Kindly read this post - > A Primer on the Anaithu Sadhiyinarum Archagar (All-Caste Priesthood) Issue of Dravidian Movement for the full story.
The people who say "but tamils are deeply devoted hindus" or "tamils have great respect for brahmins" are either trying to mask the full pumpkin in a small mound of rice, or blind as hell.
They are on both sides. Agama and Dravidian Movement. They are not winning over Brahminism. They are loosening their own rules. Probably because they need more popular support. This means that another band of the centuries old privilege of the tamil elites has dried up and they are this desperate.
Watch this clip. This is a very small example of the hate and venom directed against Brahmins in context of temple priesthood.
Who denied entry to lower castes into temples?
She/they say Brahmins did it.
Truth was that the dominant/elite groups did it. Justice Party came to power in 1921. Periyar's Self Respect Movt came in 1925/26, but temple entry of nadars and dalits happened only in 1939.
Who wrote the agamas/shastras?
She says Brahmins wrote it themselves. Might be true of the agamas and scriptures of India, but not true in Tamil Country. The tamil, and the vellala/chettiar are unique territory. We cannot understand this from ordinary human, or Indian standpoint. These are demons. This is non-human malice.
The agamas of tamil country were written by the vellalas. They are a fork between indigenous tamil, and Indian/sanskriti texts. That's what the Brahmtards like Subramoron Swamy and Rangaraj Pandey fail to see. Kudaneeratru is a completely tamil tradition. The nagarathar-vellala dogs themselves sanskritized it to 'kumbabhishegam', and poured hate on the Brahmins for ruining their culture. This kudamuzhukku is supposed to have sanction of agamas. How's that possible?
The vellalas say agamas say that Brahmins cannot enter their temples/mutts. How is this possible if Brahmins wrote the agamas?
Tamil is the only area where "an idol is defiled if it is touched by somebody other than the person prescribed by the agama". This is an actual thing. This is the reason why Namboodiris lost the Adhithya (supra) case. There was no malice there. A world of malice exists in tamil country. I don't know how the legal and political geniuses didn't check this line. In the rest of the country, anybody can touch the idol. But not so in tamil temples. How? Why?
The agamas of the tamil/vellala/nagarathar dogs are unique. They are not the same as the agamas of the rest of the country. But see how those same nagarathar-vellalar dogs put the blame of agamas on Brahmins, and see how those Brahmtards defend those agamas too, without even knowing what it means.
Next clip.
1. She says HRCE was formed by Justice Party to safeguard the temples and mutts from Brahmins, as they used to eat away all the properties.
That's wrong. Since 1863, the trustee is in-charge of all affairs of religious/charitable endowments, and none of the trustees are Brahmins. The Dikshitars are nominal trustees of Chidambaram temple and they don't have rights over fund management.
The HRCE laws and the all-caste priesthood laws too, were created to *CREATE THIS ILLUSION*. That tamils needed to be saved from the Brahmins. They served only to vilify the Brahmins and enable hate and such accusations against them.
2. She says DMK fought against the HRCE Act of 1959 which strengthened the 'customs, codes and conventions', i.e., by their narrative, Brahmin priesthood and their hold on temples.
But then, in 1959, Periyar was supporting TN Congress, which brought that law. Why didn't Periyar try to stop this then? Did he voice out? Were the Chettiar/Mudaliar/Pillai/Reddiar in TN Congress unyielding to Periyar at that time?
Why are the Chettiar/Mudaliar/Pillai in DMK supporting it now? What's going on? 1970 was the time when DMK changed hands from these upper shudras to the lower shudras. Those were represented by Karunanidhi, who brought this change. Did the upper shudras resist it for as long as they could, but quickly jumped over *after the change was brought* and spoke non-stop in its favor, afterwards, and praising Karunanidhi, *after he brought it*? Yes, that's the truth. They resisted it for as long as they could. Then, when it was achieved by the lower groups, they touted it as the success of the Dravidian Movement, and named the resistance of so long as 'Brahmanical force'. They are themselves that Brahmanical force. The lower castes don't bother correcting because there is nothing in it for them.
