Wikipedia article about Kerala Iyers

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

This is very good analysis.

I recollect a conversation with a smartha from the chidambaram area. I understand that most smarthas in the chidambaram area are Vadama. Correct me anyone if I am wrong. Apart from that we have Gurukkals and Dikshithars and may be choliyars and a few others. This smartha said talking about himself , that in the past, the vadama (the smrithi bearing brahmin of that region) were considered bullies. I am able to easily connect this notion expressed with your post.
Let no one take my post to be a bashing of subsects as people should understand that I am not an outsider.

The Smarthas, esp vadamas and brahacharanam, always asserted themselves socially higher than the choliyars, dikshitas, gurukkals, and all the munkudumi groups.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Please ask this to chitpavan 'brahmins' who downgraded kayastha prabhus to Shudra status based on this very puranic claim.

In this forum, it is HH who said there were only two groups - brahmins and shudras. The chitpavan brahmins did not come and write thus here.

The point is HH toes this line when it suits her. But when questioned, she blames chitpavan brahmins. This is typical of dominant non-brahmin castes, who, on one hand, claim that they were the original mooventhars, they were the original kshatriyas, they were the original bhoomiputras, they were the original landowners, they were the நிலக்கிழார் etc etc but when the atrocities carried out by these நிலக்கிழார் on landless laborers are pointed out, they conveniently blame the brahmins. This is similar to what HH is doing here.

How does it matter what groups existed in the past. What matters is what the smarthas testified in courts in the colonial period.

It does not matter whether HH sees the connection. Others can see why it is relevant. Perhaps, discussing certain periods in history makes HH to squirm and become uncomfortable.

I pointed out that the vellalas of TN went to court assigning varna to Nadars. What did they gain by putting Nadars down? Why is HH ignoring it? Is it because it does not agree with her world view only the brahmins degraded others to Shudra status.

Now the NBs are feeling ashamed of the oppresive practices their forefathers indulged in. There is no escape route for anyone. I hope more and more people read these posts.

I oppose generalization of brahmins in this forum. Therefore, I agree, it is wrong to generalize NBs too.

My few posts here seems to have hurt HH but she never seems to introspect how her generalizations could have affected brahmins in this forum.

 

[happyhindu]

In this forum, it is HH who said there were only two groups - brahmins and shudras. The chitpavan brahmins did not come and write thus here.

I suppose you will say i am the one who wrote that in the puranas also.

The point is HH toes this line when it suits her. But when questioned, she blames chitpavan brahmins. This is typical of dominant non-brahmin castes, who, on one hand, claim that they were the original mooventhars, they were the original kshatriyas, they were the original bhoomiputras, they were the original landowners, they were the நிலக்கிழார் etc etc but when the atrocities carried out by these நிலக்கிழார் on landless laborers are pointed out, they conveniently blame the brahmins. This is similar to what HH is doing here.



It does not matter whether HH sees the connection. Others can see why it is relevant. Perhaps, discussing certain periods in history makes HH to squirm and become uncomfortable.

I pointed out that the vellalas of TN went to court assigning varna to Nadars. What did they gain by putting Nadars down? Why is HH ignoring it? Is it because it does not agree with her world view only the brahmins degraded others to Shudra status.



I oppose generalization of brahmins in this forum. Therefore, I agree, it is wrong to generalize NBs too.

My few posts here seems to have hurt HH but she never seems to introspect how her generalizations could have affected brahmins in this forum.

Say what you will KB. Your opinions do not matter to me. Am only bothered about the feedback i receive from readers. Each caste put down the other in heiarchy to maintain their status quo. Casteism (rather Varna-ism) is a Smrithi creation. Period. However, i will acknowledge that caste could have become oppressive without smrithis and varnas, if castes were allowed to develop into bigger settlements of towns and cities, without the intereference of varna-proponents.

All i want is for NBs to know their own caste histories. Next am gonna deal with the telugu ones starting with kapus, and then its offshoots (reddys, balijas, kammas, velamas, rajus, etc). Am moving next to the aarakshan thread. You can protest as much as you want there also. But i reserve the right to reply as i wish. I will not respond to personal allegations. Period.

 

[tbs]

<edited> no need to indirectly call ppl names.

HI PRAVEEN
thank u so much.....any way GOOD BYE



regards
tbs

 

[happyhindu]

Alright, since this shd not sound like am walking away without answering, here are some clarifications --

I pointed out that the vellalas of TN went to court assigning varna to Nadars. What did they gain by putting Nadars down? Why is HH ignoring it? Is it because it does not agree with her world view only the brahmins degraded others to Shudra status.

Every single group sought to downgrade the other group by giving wrong info on each others' castes, to the colonial caste-census officials. However, the final authority on varnas were the testimonials of brahmins. The claims of the vellalars did not stand valid, because the munkudumi priests testified in favor of nadars in courts. If these temple-priests had continued to testify in courts for others also there would have been no problem. The protesting NBs, like vellalars, could have done nothing but simply shut up in such cases. But the smarthas ruined everything imo.

KB: What did they gain by putting Nadars down?

Please read my post again. I have already answered it. Reproducing the parts for your benefit:

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.

My few posts here seems to have hurt HH but she never seems to introspect how her generalizations could have affected brahmins in this forum.

Please do not imagine your posts are so important as to hurt me. With due respect, your picking out selective sentences to make your out-of-context non-sequitur claims, and personal allegations are plain silly.

Instead of protesting with me, it will be better if smarthas can discuss things and ponder upon the colonial period themselves. Surely no sane 'brahmin' will support SV Sekar ( a guy who makes an ass out of himself by saying certain things in public) and expect that a political role will solve things.

If answers for the present situation are not to be found, alternatively, the better thing to do is to simply stay quiet. No point making ridiculous protestations, or picking faults with the reservations-system, or complaining about reverse-discrimination in general. And no point making personal allegations against the poster (that is, me) either.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Every single group sought to downgrade the other group by giving wrong info on each others' castes, to the colonial caste-census officials.

