அணைத்து சாதியினரும் அர்ச்சகர் a.k.a பெரியார் நெஞ்சில் தைத்த முள்

Ok, this post is only for people who have an introduction to 'Anaithu Sadhiyinarum Archagar (anybody can become a priest)' issue of the Dravidian movement, including the legal part.

What first caught my attention was the following portion from a speech by Sathyavel Muruganar, the agama-expert in the 2006 'Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal ... vs Govt. Of Tamil Nadu & Anr' case, at Periyar thidal...

(link for case - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143215272/)

...specifically the part where he said "you can no longer fool us using the words 'convention and custom' from the agamas". He is celebrating Ranjan Gogoi's 2015 verdict.

Agamas are basically a kind of a loose rulebook for temples and public worship. They include, among other things, rules about what kinds of people can become priests in temples. Basically, the core of the case is that agamas say that a certain type of Brahmins alone can become priests in certain types of temples. This clause also comes under 'convention and customs' of agamas and worship, and Mr. Muruganar was referring to this part. These kinks about agamas are specific to TN. 

Some people wanted to change that, but the constitution protects the authority of the agamas. They want to change this rule that brahmins alone can become priests in big, agama-governed temples. But the law protects authority of the agamas, including this clause. They accuse Brahmins of resisting their moves.

The narrative, the thought-current over this is "the innermost part of the temple is the seat of the power and influence of the Brahmins. If we shake that, they lose their power, and casteism, which was introduced into society by Brahmins, will also get destroyed, or greatly weakened. Brahmins' influence will be gone if we remove them from there. That is why they are resisting this so much. They are taking all kinds of steps to stop us from doing this, moving levers through judiciary, bureaucracy, etc."

This is the story from outside, but there are many layers of unimaginable fraud.

But, seeing that video, my brain said "come on. YOUR Dravidian movement lists forming of a HRCE ministry as one of its great achievement. YOUR HRCE protected authority of agamas. Why are YOU celebrating victory of the law over this clause of the agamas?"

If getting அணைத்து சாதியினரும் அர்ச்சகர் (Anaithu Sadhiniyarum Archagar - priest from any caste. ASA) was your real motive, the first thing you must have done was to question the HRCE, and the Dravidian movement, which brought about the HRCE, and has been parading it as one of its great achievement. Anybody who wants ASA must have questioned HRCE Acts and Dravidian movement first. This is the logical step. But, they are sitting in the lap of Drav, and fighting against an imaginary enemy.

They are totally unfettered regarding lying or manipulating. They can go to any level. Sathyavel Muruganar says in this https://dheivamurasu.org/aagamangal-thadaiya/ blog that agamas are not an obstacle to ASA. I don't know how that works out. If agamas are not so particular about denomination of priests, then on what grounds are Brahmins appointed exclusively as priests?

If that is so, if there is no problem to begin with, in the first place! The fact that law protects aagamas, and aagamas oppose ASA is the heart of the problem.

The issue is that agamas are a loose rulebook, and can be interpreted in any way, and that we have to depend on people like Mr. Sathyavel Muruganar to tell us what's in them. 

Brahmins' appointment as priests comes under 'Convention and custom', and they are guarded by agamas. Agamas' sanctity and authority are upheld by HRCE acts, and this is protected by Articles 25/26 (freedom of religion) of the constitution.

You might think its 'the ones who want anybody to be a priest' versus 'the law'. Its not!!! Read on...

.

.

.

.

What Rajaji brought in 1954 was not at all குல கல்வி. That was a ploy of the Nadars+Periyar+DMK to oust Rajaji from CM post, and to install Kamaraj Nadar as CM. Nadars were near untouchables at the turn of the century, and were still low in social status in '50s. The powers that be of tamil lands - Chettiar, Mudaliar, Balija Naidu, used Pallis and Saanans (Vanniyar, Nadar), fully. The latter had good numerical strength. They were in greatest need for social mobility. They were just above dalits. 

Dravidam itself was simply a pact between these upper and lower groups. It was a quid pro quo. The powers would uplift vanniyar/nadar little by little, and the they would keep alive Nagarathar-Vellalars' cults of "Periyar" and "Dravidam". There was no point disproving it because the crowd had already decided whom and what to believe and follow. These are the political incentives.

What rajaji brought in 1952/53 was not at all குல கல்வி (hereditary education), but they made it look so, and this lie is actively kept alive till today. The saanans in BJP would not touch these areas of Dravidam. Periyar supported Communists in 1952 TN assembly elections. Then, in 1954, with his successful false campaign, he ousted Rajaji and erected Kamaraj as CM. Then, Periyar supported Kamaraj as CM candidate for 3 subsequent elections :- 1957, 1962, 1967.

Yes, in 1967, they year they say Dravidian rule began in TN, Periyar campaigned for INC/Kamaraj, against Anna/DMK!!

1952 TN Legislative Assembly Election Stands/Coalitions

1957 TN Legislative Assembly Election Stands/Coalitions

1962 TN Legislative Assembly Election Stands/Coalitions

1967 TN Legislative Assembly Election Stands/Coalitions

Those who see what I see will agree with me when I say "Dravidian rule begins in TN not in 1967, but in 1954!"

Nadars and Vanniyars abounded in INC, and DMK, and they had to face the oppression of vellalas/mudaliars like Bhaktavatsalam, in both places. Maybe, it was benign in DMK. Starting mid-1960's lots of Nadars started jumping to DMK, because Bhaktavatsalam had become CM. M.P.Sivagnanam and S.P.Adithan contested 1967 TN assembly elections under 'Rising Sun' symbol, which itself was got from the agni satti fellows in 1957.

After Anna died in feb 1969, there was a power struggle within DMK. Pallis and Saanans had provided the bulk numbers and support, but the leadership was mudaliar/vellala. Post Anna, they conspired to oust mudaliar leadership of DMK, or, cut into it. Karunanidhi was their mascot. Even today, you can observe this. Saanans and Pallis are very very intimate with their leader, Muthuvel Karunanidhi, because he was their man. Their assassin.

Periyar had been supporting Saanans all his life. That connection goes back to 1910's. They were the palanquin bearers of his personal legacy and cult.

In the power struggle within DMK, Periyar supported Saanans/Pallis, and their man, Karunanidhi. Periyar's allegiance shifted to DMK in 1969. He had not supported DMK once in his life while Annadurai was alive, and today's DMK claims to be the rightful children of Anna, Periyar and the Dravidian movement!

This was the time this drama, அணைத்து சாதியினரும் அர்ச்சகர் (ASA) was started by DMK government. 1969-70. Indira Gandhi had asked to prepone 1972 Assembly elections to '71, and DMK agreed. அணைத்து சாதியினரும் அர்ச்சகர் (ASA) was a stunt for the '71 elections, and also a kind of fireworks to mark Periyar's shift to DMK. Something big. 

Karunanidhi amended HRCE act in 1970. He won elections in 1971 not because of any of this, but because pallis and saanans had already jumped over to DMK en masse. When palanquin bearers jumped, the man in the palanquin dragged his palanquin to where they were, and put himself inside it again. No problem. Tughlaq magazine and Cho Ramasamy toiled in vain during 1971 elections. The field was already set. Periyar supported not Kamaraj, or INC from 1954 to 1969. He was supporting the caste called 'Nadar'. They were his personal slaves. New slaves. Udayan/Konan (like கருத்தாளர் Ve. Mathimaran, Asiriyar Veeramani) were old, centuries old slaves.

Periyar supported INC from 1954 to 1969, but supported DMK in 1971. Rajaji was ousted using a lie. He quit INC and started Congress Reform Committee (CRC) in 1957. Then, it became Swatantra Party, and this party sided with DMK in 1962 and 1967 elections. He saw what happened in 1969. In 1971 elections, Rajaji sided with INC/Kamaraj. Full swap.

1969-70 saw many changes,  many gear shifts. This was the time Karunanidhi ordered the first Backward Classes commission to study and create a report. Sattanathan/MBC-story starts from here, and it was done only by (K)DMK, not by the Mudaliars, who were the creators/executives of Dravidian movement.

