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!!
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!
