KB,
The support to Nadars came from the temple priests. Time and again the generic term
brahmin is misused. The temple priests themselves were ranked low in the dharmashastras (smrithis). The final call has always been that of the Smarthas.
The Nadar case is no different from the Komatis who got support from the Vaidikis. But the Niyogis called them unread in dharmashastras. Which is true (except velanadu 'brahmins', the rest of the telugu vaidikis are temple priests who had nothing to do with Smrithis).
You must be aware that by the 20th century the Nadars were no longer listed as Kshatriyas, a position which they were able to get for a short-while because temple-priests like dikshitas testified in court. The whole point is that the Smartas ruined things everywhere.
Whatever goodwill the temple priests had earned for the generic term 'brahmin' was all flushed out by the politically strong smarta shastris who testified varnas in courts.
But its a funny world really. The telugu niyogis, tamil smarthas, konkani chitpavans, and every such Smartha community would have never imagined an era of information boom where their own origins are dug into and questioned.
A 1000 years back, these smarthas did not even have mutt-affiliations. If they had given up the urge / role of assigning varnas in the colonial period, still things could have been okay. Looks like they believed they were invincible.
But the foolish ones were temple-priests (like adi saivas / gurukkals) who in the search for a higher social standing started claiming to be smartha brahmins in the colonial period. Probably they never realised what they were bargaining for.
Frankly, no one wud bother about colonial period. If not for reservations. The only thing smarthas are against is reservations. So far in this forum also no one (except so-called brahmin-bashers) acknowledged what the colonial shastris did was improper and unsuited for the times.
Till date smartas continue to use the word Shudra. The impunity factor comes in because they know very well the word Shudra means slave. Its like implying that in kaliyuga there are ony 2 classes -- brahmin lords with everyone else as their slaves. How kind of them.
Am not really surprised Maharastra was one of the earliest places where anti-brahminism movement started. The Kayasthas, Prabhus and others well versed in sanskrit must have known what the term shudra meant.
This is a
nice paper on the Chitpavans's role in preventing the goldsmiths from claiming brahmin position and prabhus from claiming kayastha position. What an irony to think that their subsequent inter-mingling could not be prevented.
The unfortunate part is that the temple-priests paid and still pay the price for the follies of the smarthas.
Btw, not just Vellalars, the Nadars faced arson, assault and murder from the Maravars, Nayars and Kallars (thevars). In this thread itself we have noted how nadar women had to suffer indignity for not being allowed to cover their upper body.
However, the point to note is that the Vellalars did not create varnas and brahmanical hierachies themselves. The Vellalars were just harem loyalists of brahmins still following the age old brahmanical loyalty of subjugating nadars and various untouchables.
Ofcourse for these rajaputras, their own social position depended on such subjugation afterall. If their brahmin benefactors ('fathers') no longer have a shudra class (to lord upon), how could they remain brahmins and kshatriyas respectively. Same goes for the Nayars and Maravars.
The Maravars were just bandits (IMO), but they were considered 'Kshatriyas' because they lived off arms (in my view all 'kshatriyas' are merely bandits). I have written about marava warlike bands
here.
The job of these maravas was to show off their social power by swooping down on hapless villagers and disappearing with crops, girls, cattle. Funnily the brahmins (new pana bards / vedic brahmins) legitamized the rule of these marava chieftains by singing their glories.
The Kallars were similar in their 'bandit' role, though i suspect they became bandits by force of circumstances (perhaps on being evicted from the lands they cultivated; since a section of them were slaves. Notably, all kallars in all places are not a homogeneous group).
The kallars styled themselves 'thevars' in later times, but ofcourse they were / are different from the thevars of the ancient period who were brahmanical and a different class.
The Nadars were ranked just above untouchables in the colonial period. But socially they were considered not just untouchables, but also unseeables. Do find out why.
The nadars claim a section of them, the nelamaikarars, were tax-collectors in the nayak period and earlier. However, imo the Nelamaikarars were also toddy-taping shanars originally, who just happened to arise in position to serve as the local tax-collectors (for their own areas). The origins of their 'aristocracy' however is shrouded in mystery -- anyways, since they too were associated with the ritually polluting shanars, their social position was also considered low.
Am quite convinced that the Sanrors or Shanars simply reinvented themselves with the term, Nadar. Just like Komatis reinvented themselves with the high sounding name "arya vaishyas".
Personally, i do think the Shanars had links with the Pandyas and Pallavas. IMO they were subjugated by the Cholas. And from there on they were kept low on a social scale.
Its a twist of fate, to think that the ancient priests of Shanar-Sanrors; ie, the munkudumi dikshits / pandi temple priests, came to their rescue in the colonial period. Alas, everyone was thwarted by the dicates of the Smarthas.