Nagarathars-Vellalars were the main owners of the content and vitriol. Mudaliars were always the delavoys, even to the Naickers. The mudaliars/vellalas had never bothered about a backward classes commission. This was the period Karunanidhi called Periyar the 'Socrates of South East Asia', on behalf of UNESCO. Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, the brain of the Justice Party, and the creator of Periyar as an anti-caste reformer using stuff from Ambedkar, was the first President of United Nations Economic and Social Council, for his exemplary services to the crown. He helped it (the Crown) stab the Indian Freedom Struggle (anti-crown activities) in the back. Maybe the Mudaliars/Vellalars thought "UNஏ எங்களுது தான் டா. நாங்க தான் UN". I don't want to go into that. That needs full attention.

Karunanidhi amended HRCE in 1970 in preparation for 1971 election, as well as to mark Periyar's shift from INC to DMK. In 1972, after DMK won, 13 people challenged Karunanidhi's 1970 amendment. All 13, and Advocate General/pleader of DMK government, were all presumably Brahmins (not sure). I can understand the plaintiffs being Brahmin, but the judge/govt side pleader? What's going on? Can you see it? Did all of those Brahmins come forward of their own volition?

They said Agamas dictated that only people from "a certain denomination" can be priests in certain types of temples. So, to trample on agamas would be to trample on Freedom to practice religion which was protected by Article 25 & 26 of Indian Constitution. They said this stuff did not harm freedom of equality, etc, which was more important, and guarded by Articles 14-17 of the same, and successfully undid MK's amendment.

Now, Agamas are a religious, non-official text. A lot of stuff also written in the agamas are not followed. Dravidian Movement portrays HRCE laws and ministry as one of its important achievements. This starts from 1922/23. But point is...NONE OF THOSE LAWS SPOKE ABOUT அணைத்து சாதியினரும் அர்ச்சகர் (ASA)! They were all to do only with protecting property, and stuff like that.

Priests, etc was internal matter. Right from 1863, all internal affairs, customs and conventions were upto the 'Trustee'. The trustee was the supreme authority on all HRC institutions. I guess all trustees, ஆத்திகவாதிகள், are party to Dravidam's play. மாமன் மச்சானா இருப்பான். Chettiar/Mudaliar/Pillai.

To bring ASA, you have to do one simple thing. Just say that this one line, one rule, from the agamas, is invalid. Why didn't none of the HRCE laws from 1922/23 do it? HRCE Act 1959 actually protected these "codes, conventions and customs". This ASA itself enters into the scene only after 1969, and I gave you the background.

So, DMK quickly retracted its steps, or allowed Seshammal & Ors. to please undo their stunt of 1970 for 1971 elections.

 The next time ASA happened was in 2006. I think it was the first G.O./Amendment of DMK once it came to office. There was a game played here. Karunanidhi first issued an ordinance (அவசர சட்டம் ) with very strong wordings. Then, a G.O. was brought, and then, an amendment. But, the wordings in the actual amendment/act were very generic, it did not contain the aspects of ASA that the ordinance spoke about. But anyways, it was done with great fanfare and noise, as is always the case with #Drav.

This amendment was immediately (how?) challenged by a group. This time, it was done by a set of priests of some big temple in south (Adi Sivachariar Nala Sangam). The case went to high court, then, supreme court, then justice Ranjan Gogoi passed final judgement in 2015. I think the final judgement spoke something about a "case by case basis". Im not sure what that means. But the important point to note here is...all courts were passing judgements only on the final amendment. The strong wordings in the ordinance were dropped from the actual amendment that was made! I think the ordinance was presented to the judges as an additional document. The ordinance was redundant, but only the ordinance spoke about ASA! See the fraud...

In the first video, Mr. Muruganar says "Ranjan Gogoi asked 'why didn't you bring an amendment through assembly? Why did you pass an ordinance/G.O., etc?' ".

It is highly likely that Justice Gogoi had no clue that both the plaintiff and defendant were the same group and that there was a highly politicized game being played on the ground!! All they wanted was a *semblance of a real issue* in the court, a fight. The public was watching the court. Bringing ASA was never their intention!! If they wanted, they could bring it in no time. They are playing around with it.

Su.Arivukkarasu Nadar... Remember the quid-pro-quo? Nadars, vanniyars, konars, udayars kept alive the cults of Dravidam and Periyar. They were the crowd, and they had pre-decided whom to believe and follow. Dravidam could sustain so long because of this pre-decision of tamil crowd. It is in rocky waters today because the crowd no longer needs it. In TN, the crowd, the tamil people as a whole, is the biggest criminal.

Su.Arivukkarasu Nadar vaguely hinted something about an "out of court settlement" between Sivachariars who challenged DMK's amendment, and #drav. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bldqKjtezTw

Beyond this point its not very hard to guess what went on there. DMK got the sivachariar's first, before carrying out their stunt. They took one shadow step forward towards (ASA), then quickly arranged for it to be retraced, by a party they want us to think, are opposed to them. Both are orchestrated by #drav. The one step forward, and the blow from the *opposite* site that attacks this step. There needs to be some investigation about Seshammal and K. Parasaran & 11 Ors, of 1972, too. I guess they were all on #drav payroll, or, were brahmins who failed to see #drav's game.

The owners of #drav drama need caste and restrictions much much more than Brahmins. They were the ones who put up and maintained the fences, the hierarchy. They themselves made show of pulling these wall/fences down.  All you have to do for ASA is, call a small portion, one single clause of the agamas, as redundant. But they didn't do it, because ASA was not really their intention. Their intention was to make a lot of noise about opposing oppression, and to pour vitriol on the Brahmins.

The latter originates from those who own #dravidam, and one century of Brahmin hatred in TamilNadu - Nattukottai Nagarathars + Saiva Pillai + Sengundhar/Tuluva Vellala Mudaliar. That is the sole purpose of ASA. If there was an actual problem, it could have been solved long back. The situation is made more complex by pallis and saanans jumping over to BJP and attacking DMK/Periyar vaguely.

They have every right to go to whichever party/ideology they want, and sanskritize as much as they want. (did they have this right 100 yrs back. Who stopped them? Who enforced temple entry rules?) But, by themselves opposing #drav/Periyar for vague, petty reasons, they are robbing Brahmins of one thing. Of a crowd that can listen to the century old frauds. They are the tamil crowd. They have the bandwidth. The crowd is the greatest criminal in TN. அந்த பார்ப்பன வெறுப்பு விஷத்தை *கடந்து செல்வது* கொடுமையிலும் கொடுமை. அவர்களே இன்று திராவிட எதிர்ப்பு செய்வது தான் மிக பெரிய மோசடி. திராவிடி மோசடியில் தொடர்ச்சி தான் திராவிட எதிர்ப்பு மோசடி. 

Now, to whom can brahmins demonstrate the himalayan fraud after fraud after fraud after fraud in TN for a century? Only a very small sliver of the population in TN knows any little politics, and has the brain to connect all this. The larger crowd depends on the perspectives, opinions relayed by this small crowd. That small sliver in TN is biased. Biased either like the chettiars/vellalas in Drav side, or like the pallis and saanans and koundans in BJP mode today; Selective/biased hearing of crimes.

Another aspect of ASA is...TN is the only state in the whole country where texts like agamas have strict rules for temples. In other parts, anybody can touch the idol. TN is the only state with such agama-governed temples. The agamas were probably written by vellalas, fashioned after vedas and shastras, I guess. They were the ones who give so much importance to agamas.

'குடமுழுக்கு'  is a strictly tamil tradition. It was the vellalas/Nagarathars who translated this into "kumbabishegam", called Brahmins priests to do this, including sanskritic stuff. But it was also those very same Vellalas and Nattukottai Nagarathars who, on their Dravida stages, dipped the Brahmins in the acid of their vitriol, for dominating them with Sanskrit, and refusing to budge. 

