in conversation with a dvija on the road, on a couch, in sitting, etc shall be flogged.
As such, Apathamba has very-very few punishments. I do not know if these few verses are later interpolations because they sound so similar to Manu, Gautama and Vashista.
But despite the punishments Apathamba smrithi declares "The Knowledge which Shudras and Women possess is the completion of all study...this knowledge is a supplemet of the Atharvaveda". So obviously it indicates Shudras possessed the knowledge of Atharva-veda.
Most likely the creators of smrithi belonged to the trayi-veda (rig, sama, yajur) traditions which to them was "the vedas". Earlier on in this forum we already discussed the status of atharva-veda and why it was not recognized as a veda in an earlier period.
5) Older Smrithis like Apasthamba and Baudhayana asks vedic (trayi-veda imo) recitation to be stopped when a shudra is in a hearing distance. There are no grotesque punishments prescribed for shudras (like pouring lac into the ears).
But in Manusmrithi and Gautama smrithi, there are plenty of punishments (punishments got streamlined and very well defined in new smrithis, i feel).
Punishments of Manu are already discussed in this forum. So here are Gautama's punishments (but one must note that Gautama smithi allows caste change in 5th generation and says that in the seventh generation men obtain a change of caste by being raised to a higher one or degraded to a lower one).
From Chapter 12 of Gautama smrithi :
(a) The limb of a Shudra who involves in abuse (speaking ill) of dvijas (brahmadvesha) shall be cut off.
(b) If a Shudra listens to Vedas with intent, his ears shall be filled with molten tin and lac.
(c) If a Shudra remembers the Vedas, his body shall be cut in twain.
(d) If a Shudra assumes an equal position to that of a dvija in conversation, in sitting, etc, he shall undergo corporal punishment.
In Chapter 18 of Gautama dharmasutra, there is more:
(e) If a brahmana wants to defray wedding costs or performance of a rite, he can take money by fraud or force from a shudra. There is no punishment for this. The generosity does not end there. A brahmana is allowed to accept gifts from all castes.
Manu is the worst of all. For he prohibits shudras from owning wealth. And permits use of violence to maintain "order" of the 4 castes.
6) Older smrithis like Apastamba, Kausika, Baudhayana permit swa-gotra marriages. They only avoid the same pravara. But new smrithis completely ban same-gotra marriages. This may have affected same-caste and inter-caste marriages (earlier in some threads there were discussions about how inter-caste marriages went out of vougue from around 9th century AD).
7) New smrithis like Vashista Smrithi designated an Anthyavasayin. Vishnu dharmasutra designated an Asprashya. Manu's designations are well known. Such streamlined definitions are not common in old smrithis. Nor do we see enforcement of strict social "orders" by use of force as is permitted in Manusmrithi. Which is why i think new smrithis got tyrannical.
8) Vashista smrithi even says that a shudra wife of the "black race" is for pleasure not for fulfillment of laws (so there is some inherent "racism" here, which the old smrithis seem to miss out).
Regards.
Last edited:
There is an additional reason why i am making these posts.
There are some people who beleive that
1) Hinduism had a glorious past.
2) There was no poverty in that glorious past.
3) All varnas lived peacefully.
4) Purity of blood was ensured for dvijas.
5) Political instability is there only in democracy.
6) Secularism is a curse to the country,
etc, etc.
I specifically chose Chola Kingdom, because it enjoys a hallowed position in literature as the kingdom of truthful kings, of great administrators and builders, where prosperity reigned, where women were given high position, etc, etc.
These posts are to show people that
1) Even Chola kingdom could not ensure prosperity for all (selling onseself as a slave to repay debts existed).
2) Even Chola kingdom did not guarantee purity of blood for anyone (men of enemy territories were killed, women were enslaved. No one was spared on account of caste).
3) Chola kingdom offered political stability, alright, but ruled with a cruel iron fist. There is a saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Chieftains went to any lenght to hold on to power. Internicine fights and petty wars were frequent. Caste-formation was a dynamic process. Old structures kept crumbling. New social groups kept getting created (under the reign of different kings).
The situation in north india is no different. The smrithis are quite revealing in this (similar to the situation of cholas described above, one finds that Yagnavalkya Smrithi defines Kshatris as those born to dvija men from female slaves). Position of women under various kingdoms?? I will bring up north india after completing the posts on south india.
Today we grumble about high power traffic, raising cost of petrol, etc, etc. But life in the past was not so peaceful and easy either.
Regards.
There are some people who beleive that
1) Hinduism had a glorious past.
2) There was no poverty in that glorious past.
3) All varnas lived peacefully.
4) Purity of blood was ensured for dvijas.
5) Political instability is there only in democracy.
6) Secularism is a curse to the country,
etc, etc.
I specifically chose Chola Kingdom, because it enjoys a hallowed position in literature as the kingdom of truthful kings, of great administrators and builders, where prosperity reigned, where women were given high position, etc, etc.
These posts are to show people that
1) Even Chola kingdom could not ensure prosperity for all (selling onseself as a slave to repay debts existed).
2) Even Chola kingdom did not guarantee purity of blood for anyone (men of enemy territories were killed, women were enslaved. No one was spared on account of caste).