Also, Karunanidhi's 1970 amendment only tried to attack hereditary appointments. The trustee was the final authority for all temple matters. DMK did not even have to bring a law. They just needed to ask the trustees. The trustees also happened to be Chettiar-Mudaliar-Nayakar.
But, attacking hereditary appointments ≠ attacking Brahmin priesthood, but thats what they have been saying.
Why is there a huge mismatch between what they profess they want to achieve, and what they actually do in order to achieve. If you want to do away with Brahmin priests, you must simply tell the trustee chettiar-mudaliar, or clarify about the agamas, or legislate clearer, forceful laws.
They will say "In that time, Brahminism was very strong. We could not attack it. We have attacked Brahminism for long, so it has finally been weakened only today."
This is like saying "the crocodile was so strong for 50 yrs. It's a 2000 yr old crocodile. The man won over the crocodile only today."
They are on both sides. Agama and Dravidian Movement. They are not winning over Brahminism. They are loosening their own rules. Probably because they need more popular support. This means that another band of the centuries old privilege of the tamil elites has dried up and they are this desperate.
If an non-tamil brought a law, it would have been more clearer. DMK's 1970 amendment was a sham, publicity for the 1971 assembly elections. They never meant to remove Brahmin priesthood. It was just for spiting Brahmins.
3. She gives out an important piece of detail. The group that had filed the 1971 Seshammal case against DMK's 1970 amendment was comprised of 2 mutt heads, and 10 archakars (priests).
I didn't know this, but had roughly guessed it. Thanks #drav for making my eyes and ears and brain sharper.
The Chettiar-Mudaliar-Pillai (Dravidian) Movement had been saying for 50 years that Brahmin fellows filed a case against DMK. Turns out its not exactly that way. 'Mutt heads and archakars' doesn't necessarily need to be Brahmins. In fact, my guess is that they were all saiva vellalas. But if some retards like Subramanian Swamy puts his head inside deliberately, fapping to 'hindu dharma/religion/tradition', etc, I don't know what to say.
That's why I emphasize on the wordings of DMK's amendments, to show that didn't have intent at all.
4. The court's judgement in 1972 Seshammal was that doing away with hereditary appointments was alright, but that new appointments must not violate agamas.
Same point as above. Attacking hereditary appointments ≠ attacking Brahmin priesthood. Didn't you know this even in 1970? Brahmin priesthood is not restricted or hindered by abolition of hereditary principle. This is evident even to a 10th standard guy.
DMK's 2006 amendment is the same story, and in that case too, it was not Brahmins who filed cases in court. 'Adi Saiva Sivachariar Nala Sangam' did it, and they are not Brahmins.
The problem is that neither the folks in those courts, nor the Brahmtards of tamil country know and see the narrative that Nagarathar-Vellalar (Dravidian) Movement built on the ground. This is purely an exercise for Brahmin hate and political mileage. And in tamil country, that political mileage is not different from the Brahmin hate. It is the political mileage that is gained from Brahmin hate. Yes, that is the intensity of Brahmin hate of tamil country.
Final point. Those 'Brahmins' inside the tamil temples that they have been talking about for a century, they are not 'Brahmins' at all, right from the beginning. They belong to a sect called 'Adi Saiva Sivachariar', and ASS are not Brahmins! They are saiva vellalas!
And those demons are the key source of the 100 yr old Brahmin hate in tamil country. This whole exercise was useless, but what is that 'exercise', in the eyes of the court?
The court probably only saw two parties fight against each other. One, wanting to make some changes to temples, and the other, defending the temples from it. The court probably saw the trustees and conservative, casteist devotees as defending themselves from the attack of the Dravidian Movement. Even Brahmtards see it that way. But in truth, they are both the same group. They are like Sathyavel Murugan and Pillai Rajavel, who claims to oppose this.
The court doesn't see the full picture because the court doesn't see and understand the narrative on the ground. Dravidian Movement took the case to court just in order to add legitimacy to its narrative on the ground. They used the court as a character in their play, to tell the people "See, we went to the court, fought so hard, and then won".
No comments:
Post a Comment