நா உன் கைய புடிச்சுட்டு விட மாட்டேன் னு சொன்னா சரி. நீ என்ன கூட்டிட்டு வந்து, என் கைய புடிச்சு, அல்லது என்னை உன் கையை பிடிக்குமாறு கேட்டுக்கொண்டு, அந்த பக்கம் கூட்டத்துக்கிட்ட பொய் "இங்க பாருங்க என்ன எப்படி பிடிச்சு வெச்சுருக்கன் பாருங்க. விட மாட்டிங்கிறான், அடக்குறான், ஒடுக்குறான்" னு சொன்னா எப்படி இருக்கும்? Thats' what has been happening in TN.

இந்த கூட்டத்துக்கும் அறிவும் இல்லை, கண் பார்வையும் இல்லை. நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளர் (திராவிட) அரசியல் சொல்வதை சொல்றத அப்பிடியே நம்புது. So, you have seen the legal, administrative stuff, the political background behind this drama of அணைத்து சாதியினரும் அர்ச்சகர். 

I can never enough convey the actual venom, the insidious intention, the dark and malicious hearts behind it, but I have showed you what is what. It is up to you now. குறிப்பிட்ட பிரிவினர் மட்டுமே அர்ச்சகராக இருக்க முடியும் என்று சொல்லும் ஆகமங்கள் தமிழகத்தில் மட்டுமே கடை பிடிக்க படுகின்றனர். ஆகமத்தை எழுதியது/புனிதமாக கருதுவது யார்? நாடகம் ஆடுவது யார்? You see for yourself.

***Epilogue***

In the olden days, there were more complex caste-wise rules. Nagarathar-Vellalar (Dravidian) propaganda and politics incited hatred agains Brahmins as the cause for all of that. I agree, but Brahmins were merely providing religious sanction to it, and they had no other choice. Who *needed* those rules? Studying legal cases about 1895/99 Ramnad riots, Sankaralinga Nadan case, and other cases can help understand the actual picture.

For ex- 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/593155/ - 1916, rights of christian Vellala to build a wall in their church, to separate them from Nadar and Dalit Christians

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1055642/?type=print - 1961, Ettayapuram Zamin vs. Nadar

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1358352/ - 1913, Mudaliar vs. Nadar

There has been one century of fire in TN from one direction alone, one perspective alone- against the Brahmins. Temple entry rules were quite complex, and these were enforced and maintained by the landed castes. The extent to which a particular caste could go into a temple, and the various மரியாதை enjoyed by various castes in temples was a marker of the place and position of those castes in society. The hierarchy in society was simply reflected in the temple. The Brahmins were used to provide religious sanction only. "சாமியே சொல்லியிருக்கு".

For ex, you saw that video of Pazha Karuppiah above. Well, it turns out, a sect of Chettiars have been the primary patrons of that exact Chidambaram temple he is talking about!

Source - https://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%87%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%81:%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%87%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%88%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%B2%E0%AF%88%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%8D

They are the ones who put Brahmins inside their temples. Nattukottai Nagarathars are the most devout Hindus in TN, but also the creators of one century+ of the most visceral Brahmin hatred in tamil Nadu for one century. I don't know if Tamil Brahmins know and see this. Nagarathars and Vellalars are the source. And this 20th century phenomenon of Tamil Nadu, and tamil people as a whole, will go down in history of Human beings, as the farthest limit to which non-violent hatred can go. 

"You are anti-Hindu"

                                                                  (**கெட்ட வார்த்தைகள் உண்டு/profanity alert**)

If BJP comes to power in TN, or becomes the topic of debate, it may become 'Brahmins vs BJP'. I don't know about Brahmins vs. Hinduism.

மதன் ரவிச்சந்திரன் மாதிரி பொட்டுக்கட்டி முதலியார், நகரத்தார் தே பசங்க ஏதாவது வாய் புண்டை அடிப்பான் :

"என்ன டா. திராவிடத்தை, எங்களை 'இந்து விரோதி' னு சொன்ன...இன்னிக்கு நாங்களே 'இந்து மதம்' னு தான் டா பேசுறோம். இன்னிக்கு ஏன் எங்களை எதிர்க்கிற, நாங்க 'இந்து மதம்' பத்தி பேச கூடாதா?"

அதனால் அதை பற்றி என்னுடைய புரிதலை பகிறுகிறேன். நினைவிருக்கட்டும். செய்தவர்களுக்கு, நிகழ்த்திய நாட்டுக்கோட்டை நகரத்தார், செங்குந்தர்/துளுவ வெள்ளாள முதலியார், சைவ பிள்ளை, பலிஜாக்களுக்கு தெரியும். என்ன விஷயம் னு. ஆனா வெளிய சொல்றதை அப்படி சொல்லுவான். நக்கலாக இந்த கேள்விகளை நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளர்களே கேட்பார்கள். மக்களும் அவர்கள் வெளியே சொல்வதை தான் விவாதிப்பார்கள். Brahmins' voice of truth will be drowned. This has always been the case in Tamil Nadu.

அப்படி தெரிஞ்சுட்டே, நக்கலா, tongue-in-cheekஆக அவர்கள் எதிர்காலத்தில் கேட்க கூடிய கேள்வி - " 'இந்து மதத்தை எதிர்க்கிறான்'னு சொன்ன. இன்னிக்கு நாங்களே இந்து மதத்தை தான் காப்பாத்த வந்திருக்கிறோம். எங்கே, உன்னை கானம்?" க்கு என் பதில் -

எப்பொழுதுமே...நாட்டுக்கோட்டை நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளர் (திராவிட) அரசியல், கூற்றுகளுக்கு பதில் அளிக்க கூடாது! ஏனெனில் கேள்வி-பதில், உரையாடல், விவாதம் எங்கே நடக்கலாம் என்றால்...அடிப்படை நேர்மை (an earnest enquiry/debate) , விவாதம் செய்யும் விஷயங்களை பற்றி அடிப்படை புரிதல் இருக்கும் இடத்தில. நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளர் (திராவிட) விவாதங்களில்...ஒன்னு விஷயம் தெரியாத, புரியாதவனா இருப்பான், அல்லது தெரிஞ்சுட்டே தெரியாத மாதிரி பேசுவான். நேர்மையான விவாதம் கிடையாது. Drav debate is always rigged.

ஆனால் அது ஒரு எழுப்பப்பட்ட, சராசரியான ஒரு நபர் மனதில் எழ கூடிய, ஒரு கேள்வி. அந்த கேள்வி பற்றி என் பார்வை. கேள்விக்கு அங்கே பதில் சொல்ல முடியவில்லை என்றாலும், ஒரு கேள்விக்கு பதில் தெரியாதவனா இருந்துவிட கூடாது. தெரிஞ்சுப்போம்.

தெரிஞ்சுட்டு நாட்டுக்கோட்டை செட்டி-முதலியார்-பிள்ளை நடத்திய, நடத்தும் நாடகத்தை பார்ப்போம். நம்மால் influence செய்ய முடியாது. பார்க்க தான் முடியும். அவன் யார் என்று மக்களுக்கு சொல்ல முடியாது என்றாலும், at least நம்மளாவது தெரிஞ்சுக்கணும். வார்த்தைகளுக்கு அவர்கள் எந்த மாதிரியான அர்த்தம் குடுத்து வைத்திருந்தார்கள், நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளர் (திராவிட) அரசியலில் உண்மையாக என்ன நடந்தது...இதை பற்றி என் புரிதல் :-

முதலில். இந்தியா/பாஜக/ஆர்.எஸ்.எஸ். பேசுவது இந்து மதம் vs.வேறு மதம், இந்துதுவா vs.மதசார்பின்மை. 

தமிழகத்தில் 108 ஆண்டுகளாக நடந்து கொண்டிருக்கும் அரசியல்/narrative - பார்ப்பனர்-பார்ப்பனரல்லாதார்!!

இரண்டிற்கும் "ஒரு மலைக்கும் மடுவுக்குமான வேறுபாடு உண்டு".