3) Chola kingdom offered political stability, alright, but ruled with a cruel iron fist. There is a saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Chieftains went to any lenght to hold on to power. Internicine fights and petty wars were frequent. Caste-formation was a dynamic process. Old structures kept crumbling. New social groups kept getting created (under the reign of different kings).
The situation in north india is no different. The smrithis are quite revealing in this (similar to the situation of cholas described above, one finds that Yagnavalkya Smrithi defines Kshatris as those born to dvija men from female slaves). Position of women under various kingdoms?? I will bring up north india after completing the posts on south india.
Today we grumble about high power traffic, raising cost of petrol, etc, etc. But life in the past was not so peaceful and easy either.
Regards.
"8) Vashista smrithi even says that a shudra wife of the "black race" is for pleasure not for fulfillment of laws (so there is some inherent "racism" here, which the old smrithis seem to miss out)." -- HH in post #110.
Hello HH:
1. Does this "Black Race" refer to the high-melanin people of India (now predominantly seen in the South, otherwise called as Dravidians)?
2. Is there any mention of "White Race" in the Vashista smrithi or any other smrithis, meaning people of low-melanin (or light colored people) in India?
This would help me to add some meat to my Aryan Migration Hypothesis that I developed in "Aryan Invasion Thread" a few months back in this Forum.
Thanks
Y
Hello HH:
1. Does this "Black Race" refer to the high-melanin people of India (now predominantly seen in the South, otherwise called as Dravidians)?
2. Is there any mention of "White Race" in the Vashista smrithi or any other smrithis, meaning people of low-melanin (or light colored people) in India?
This would help me to add some meat to my Aryan Migration Hypothesis that I developed in "Aryan Invasion Thread" a few months back in this Forum.
Thanks
Y
Dear Y,
I got the verse from Vashista dharmashatra from this website - http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/dharma/vash3.asp
The Sanskrit version of Vashista's dharmasutra is here - http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/kalpa/dharma/vasishtha_dharma_sutra.pdf
There is no indication that the black people referred to in the Vashista dharmasutra are dravidians or any other specific linguistic group.
As far as i have come across, the older smrithis do not specifically mention divisiveness of black people versus white people.
So Vashista associating black with shudra is new to me..
Somewhere along the way the idea must have taken root that brahmins are white / shudras are black. Maybe becoz socially some people think dark-skin denotes someone who has laboured under the sun (hence labour class) and fair skin denotes someone who has spent time indoors (hence a privileged class).
But are these black shudras specifically dravidians, is impossible to say i feel.
Most smrithis were written in northern india so Vashista dharmasutra may have refered to some other linguistic group living in northern india after ~200 AD.
PV Kane dates Vashista smrithi to 600-300 BC, as also Apasthamba, Baudhayana, Shankha-likhita and Gautama. [Ref: Indian Council of Social Sciences Research (digitized 2007). A Survey of research in political science, Volume 4, p.30.] PV Kane assigns Vishnu smrithi to 300 - 100 BC.
However, am unable to agree with this dating for Vashista dharmashastra because Vashista quotes Manu and Buddhist cannon. This must mean Vashista smrithi was composed after 200 AD approximately.
From one book i understand there was hardening of class relations in northern india between 600 BC and 200 AD with untouchability originating in the pre-mauryan period [Ref: Encyclopaedia Of Untouchables : Ancient Medieval And Modern, p.424-425].
I am confounded with a major question though.
Smrithis like those of Manu, Baudhayana, and Vashista threatened brahmins with loss of caste if they took to certian occupations. However, the nature of smrithis allows brahmins to take to dvija occupations.
So, if the nature of smrithis put brahmins on top of the heirarchy, allowed brahmins to take to arms, etc -- would the native kings of tamilakam invite such 'brahmins' to perform rituals for them?
The Vaidikis of the kannada and telugu areas have no history of producing warriors. They remained more or less restricted to vaidikeeyam. So did sections of tamil brahmins. But today all of these claim to be adherants of smrithis (dharmashastras) as smartha brahmins.
When Komati litigants sought vaishya varna in court they were supported by telugu vaidikis. But the Niyogis who opposed them produced one vital proof - they said the vaidikas were "unread in the dharmashastras" (please see page 39 of link provided).
So am thinking did the vaidikis (native priests ?) merely adopt smrithis in the late-colonial period ? Maybe to re-invent themselves as 'vedic brahmins' or maybe for a higher social status (or perhaps some other reason we don't know of yet) ?
Regards.
S
subbudu1
Guest
Long long back my velanadu vaidiki friend informs me that in ancient times his ancestors fought in wars and resided in Kalinga. His source of information was nothing more than family lore. The Hebbar iyengars are supposed to have links with the Hebbar Jains who were kings and warriors at some point of time. The wikipedia entries indicate martial past for both vadamas and brahacharnams of TamilNad. In Mahatarasthra both Chitpavans and desasthas and I vaguely remember about Karhade as well, I think, were enrolled in the Maratha army. In UP the genetic studies prove a clear relationship between rajputs and brahmins. The five brahmins of bengal who were invited by AdiSura the forefathers of Mukharjee, Chatterjee, Bannerjee, Ghosals and Gangulys were supposed to weild weapons. The story goes on. I think brahmins had a definite martial tradition throughout India. But by and large over a period of time brahmins had premoninantly lost their martial edge and became more domesticated as agriculturists and priests, as they got used to a life of comfort. So probably they posed little harm to the rulers of those time who invited them.