This is the first admission in this forum, that I am aware of, with regards to culpability of groups other than brahmins. Some use has come out of this discussion, after all.

However, the final authority on varnas were the testimonials of brahmins. The claims of the vellalars did not stand valid, because the munkudumi priests testified in favor of nadars in courts.

I do not think HH is right. Despite the support of chidambaram dikshithars, it appears that nadars did not win the case. The priests who supported nadars were denigrated and treated with contempt.

If these temple-priests had continued to testify in courts for others also there would have been no problem. The protesting NBs, like vellalars, could have done nothing but simply shut up in such cases. But the smarthas ruined everything imo.

Nowhere it is claimed that the priests who supported Nadars did so because suddenly they became caste-less. These incidents are pointed out to show the role of NB castes like Vellalars. The NBs like Vellalars had so much clout during this time that one could not have simply wished away their dominance.

Please do not imagine your posts are so important as to hurt me. With due respect, your picking out selective sentences out of paragraphs to make your out-of-context non-sequitur claims, and personal allegations are plain silly.

If my posts appear to be plain silly to HH, there is no need for her to answer at all.

HH's construction of social history depended on the theory of existence of only two groups - brahmins and shudras. This is, IMO, one of the biggest frauds perpetrated with regards to our social history with the sole intention of putting all the blame on brahmins. The usage of the term "vested interest" was scorned off before. But propagating false theories such as this one qualifies to be termed thus, IMO.

Instead of protesting with me, it will be better if you can please ask this to shastris from anywhere and produce an answer for the below

Why does HH need me at all?

She is free to ask these questions herself!

What I object to is extrapolations, selective quoting of history and distorting history.

If the above questions cannot be answered, alternatively, the better thing to do is to simply stay quiet. No point making ridiculous protestations, or picking faults with the reservations-system, or complaining about reverse-discrimination in general. And no point making personal allegations against the poster (that is, me) either.

These are all HH's opinions. There are several questions that need addressing not just the ones HH deems important to her convenience. Anyone in this forum can raise questions. HH does not have the authority to ask others to keep quiet.

Why only talk about incidents in colonial/ pre-colonial period? What is happening today in this golden age of democratic dravidan party rule? The varna theory have been dumped by the govt. The brahmins have no clout. Why are some TN NBs claiming themselves to be descendants of various kshatriya clans? Who is trying to assign varna to them today? Why are the dominant NBs still preventing temple entry to "lower" castes in certain regions? Whom are they going to blame now? These are uncomfortable questions to face for people like HH who keep parroting false theories that there were only two groups - brahmins and shudras ,erstwhile, brahmins and non-brahmins today.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

With Ref. to my post above, it was made as a reply to HH's post which has since been edited.

 

[happyhindu]

This is the first admission in this forum, that I am aware of, with regards to culpability of groups other than brahmins. Some use has come out of this discussion, after all.

Anyone who reads thru claims made by various groups in colonial times would know this. This is not something am saying for the first time. I had already written about this in old threads.

I do not think HH is right. Despite the support of chidambaram dikshithars, it appears that nadars did not win the case. The priests who supported nadars were denigrated and treated with contempt.

Please provide proof.

I referred to the paper "Political Emblems of Caste Identity: An Interpretation of Tamil Caste Titles" published in the Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Oct., 1983), pp. 190-197.

I find that Shanars (nadars) were listed in the Kshatriya category for a short-while. But in the 20th century, the Shanars ceased to have their caste included in the Kshatriya category.

In the early 20th century, everything went topsy-turvy for everyone anyways..

Anyways, the transition of Nadars from a caste of low ritual status to a caste of high ritual status, and the transformation of caste name from Shanar to Nadar, has been documented in great detail in the missionary, court, and government documents of the 19th century (See HardgraveJr. 1969; Rudolph and Rudolph 1967:36-49.)

Nowhere it is claimed that the priests who supported Nadars did so because suddenly they became caste-less.

Silly comparison. No one said that. The priests attested that the nadars were pandyas from the Sanror kulam.

These incidents are pointed out to show the role of NB castes like Vellalars. The NBs like Vellalars had so much clout during this time that one could not have simply wished away their dominance.

In the colonial period, not just Vellalars, the Maravars and Nayars posed the greatest troubles to Nadars by intimidating them with assault and murder. Infact the Sivakasi riots against Nadars were engineered by the Maravars, not Vellalars.

All clout of NBs was no match for the brahmins who testified everyone's varnas in courts. I had already written about Vellalars who petitioned for dvija status in 1871 and in 1901 but were turned down. Please refer to old posts.

This repeated snubbing sent vellalars to form or become part of Justice party. Part of this was discussed in the "brits are to blame" thread.

If my posts appear to be plain silly to HH, there is no need for her to answer at all.

Yes, i will not respond to your silly personal allegations.

HH's construction of social history depended on the theory of existence of only two groups - brahmins and shudras. This is, IMO, one of the biggest frauds perpetrated with regards to our social history with the sole intention of putting all the blame on brahmins. The usage of the term "vested interest" was scorned off before. But propagating false theories such as this one qualifies to be termed thus, IMO.

Please read up history instead of claiming i invented such a social construct. Its the brahmins themselves who claimed that in kaliyuga only 2 classes existed (brahmins and shudras). Ambedkar questioned such puranic claims and wrote about it. Phule fought against it. Whether you like it or not, casteism is brahmanism.

Why does HH need me at all?

She is free to ask these questions herself!

What I object to is extrapolations, selective quoting of history and distorting history.

Agreed. You can object to whatever you want. But your petty empty protests are just that -- empty. Instead you can come up with proper counter-content from appropriate sources.

These are all HH's opinions. There are several questions that need addressing not just the ones HH deems important to her convenience. Anyone in this forum can raise questions. HH does not have the authority to ask others to keep quiet.

Why only talk about incidents in colonial/ pre-colonial period? What is happening today in this golden age of democratic dravidan party rule? The varna theory have been dumped by the govt. The brahmins have no clout. Why are some TN NBs claiming themselves to be descendants of various kshatriya clans? Who is trying to assign varna to them today? Why are the dominant NBs still preventing temple entry to "lower" castes in certain regions? Whom are they going to blame now? These are uncomfortable questions to face for people like HH who keep parroting false theories that there were only two groups - brahmins and shudras ,erstwhile, brahmins and non-brahmins today.