இந்தியாவின் இடது/வலது சாரி விவாதத்தில், தங்களை மேல் சாதி என்று கருதிக்கொண்டிருப்பவர்கள் ஒரு புறம் அதிகமாக, ஆதிக்கும் செலுத்தும் கூட்டமாக *இருக்கலாம்*. இல்லாமலும் போகலாம். ஆனால் அந்த விவாதம், அந்த அரசியல் எல்லாருக்கும் பொதுவானது. Horizontal division. This is a most important difference between tamil country and India. Nowhere else in India is/was the narrative 'one caste vs other', leave alone 'one caste vs rest of the society'. Tamil society is a unique place.

இந்தியாவின் விவாதம் எல்லாருக்கும் பொது. ஆனா தமிழ்நாட்டு விவாதம் ...சாதி முறை பற்றி அவர்கள் பேசுவார்களே, அது போல vertialஆக, ஒரு சாதியையே தள்ளி வைத்து, அதன் மீதி விஷம் உமிழ்ந்த "விவாதம்". Vertical division.

ஒரு முக்கியமான விஷயம். இது "விவாதத்தை" குறிக்கும். நிஜ வாழ்க்கை, யதார்த்தத்தை அல்ல. தமிழகத்தில் பார்ப்பனர்-பார்ப்பனரல்லாதார் என்ற "விவாதம்" நடந்தது. உண்மையில் இரண்டு குழுக்களுக்கும் இடையிலான சண்டை இல்லை. We were never invited to debate. அந்த அரசியல் விவாதம், அப்படி இருந்தது. இந்தியாவில் இடது/வலது க்கும் கொள்கை முரண். 

India's debate was horizontal, TN's one hundred year old "debate" was vertical. This is the main difference. They are suddenly seeing TN through Indian perspective, which is different. 

"இந்து, இந்து விரோதி" என்ற விவாதம் தமிழகத்தில் நடந்திருந்தால், பார்ப்பனர்கள் சார்பு எடுத்திருப்பார்கள். ஆனால் தமிழ்நாட்டு மிருகங்கள் செய்து வந்திருப்பது  - வெறும் பார்ப்பன வெறுப்பை உமிழ்வது. "எதிர்க்க" கூட இல்லை. வெறும் விஷம் உமிழ்வது. எப்படி னா...

நீங்க bus stopல busக்கு காத்துட்டு இருக்கீங்க. ஆட்கள் நடந்து போய்ட்ருக்கான். திடீருன்னு ஒரு ஆள் உங்களை பாத்து, நின்னுடுறான். நின்னு உங்கள கோவம் வெடிக்க கத்து கத்து னு கத்தி அசிங்க அசிங்கமா திட்டுறான். தொடர்ந்து கோவம் வெடிக்க உங்களை பாத்து கத்திட்டே இருக்கான். நீங்க என்ன பண்ணுவீங்க? என்ன பண்ண முடியும்? அந்த ஆள் கிட்ட போயிட்டு "இங்க பாரு பா, என்ன பிரச்சனை உனக்கு? நமக்குள்ள ஒரு பிரச்சனையும் இல்லையே? உனக்கு ஏன் இவ்ளோ வன்மம்"னு கேட்பீர்களா?

தமிழ் மண்ணில் "திராவிடம்", "பெரியார்" ஆகிய பிம்பங்களை உருவாக்கி, மற்ற வன்னியர், நாடார், கோனார், உடையர்களுக்கு கற்று தந்த நாட்டுக்கோட்டை நகரத்தார், சைவ பிள்ளை, துளுவ வெள்ளாள முதலியார், செங்குந்தர் முதலியார், பலிஜா நாயுடுவுக்கு... பார்ப்பனர்களிடம் "தீர்க்க கூடிய பிரச்சினை" ஒன்றுமே இல்லை.  There is no actual issue. If there was one, it could have been solved. அவர்கள் வெறுப்பு காரணம் இல்லாத வெறுப்பு. Hatred without reason. நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளரில் நெஞ்சில் இருக்கும் வெறுப்பு, வன்மம், விஷம்....அளவில்லா வினை - கரணம் இல்லாத வெறுப்பு. 

"ஏதோ ஒரு பிரச்சினை" இருந்து, அது தீர்ந்துட்டா வெறுப்பு போகும். இது அப்படி இல்லை. சாதாரணமா மனித சமூகத்தில் அப்படி தான். ஏதோ ஒரு விஷயத்துக்காக வெறுப்பு. ஏதோ ஒரு பிரச்சினை. அது சரியாகி விட்டால் அந்த வெறுப்பு, பிரச்சினை இல்லை. ஆனா நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளரின் பார்ப்பன வெறுப்பு விஷம் அப்படியில்லை. அந்த அளவில்லா வெறுப்பு விஷ ஊற்று - காரணமற்றது. Hatred without reason. They are still walking ovens of malice, venom and hatred. You can see it. ஒரு நூறாண்டு அந்த விஷத்தை ஆசை தீர உமிழ்ந்து, தமிழக மக்களுக்கு அந்த விஷத்தை ஊட்டி, நெஞ்சில் இருக்கும் நெருப்பு தனலை கொஞ்சம் ஆற விட்டு கொண்டார்கள். 

உலகத்தில் எங்கே,எந்த கட்சியா இருந்தாலும், ஏதோ ஒரு அரசியல், பிரச்சாரம் பண்ணியகனும். அந்த routine-politics-that-everybody-has-to-doஐ தவிர, நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளர் அரசியலில், பிரச்சாரத்தில், சமூக பார்வையில் இருக்கும் ஒரே விஷயம் - அவர்கள் இதயத்தில் பார்ப்பனர்கள் மேல் இருக்கும் அளவில்லா விஷம், வன்மம்.

அந்த விஷத்தை கொட்டி தீர்க்க தான் திராவிட நாடகம். அந்த நாடகத்தில் ஒரு நல்ல உதாரணமாக இருக்கும் காட்சி - "அணைத்து சாதியினரும் அர்ச்சகர்".  நிஜமா ஒரு பிரச்சினை இருந்து, அதை தீர்த்துவிட்டால், நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளருக்கு பாப்பானை வசைபாட ஒரு நல்ல காரணம் இல்லாமல் போய்விடும் ல. அதான். அந்த பிரச்சினையை openஆக விட்டு வைத்திருக்கிறான்.

அந்த காரணமில்லா அளவில்லா வெறுப்பு ஏன் வந்தது, அதன் பின்னணி என்ன, உண்மையில் என்ன காரணம் என்று ஓரளவுக்கு எனக்கு idea இருக்கு. ஆனா அதை சொல்ல இந்த கட்டுரை பத்தாது.  Will write about it.

ஆக. நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளர் "நாங்கள் இந்து மதத்தை எதிர்க்கிறோம்" னு சொல்லி அதுக்கு சொன்ன காரணம். "இந்து மதம் தான் எங்களை இழிவு படுத்துகிறது. இந்து மதம் தான் எங்களை சூத்திரனாக்கியது. இந்து மதம் தான் எங்களை சாதிகளாக பிரித்து வைத்தது.".

இந்து மதம் ஒரு ஆள் இல்லை. அதுக்கு வாய் இல்லை. அது நாட்டுக்கோட்டை செட்டியாரை கூப்டு "போடா தேவிடியா பையா" னு சொல்லவில்லை. 

அந்த "இந்து மத வேதம், புராணம், மடம்" எல்லாத்தையும் பல நூற்றாண்டுகளாக பாதுகாத்து வருவதே...இந்து மத எதிர்ப்பு பேசும் திராவிட அரசியலை உருவாக்கிய நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளர்-நாயுடு தான்! அங்கே உண்மையில் இருப்பது வெறுப்பு, வினை மட்டும் தான்.

சாதி என்பது கள நிலவரம். Lived reality. இந்து மதம் என்பது ஒரு சித்தாந்தம், சில என்ன ஓட்டங்கள் தொகுப்பு. Ideologies, philosophies. ஒருவன் எழுதி வைப்பது கள உண்மை ஆகி விடாது. அப்படி ஆகிவிட்டாலும், எழுதி வைத்தது மட்டும் காரணம் இல்லை. What is written did not magically become reality.