Your case of the support of vaishyas by vaidikas presents an interesting point. It seems to be a question of rivalry , a veda learning brahmin would seem less threatened by a thread wearing vaishya. But Niyogi who works as a vaishya, yet claims to be a brahmin, would feel threatened by the vaishyas.
None of this disproves your view that Brahmins might have converted from tribal people today called shudras or untouchables. But one must remember that everywhere in India brahmins had close links with the ruling class and encouraged not only marriages with them but also in certain areas were open to eating, dining and having a social life with them . It is here I see the link with brahmins and martial tradition.
sangom
0
Will this lead us to the conclusion that the various "smritis" could have been fabricated by these two-in-one (brahmana and kshatriya) brahmanas and promulgated by themselves at the point of sword? If so, the usual excuse given by our "orthodox" friends that the poor, servile brahmins were forced by the rulers (kshatriyas) to compose the smritis, will become untrue!
Dear Subbudu Sir,
Thankyou for the interesting perspective.
I am quite surprised to see the velanadu martial past you have stated.
Velanadu was a principality / kingdom between Guntur to Srisailam. That the Velamas came from Velanadu is mentioned by a few writers like Hanumantha rao in "Social mobility in Medieval Andhra'.
The term Velama is supposed to be a 'caste' today but it wud seem that they were simply people of velanadu. A section of them were local cheiftains and called velama doras. Another section of them were priests.
To put it simply - velanadu brahmins wud simply mean "priests from the velanadu region". Or so it wud seem (atleast till now). Anyways, you must be aware the Velama doras turned out be highly brahmanical, adopting brahmanical customs and all.
Warriors and priests (of usually the same or related clans) elevating one another as brahmins and kshatriyas turns out to be a recurrent common feature. Am aware of Chitpavan-Peshwa connection. But the Deshashta having a martial / warrior past is news to me.
Am told over the years the Chitpavans sought and got marital connections with Deshastas (maybe it is due to this that Deshasta 'became linked' with warrior-hood?).
If we were to take the vast majority of the ritual specialists / vaidikis of telugu, kannada and tulu speaking areas, it will be very difficult to find martial tradition amongst them.
Even purohitam is practiced only by few families amongst telugu vaidikis. Most are temple priests. We do not find telugu vaidikis claiming to be followers of Adi Shankara in the Vijayanagar times (though i will stand corrected on this if contrary info is found).
It seems to me that native priests of the telugu regions, as shaivas, in recent times felt affinity for Adi Shankaracharya. They started claiming to be followers of Adi Shankara (and hence "smartha" to emulate their tamil counterparts). The same goes for Tulu brahmins. Only a section of them follow Advaitha and hence claim to be "Smartha" brahmins.
Even the telugu Adi Shaivalu who are telugu equivalents of the tamil Gurukkals claim to be followers of Adi Shankaracharya and hence "smartha" brahmins
All these are recent claims imo.
In the 1800s the telugu Vadikis were "unread in dharmashastras" (and that too from a legal court case pov). So these claims of being "smartha" brahmins (by way of being "followers of Adi Shankaracharya") is all very very recent imo.
Let me see if am able to find pre-colonial period links of vaidikis with Smrithis.
Regards.
Thankyou for the interesting perspective.
I am quite surprised to see the velanadu martial past you have stated.
Velanadu was a principality / kingdom between Guntur to Srisailam. That the Velamas came from Velanadu is mentioned by a few writers like Hanumantha rao in "Social mobility in Medieval Andhra'.
The term Velama is supposed to be a 'caste' today but it wud seem that they were simply people of velanadu. A section of them were local cheiftains and called velama doras. Another section of them were priests.
To put it simply - velanadu brahmins wud simply mean "priests from the velanadu region". Or so it wud seem (atleast till now). Anyways, you must be aware the Velama doras turned out be highly brahmanical, adopting brahmanical customs and all.
Warriors and priests (of usually the same or related clans) elevating one another as brahmins and kshatriyas turns out to be a recurrent common feature. Am aware of Chitpavan-Peshwa connection. But the Deshashta having a martial / warrior past is news to me.
Am told over the years the Chitpavans sought and got marital connections with Deshastas (maybe it is due to this that Deshasta 'became linked' with warrior-hood?).
If we were to take the vast majority of the ritual specialists / vaidikis of telugu, kannada and tulu speaking areas, it will be very difficult to find martial tradition amongst them.
Even purohitam is practiced only by few families amongst telugu vaidikis. Most are temple priests. We do not find telugu vaidikis claiming to be followers of Adi Shankara in the Vijayanagar times (though i will stand corrected on this if contrary info is found).
It seems to me that native priests of the telugu regions, as shaivas, in recent times felt affinity for Adi Shankaracharya. They started claiming to be followers of Adi Shankara (and hence "smartha" to emulate their tamil counterparts). The same goes for Tulu brahmins. Only a section of them follow Advaitha and hence claim to be "Smartha" brahmins.
Even the telugu Adi Shaivalu who are telugu equivalents of the tamil Gurukkals claim to be followers of Adi Shankaracharya and hence "smartha" brahmins
All these are recent claims imo. In the 1800s the telugu Vadikis were "unread in dharmashastras" (and that too from a legal court case pov). So these claims of being "smartha" brahmins (by way of being "followers of Adi Shankaracharya") is all very very recent imo.