It is ridiculous for you to keep parroting that HH is parroting false theories of only two groups. The smarthas are the ones who made such claims based on the puranas in the colonial times. All i am saying is that the brahmanical view is correct.

The NBs involving in caste-based fights in present times require awareness and education. In the old times, dalits were suppressed from claiming land-ownership (of temple lands mainly -- the contention has always been brahmadeyams, devadanams and chaturvedimangalams).

IMO the 'dalits' are indeed the righful owners of major temples and its lands. Tainting them with black-magic power, like pulaya, pole negative energy, was all just mischiveous canard to keep them away from claiming their land.

To prevent the dalits from protesting, to prevent their political rise, they were alloted jobs dealing with dirt; and were kept out of villages, wells, temples, etc. Full scale suppression. Typical smrithi model. Rubbing salt into wounds were the smrithi's ritual pollution ideas.

What started off as a way to suppress dalits turned into contempt over the years. Today no one seems to know why they have contempt towards dalits. But they have contempt nevertheless. Why it exists, Where it comes from, no one knows.

I have been asking some people why they wanted dalits suppressed. The most common answer i get is, "we are kshatriyas" or "it is our duty". Some of formerly high stature even felt they were / are equal to brahmins and good enough to be recognised as 'brahmins'.

I beleive such NBs are fools and idiots. They do not know sanskrit, and have no idea about dharmashastras. Rural mentality apart, the landed people were illiterate for the longest time (all brawn no brain).

They felt it is their duty to follow what their forefathers did just because "they imagine" they are 'kshatriyas'; and beleived their social prestige came from keeping dalits suppressed. Added to that is all harem loyalty for the brahmanical smirthi model, imo.

It is apparent some such idiots like maravars, naidus (kammas and balijas), nayakars (vanniyars), thevars (kallars), reddys, nairs, rajus, vellalars and their telugu counterparts the velamas, till date imagine they are living in the medieval ages. These people need education, awareness, and need to be sensitised.

First thing some of these duffers in rural areas need to know is that stupid violent actions are never gonna beget them a dvija status anymore. There need to understand there is nothing called a "ritual" pollution wrt occupations in a democracy.

Anyways, these NBs are not smartha 'brahmins', and therefore they have no dharma obligation to adhere to Smrithi-kind of violence to keep "dharma" intact.

Btw, am not a supporter of MK, Stalin, Alagiri, dravidian rule, dravidian parties, their womanising ways, their gunda raj, their corrupt practices, etc. So no point bringing up that point with me.

 

[sangom]

Originally Posted by happyhindu

If these temple-priests had continued to testify in courts for others also there would have been no problem. The protesting NBs, like vellalars, could have done nothing but simply shut up in such cases. But the smarthas ruined everything imo.

Smt. HH,

Are the temple-priests you refer to not smartas? What code of law did/do they follow? And on what evidence do we conclude (other than imo) that smarthas ruined everything and by implication smartas alone ruined everything, no one else? I don't think your opinion alone will be sufficient authority to propound such statements.

 

[happyhindu]

Smt. HH,

Are the temple-priests you refer to not smartas? What code of law did/do they follow? And on what evidence do we conclude (other than imo) that smarthas ruined everything and by implication smartas alone ruined everything, no one else? I don't think your opinion alone will be sufficient authority to propound such statements.

[/COLOR]

Dear Sir,

Were the Dikshitas claiming to be smarthas in the colonial period? I thot they follow agamas like the Gurukkals and hence have no connection with smrithis. Please do correct me if i am wrong in this. All i can say for sure is that the vast majority of telugu vaidikis temple-priests were not followers of smrithis in the past.

We do not find dikshitas bringing in the puranic view of just 2 classes for kaliyuga. I too was baffled why did smartha 'brahmins' testify varnas based on selective norms. I cannot think of any other reason, apart from 2 reasons
(a) they wanted to assert their social power. Or,
(b) they were adhereing to 'dharma' as they understood it.

Since brahmin testimonials were the authority for varnas, i do think the smarthas ruined things.

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Sangom Sir,

Just looked up an article on dikshitas. Find that they are mentioned as smarthas!! Am curious, if they are smarthas, why did their views differ from the other shastris? Why did they support kshatriya claims of nadars ? Does this have something to do with the history of the dikshita brahacharanams themselves ?

Regards.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Sangom Sir,

Just looked up an article on dikshitas. Find that they are mentioned as smarthas!! Am curious, if they are smarthas, why did their views differ from the other shastris? Why did they support kshatriya claims of nadars ? Does this have something to do with the history of the dikshita brahacharanams themselves ?

Regards.

I do not know which smrithis the dikshitars of chidambaram followed, but they did not practice the agamas and were more of srautins.
Regarding smritis it is a tough question. I would have thought that people followed those smritis according to the sutras to which they were tagged. Sangom correct me if wrong. So the broad majority of telugu and tamil brahmins vaidikas or otherwise supposedly use apastamba for guidance. There were some others like jamini, drahyayana, bodhyayana,Katyayana, and others, I am not sure if these sutras are all having extant smriti texts. I may be wrong here. But I dont think any brahmin group can be exonerated from smrithi adherence. However there may be different levels of strictness and leniency adopted over certain things over certain period.

While there is an interesting case here., Dikshitas have supposedly supported the nadar claim for kshatriya status as per your reference. Can we investigate if it was a widespread support or just a support by a few individuals for whatever reasons . However you are right here - Gurukkals are not smarthas. Not even Dikshitas of chidambaram, But that was largely on account of their earlier rejection of Sankaran Advaita. However the other munkudumi - choliyars have been qualifying themselves as either smarthas or vaishnavas and do not group themselves with either gurukkals or chidambaram dikshithars.