"சாதியை உருவாக்கியது இந்து மதம்" என்று சொல்வது தவறு. நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளர் (திராவிட) அரசியல் அப்படி சொன்னதுக்கு காரணம்- பார்ப்பன வெறுப்பு. பார்ப்பான் மீது இருக்கும் வெறுப்பை தீர்த்துக்கொள்ள, அந்த வெறுப்புக்கு ஒரு முலாம் பூசுவது. "நாங்கள பாப்பானை எதிர்க்கல, சாதி அமைப்பின் அஸ்திவாரத்தை தகர்கிறோம், அது அங்கே தான் இருக்கு" னு சொல்றது. 

அவர்கள் இந்து விரோதி என்று சொல்லிக்கொண்டது - இந்து மதம் தான் சாதியை, அவர்கள் இழிவை உருவாக்கியது என்பதால். ஆனால் அது தவறு. இந்து மதம் சாதியை "உருவாக்கவில்லை".  It's not a cause-effect relationship between Hinduism and caste system. அவர்கள் வெறுமனே வாயால் பேசிய கூற்று அப்படி. அவர்கள் அரசியலுக்கு அவர்கள் தந்த அடையாளம் அப்படி. ஆனால், முன்னே சொன்னது போல, நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளர் (திராவிட) அரசியலின் ஒரே எண்ணம் - நெஞ்சில் இருக்கும் பார்ப்பன வெறுப்பு தணலை ஆற்றிக்கொள்வது.

உண்மையில், யதார்த்தத்தில், அவர்கள் இந்து மதத்துக்கு மட்டும் இல்லை, அவர்கள் மற்ற எல்லாத்தையும் எதிர்பதற்கு காரணமாக இருக்கும் 'சாதி'க்கே அவர்கள் எதிரானவர்கள் இல்லை!! Their "anti-hindu, anti-caste" were both a euphemism for "anti-Brahmin". And this is unique to tamils in human society. "Anti-Brahmin" doesn't mean they will have nothing to do with Brahmins. It simply means exploding with hatred for the Brahmins. Just that. Venting out deep hatred and vitriol, but continue to endure and imbibe Brahmins/Brahminism.

அவர்கள் "நாங்கள் இந்து மதத்துக்கு எதிரானவர்கள்" னு சொன்னது பொய், வெறும் வாய். பார்ப்பனர்கள், நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளர்களை, அவர்கள் ஊட்டிய விஷத்தை உட்கொண்டு தங்கள் மீது விஷம் உமிழ்ந்த வன்னியர், நாடார், கோனார், etc அவர்களின் திராவிட அரசியலை பார்த்து "நீங்கள் இந்து மதத்துக்கு விரோதி" என்று சொன்னது...புரியாமல் சொன்னது.

"என்னை அடிக்காதே, என் மீது வெறுப்பு விஷத்தை உமிழாதே" என்பதை "இந்து மதத்தை எதிர்கிறாய்" னு சொல்லிட்டாங்க, ஏனெனில் பார்ப்பனர்களுக்கு பெரும்பாலும் இன்று கூட தமிழகத்தில் என்ன நடக்குது, என்ன நடந்து வந்திருக்கிறது னு தெரியல. அவர்கள் இந்தியாவின் கண்ணோட்டத்தில், perspectiveல் தமிழகத்தை பார்க்கிறார்கள். But 20th century Tamil Nadu and tamils were totally different. They are in a league of their own. It is incorrect to apply Indian stereotypes, framework and perspectives to Tamil Nadu.

So, நாளைக்கே...வன்னியர், நாடார், கோனார், கவுண்டர், எல்லாரும் திராவிட பல்லக்கை விட்டு, பாஜக/இந்துத்துவா மாறிட்டு, பார்ப்பனர்களை பார்த்து "ஏன்டா, இன்று நானும் இந்து மதத்தை காப்பாத்துறேன், இன்று என்னை எதிர்கிறாய், அல்லது என்கூட வர மறுக்கிறாய் என்றால், உனக்கு உண்மையில் இந்து மதம் பற்றி அக்கறை இல்லை என்று தானே பொருள்?" என்று கேட்டால்...

தமிழ் பிராமணர்களே அதுக்கு பதில் அளிக்காதீர்கள். அது ஏதோ சொல்லிட்டு போகட்டும். அது கிட்ட பேச முடியாது. ஆனால் நீங்கள் தெரிந்து கொள்ளுங்கள். உண்மையிலேயே இந்து மதத்துக்கு எதிரியாக இஸ்லாம், அல்லது கிருஸ்துவம், அல்லது வேற ஏதோ ஒன்னு வெளி நாடுகளிலிருந்து படையெடுத்து வந்தால், பார்ப்பனர்கள் உட்பட, அந்த பிரச்சினை எல்லாருக்கும் பொதுவானது.

ஆனால். இது நாடகம். இது தமிழர்களின் திராவிட நாடகம் போல் ஒரு புது நாடகம். "திராவிடம் இந்து விரோதி" என்று இத்தனை நாள் பார்ப்பனர்கள் சொன்னது - புரியாமல், தெரியாமல் சொன்னது.

"நாங்கள் இந்து மதத்தை எதிர்க்கிறோம்" என்று நகரத்தார்-வெள்ளாளர் (திராவிட) அரசியல் சொன்னது பொய்.

It was very very idiotic of Brahmins to invoke the 'anti-hindu' line of attack to counter nagarathar-vellalar (dravidian) movement. I won't go too hard on Brahmins. Tamil is a unique race, a unique society. They called the 'anti-hindu' out of a sense of exasperation and desperation. 

But then, *Brahmins* calling Nagarathar-Vellalar (dravidian) movement as 'anti-hindu' is not completely unjustified. Because, in any case, Dravidian Movement has been saying right from the start that 'there is no such thing as hinduism. What is called as Hinduism today is only Brahminism.'

So, going by that framework, which was the framework of tamil socio-politics for a century, *Brahmins* calling them anti-hindu is not unjustified, because, according to that framework itself, anti-brahmin = anti-hindu.

But today's palli, saanan, konan, gavundan of TN BJP calling them anti-hindu is wrong. It is a game. They r the very ex-soldiers and chief beneficiaries of Dravidian Movement.

அவர்கள் இந்து விரோத போக்கை (வெறும் வாயில்) எடுத்த காரணம் அவர்கள் சாதி-விரோதி என்பதாலாம். உண்மையில், அந்த மேடைக்கு வெளியே அவர்கள் சாதி, இந்து மதம், பார்ப்பனீயம், எதற்குமே விரோதி இல்லை. சும்மா சீண்டுறான். Ignore. 🙏

Tamil Brahmins Alert!

 This post is exclusively for Tamil Brahmins. One appalling observation about TN today. There are a lot of people, especially youngsters, who are very apprehensive about Dravidian movement, Periyar, Dravidian propaganda, etc. And who are attached towards Hinduism. Tamils were a semi-barbaric bunch of people until recently and the savage has the greatest need for culture. This infatuation for "Hinduism" was there even amongst the lords who built Dravidam and Brahmin hatred. That is understandable. What is appalling is...

There are a bunch of observations about 20th century TN that I have. I know them for a fact. I have searched and read, and seen videos. I have read between lines for long. I know it. I can see it. I, as a Tamil Brahmin. Other non-Brahmins need not be so interested, and will not be affected by it to the same degree to which I have been.

Now, in a normal scenario, if there is a highly vicious, heinous crime being committed, and one sees it, what is the further course of action? One cannot stop it at the source. The source is the power center of TN for centuries. Even Union of India, America, China can only bomb it. Nobody but tamil Brahmins really have the need to see and understand the game. Many people are trying to approach logically...

When one sees a crime, what is the further course of action? Complain to police? Tell a friend? Gather a crowd, tell them? Tell a powerful contact/goon who will counter attack? 