Let me see if am able to find pre-colonial period links of vaidikis with Smrithis.
Regards.
Dear Sangom Sir,
I have a doubt on namboodiris.
According to the Kerala district gazetteers, Volume 9, the rise of Namboodiris as landlords started only from 12th century AD. Apparently it coincided with the Shankara Smrithi (which Namboodiris claims was written by Adi Shankara himself).
The publication (gazetteers) contests the authorship of Shankara-Smrithi and says that in Shankara-Smrithi, the Namboodiris are referred to as Jenmis. Anyways, overall it seems that namboodiris started growing as a landed class only from 12th century AD. What are your views on this sir?
Regards.
I have a doubt on namboodiris.
According to the Kerala district gazetteers, Volume 9, the rise of Namboodiris as landlords started only from 12th century AD. Apparently it coincided with the Shankara Smrithi (which Namboodiris claims was written by Adi Shankara himself).
The publication (gazetteers) contests the authorship of Shankara-Smrithi and says that in Shankara-Smrithi, the Namboodiris are referred to as Jenmis. Anyways, overall it seems that namboodiris started growing as a landed class only from 12th century AD. What are your views on this sir?
Regards.
S
subbudu1
Guest
Dear Subbudu Sir,
Thankyou for the interesting perspective.
I am quite surprised to see the velanadu martial past you have stated.
Velanadu was a principality / kingdom between Guntur to Srisailam. That the Velamas came from Velanadu is mentioned by a few writers like Hanumantha rao in "Social mobility in Medieval Andhra'.
The term Velama is supposed to be a 'caste' today but it wud seem that they were simply people of velanadu. A section of them were local cheiftains and called velama doras. Another section of them were priests.
To put it simply - velanadu brahmins wud simply mean "priests from the velanadu region". Or so it wud seem (atleast till now). Anyways, you must be aware the Velama doras turned out be highly brahmanical, adopting brahmanical customs and all.
Warriors and priests (of usually the same or related clans) elevating one another as brahmins and kshatriyas turns out to be a recurrent common feature. Am aware of Chitpavan-Peshwa connection. But the Deshashta having a martial / warrior past is news to me.
Am told over the years the Chitpavans sought and got marital connections with Deshastas (maybe it is due to this that Deshasta 'became linked' with warrior-hood?).
If we were to take the vast majority of the ritual specialists / vaidikis of telugu, kannada and tulu speaking areas, it will be very difficult to find martial tradition amongst them.
Even purohitam is practiced only by few families amongst telugu vaidikis. Most are temple priests. We do not find telugu vaidikis claiming to be followers of Adi Shankara in the Vijayanagar times (though i will stand corrected on this if contrary info is found).
It seems to me that native priests of the telugu regions, as shaivas, in recent times felt affinity for Adi Shankaracharya. They started claiming to be followers of Adi Shankara (and hence "smartha" to emulate their tamil counterparts). The same goes for Tulu brahmins. Only a section of them follow Advaitha and hence claim to be "Smartha" brahmins.
Even the telugu Adi Shaivalu who are telugu equivalents of the tamil Gurukkals claim to be followers of Adi Shankaracharya and hence "smartha" brahmins
In the 1800s the telugu Vadikis were "unread in dharmashastras" (and that too from a legal court case pov). So these claims of being "smartha" brahmins (by way of being "followers of Adi Shankaracharya") is all very very recent imo.
Let me see if am able to find pre-colonial period links of vaidikis with Smrithis.
Regards.
I see caste conversion as a wide phenomenon in the preurban phases of various regions. However the semi-urban phases indicates to me a period of caste consolidation and intermingling of different groups of the same social status. Thus somebody could have migrated from Kalinga desha and established relations with somebody else in velanadu. Your link of velanadu with velamas are quite possible as they enjoyed high status in the Andhra region and may have branched from the same root. Velamas I think are related to warriors again. It is important to note that nothing much can be read just from the similarity of the names, in the same ways as choziars ( the munkudumi brahmins) and chozia vellalars and cholanattu vadama all have the same common title chola.
Regarding smrithis I dont know about the link of the vaidikas with that. What I see is that smrithis were composed to the mutual advantage of the influential classes in society. However I am not sure about vaidikas not being a follower of smrithis in Andhra. It is possible that Niyogis considered themselves as the experts in law affairs whereas vaidikas were supposed to work only in the domain of rituals and following the laws that were made. I would strongly support this possibility because most of the Niyogis and much more prosperous and owners of land and influential compared to vaidikas. I am informed that many of the mutt heads of Sringeri, the upholders of smritis are from Vaidika especially Velanadu, including the current head and none of them are from Niyogis. I am uncertain how a successor to the throne of shankaracharya would be chosen from a community that does not hold smrithis. The inspirer of the Vijayanagar kings Vidyaranya, a guru of Sringeri, I have heard is a vaidika from telangana.