There is something I have to add with regard to the psychological makeup of Smartha sastris of those times( Colonial era). As per the cultural norms of those times only a dwija could be any of the three - kshatriya, vaishya or brahmana. Which means the necessary qualificaltion according to them is an age old practice of wearing sacred thread and being initiated with Gayatri. If any of them skipped the practice of wearing thread for a generation or more, their claim to brahmin status would practically be lost, and not claimable after 3 generations of discontinuity.

And for the others I would assume, though there are no hard references to the same on how a kshatriya or vaishya should be treated after stopping on the sacred thread practice for some generations, it would be always a suspect case in the eyes of colonial shastis. In such situations a mere perception of a community alone would make the difference and there is nothing I feel that is there in the smritis by which one can judge if a person is a kshatriya or vaishya. Correct me Sangom if I am wrong, I could very well be.

Here let me stand back and say that the colonial shastris never speculated that all people were just tribals who took up thread at some time to become included in varna. They did not know that and only thing that they knew were legends of rishis and smritis, and family stories of migration. So in their eyes people who did not wear sacred thread at some point were always suspects even if they claimed kshatriyas or vaishyas. Even if they could prove that were pure brahmin descendants the status could never be gained in their eyes , as they would have lost their status on stopping these practices. So Happy, I am frankly not surprised on these controversies that surround the acceptance of the kshatriya and vaishya claims by some. A single interpretation is impossible in the light of dim evidence. On top of that political interests were very much a priority. Vellalars could not let nadar supersede them in their claim for kshatriyahood. So they would block the claim on that.

Many years ago, I read in the Hindu( pardon my repeated references to this newspaper, but that was my source for information before internet),it was mentioned that Nadars at a particular time took up wearing sacred thread as a mark of self-respect as some gained ascendancy in the social ladder. This was it seems not liked by our thevar friends in tirunelveli. The latter never sought to wear the thread but did not like it when the nadar took up that practice. If this were true, I am not surprised that our sastri and vellalar advocates of caste, viewed such kshatriya claims with contempt. In their view the birth in a varna can only be through divine right acquired thousands of years ago, smriti or otherwise.

Such thinking has continued even after colonial times. Fifty -sixty years back, in the Tanjore belt, a brahmin not performing gayatri worship daily was looked down upon and children advised from childhood that non-performance of gayatri means loosing caste. The word used was "You will become a chandalan" if you fail performing sandya. This was true regardless of how so ever accomplished he might have been and regardless of howsoever a good human he might and regardless of how so ever truthful he might be. However a corrupt person, who took bribes, would still be considered a good brahmanan, if sandya were well performed by him.

In such an environment the question of recognizing the brahminical claim of anyone did not arise at all for the colonial shastris. Kshatriya and Vaishya claims would always be viewed in great suspicion. It is not surprising and you are right here, brahmins in TN, practically viewed everyone else as shudras, excluding some chettiar groups. This is an open secret. Some especially in the side of TN, looked at even namboothiris with contempt and not true brahmins in their opinion. I do not know this doubt on nambootiri how and when it arised, but it was there and told to me by some elderly relations.The case of Arya-Vaishya is a different story and not related to the fights in TN.

So Happy you may be surprised by why the colonial shastris demarcated people on varna basis. But I think they were just telling their long held opinion openly in a court of law.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Subbudu Sir,

Very interesting and fascinating write up. This is really a curious case. I am now having a doubt. Is it possible that various Sutras adopted various extant smrithi texts over a period of time ? Maybe recently also?

I have digging into the caste system in the vijayanagar and nayak period. Though 'caste system' was rigidly enforced, am baffled by the use of terms like chaturtha kulam to indicate shudras with no religious bias. There are inscriptions of settis and such trade-guilds giving temple grants, but the individuals are mentioned as settis or by their guild name. The actual caste or varna is not mentioned in such cases.

Also, the durgadandanayaks (nayaks of forts) were brahmins but it is not mentioned whether they were niyogis or vaidikis. It may seem that caste was given only a nominal importance instead of a detailed description. The caste system of vijayanagar period still remains a mystery to me.

Subbudu sir, it is true majority of telugu vaidikis use Apasthamba and some use Baudhayana. I feel Katyayana is in minority prevalance (but i maybe wrong). Is it possible that various brahmins adopted smrithis only for ritual adherence in recent times (that is, for performance of rituals for various people as per their caste).

Infact i have been suspecting all along that the tamil brahmins infact have an anthanar agama-based heritage (and the vedic brahmins invited by various kings were actually namboodiri shrautas). I suspect the current tamil 'smarthas' actually have a tantra heritage, and merely adopted smrithis for a better (higher) socio-ritual position for themselves in recent times; and ofcourse to offer appropriate rituals for various people. That is to say, they had nothing to do with the smrithi period and the violence in it.

Lets take this scenario -- Lets say some vadamas arrived into tamil areas during vijayanagar, nayak and maratha times. They brought with them smrithis and ideas of ritual purity. People got fascinated with this new type of ritual adherence and flocked to them thinking they are unique people. People start seeking their role in settling disputes, etc. So, their social importance grew. Seeing this, tamil brahmins like dikshitas adopted some shrauta rituals and smrithis, just to get the same kind of importance by taking on the same kind of rituals. Maybe they even created a system whereby certain sutras adopted certain smrithis during this time. Before this period, they had nothing to so with smrithis. Isn't such a situation possible?

I hope Sangom sir can give his views on this.

As regards the caste fights of the colonial period, IMO, the TBs, if sensible, should have simply left the NBs to fight against each other. They need not have interfered at all. If at all anyone asked, they should have said "this is kaliyuga, we are also going for british government jobs, so we are not in a position to testify varnas, please do not involve us in this".......How i wish it were like this...

Regards.

 

[subbudu1]

Infact i have been suspecting all along that the tamil brahmins infact have an anthanar agama-based heritage (and the vedic brahmins invited by various kings were actually namboodiri shrautas). I suspect the current tamil 'smarthas' actually have a tantra heritage, and merely adopted smrithis for a better (higher) socio-ritual position for themselves in recent times; and ofcourse to offer appropriate rituals for various people. That is to say, they had nothing to do with the smrithi period and the violence in it.