In all these cases, the prerequisite is ...? The other party has to "see" the crime. One century of Brahmin hatred in TN was one hundred percent non-violent. (Yet, the manner in which the hatred was radiated, it made violence look acceptable). That was the nature of comprehensive, all-encompassing institutionalized Brahmin hatred of tamils. Making the other person, non-tamil, or non-Brahmin "see" the crime itself is the problem. 

Second is..the narrative in TN today. There are the people who are the subscribers of dravidian thought-view, and they are vile creatures. Then, there are those people who veer towards Hinduism and attack Dravidian/periyarist propaganda for being anti-hindu, and a general fraud, and its the second gang I'm most scared of.

Because, like I said, the savage has the greatest need for culture, and tamils have come into contact with Indian mainstream like never before. They want to link with it. But they are casually passing through Brahmin hatred.

The way Brahmin hatred has been normalized in Tamil Nadu will make any sane human get shocked to the bones. Because it originates from the uppermost tamil castes- Chettiar, Mudaliar, Pillai, Balija Naidu. These are also the most hindu-ized, ritualized, brahminized tamil castes, and that is no dichotomy. Brahmin hatred was their handiwork. Dravidian politics was a legacy that they created, on orders of the British. 

Now, if a lay tamil is to question brahmin hatred in TN, he has to encounter those tamils who are closest to brahmins in caste hierarchy, and know about brahminical stuff way more than him. He will be shamed. "Do you know more about Brahmins than me?" The very fact the uppermost castes of Tamil Nadu have been at it for a century is the factor which normalizes hatred. 

Say there are 100 people. Tamil Brahmins count as 2. The circle from which Brahmin hatred radiates is 7 people. And these 7 people were the most powerful people, who had all the power, money, land, industry for centuries. Dravidian politics and Brahmin hatred were both from them, but they are deeply devout. They are most hinduest tamils. But the fire of hatred burns strong in their heart even today, and the amount of venom and malice Chettiar+mudaliar+pillai have spewed will deeply shock the most vilest villain. They make hitler and pol pot seem like cry babies. Tamil Nadu is a totally different place, and India has no idea what has been going on here. 

Now, who has to question Brahmin hatred, out of the remaining 91 people? One, it was fully non-violent. It is hatred without a reason. It might be hard to understand, but it is very very real. What propelled Dravidian ship for a century was the need of Vanniyar + Nadar + Konar for a political vehicle, and also...the hatred of Chettiar+Mudaliar+Pillai. Hatred without reason. It goes on and on and on. There is no point answering the accusations, allegations because the purpose is to vent out hatred. 

Most of the accusations are highly subjective opinion/narrative type, and not objective facts. A fact can be proved or disproved. An opinion, and interpretation, a narrative cannot be "answered". It goes into the minds of the listeners, and gives them certain notions about certain people/things. Its a world-view. Minus this world-view, Dravidian movement/DMK/DK is just like any other political party anywhere in the world.

Who will question this hatred? Out of 100, 2 are the victims, 7 are the perpetrators, 20 are dalits. Out of approx 70 remaining ppl, 50 are not aware of it. A huge chuck of the population everywhere don't care much about politics. They just know their circle, and they decide whom to vote for, often on loose grounds. Who will be the crowd which will see what Nagarathar-Vellalar have been doing to Brahmins, and who will get shocked? If that X is an upper-ish caste person, he will himself have a grudge on the brahmins that all non-brahmins generally have. In TN, the higher the person is, the greater the hatred. If it's a lower caste person, it is likely that that person doesn't even fully appreciate the propaganda. This is a world-view. Nobody other than Brahmins have the need to understand and see the truths. Others dont even take in the worldview fully, let alone see the factual/logical lapses.

When Dravidian movement and Periyar are blamed for being "anti-hindu", what happens is...that becomes the only thing that was wrong with it. Because Brahmin hatred has been normal-ised. Nobody talks about it. And the format in which Chettiar-Mudaliar-Pillai have been doing brahmin hatred in TN is such that..it cannot be answered, it cannot be stopped, it cannot be disproved, it cannot be countered, it cannot be opposed. Its a podcast which goes straight into tamil public psyche. And it becomes the crowd's voice, and thought, too. In TN, you can either drink it, or ignore it. You cannot fight it. You cannot question it. There's no point. That's why karu palaniappan, kryes, PTR, etc block so many people. They don't care about whether they are legit or not. Their goal is to infect as many people as possible. People who will drink in their worldview and act as channels for their propaganda. Even Periyar used to say "I want only fools".

Nattukottai Nagarathar + Mudaliar + Pillai + Balija Naidu are together the tamil elites. Their influence is centuries old. They know tamils and can influence them like nobody else. Thats why I said India, China, America, Russia can bomb TN, but they cannot influence tamil crowd like nagarathar-vellalar did. That is the factor which makes them elites. The ability to feed their narrative to the crowd. They know this crowd like nobody else.

When Dravidian propaganda is blamed for being anti-hindu, that fills the public narrative. That is my issue. There are very few people talking meaningful politics. Few ever know real facts, and fewer still can put it up all together. All developed minds have a world-view. Its not a bad word. The problem is nagarathar-vellalar worldview which is distorted, and filled with opinions designed to feed hatred and venom.

Very few people talk serious politics, and know the continuity.

When you call them "anti-hindu", which they are not, you are filling the debate with meaningless stuff. Thats what those 7 people want, too!! Out of the remaining 91 people, anywhere between 30-50 are vanniyar, nadar, konar, etc. The staple crowd, the foot soldiers of the Dravidian movement. The elites had power, these groups provided numbers. Dravidam itself was a pact between these two. 

So, for Nagarathar-vellalar (dravidian) propaganda, Brahmin hatred, Brahmin/Non-Brahmin was the real agenda. Hindu/Anti-hindu, anti-caste were the euphemisms, the facades. India will be shocked to know that they made anti-caste as a euphemism for anti-Brahmin. By inflicting pain to Brahmins, you are attacking caste system itself.

This was dravidian movement. This was basically the uppermost tamil castes telling tamils "bash the brahmins, and I will not be casteist towards you." quid pro quo. But see, casteism was reduced, voila! That's the net result. Bash the Brahmins, and casteism in society was reduced. Because the topmost tamils adjusted their own domino of casteism, in order to make the claims of their politics true. Dravidian politics was theirs.

What is happening today, is...Hindu vs anti-Hindu from outside is attacking Brahmin vs. non-Brahmin of TN. Hindu/anti-hindu, RW/LW, Hindutva/Liberal polarisation is completely different from the monstrosity that has been going on in TN. 

Hindutva/Liberal is a horizontal line on vertical classes of people. Brahmin/Non-Brahmin (in narrative) was a vertical division itself! There are just so many games they played. All with similar template:- first defy/decry something, spew venom on the Brahmins, then step back, say "no no, we are not evil. we are not against anything".

"we are not against brahmins, we are against Brahminism"

"we are not against Hinduism, we are against caste system"

"we are not against rituals/customs, we are against blinding superstitions"

"We didn't just really do what we just did : spew hatred on Brahmins. That's not the intention. Neither are we against Hinduism"

Like slapping a guy, all the while saying "No, I'm not slapping you. I have no problem with you". Then, when you walk away, a guy asks you "did you slap him?", and you say, "see, I told him, and I tell you, I don't have a problem with him. I'm not against anybody. I'm just against oppression".

The Indian/BJP narrative is Hindu, anti-hindu. The 100 year old narrative in TN was Brahmin/Non-Brahmin. They are equating Non-Brahmin, anti-Brahmin with anti-Hindu, which is absurd. Even in India, with 80% hindus, we can see that Hindutva/Liberal discourse is more nuanced. Its closer to a proper left-right debate. A horizontal division. Equating 'anti-Brahmin' with anti-hindu is an act of subversion, (when done by non-Brahmins, in TN). But very few know and talk politics. If the ones who talk, talk irrelevant stuff, deliberately or unknowingly, it drowns the voice of truth.

Now, if DMK is defeated, dravidian movement is vanquished, what will that be? A victory of Hinduism over missionary/anti-hindu forces? Victory of good hindus against bad hindus? If you think so, you have absolutely no idea what went on in TN, and you drown the voice of truth. After it goes down, nobody will bother to re-examine it. So, if it is dismissed for the wrong reason, that means the truth is lost forever. One hundred yrs of institutionalized brahmin hatred, limitless malice of Nattukottai Nagarathar, Sengundhar, Tuluva Vellala Mudaliar, Saiva Pillai, Balija Naidus, will be lost forever.

The polarisation of India is hindu/anti-hindu, Hindutva/Secular.

The polarisation in TN, for a century, has been Brahmin/Non-Brahmin. Don't mix the two. Enter TN framework, which is unlikely. Or, advertise ur framework. Dont see past from within your framework. You dont know what tamils are, what Tamil Brahmins have had to endure.

Dont take up all the space of the debate. Don't dismiss dravidian movement for the wrong reasons. Truth will be gone forever. Most of the people in TN BJP today were the groups that grew in the shade of the Nagarathar-Vellalar (Dravidian) politics, and acted as channels and supporters for their hate campaign. They are deliberately applying Hindutva/Secular to TN's Brahmin/Non-Brahmin narrative. Because they want to bury the truth. They were in it.

After a Hundred Years of Dravidam...

Annamalai K has joined TN BJP, and emphatically states that BJP will win in TN, and will purge it.

Dravidian Politics began with introduction of Dyarchy via Government of India Act, 1919. The etymological break up of the word 'dyarchy' is 

Di   - two

Arkhia - rule (greek)

Di-archy, as opposed to mono-archy. 

20th century saw the system of monarchy collapse all over the world. Stirrings of this happened right from 1905 Russian revolution. The first world war led to collapse of monarchical systems in both Russia and Germany, leading to formation of the USSR, and the Weimar Republic, respectively. Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler were both dictators, but the clear fact was that power could no longer remain concentrated in a few hands. The British Empire, which brought India under direct rule of the crown only in 1858, was quick to realize that its already excellent stroke of luck in Human history could not last very long. It had been only taking advantage of the disorganized state of a vast region full of "a beastly people with a beastly religion" with a sprinkling of white European men. It only ruled via the existing local power structures. A colonial remote rule is different from a monarch ruling over his/her land. The ratio of population of Britishers to Indians in India during colonial rule was typically 1:3000. They only took advantage of existing power structures, benefiting from the lack of unity, and the incapacity of those weak powers to revolt or break free. 

Dyarchy was one step away from monarchy, and one step towards democracy. Instead of a Mono-archia from London, there was to be an additional 'archia' now. A lower, local one. An elected one. The most important change that introduction of dyarchy implied was - introduction of democratic elections.

The root of the word 'caste' is 'casta', meaning - lineage, in Spanish. Before Dyarchy, it was the Kings and Queens of Britain ruling India, but the various 'casta's of India knew their own history very well. The ones among them which had probable history of having been the rulers of their home regions remembered it very well indeed. As a whole, tamilnadu has not been under an empire of any sort for many centuries now. But, periyar's casta, Balija Naidus, were supposed to have been the Naickers who ruled Tamilagam. British entered India as traders, and other groups had long associations with the British through trade.

Now, Dravidian Politics starts with Dyarchy. Formation of an elected government of sorts. Even though both the franchise, and the powers of the elected politicians were limited, it was a fundamental change. It was that paradigm shift that the British calculated would keep their empire from collapsing like German or Russian empires. But of course it was not just Dyarchy. They had other tricks up their sleeve. Many, many tricks. India was very unlike the lands that the German or Russian empires ruled, and the British had vast knowledge and experience in India. Much more so than Indians themselves. This period also saw the rise of a new consciousness in India. This was the consciousness of another class of elites and middle classes that would agitate for freedom struggle. As can be expected of attitudes and behavior typical of the bourgeois, the freedom struggle of this new consciousness eulogized 'non-violence' and 'non-cooperation'. There was no 'India' at that time. There was no common thing each group could fight for.

So, IMO, Dravidam happened at the confluence of these two forces. One, that clamored against the British, in what way it could. And the other, was the group that sold a certain fisher-village to Sir Francis Day in 1639, and was hugely benefiting from British Trade (Exports, Industry). These are the two main, broad lines. Brahmins in Congress on one hand, and the Elites, the "Sat-Shudras", who tended to be from the castes of Balija Naidus, Nairs, Sengundhar/Kaikolar/Tuluva Mudaliars, Beri/Nattukottai Chettis and elite vellalars, on the other hand.

Ironically, Brahmins were aplenty in British Administration, and Dravidam "fought for" places in Government for non-brahmins. Nobody wonders "If Brahmins/Congress were fighting AGAINST British, they were fighting against the owner of that very government that they were employed in". The Madras Province Swarajya Party (a Branch of the main Congress) refused to form government in 1926 and 1934, despite winning the elections!!! (3rd Communal G.O. for reservations was brought in 1927/28, not in JP rule. Why?)

The Congress Brahmins probably realized that only their jobs would be lost if they quit their government jobs and hit the streets. Nobody would join them. The elites were making huge sums of money through British trade. The chettiars, for instance, were carrying out lucrative trade everywhere in the British Empire. This was the reason why the non-cooperation movement failed, as well. There needed to be a force strong enough to paralyze the empire. The most fundamental ingredient for this jolt to happen was - the feeling of 'swarajya'. Without developing that feeling, it was impossible to gather everybody for the freedom struggle. That simple feeling of Swarajya had to developed as an intellectual abstraction first, then passed on to people. Or rather, people were to be invited onto its boat. It failed to gather momentum because it was led by the bourgeois and a few elites.

One strategy of the British was to isolate the enemies, and focus their attacks on them. As mentioned, they had vast knowledge and experience of the land. The had been drawing big, translucent circles for a long time. It was time to draw smaller, opaquer circles and carry out pin pointed attacks. They realized that the Brahmins of Madras State *had* to be dealt with. Even though Brahmins of Bombay state and Savarnas in Bengal were much more militant in action, there were many other factors which made Madras State special. In Madras, Brahmins were the ones pressing freedom struggle. Plotting against the crown. The British had already been studying and talking and writing about 'casta's for a long time. This was a pan-european phenomenon. Every one studied India and formed theories about Indian society. Dr. Ambedkar already drew from a huge body of colonial writers. 

Madras and Bombay, were the two main centers of Congress Activity. Bombay was the first, main one. And Bal Gangadhar Tilal, the father of the Indian Unrest, was one of the main figures in it. The pin-pointed attack of the British on the enemies of the crown happened in Bombay first and much later, in Madras. Satya Shodak Samaj was started by Jyotirao Phule in 1873. And unlike the Dravidarrrrr Kazhagam, it included Brahmins too. Phule died in 1890, and even in his time, SSS didn't cause much of a practical impact. However, the SSS that Shahu Maharaj took over in 20th century was a totally different one, for a totally different cause. The freedom movement was growing stronger in Bombay. Bombay was the center of the congress. Pin pointed attack. The center, or source for both the Congress, as well as anti-brahmin propaganda, was Bombay. As mentioned, the very purpose of this British project was to attack Brahmins, and weaken them. Individually. Personally. To thwart the congress. The source for the anti-brahmin propaganda in Madras State was Bombay. 

Dyarchy lasted 15 years. GOI Act 1935 brought a provincial government, and this time, the Congress won and formed government. British had to gear up their act. War was also coming. They needed India's support. They sensed that the freedom-organizers sensed that this was their time to pressurize the british. This was around the time Ramasamy Naicker was named "Periyar" by Saminathan Dharmambal Chettiar, in 1938. This "Periyar" would mold politics in Tamilnadu till he died in 1973, and his legacy would live on for 80+ years after this naming event.