S
subbudu1
Guest
Very true. In Kerala for instance the brahmins would have had no problems incorporating his agenda on the people, as his step-brother would be none other than the King himself. Apart from this, as per the regular smritis , a son born to a brahmin father and kshatriya mother is a brahmin. But in Kerala this is not the case. This is interesting as it seems this was deliberately done inorder to keep the common interest of brahmins and ruling class alive. It shows how the g kshatriya and brahmin names for castes were played along for mutual advantage of both. Indeed Brahma-Kshatriya seems to be the order of the day.Will this lead us to the conclusion that the various "smritis" could have been fabricated by these two-in-one (brahmana and kshatriya) brahmanas and promulgated by themselves at the point of sword? If so, the usual excuse given by our "orthodox" friends that the poor, servile brahmins were forced by the rulers (kshatriyas) to compose the smritis, will become untrue!
S
subbudu1
Guest
Here are some interesting information for further investigation. We may be aware that a number of warriors during the mutiny of 1857 were brahmins of deshastha and karhade stock.
Much earlier we had Moropant Tryambak Pingle who lived about four hundred years back. He was the prime minister of Shivaji , a warrior.See below.
Peshwa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moropant Trimbak Pingle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It seems to be a family tradition to be in war as it is reported that his brother too was in the army.
It is also sighted that Rani Lakshmibai was a Karhade brahmin who married the Raja of Jhansi. I would presume that the Raja must have also been a Karhade. Her father was a soldier and she was provided a training in arms since childhood much before her marriage, a most certain indication of a family deeply entrenched in martial traditions.
The Velanadu brahmins claim that warrior clan of Velanati Chodas belong to their own. It may not be completely true but cannot be dismissed either.
I am also referring this for your interest
South Indian Inscriptions - Volume 10 - Imperial Cholas Inscriptions @ whatisindia.com
Much earlier we had Moropant Tryambak Pingle who lived about four hundred years back. He was the prime minister of Shivaji , a warrior.See below.
Peshwa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moropant Trimbak Pingle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It seems to be a family tradition to be in war as it is reported that his brother too was in the army.
It is also sighted that Rani Lakshmibai was a Karhade brahmin who married the Raja of Jhansi. I would presume that the Raja must have also been a Karhade. Her father was a soldier and she was provided a training in arms since childhood much before her marriage, a most certain indication of a family deeply entrenched in martial traditions.
The Velanadu brahmins claim that warrior clan of Velanati Chodas belong to their own. It may not be completely true but cannot be dismissed either.
I am also referring this for your interest
South Indian Inscriptions - Volume 10 - Imperial Cholas Inscriptions @ whatisindia.com
No. 79.
(A. R. No. 117 of 1917.)
On a stone set up near the Madigapalli of Nutakki, Guntur Taluk, Guntur District. S. 1040.
States that Kalugottumballi Mavi-Nayaka, son of Chami-Nayaka, on of the five hundred mahajanas of Malvana founded the temple of Kesavadeva at Nutakki and gave 25 inupa yedlu for a perpetual lamp in the said temple. Describes the Malvana five hundred as a sect of Brahmins originally coming from Mashapuri on the west of the Godavari and connects them in some unintelligible way with the killing of Ravana by Rama
Another proof that brahmins were warriors and not always a peaceful people.
In karnataka regions also you have history of brahmins taking up arms and forming marital alliances. I refer to this link. I am sure by digging deeper we will find more facts.
Here is the quote
Another proof that brahmins were warriors and not always a peaceful people.
In karnataka regions also you have history of brahmins taking up arms and forming marital alliances. I refer to this link. I am sure by digging deeper we will find more facts.
Here is the quote
Dear Subbudu Sir,
Thanks for the interesting links.
I stand corrected wrt to Velanadu Smarthas as i found info that they were smarthas in vijayanagar times.
Interestingly, the Velanadu Smarthas were divided into 3 sections based on geographical location within Velanadu or Venginadu :
1) Suddavarapu Sunku Velanadu
2) Kakamani Velanadu
3) Permbeti Velanadu.
But these divisions no longer exist.
WRT the Velanaati Chodas, i read that they were from the Durjaya family; that is, the chieftains called themselves the descendants of the legendary prince Durjaya of the Chaturtha-kula (fourth caste, that is, shudras).
Interestingly, Kakatiyas (1000 - 1323 AD) and Recerla Reddis also claimed descent from Durjaya.
But here comes the interesting part. The Velanati chodas professed 'gotras' such as Velarutla gotra (durjayas). There are also 'gotras' like Musunudla gotra and Velandunoodla gotra. But these have disappeared. Ofcourse it is claimed that Velarutla became Vallutla, but no evidence of the same (i will stand corrected on this if the info is found). We must not forget that we indians are given to making tall claims (like palelu (parayars) claim to have become poligars).
Anyways, considering these were 'gotras' so long time back, perhaps its possible they have ceased to exist in present day usage. Or perhaps on coming to positions of power, these sanskritized to upper varnas (rajus? or brahmins?) after adopting the brahmanical gotras, customs, etc. That the Velamas adopted brahmanical customs has been written about in quite a few books.
But am getting somewhat clear about one thing -- that the Cholas were not of Tamil origin. More later.
Reg Rani Lakshmibai, her father Moropant was not a soldier. He was a court official. Lakshmibai's family was not at all entrenched in arms. She received arms training sometimes secrelty and sometimes after a great deal of opposition from others.
Lakshmibai's husband Raja Gangadhar Rao Newalkar was not a prince either. His family members were Subedars of Jhansi; and Gangadhar Rao came to be accepted as the 'King' by the British Government.