We must clarify things here.Firstly I will admit my ignorance on the essential differences between Agama and Tantra. I do not know if there are border lines here.

Among smarthas atleast, I do not think anyone apart from Gurukkals wants to claim an agama heritage. Even they look at tantra practics of namboothiris with contempt. I can say that this is more or less true of TBs settled on this side of the border away from Kerala. In one of the temples in tamilnadu due to dire circumstances there was discussion on performing some activities with the guidance of namboothiris. The suggestion was discarded as it was bound to cause a fury among the sivacharyas and others in tamilnadu.

I feel that only the munkudumi brahmins have some relation to namboothiris, not even the regular Agamic Gurukkals. Whether it was someone from Kerala who came here or vice versa I dont know. But there is one another possibility that the munkudumis were the original or the older brahmins of TN-Kerala who may have followed the tantras and other forms some of which may be obsolete today. Is it not surprising that all our alwars who were supposedly brahmins/anthanars were choliars. It is possible that this might have been the reason for the liberal attitude of Tenkalai sampradayam. Even today Anbil a place of great importance to Vaishnava religion, is a settlement of choliars. The choliars who claim origin from that place are found among smarthas as well. One branch has settled in Kodunthirapally. It is indeed the bedrock of Talavakra Sama sakha .

The Gurukkals for some historic reasons were able to supersede this choliyar in the TN regions whereas the namboothiris ( the munkudumi counterparts) retained their stronghold in Kerala.

Were these munkudumi's a direct extract from the local dravidan tribes in the dravida nadu( TN, Kerala). I do not know. However and interestingly both Choliars and Namboothiris claim to links with Chanakya and some time back some choliars even tried to suggest that Adi-sankara was one of them. Though there are no strong remanants of these claims , it points to a common heritage of these groups.

So who were the Gurukkals that is a mystery but their way of worship contrasts with the tantra forms in Kerala a most positive indication that it was the practice brought by some outsiders. So Gurukkals might have been mixture of local groups with an immigrant priest group, or a convert from a local group to an outsider's philosophy or may have been wholesale immigrants too.

The next immigrants of brahmins, the vadama, brahacharanam, vathima,ashtasahasram , etc god knows in what order they came and in how many waves they came and how many centuries passed , they established the smartha religion as we know today.

While I tend to look at Kanchi paramacharya's views with healthy skepticism and tend to question his views rationally, his once stated opinion that Choliars are to be considered the Adivasis of TN, ring to be true, in my opinion. If you are seeing some caste conversion of local tribes /anthanars of TN to vedic religion, you must dig there.

 

[subbudu1]

Is it possible that various brahmins adopted smrithis only for ritual adherence in recent times (that is, for performance of rituals for various people as per their caste).

Happy this is very much my hunch but may not be applicable to the northern brahmins who cannot be exonerated from composing the smritis and neither can their descendants who came and settled in different places in south. Practically every brahmin must have had this blood of immigration in my view, and cannot be exonerated excepting the most isolated of brahmins.

 

[happyhindu]

Fascinating Subbudu Sir. Thanks so much. Actually i will not disagree with Paramacharya for dubbing various groups as Shudras anymore. I have dug into various castes, understood them, and now am convinced He was right. However, there are some points i still disagree with. But lets not go into that.

Now that we are speaking about various tamil brahmins, their adherences, etc, i wish everyone also puts forth their views on various groups. I earnestly request Nachinarkiniyan sir also to share his views on various brahmin groups across tamilnadu and kerala, esp wrt to their practices, dress-code, observences, which smrithi each one followed, variations in customs, etc.

Nachinarkiniyan sir, i can understand you dislike me of late but sir, i have never knowingly wanted to hurt you or get on the wrong side of you. Am very sorry things have turned out this way. I have always had immense respect for you and will continue to do so. My views differ from yours, and i hope that is not too much of an impediment for exchange of views.

 

[happyhindu]

Happy this is very much my hunch but may not be applicable to the northern brahmins who cannot be exonerated from composing the smritis and neither can their descendants who came and settled in different places in south. Practically every brahmin must have had this blood of immigration in my view, and cannot be exonerated excepting the most isolated of brahmins.

Am curious, Sangom sir, Nachinarkiniyan sir and everyone else -- are there differences in the way pancha-gauda brahmins and pancha-dravida brahmins follow smrithis?

 

[subbudu1]

Am curious, Sangom sir, Nachinarkiniyan sir and everyone else -- are there differences in the way pancha-gauda brahmins and pancha-dravida brahmins follow smrithis?

If you dont mind Happy, I am giving my personal experience here.

I do not know about the past but for the past few centuries due to islamic invasions and political instability there is no north Indian brahmin who rigidly adheres to smritis as much as is done in the south, and the smriti imposition on people seems far less severe. Untouchability is a different matter and most certainly less severe than the south. It is true even in Orissa, which is a gauda brahmin region, unaffected by islamic religion. Now I wonder!

 

[happyhindu]

Subbudu Sir,

I feel there were 2 categories within the Smartha set --
One, which followed smrithis since a long time.
Another, which adopted smrithis in recent times.

Now, which was which could get difficult to decipher...

Sir, imo, the observence of caste and untouchability is very high in some areas of mp, up, bihar (bimaru states in general). I thot greater the poverty, the more people tend to make an issue out of caste in order to gain social standing (since they have nothing else left to carve a social identity for themselves)....

 

[subbudu1]

Subbudu Sir,

I feel there were 2 categories within the Smartha set --
One, which followed smrithis since a long time.
Another, which adopted smrithis in recent times.

Now, which was which could get difficult to decipher...

Sir, imo, the observence of caste and untouchability is very high in some areas of mp, up, bihar (bimaru states in general). I thot greater the poverty, the more people tend to make an issue out of caste in order to gain social standing (since they have nothing else left to carve a social identity for themselves)....