These are the larger forces that caused dravidam. The major tectonic plates. Im worried about the minor/micro plates. One hundred years of institutionalized visceral, vitriolic, venomous hatred and propaganda against the brahmins in Tamil Nadu. Let me be clear. I think the Dravidian Movement is unique in world history. In intensity and tenacity of propagandizing about a select bunch of people, and duration.

That hatred was not a natural uprising. It was a deliberate, targeted hatred rising from certain powerful, most powerful quarters of the society. It was institutionalized by them as Dravidian Politics + Propaganda. DK states that in 1910's the Madras United League had brahmin-opposition as its only purpose. They simply wanted to call themselves the 'Non-Brahmin Association'. But, they did not want to give Brahmins so much importance so as to name themselves such. So, they called themselves the 'Madras Dravidian Association' or something. Point is... "Dravidam" is all about Brahmin. Anti-Brahmin, to be precise. Period. Like Sisupala of Mahabharata, they have been consumed by their hatred for the brahmin, and the USP or identity of their politics was simply the institutionalized form of this hatred.

What made me investigate their politics and history was this hatred that I had to encounter wherever i turned my head. The vitriol of hatred that seeps into you no matter how much tightly you close your eyes and ears to it. No matter how much you laugh it off, and sometimes secretly feel pride in being an object of attention, + or - vely. The fact that Brahmins have never been summoned to provide their POV and their answers to the questions, was so by design. It was meant to be so. DK and its ideologues cant afford to encounter actual facts and logic. Their castle would crumble. The castle of dravidam was simply the worldview of those lords in whom the British placed trust. The ones who sold their villages to them, the ones who acted as their trusted bankers wherever they went, the ones who exported leather and textiles to them. That worldview was a very precious thing. There are very few ones who carry that scent. To me, the most important change post dravidam would be the absence of this scent of dravidam, the vitriol of hatred. Absence of the hatred itself, but the very much present, harrowing, and real sense of pain. What I am most scared of is the fact that when we tell our side of the story, the real events, nobody would be interested in them!!! Its already happening. 

Or, it would be a relic of the past. People would detachedly listen to it like listening to a piece of history or some folklore. The vitriol of dravidam was a very real thing, and lasted a hundred years. It roused real hatred in a section of listeners every time the 'parappurai' (big or small) was done. But the explanations and the truth of that hundred years of hate will not 'move' anybody. It wouldnt rouse any emotion. It wouldnt cause anybody (least of all, all tamils. Never) to feel any little feeling of guilt. That's what scares me the most. That one hundred years of pain and hatred would be totally forgotten. Or, given a proxy-label, like having been an "anti-hindu/missionary conspiracy". That's even more dangerous than indifference/ignorance because that seals off any little chance of the real, full story coming out. 

To be continued...

The Dravidian Maze. One simplified way of looking at it.

 Presenting... 'The Dravidian Maze'. How Dravidian politics leads us into a maze, and keeps us going round in circles. And how we never ever questioned it. This is the art of fighting against caste system, untouchability, and other evils without actually doing anything! Without being, in any way, responsible for our own actions and attitudes. 

When they say "I am like this (casteist) because of X", and that statement is unquestioned, they can wash their hands off any wrongdoings on their part. They become immune to being scrutinized. They can follow the very thing they claim oppose, and still get away with it. They can be casteist. No problem.They are casteist because of Hinduism, and that's what they are fighting!!!

So, whats the timeline for what they oppose?? They say they are against hinduism because, apparently, it was Hinduism which "created caste system". Lets, for a second, agree to that. Ok. So what next? Whats the plan? Are they claiming they are going to "destroy caste system" through awareness? Is that possible? Do they even understand caste system? 

What they will do is...they will say 

"We tried our level best. But Periyar and dravidian movement operated only for 50-100 years, but caste system is 2000 yrs old, and brahmins' cunning is very deep. No matter how great Periyar is, no matter how critically dravidian movement analysed caste system and inequality, 70-100 yrs of it cannot undo 2000 years of caste. So, alas, we are slipping back into old times. But just remember, the greatest blow to the brahminical tyranny, and the deep rooted prejudices and inequality and caste system came from the dravidian movement. Came from a man called thanthai periyar."

This is what they will say. That 100 years of drav cant uproot 2000 years of caste system. Very smart. Dravidian propaganda is the stuff that tamil people created and believed, to fool themselves. First and foremost, I have a problem with "caste evil entered into society AGAIN". They always used these wordings in their public speeches. "sadhi ulley nuzhaindhu vidum...". What the fish? Did dravidian movement and periyar hold caste system in abeyance, for 100 years? Was there extensive intermarriage between upper caste women and lower caste men? 

Its futile to expect sense and logic in this because there is none. First, the propaganda that tamils believed, to fool themselves. Caste is not a thing that can be "created", or destroyed. You dont need Dr.Ambedkar to tell you this. Your own common sense ought to be enough. But Dr. Ambedkar, in the midst of all his rain of arrows on brahmins, has mentioned this conclusively...

"[34] I first propose to handle the law-giver of India. Every country has its law-giver, who arises as an incarnation (avatar) in times of emergency to set right a sinning humanity and give it the laws of justice and morality. Manu, the law-giver of India, if he did exist, was certainly an audacious person. If the story that he gave the law of caste be credited, then Manu must have been a dare-devil fellow and the humanity that accepted his dispensation must be a humanity quite different from the one we are acquainted with. It is unimaginable that the law of caste was given. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that Manu could not have outlived his law, for what is that class that can submit to be degraded to the status of brutes by the pen of a man, and suffer him to raise another class to the pinnacle? Unless he was a tyrant who held all the population in subjection it cannot be imagined that he could have been allowed to dispense his patronage in this grossly unjust manner, as may be easily seen by a mere glance at his "Institutes." I may seem hard on Manu, but I am sure my force is not strong enough to kill his ghost. He lives like a disembodied spirit and is appealed to, and I am afraid will yet live long. One thing I want to impress upon you is that Manu did not give the law of Caste and that he could not do so. Caste existed long before Manu. He was an upholder of it and therefore philosophised about it, but certainly he did not and could not ordain the present order of Hindu Society. His work ended with the codification of existing caste rules and the preaching of Caste Dharma. The spread and growth of the Caste system is too gigantic a task to be achieved by the power or cunning of an individual or of a class. Similar in argument is the theory that the Brahmins created the Caste. After what I have said regarding Manu, I need hardly say anything more, except to point out that it is incorrect in thought and malicious in intent. The Brahmins may have been guilty of many things, and I dare say they were, but the imposing of the caste system on the non-Brahmin population was beyond their mettle. They may have helped the process by their glib philosophy, but they certainly could not have pushed their scheme beyond their own confines. To fashion society after one's own pattern! How glorious! How hard! One can take pleasure and eulogize its furtherance; but cannot further it very far. The vehemence of my attack may seem to be unnecessary; but I can assure you that it is not uncalled for. There is a strong belief in the mind of orthodox Hindus that the Hindu Society was somehow moulded into the framework of the Caste System and that it is an organization consciously created by the Shastras. Not only does this belief exist, but it is being justified on the ground that it cannot but be good, because it is ordained by the Shastras and the Shastras cannot be wrong. I have urged so much on the adverse side of this attitude, not because the religious sanctity is grounded on scientific basis, nor to help those reformers who are preaching against it. Preaching did not make the caste system; neither will it unmake it. My aim is to show the falsity of the attitude that has exalted religious sanction to the position of a scientific explanation."

   - CASTES IN INDIA:

Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development

by B. R. Ambedkar

Paper presented at an Anthropology Seminar

taught by Dr. A. A. Goldenweizer

Columbia University

9th May 1916

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/txt_ambedkar_castes.html

"Preaching did not make the caste system; neither will it unmake it."

That is all we need. But there are multiple layers in this. This is made so complex not because caste system is complex, but because of the deception and trickery of dravidian movement. It will suffice to say that what they (dravidian idealogues) are currently doing will NOT DESTROY CASTE. Their strategy was wrong from day#1, and we have to see that it was never their intention to destroy caste. Their intention was different. Politics. We will look into this further...