Well sir, it would seem that warriors sought brahmin and kshatriya positions after coming to power. If it were otherwise (that is "brahmins becoming warriors"), they should mention so in the earliest of their prasastis.
Generally what we find is a pattern of "people", where warriors come to power, then after a while, they produce geneological records on copper plates or inscriptions connecting themselves to Ashwatthama / Dronacharya (as in the case of Pallavas) or even the vedic Yayati (Vijayanagar kings) or possibly whomsoever they please.
Atleast from the pattern of land-holdings under different kingdoms it becomes clear who benefitted from warrior-hood...more later.
Regards.
Thanks for the interesting links.
I stand corrected wrt to Velanadu Smarthas as i found info that they were smarthas in vijayanagar times.
Interestingly, the Velanadu Smarthas were divided into 3 sections based on geographical location within Velanadu or Venginadu :
1) Suddavarapu Sunku Velanadu
2) Kakamani Velanadu
3) Permbeti Velanadu.
But these divisions no longer exist.
WRT the Velanaati Chodas, i read that they were from the Durjaya family; that is, the chieftains called themselves the descendants of the legendary prince Durjaya of the Chaturtha-kula (fourth caste, that is, shudras).
Interestingly, Kakatiyas (1000 - 1323 AD) and Recerla Reddis also claimed descent from Durjaya.
But here comes the interesting part. The Velanati chodas professed 'gotras' such as Velarutla gotra (durjayas). There are also 'gotras' like Musunudla gotra and Velandunoodla gotra. But these have disappeared. Ofcourse it is claimed that Velarutla became Vallutla, but no evidence of the same (i will stand corrected on this if the info is found). We must not forget that we indians are given to making tall claims (like palelu (parayars) claim to have become poligars).
Anyways, considering these were 'gotras' so long time back, perhaps its possible they have ceased to exist in present day usage. Or perhaps on coming to positions of power, these sanskritized to upper varnas (rajus? or brahmins?) after adopting the brahmanical gotras, customs, etc. That the Velamas adopted brahmanical customs has been written about in quite a few books.
But am getting somewhat clear about one thing -- that the Cholas were not of Tamil origin. More later.
Reg Rani Lakshmibai, her father Moropant was not a soldier. He was a court official. Lakshmibai's family was not at all entrenched in arms. She received arms training sometimes secrelty and sometimes after a great deal of opposition from others.
Lakshmibai's husband Raja Gangadhar Rao Newalkar was not a prince either. His family members were Subedars of Jhansi; and Gangadhar Rao came to be accepted as the 'King' by the British Government.
Well sir, it would seem that warriors sought brahmin and kshatriya positions after coming to power. If it were otherwise (that is "brahmins becoming warriors"), they should mention so in the earliest of their prasastis.
Generally what we find is a pattern of "people", where warriors come to power, then after a while, they produce geneological records on copper plates or inscriptions connecting themselves to Ashwatthama / Dronacharya (as in the case of Pallavas) or even the vedic Yayati (Vijayanagar kings) or possibly whomsoever they please.
Atleast from the pattern of land-holdings under different kingdoms it becomes clear who benefitted from warrior-hood...more later.
Regards.
Last edited:
sangom
0
Quite possible. But I would hazard a guess (nothing to back up this guess) that the rise of the Namboodiris must have commenced soon after Sankara became a well-known Acharya throughout Bharat and there is this legend of the Kollam Era comemmorating the meeting of the Acharya and the ruler of Venad Udaya Marthanda Varma (a feudatory with capital at Kollam)).
The Saankarasmriti could have been fabricated to enable this ascendance and the name of Sankara would have lent it a lot of authority and inviolability in the minds of the genuine farmers and farm workers of those eras who would have belonged to the lowest castes, as it is now also. The "Pottan Theyyam" could have been a result of the impotent anger of the farming community in having lost their position to the Nambus through the chicanery of projecting Sankara, Saankarasmriti, etc.
Hence, the Namboodiris might have started consolidating their position in the beginning of the 9th. century or so and their rise as the undisputed "jenmis" of Kerala and the text of "Keralolpatthi" (Origin of Kerala -the Parasurama and throwing axe legend, etc.) might also have been "created" during this period in order to buttress the Nambu claim that they were the original owners of this entire land.
Since we are finding fault with Nambus and not TBs, I feel the self-appointed champions of TBism will not have objection to our views.
Last edited:
S
subbudu1
Guest
This is the interesting part may be not by name but they do seem to act as barriers in marriage. Now that you mention three divisions, I remember being told that there are three geographical divisions of velandu whose culture and attitude to life is different. One of the sections is more found around vijayawada it seems and another near rajahmandry, visakhapatnam. The third I am not sure. It seems the current head of Sringeri Shankara Mutt belongs to the division whose base is Vijayawada. It seems that marriages continue to be preferred in their own categories. I was told that by identifying the person's surname it was possible to locate the origin. The way they maintain the division is by marrying within only the families whose surname they have heard in relative circles.
Series on Slavery: Part 3A
Since when did Slavery begin?
These are notes from DD Kosambi’s book “An introduction to the study of Indian History”, pp 326-328.
Seigneurial (feudal / semi-feudal) lands were cultivated by slaves for armed barons (feudal lords) who wanted to ensure an independent food supply. In other words slavery was means of production. The feudal system began in India during the Maurya period.