It is not easy to interpret especially in the North, as smritis, even where it is important for a religious purpose, like wearing sacred thread the right age have been given a good bye, by descendants of even the most severe smriti following groups. By the way in North smritis are not important for following caste. It is more like tribalism and tribal war mentality. Pardon my strong use of the terms not intended to denigrate any one in the north but a general reference to practices that are not based on any codified works.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Anyone who reads thru claims made by various groups in colonial times would know this. This is not something am saying for the first time. I had already written about this in old threads.

The culpability of other groups is true for earlier periods also and not just colonial times.

I find that Shanars (nadars) were listed in the Kshatriya category for a short-while. But in the 20th century, the Shanars ceased to have their caste included in the Kshatriya category.

There were census taken at various times. The Shanrors (nadars) listed themselves as Pandiya kula kshatriyas. More details are available in the book I referred to earlier!

All clout of NBs was no match for the brahmins who testified everyone's varnas in courts.

The Vellalars of TN have had significant clout for ages now and definitely since the last choza period. Their responsibility in degrading certain communities as untouchables and panchamans cannot be discounted.

Please read up history instead of claiming i invented such a social construct.

No one said HH invented this theory. I said HH seeks to propagate this theory. This false theory is the bedrock on which hatred against brahmins is directed in TN for more than a century now.

Whether you like it or not, casteism is brahmanism.

No it is NOT. This theory is propagated with a view to protect the NB castes.

I have been asking some people why they wanted dalits suppressed. The most common answer i get is, "we are kshatriyas" or "it is our duty". Some of formerly high stature even felt they were / are equal to brahmins and good enough to be recognised as 'brahmins'.

I beleive such NBs are fools and idiots. They do not know sanskrit, and have no idea about dharmashastras. Rural mentality apart, the landed people were illiterate for the longest time (all brawn no brain).

They felt it is their duty to follow what their forefathers did just because "they imagine" they are 'kshatriyas'; and beleived their social prestige came from keeping dalits suppressed. Added to that is all harem loyalty for the brahmanical smirthi model, imo.

It is apparent some such idiots like maravars, naidus (kammas and balijas), nayakars (vanniyars), thevars (kallars), reddys, nairs, rajus, vellalars and their telugu counterparts the velamas, till date imagine they are living in the medieval ages. These people need education, awareness, and need to be sensitised.

This has been heard several times. That the NBs who oppress others are merely fools; but the brahmins who do so are evil. All these are சப்பக்கட்டு to protect the dominant NB castes.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Whether you like it or not, casteism is brahmanism.

I beleive such NBs are fools and idiots. They do not know sanskrit, and have no idea about dharmashastras.

I think it is important to point out the inherent contradiction in the above two statements.

The implication of the second statement is that the dharmashastras have no role in casteism practiced by NBs, which, ofcourse, contradicts the first statement.

The truth is social stratification existed in ancient tamil society and has been existing, since then. All references available points to this. The NB groups were never a homogenous group. They practiced casteism. They subjugated one another. They believe(d) in caste hierarchy. They believe(d) in பிறப்பொழுக்கம். They believe(d) in மேற்பால், கீழ்பால். They believe(d) in உயர்குடி, தாழ்குடி. They believed in kulam priveleges. They wanted caste priveleges. Maraimalai Adigal knew this much and even states that it is the they who created the caste system. He writes in "VeLALar NAgarIkam" thus:

"தமிழகத்தில் முதன்முதல் உழவுத் தொழிலைக் காணும் நுண்ணறிவும், அதனாற் கொலைபுலை தவிர்த்த அறவொழுக்கமும், அதனாற் பெற்ற நாகரீகமும் உடைய தமிழ் மக்கள் எல்லாரினுஞ் சிறந்து விளங்கித் தம்மினின்று அந்தணர், அரசர் எனும் உயர்ந்த வகுப்பினர் இருவரையும் அமைத்து வைத்து, அறவொழுக்கத்தின் வழுவிய ஏனைத் தமிழ் மக்களெல்லாந் தமக்குந் தமதுழவுக்கும் உதவியாம்படி பதிணென் டொழில்களைச் செய்யுமாறு அவர்களை அவற்றின் கண் நிலைபெறுத்தித் தமிழ் நாகரிகத்தைப் பண்டு தொட்டு வளர்த்துவரலாயினர்”

அப்பதிணென் வகுப்பினர் கைக்கோளர், தச்சர், கொல்லர், கம்மாளர், தட்டார், கன்னார், செக்கார், மருத்துவர், குயவர், வண்ணார், துன்னர், ஓவியர், பாணர், கூத்தர், நாவிதர், சங்கறுப்பர், பாகர், பறையர் ஆகியன. He calls them பலபட்டடைச் சாதிகள்.

In modern times, it became convenient for them to blame the brahmins (and hence constant references to brahminism instead of casteism) as a means to to exonerate themselves and to capture political power. What they want(ed) is is the subjugation of brahmins and NOT elimination of casteism. IMO, this is also what the brabas group in this forum want.

 

[happyhindu]

The culpability of other groups is true for earlier periods also and not just colonial times.

Please read my sentence carefully -- Anyone who reads thru claims made by various groups in colonial times would know this. It was not just colonial period.

I have made it amply clear in other posts about the past (harem loyalty and all). Obvioulsy vellalars soilders were not created in colonial times.

There were census taken at various times. The Shanrors (nadars) listed themselves as Pandiya kula kshatriyas. More details are available in the book I referred to earlier!

Ofcourse various census were taken at different times. Already explained the background and reasons, why "caste-based" census started being taken in the Aarakshan thread.

The Vellalars of TN have had significant clout for ages now and definitely since the last choza period. Their responsibility in degrading certain communities as untouchables and panchamans cannot be discounted.

Ofcourse they suppressed and oppressed various communities. They were doing that job (of militant subjugation) all the way from the Chola period. They were created by chola kings for that very purpose. However, they did not invent varnas, smrithis, untouchability, social hierarchies, etc.

None said HH invented this theory. I said HH seeks to propagate this theory. This false theory is the bedrock on which hatred against brahmins is directed in TN for more than a century now.

Sorry KB, I did not write such things in the puranas, I did not go to courts in the colonial period claiming there are only 2 classes in kaliyuga (brahmins and shudras), I did not seek to downgrade various communities to shudra level in the colonial period. All i have done is to analyse if the brahmanical claims are true and find that they are.

No it is NOT. This theory is propagated with a view to protect the NB castes.

Casteism is brahmanism. Everything about the smrithis is about strictly enforcing the chaturvarna model. No NB would have written such smrithis.

This has been heard several times. That the NBs who oppress others are merely fools; but the brahmins who do so are evil. All these are சப்பக்கட்டு to protect the dominant NB castes.

Whatever you say, the NBs have been made a fool out of. That's a sentiment quite a few people realise now. The so-called NB "upper castes" must have thought, whatever subjugation they were doing was for name, fame, kshatriya-dharma, their own social position. They would have never realised how their roles came about, and why they were doing what they did.

What they need to do now is to get out of casteism, loosen up caste constructs, and concentrate on making a better life for themselves and the country without any form of discrimination. If brahmins also supported this, then there wud be no problem.

Instead what we see today is that brahmins continue to use the word shudra, justify dharmashastras, try to obfuscate the past, propagate chaturvarna as some divine construct, etc. The more brahmins do this, the more they fall in the eyes of the public.

Some former 'untouchables' may feel 'brahmins' are evil. But then just look at how asuras are demonised as evil in the puranas, and how some smrithis portray shudras as wretched people. If brahmanical literature characterises them like that, is it wrong if they hold such a view of brahmins. Instead of complaining about it, can not everyone join hands and remove casteism once for all.

The problem is not between brahmins and non-brahmins. It is between fundamentalists and moderates (irrespective of caste).

I think it is important to point out the inherent contradiction in the above two statements.

The implication of the second statement is that the dharmashastras have no role in casteism practiced by NBs, which, ofcourse, contradicts the first statement.

The truth is social stratification existed in ancient tamil society and has been existing, since then. All references available points to this. The NB groups were never a homogenous group. They practiced casteism. They subjugated one another. They believe(d) in caste hierarchy. They believe(d) in பிறப்பொழுக்கம். They believe(d) in மேற்பால், கீழ்பால். They believe(d) in உயர்குடி, தாழ்குடி. They believed in kulam priveleges. They wanted caste priveleges. Maraimalai Adigal knew this much and even states that it is the they who created the caste system. He writes in "VeLALar NAgarIkam" thus:



அப்பதிணென் வகுப்பினர் கைக்கோளர், தச்சர், கொல்லர், கம்மாளர், தட்டார், கன்னார், செக்கார், மருத்துவர், குயவர், வண்ணார், துன்னர், ஓவியர், பாணர், கூத்தர், நாவிதர், சங்கறுப்பர், பாகர், பறையர் ஆகியன. He calls them பலபட்டடைச் சாதிகள்.

No one said NBs are a homogenous group.

There are some papers on megalithic period clans fighting against each other. Tribes fought against each other over various issues. Some of the issues (women, gods, etc) comes out well in stories. However, people within one tribe (members of say within irula tribe) did not discriminate each other on the basis of occupation. There is no evidence of intra-clan, intra-tribe occupational discrimination; so, there was no casteism in the tribal state.

The feudal-varna system changed all that. There was a transition phase, when tribal states changed to the feudal system supported by the Chatur-varna model. Varna and Jati are 2 different things. How Varna-Jati became a combined model, etc, i have already touched upon / explained in the Aarakshan thread.

Social stratification must have ofcourse started in days preceding Buddha in North India. If you are talking about Sangam period literature, i will agree that social stratification started around the time in the tamil lands.

It is pointless to talk about Vellalar Nagarikam -- it is well known what nagarikam they had in Chola period (and later as well).

In modern times, it became convenient for them to blame the brahmins (and hence constant references to brahminism instead of casteism) as a means to to exonerate themselves and to capture political power. What they want(ed) is is the subjugation of brahmins and NOT elimination of casteism. IMO, this is also what the brabas group in this forum want.

Sorry KB, i beleive what we have on hands currently is because of the Colonial-Period Brahmins (CPB) . After so many years of British rule they should have understood the old system is not going to work anymore. Everyone was clamouring for colonial government jobs.

The CPB should have introspected and taken into consideration the historical basis on which varna constructs were propagated over centuries. Perhaps, they did not want to look into all that, because they did not want to question their own origins. Or maybe they really beleived in the creationism model propagated by smrithis and thot they descended from Brahma-created rishis and were maintaining dharma for millenia (!)

Maybe they simply wanted to preserve themselves as brahmins without questioning anything since the orthodoxy survives on it; and just wanted to allocate varnas to others, and keep the dharma (dharmashastra) system going. Maybe it was the question of their own social position / prestige also.

As for elimination of casteism, its been 60 odd years since independece. Compare this with the varna-based jati model that has been in existence for atleast 1500 years. Please give it time. Already urban areas have no casteism. As for semi-urban and rural areas, its only a matter of time. Maybe just a few years or so considering the current rate of modernisation.

Your allegation that people wanted subjugation of brahmins is something that has been touted for a long time by brahmins wearing blinkers wanting to propagate dharmashastras and chaturvarna as something 'holy'; and ofcourse unwilling to accept the changing social scenario.

Which is why i suggested smarthas themselves need to discuss questions reg the relevance (if any) of smrithis for the future. Its about the future of Smartha religion after all. It is obvious
(1) 'dharma' as is understood in dharmashatras is a gross misfit today,
(2) even if all brahmins go back to their old jobs, the rest of the population is not,
(3) there is no point in badgering pseudo-secularism, reservations, reverse-discrimination, etc without addressing points (1) and (2).

If you see any of the above as brahmin-bashing, then fine, its your prerogative.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Ofcourse they suppressed and oppressed various communities. They were doing that job (of militant subjugation) all the way from the Chola period. They were created by chola kings for that very purpose. However, they did not invent varnas, smrithis untouchability, social hierarchies, etc.

Same old idea of deflecting culpability. What HH is saying is that the NBs practiced oppression but they were forced to oppress. Consequently they are not culpable because, according to her, they did not create the system. This is incorrect. The caste system is a creation of the society. All high varnas, the brahmins, the kshatriyas, the vaisyas, who benefitted at the expense of shudras are culpable. Blaming only brahmins is what I consider "vested interest".

Casteism is brahmanism. Everything about the smrithis is about strictly enforcing the chaturvarna model. No NB would have written such smrithis.

Casteism is not brahminism. Casteism is Casteism. The benefit to the other varnas, especially Kshatriyas, from the varna system is immense. The Kings were not slaves to brahmins, as is being portrayed here. If anything, in TN scenario, the king had much more power than the brahmins. One can show any number of examples from tamil literature but this one from thirukkural would suffice.

அந்தணர் நூற்கும் அறத்திற்கும் ஆதியாய்
நின்றது மன்னவன் கோல்.

இதன் பொருளை உணர்ந்தால், சமூகத்தின் நன்மைகளுக்கு மட்டுமல்ல தீமைகளுக்கும் க்ஷத்ரியர்கள் பொறுப்பேற்க வேண்டிய கடமை உண்டு என்பதை அறிய முடியும்.

What they need to do now is to get out of casteism, loosen up caste constructs, and concentrate on making a better life for themselves and the country without any form of discrimination. If brahmins also supported this, then there wud be no problem.

Instead what we see today is that brahmins continue to use the word shudra, justify dharmashastras, try to obfuscate the past, propagate chaturvarna as some divine construct, etc. The more brahmins do this, the more they fall in the eyes of the public.

This is one of the worst generalizations about brahmins to be seen in this forum. The brabas indulge in such wholesale condemnation and then become angry when they are called brabas. I do not know when such unfair generalizations would stop!

The problem is not between brahmins and non-brahmins. It is between fundamentalists and moderates (irrespective of caste).

Who is the fundamentalist here? Anyone who seeks to exonerate himself by trying to shift all the blame on others is a fundamentalist, IMO.

No one said NBs are a homogenous group.

The dominant casteist NBs say so. To hide all the oppression they perpetrated on "lower" castes, they claim that everyone else other than brahmins were shudras. By claiming thus, they wish to impress upon everyone that it is the brahmins who are responsible for all that happened in the name of caste system.

[QUOTE=happyhindu;100390]
It is pointless to talk about Vellalar Nagarikam - it is well known what nagarikam they had in Chola period . [/QUOTE]

Perhaps, HH should tell this to Maraimalai Adigal and host of other Vellala Scholars, for they are the ones who write such books.

If you see any of the above as brahmin-bashing, then fine, its your prerogative.

Implicating brahmins alone for the caste system is brahmin-bashing. That is my opinion.

 

[happyhindu]

Same old idea of deflecting culpability. What HH is saying is that the NBs practiced oppression but they were forced to oppress. Consequently they are not culpable because, according to her, they did not create the system. This is incorrect. The caste system is a creation of the society. All high varnas, the brahmins, the kshatriyas, the vaisyas, who benefitted at the expense of shudras are culpable. Blaming only brahmins is what I consider "vested interest".

Nowhere did i say they were forced to oppress. I said they were created to oppress. This holds true in the case of those like Vellalars. And ofcourse there were others (non-harem products) who started oppressing in recent times, to get a higher social standing for themselves.

This does not mean the NBs are not culpable. Even if they were created to oppress, they should have exercised some sense of their own and thot about their roles, what did they get out of it, and why did they conduct themselves so.

Casteism is not brahminism. Casteism is Casteism. The benefit to the other varnas, especially Kshatriyas, from the varna system is immense. The Kings were not slaves to brahmins, as is being portrayed here. If anything, in TN scenario, the king had much more power than the brahmins. One can show any number of examples from tamil literature but this one from thirukkural would suffice.

அந்தணர் நூற்கும் அறத்திற்கும் ஆதியாய்
நின்றது மன்னவன் கோல்.

இதன் பொருளை உணர்ந்தால், சமூகத்தின் நன்மைகளுக்கு மட்டுமல்ல தீமைகளுக்கும் க்ஷத்ரியர்கள் பொறுப்பேற்க வேண்டிய கடமை உண்டு என்பதை அறிய முடியும்.

There is no question of kings being slaves to brahmins. Most hindu kings and chieftains themselves were brahmins or proclaimed to be so, (please check out tamilakam kings and chieftains under cholas, pallavas, pandyas...). North Indians are more open about this aspect and openly say Brahmins are kings and born to rule.

This is one of the worst generalizations about brahmins to be seen in this forum. The brabas indulge in such wholesale condemnation and then become angry when they are called brabas. I do not know when such unfair generalizations would stop!

Please, i coudn't care or be bothered to get angry if you call me or anyone brabas or whatever else you please. Am gonna ignore your silly allegations abt the forum as well.

The readers are in a better position to decide what is what. Anyone can take a look at old posts. There are many posts portraying dharmashastras and chaturvarna as some holy construct. Adherence to dharmashastras was openly touted.

There was a post in this very thread by TBS saying "brahmins are evil, shudras are good" (it was deleted by praveen). People are still using the word "Shudra"...so, what's the point...

Who is the fundamentalist here? Anyone who seeks to exonerate himself by trying to shift all the blame on others is a fundamentalist, IMO.

Say what you will. Each one's posts are self-explanatory.

The dominant casteist NBs say so. To hide all the oppression they perpetrated on "lower" castes, they claim that everyone else other than brahmins were shudras. By claiming thus, they wish to impress upon everyone that it is the brahmins who are responsible for all that happened in the name of caste system.

Which dominant casteist NB has ever said Pulayas and Nayars are a homogeneous set. No one is hiding oppression. Its all in the open. Everyone dominant played a role in casteism. Period.

It appears NBs are ok with acknowledging their roles and moving on to creating a better society, but 'brahmins' are not willing to acknowledge anything (the few who do, are called 'self-hating brahmins', etc).

Am done with these exchanges on this topic with you. Unless something new gets put forward, will not be replying.

Best wishes.