Before the Maurya period, there existed a tribal concept of land, in which land belonged to the whole tribe as a territory (not a property) whose symbol was their chief. This model was altered by the Mauryas. The tribal chief was replaced by a ‘king’ and all land belonged to such a ‘king’ (that is, a tribal ‘chieftain’) [Arthashastra 11.1]. This ‘king’ (local or petty raja) could be appointed as a ‘feudal tributary’ by the ‘conqueror’ or ‘emperor’ who in this case were the Mauryas.
Over time, functions of a ‘village council’ were usurped by the ‘feudal lord’ and such a feudal lord became the sole authority in deciding matters. The feudal lord sometimes went against his own tribesmen and was supported by the conqueror / emperor. Here let us say the feudal lords were ‘state governments’ and the emperor was ‘central government’.
Though feudal lords tended to be heredity, the military hierarchy of the central authority was not. The emperor could reduce the children of his own court nobles to penury as the high courtiers could be slaves (that is, captured tribal chiefs).
A tribal chief could exercise authority on his tribesmen and enforce agricultural slavery, but he was an adimai (slave) to the emperor. Note that the smrithis give the ‘king’ the authority to enforce “dharma”, which the local rajas did at the local level and the emperor did at the central level.
In such a feudal system there were no trade guilds as ‘caste’ replaced ‘guilds’. Thus, caste became the means of production. Jaatis (caste) came to exist as streamlined occupational categories.
This was north india. Now lets come to south india.
Since when did Slavery begin?
These are notes from DD Kosambi’s book “An introduction to the study of Indian History”, pp 326-328.
Seigneurial (feudal / semi-feudal) lands were cultivated by slaves for armed barons (feudal lords) who wanted to ensure an independent food supply. In other words slavery was means of production. The feudal system began in India during the Maurya period.
Before the Maurya period, there existed a tribal concept of land, in which land belonged to the whole tribe as a territory (not a property) whose symbol was their chief. This model was altered by the Mauryas. The tribal chief was replaced by a ‘king’ and all land belonged to such a ‘king’ (that is, a tribal ‘chieftain’) [Arthashastra 11.1]. This ‘king’ (local or petty raja) could be appointed as a ‘feudal tributary’ by the ‘conqueror’ or ‘emperor’ who in this case were the Mauryas.
Over time, functions of a ‘village council’ were usurped by the ‘feudal lord’ and such a feudal lord became the sole authority in deciding matters. The feudal lord sometimes went against his own tribesmen and was supported by the conqueror / emperor. Here let us say the feudal lords were ‘state governments’ and the emperor was ‘central government’.
Though feudal lords tended to be heredity, the military hierarchy of the central authority was not. The emperor could reduce the children of his own court nobles to penury as the high courtiers could be slaves (that is, captured tribal chiefs).
A tribal chief could exercise authority on his tribesmen and enforce agricultural slavery, but he was an adimai (slave) to the emperor. Note that the smrithis give the ‘king’ the authority to enforce “dharma”, which the local rajas did at the local level and the emperor did at the central level.
In such a feudal system there were no trade guilds as ‘caste’ replaced ‘guilds’. Thus, caste became the means of production. Jaatis (caste) came to exist as streamlined occupational categories.
This was north india. Now lets come to south india.
Series on Slavery: Part 3b
So far, am able to find the earliest records of land holdings (that is, socio-political organization of land) in Tamilakam from the Chola kingdom (if i find earlier records will put it up here).
The cholas patronized and expanded brahmanical hinduism far and wide. So i also want to show 2 things
a) how good “the natural order of dharma” was within the Chola kingdom itself; and
b) to see how little land holdings had changed for the slaves in the colonial period.
Brahmins became politically dominant in the Chola kingdom (848 – 1279 AD) (will explain in the next post how). Since we are going to be speaking of the brahmins of the Chola period we need to take into account who were the brahmins in chola period.
From Tamil literature pov historically the priests of the Cholas were the Saiva Gurukkals. The Vaishnavite Chozhiyars are also regarded as Chola priests (a section of Cholas like Vikrama and Krimikantha patronized / followed the SV faith). Possibly all the mun-kudumi groups (namboodiri, chozhiyar, brahacharanam) were from the same class originally.
But why did the Cholas patronize Brahmins? This is an important point. The Chola society was divided into just 2 groups -- Brahmin and Non-Brahmin [Ref] How can the Cholas with all the state power in their hands come under the Shudra category ? So were the Cholas themselves Brahmins ? There is also the case of the Manuneedhi Chola (the chola who supposedly followed manusmrithi.
So before proceeding, let us look a brief look into Chola origins. Since there is no historical proof we can only postulate from Puranas and the Brahmanas (texts).
The Aitareya Brahmana (AB) of the Rigveda states Vishwamitra cursed his own 50 sons to become Svapakas after they refused to accept Sunhashepa as the eldest (adopted) son of Vishamitra. And the Saoras / Savara tribe were the outcaste sons of Vishwamitra. The wife of Vishwamitra was Madhavi, the daughter of Yayati (so the Yayati connection comes there).
Apart from Savara (aka Sabara), the other sons of Vishwamitra were Andhra, Pundra, Pulinda and Mutiba. The Andhras sons of Vishwamitra are mentioned in the Shatapatha Brahmana (13.5.4.16) as Turvasas and allies of Panchalas.
Vayu, Matsya, Agni and Brahma Purana also say that the Andhira, Pandya, Karnata, Chola and Kerala (Kutsa) were drawn from the lineages of Puru and Turvasha. These Puranas say the Pandya, Karnata, Chola and Kerala were the sons of Andhira.
Possibly this means that transition from tribal into vedic started from Andhra, and from there spread to the kingdoms of Pandya, Karantaka, Tamilnadu and Kerala. The earliest law makers anywhere in south-India, Apasthamba and Baudhayana, lived in Andhra.
Historically also this makes sense. In the Sathavahava transition period people became hinduized or varna-ized. The Satavahanas spread all the way down to Kerala (the satavahana-chutu (naga) connection has been written about by quite a few writers).
So from the view of the brahmanas (texts) and puranas, the Cholas were descendents of Andhras and thus descendents of Vishwamitra. This explains their adherence to brahmanical hinduism. Also explains why the Cholas left inscriptions in Sanskrit.
However, it will be nice if someone can give historical connections of Cholas with Andhras or Shatavahanas ; and their adherence for Baudhayana (which their Brahmins, that is Gurukkals, followed). I am also looking for historical links of Cholas with the Kalinga Sora (Saora / Savara) tribe; as i suspect that possibly Sora became Sola (tamil), Chola (tamil) and Choda (telugu)).
So far, am able to find the earliest records of land holdings (that is, socio-political organization of land) in Tamilakam from the Chola kingdom (if i find earlier records will put it up here).
The cholas patronized and expanded brahmanical hinduism far and wide. So i also want to show 2 things
a) how good “the natural order of dharma” was within the Chola kingdom itself; and
b) to see how little land holdings had changed for the slaves in the colonial period.
Brahmins became politically dominant in the Chola kingdom (848 – 1279 AD) (will explain in the next post how). Since we are going to be speaking of the brahmins of the Chola period we need to take into account who were the brahmins in chola period.
From Tamil literature pov historically the priests of the Cholas were the Saiva Gurukkals. The Vaishnavite Chozhiyars are also regarded as Chola priests (a section of Cholas like Vikrama and Krimikantha patronized / followed the SV faith). Possibly all the mun-kudumi groups (namboodiri, chozhiyar, brahacharanam) were from the same class originally.
But why did the Cholas patronize Brahmins? This is an important point. The Chola society was divided into just 2 groups -- Brahmin and Non-Brahmin [Ref] How can the Cholas with all the state power in their hands come under the Shudra category ? So were the Cholas themselves Brahmins ? There is also the case of the Manuneedhi Chola (the chola who supposedly followed manusmrithi.
So before proceeding, let us look a brief look into Chola origins. Since there is no historical proof we can only postulate from Puranas and the Brahmanas (texts).
The Aitareya Brahmana (AB) of the Rigveda states Vishwamitra cursed his own 50 sons to become Svapakas after they refused to accept Sunhashepa as the eldest (adopted) son of Vishamitra. And the Saoras / Savara tribe were the outcaste sons of Vishwamitra. The wife of Vishwamitra was Madhavi, the daughter of Yayati (so the Yayati connection comes there).
Apart from Savara (aka Sabara), the other sons of Vishwamitra were Andhra, Pundra, Pulinda and Mutiba. The Andhras sons of Vishwamitra are mentioned in the Shatapatha Brahmana (13.5.4.16) as Turvasas and allies of Panchalas.
Vayu, Matsya, Agni and Brahma Purana also say that the Andhira, Pandya, Karnata, Chola and Kerala (Kutsa) were drawn from the lineages of Puru and Turvasha. These Puranas say the Pandya, Karnata, Chola and Kerala were the sons of Andhira.
Possibly this means that transition from tribal into vedic started from Andhra, and from there spread to the kingdoms of Pandya, Karantaka, Tamilnadu and Kerala. The earliest law makers anywhere in south-India, Apasthamba and Baudhayana, lived in Andhra.
Historically also this makes sense. In the Sathavahava transition period people became hinduized or varna-ized. The Satavahanas spread all the way down to Kerala (the satavahana-chutu (naga) connection has been written about by quite a few writers).
So from the view of the brahmanas (texts) and puranas, the Cholas were descendents of Andhras and thus descendents of Vishwamitra. This explains their adherence to brahmanical hinduism. Also explains why the Cholas left inscriptions in Sanskrit.
However, it will be nice if someone can give historical connections of Cholas with Andhras or Shatavahanas ; and their adherence for Baudhayana (which their Brahmins, that is Gurukkals, followed). I am also looking for historical links of Cholas with the Kalinga Sora (Saora / Savara) tribe; as i suspect that possibly Sora became Sola (tamil), Chola (tamil) and Choda (telugu)).
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
Wanted Need of a Brahmin lady cook in AdambakkamRequire a Brahmin female cook in 40s to 60 to cook for a family of 4 adults +2 kids in...
- LakshmiRajesh (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Wanted Need Brahmin cook for homeBrahmin cook needed to make breakfast and lunch at home (Mylapore) for 4 people. Please text...
- ram1618 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
-
-
Announcement Hobby Classes.Hobby art classes are conducted by an experienced senior lady for high school children and adult...
- rckappu (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated: