First, a Short Introduction About the Dravidian Movement and DMK
Dravidian Movement begins with introduction of Dyarchy (ruled from two centers, di-) in 1919. Please kindly read this post ->Background of Dravidian Movement. The 1st world war saw monarchy collapse in Russian and German empires. Sharing of power via Dyarchy was actually a step toward balance that the British created in order to avoid such a collapse. The immediate consequence of introduction of Dyarchy was the introduction of elections in Indian politics, for the first ever time in the history of the Indian subcontinent (most probably).
So, the local elites prepared a propaganda movement in order to woo the voters though franchise was very very limited to begin with. But this was not the main agenda. The local elites- Balija Naidu (the nayakas of TN), Nattukottai Chettiars, Thuluva Vellala Mudaliars (and other castes like beri/komati chetti) were making truckloads of money through British trade. Brahmins had at one point become dominant in the Indian National Congress and started to make some serious efforts towards freedom struggle. The british saw the danger. So, they got the local elites, who were their deep allies, to thwart the Congress's efforts towards freedom struggle by attacking the Brahmins, who were the main culprits there. Also, Brahmin hate had been festering in the hearts of the vellalas from the previous century itself, so they gladly agreed.
Dravidian movement was what the Chettiars, Mudaliars and Balija Naidus (elites of TN) constructed for the British, in order to safeguard their rule in South India, and to thwart Congress's efforts towards freedom struggle.
I believe Dravidian Movement happened at the confluence of 3 forces :-
1. Need of the British to thwart the freedom struggle efforts of the Congress, no matter how weak they were. They were scared of such efforts gaining traction.
2. Elections came with Dyarchy. Elections meant votebank, and votebank means need for an agenda. Even though the franchise was 3%, the elites saw that their game was up. It was a matter of time. They created a permanent agenda. Social Justice. They didn't exactly strive for social justice. Instead, they artificially created social injustice. Chettiar + Mudaliar translated Manusmriti into tamil in 1918, when Montagu Chelmsford Reforms proposed Dyarchy (Read this -> https://thethiravidiantruth.blogspot.com/2021/07/only-we-are-reading-manusmriti-again.html). This was the social justice that Nagarathar-Mudaliar/Vellalar (Dravidian) movement created in preparation for their politics of social justice. It was an agenda for elections, and they have maintained it for a century through sheer force of propaganda.
3. The deep Brahmin hate of the local elites. Brahmin hate originated from the saiva vellalas in the end of the previous century. Saiva Vellalas were not big zamindars/political bigwigs like the Mudaliars or Chettiars, but were the most ritualistic of the non-brahmins. Saiva Vellalas are the chief creators of Brahmin hate, followed closely by chettiar and mudaliar. A bunch of Saiva Vellalas sat behind Periyar at all times. Periyar was simply a channel or a nozzle that spouted the vitriol of Brahmin hate of vellalas and nagarathars. The creators of one hundred years of Brahmin hate in Tamil Nadu are :-
a. Saiva Vellalar (Pillai)
b. Nattukottai Nagarathar (Chettiar)
c. Mudaliar
'Mudaliar' is actually a title used by many castes, but it is identified mainly with two castes. Sengundhar a.k.a Kaikolar and Thondaimandala Thuluva Vellala Mudaliar. The latter are the key players and architects of the Dravidian Movement. Except for Bharathidasan and Annadurai, Im not aware of any other Sengundhars being as active in the movt. These elites also constructed the Dravidian Movement. The british need for Brahmin hate was only political. They only needed enough to weaken the Congress, but Brahmin hate filled out far far far beyond that and became extremely visceral and personal due to the hate and malice of Chettiar-Mudaliar-Pillai. 'Dravidian' socio-political worldview and one hundred + years of Brahmin hate was from them. 'Periyar' was not a person. 'Periyar' was the name of the cult built by Chettiar-Mudaliar-Pillai. They created that cult image, and they have kept it alive till today to channelise their hate.
Anaithu Sadhi Archagar (All-caste priesthood)
The first amendment towards this was brought by Karunanidhi in 1970. This was later challenged in the famous 1972 Seshammal case. The 2nd time the DMK govt tried to do this was in 2006. That too, was challenged in court, and the final verdict was delivered in 2015 by Justice Ranjan Gogoi. These are the basic details.
Now, lets go in and see the fun. HRCE Act came in 1925. It has been amended many times both by South Indian Liberal Federation (or, 'Justice' Party), and by Dravida Mudaliar, sorry, Munnetra Kazhagam. HRCE Act of 1959 was an important one which led to formation of a department.
Now, I just want to bring to your attention the timing of the events. 1970.
We all know that 'kula kalvi thittam' was a lie and propaganda just to spite Brahmins and to force Rajaji to resign. Periyar became a 'Congress' supporter after Rajaji resigned and Kamaraj was made CM. Just look at the irony and the mockery. 'Periyar' was the weapon forged by the Chettiars/Vellalas/Mudaliars at the behest of the British in order to thwart the Congress's freedom struggle. Yet, after independence, that very same 'Periyar' supported 'Congress' for 13 years, from 1954!!!
They say that Dravidian rule in TN began in 1967. Wrong. Dravidian rule in TN began in 1954. Tamilnadu Congress is independent India's first Dravidian party. It always was, except for those 40-50 yrs in the first half of the 20th century. The current TN Congress President, K.S.Alagiri's father was a DK man. It always was and is a Dravidian Party.
After the Periyar-Kamaraj incident of 1954, Vanniyar/nadars leaders, and crowd became followers of that 'Congress'. Rajaji shortly quit from that 'Congress' for good. Periyar brought Kamaraj as CM using a lie, in 1954, then supported Kamaraj as candidate in the next 3 assembly elections - 1957, 1962, 1967. In 1967, Rajaji was supporting DMK and Periyar was supporting Congress!! Because Periyar needed the support of the lower castes groups who had numerical strength. Maybe he thought the mudaliars could take care of themselves.
Nadars and Vanniyars were happy in Congress. Then, Bhaktavatsalam Mudaliar happened. Kamaraj Nadar was kept only as a poster boy for the inclusiveness and social justice of the Nagarathar-Vellalar (Dravidian) Movement. The elites never did want to allow lower castes to rise so high. So, there was friction between the upper and lower castes within 'Congress'. After Bhaktavatsalam came, this friction became more intense. The Nadars/vanniyars started jumping to the other mudaliar party, DMK, thinking that it would be better. Hindi edhirpu (opposition) of DMK was not DMK vs centre. It was DMK vs Bhaktavatsalam. Hindi was never imposed.
This was why DMK won in 1967. Periyar supported Kamaraj as usual but was dejected after he lost. Soon after election results were announced, he expressed support for DMK -> https://thethiravidiantruth.blogspot.com/2021/07/relationships-between-kamaraj-congress.html. Periyar's rationale for supporting was simple. He followed vanniyar + nadar because those were his slaves. They had jumped to DMK because of Bhaktavatsala Mudaliar. A small tid-bit. The original Naam Nadar Party started by S.P.Adithan contested under DMK symbol in 1967 merged with DMK post elections.
Now, what happened was...Annadurai Mudaliar died in 1969. V.R.Nedunchezhiyan Mudaliar wanted to succeed Annadurai as CM. But fate had other plans. The vanniyar + nadar who had recently jumped en masse to DMK saw the vacuum that Anna's death had created, and they didn't want to fall into the clutches of another mudaliar again. They plotted. Their godfather, Periyar was with them in DMK too. And, they had another hero on their side.
WPA Soundarapandian Nadar was the champion of Nadars during Justice Party times. Then, after the 1939 temple entry, Kamaraj Nadar took that place. WPA was shunted to the side. Similarly, after 1969, Muthuvel Karunanidhi became the champion of Nadars, and Kamaraj was moved to the side. Karunanidhi was the leader of the factions of vanniyar, nadar et al, who wanted to defy mudaliar domination, right there in Dravida Mudaliar Kazhagam. Thuluva Vellala Mudaliars constructed Dravidian Movement itself. C. Natesa Mudaliar, Thiru.Vi.Ka, Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, V.R.Nedunchezhiyan, N.V.Natarasan, K. Anbazhagan, etc (upto Sabareesan today).
1967 Elections was Periyar + (Kamaraj) Congress vs. Rajaji + DMK
1971 Elections was Periyar + (Karunanidhi) DMK vs. Rajaji + (Kamaraj) Congress.
Just see how much change happened in just 1 election. This was because in 1969, the highjack of DMK leadership by Vanniyar + Nadar + Periyar + Karunanidhi happened.
So, this 'anaithu sadhi archagar' or 'periyar nenjil theitha mull' (the thorn in Periyar's heart) happened in between these two events, in 1970.
This was basically just a preparation for the 1971 assembly elections, and a kind of a publicity event to mark Periyar's shift from 'Congress' to DMK. A sambavam, for the memory, for commemoration.
I don't know how the amendment of 1970 was challenged right after winning the 1971 elections, in the 1972 Seshammal case. I mean, just look at the timing. 1970, 1971, 1972. Neat, isn't it? 13 brahmins are supposed to have filed the case. This is a very often heard line in DK stages. "13 பாப்பான் வழக்கு போட்டானே..." ("13 Brahmin fellows who filed that case...")
The plaintiffs of 1972 Seshammal case, as well as the DMK government's advocate general, as well as the judge who delivered the judgement, were all Brahmins!!
This is not incidental. This was planned and deliberate. They wanted to show to the people and say "See, even if we are the ruling party, and want to bring a change, we are unable to do so because parpanargal (Brahmins) are everywhere, in bureaucracy, judiciary. They are stopping us, even if we are the ruling party".
They take a few steps towards what they called social justice, then imagine up an invisible wall, which they tell people is "the hand of the Brahmin (ism). They tell the people that this wall is not letting them go further up. But of course, in reality, there is no such wall. They never want to do that thing they set out to do. They only wanted to milk the issue for its political potential, and to feed Brahmin hate to the masses. Same is happening with NEET/NEP.
The amendment that Karunanidhi brought in 1970 was introduction of a single sub-clause in the point #55 of the HRCE Act 1959.
That sub-clause simply read "No person shall be entitled to appointment....merely on the ground that he/she is next in the line of succession."
That is, it abolished hereditary appointments to posts in the HRCE department. This included both the priests (ulthurai employees) and other govt officers like trustee, manager, etc. This is what DMK had been touting as being the attack on Brahmin priesthood. They talked *a lot* on the political stages, but the actual step they took was just this. If you see, DMK's move didn't exactly attack Brahmin priesthood directly. They just wanted to demonstrate their seriousness and intent, and milk the political benefits that came along with this.
2. Elections came with Dyarchy. Elections meant votebank, and votebank means need for an agenda. Even though the franchise was 3%, the elites saw that their game was up. It was a matter of time. They created a permanent agenda. Social Justice. They didn't exactly strive for social justice. Instead, they artificially created social injustice. Chettiar + Mudaliar translated Manusmriti into tamil in 1918, when Montagu Chelmsford Reforms proposed Dyarchy (Read this -> https://thethiravidiantruth.blogspot.com/2021/07/only-we-are-reading-manusmriti-again.html). This was the social justice that Nagarathar-Mudaliar/Vellalar (Dravidian) movement created in preparation for their politics of social justice. It was an agenda for elections, and they have maintained it for a century through sheer force of propaganda.
3. The deep Brahmin hate of the local elites. Brahmin hate originated from the saiva vellalas in the end of the previous century. Saiva Vellalas were not big zamindars/political bigwigs like the Mudaliars or Chettiars, but were the most ritualistic of the non-brahmins. Saiva Vellalas are the chief creators of Brahmin hate, followed closely by chettiar and mudaliar. A bunch of Saiva Vellalas sat behind Periyar at all times. Periyar was simply a channel or a nozzle that spouted the vitriol of Brahmin hate of vellalas and nagarathars. The creators of one hundred years of Brahmin hate in Tamil Nadu are :-
a. Saiva Vellalar (Pillai)
b. Nattukottai Nagarathar (Chettiar)
c. Mudaliar
'Mudaliar' is actually a title used by many castes, but it is identified mainly with two castes. Sengundhar a.k.a Kaikolar and Thondaimandala Thuluva Vellala Mudaliar. The latter are the key players and architects of the Dravidian Movement. Except for Bharathidasan and Annadurai, Im not aware of any other Sengundhars being as active in the movt. These elites also constructed the Dravidian Movement. The british need for Brahmin hate was only political. They only needed enough to weaken the Congress, but Brahmin hate filled out far far far beyond that and became extremely visceral and personal due to the hate and malice of Chettiar-Mudaliar-Pillai. 'Dravidian' socio-political worldview and one hundred + years of Brahmin hate was from them. 'Periyar' was not a person. 'Periyar' was the name of the cult built by Chettiar-Mudaliar-Pillai. They created that cult image, and they have kept it alive till today to channelise their hate.
Anaithu Sadhi Archagar (All-caste priesthood)
The first amendment towards this was brought by Karunanidhi in 1970. This was later challenged in the famous 1972 Seshammal case. The 2nd time the DMK govt tried to do this was in 2006. That too, was challenged in court, and the final verdict was delivered in 2015 by Justice Ranjan Gogoi. These are the basic details.
Now, lets go in and see the fun. HRCE Act came in 1925. It has been amended many times both by South Indian Liberal Federation (or, 'Justice' Party), and by Dravida Mudaliar, sorry, Munnetra Kazhagam. HRCE Act of 1959 was an important one which led to formation of a department.
Now, I just want to bring to your attention the timing of the events. 1970.
We all know that 'kula kalvi thittam' was a lie and propaganda just to spite Brahmins and to force Rajaji to resign. Periyar became a 'Congress' supporter after Rajaji resigned and Kamaraj was made CM. Just look at the irony and the mockery. 'Periyar' was the weapon forged by the Chettiars/Vellalas/Mudaliars at the behest of the British in order to thwart the Congress's freedom struggle. Yet, after independence, that very same 'Periyar' supported 'Congress' for 13 years, from 1954!!!
They say that Dravidian rule in TN began in 1967. Wrong. Dravidian rule in TN began in 1954. Tamilnadu Congress is independent India's first Dravidian party. It always was, except for those 40-50 yrs in the first half of the 20th century. The current TN Congress President, K.S.Alagiri's father was a DK man. It always was and is a Dravidian Party.
After the Periyar-Kamaraj incident of 1954, Vanniyar/nadars leaders, and crowd became followers of that 'Congress'. Rajaji shortly quit from that 'Congress' for good. Periyar brought Kamaraj as CM using a lie, in 1954, then supported Kamaraj as candidate in the next 3 assembly elections - 1957, 1962, 1967. In 1967, Rajaji was supporting DMK and Periyar was supporting Congress!! Because Periyar needed the support of the lower castes groups who had numerical strength. Maybe he thought the mudaliars could take care of themselves.
Nadars and Vanniyars were happy in Congress. Then, Bhaktavatsalam Mudaliar happened. Kamaraj Nadar was kept only as a poster boy for the inclusiveness and social justice of the Nagarathar-Vellalar (Dravidian) Movement. The elites never did want to allow lower castes to rise so high. So, there was friction between the upper and lower castes within 'Congress'. After Bhaktavatsalam came, this friction became more intense. The Nadars/vanniyars started jumping to the other mudaliar party, DMK, thinking that it would be better. Hindi edhirpu (opposition) of DMK was not DMK vs centre. It was DMK vs Bhaktavatsalam. Hindi was never imposed.
This was why DMK won in 1967. Periyar supported Kamaraj as usual but was dejected after he lost. Soon after election results were announced, he expressed support for DMK -> https://thethiravidiantruth.blogspot.com/2021/07/relationships-between-kamaraj-congress.html. Periyar's rationale for supporting was simple. He followed vanniyar + nadar because those were his slaves. They had jumped to DMK because of Bhaktavatsala Mudaliar. A small tid-bit. The original Naam Nadar Party started by S.P.Adithan contested under DMK symbol in 1967 merged with DMK post elections.
Now, what happened was...Annadurai Mudaliar died in 1969. V.R.Nedunchezhiyan Mudaliar wanted to succeed Annadurai as CM. But fate had other plans. The vanniyar + nadar who had recently jumped en masse to DMK saw the vacuum that Anna's death had created, and they didn't want to fall into the clutches of another mudaliar again. They plotted. Their godfather, Periyar was with them in DMK too. And, they had another hero on their side.
WPA Soundarapandian Nadar was the champion of Nadars during Justice Party times. Then, after the 1939 temple entry, Kamaraj Nadar took that place. WPA was shunted to the side. Similarly, after 1969, Muthuvel Karunanidhi became the champion of Nadars, and Kamaraj was moved to the side. Karunanidhi was the leader of the factions of vanniyar, nadar et al, who wanted to defy mudaliar domination, right there in Dravida Mudaliar Kazhagam. Thuluva Vellala Mudaliars constructed Dravidian Movement itself. C. Natesa Mudaliar, Thiru.Vi.Ka, Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, V.R.Nedunchezhiyan, N.V.Natarasan, K. Anbazhagan, etc (upto Sabareesan today).
1967 Elections was Periyar + (Kamaraj) Congress vs. Rajaji + DMK
1971 Elections was Periyar + (Karunanidhi) DMK vs. Rajaji + (Kamaraj) Congress.
Just see how much change happened in just 1 election. This was because in 1969, the highjack of DMK leadership by Vanniyar + Nadar + Periyar + Karunanidhi happened.
So, this 'anaithu sadhi archagar' or 'periyar nenjil theitha mull' (the thorn in Periyar's heart) happened in between these two events, in 1970.
This was basically just a preparation for the 1971 assembly elections, and a kind of a publicity event to mark Periyar's shift from 'Congress' to DMK. A sambavam, for the memory, for commemoration.
I don't know how the amendment of 1970 was challenged right after winning the 1971 elections, in the 1972 Seshammal case. I mean, just look at the timing. 1970, 1971, 1972. Neat, isn't it? 13 brahmins are supposed to have filed the case. This is a very often heard line in DK stages. "13 பாப்பான் வழக்கு போட்டானே..." ("13 Brahmin fellows who filed that case...")
The plaintiffs of 1972 Seshammal case, as well as the DMK government's advocate general, as well as the judge who delivered the judgement, were all Brahmins!!
This is not incidental. This was planned and deliberate. They wanted to show to the people and say "See, even if we are the ruling party, and want to bring a change, we are unable to do so because parpanargal (Brahmins) are everywhere, in bureaucracy, judiciary. They are stopping us, even if we are the ruling party".
They take a few steps towards what they called social justice, then imagine up an invisible wall, which they tell people is "the hand of the Brahmin (ism). They tell the people that this wall is not letting them go further up. But of course, in reality, there is no such wall. They never want to do that thing they set out to do. They only wanted to milk the issue for its political potential, and to feed Brahmin hate to the masses. Same is happening with NEET/NEP.
The amendment that Karunanidhi brought in 1970 was introduction of a single sub-clause in the point #55 of the HRCE Act 1959.
That is, it abolished hereditary appointments to posts in the HRCE department. This included both the priests (ulthurai employees) and other govt officers like trustee, manager, etc. This is what DMK had been touting as being the attack on Brahmin priesthood. They talked *a lot* on the political stages, but the actual step they took was just this. If you see, DMK's move didn't exactly attack Brahmin priesthood directly. They just wanted to demonstrate their seriousness and intent, and milk the political benefits that came along with this.
The actual step itself is insignificant, but they blew it up greatly in the eyes of the population through their propaganda. This is typical of Chettiar-Mudaliar-Pillai (Dravidian) movement. It exists only in the narrative and propaganda, not in actual reality of politics, etc. Applies both to the general 'social injustice' which they artificially created and kept up by translating Manusmriti. Same for anaithu sadhi archagar. They never took serious steps towards it. They only took one ghost step, blew it up as some kind of great revolution, and quickly arranged for their own steps to be retraced after winning the elections with it.
He dresses it up as "a device which limited Brahmin domination at least to a certain extent". And he says that this act was one of the important reasons for victory of Dravida Mudaliar, sorry, again, Munnetra Kazhagam. That was how important this is, at least for 1971 elections, which were the first elections faced by (K) DMK.
So, DMK has taken steps towards anaithu sadhi archagar (all-caste priesthood) only twice. 1970, and 2006. 1970 was the period when Vanniyar, Nadar had shifted base to DMK and took Periyar with them. It was the period this trio had won over DMK leadership from the hands of the Mudaliars. So, this archagar stunt was a sort of celebratory firework. A 'sambavam' which would complement the general propaganda of Periyar and Dravidian Movt. They will say Periyar had spoken about this in 1929 conference itself, blah blah blah. But why didn't he take steps towards it? Hell, temple entry itself was done by Congress only, not by SILF. And the 1959 act was passed by 'Congress' when Periyar had been supporting it. Periyar and Dravidian Movement never cared for actual reform (even if this can be counted as one). They only wanted publicity, political benefit, and vent Brahmin hate.
Im pretty sure all those 13 'Brahmins' who filed the 1972 'Seshammal & ors' case (link here -> Seshammal & Ors, Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 March, 1972) were 'asked to do so', by Chettiar-Mudaliar-Pillai (Dravidian) Movement. There are 2 sides to that group. The good cops, ஆத்திகவாதி (theists) and bad cops, கடவுள் மறுப்பாளர்கள் (the 'deniers-of-god', the periyar side). IDK if Brahmins were and are aware that these two are part of the same group, and complement each other. K. Parasaran was involved in both 1972 and 2006 cases. If somebody can, please do ask him if they were approached by somebody to file the case in 1972.
You can see very clearly that DMK never had the intent to challenge Brahmin priesthood. Just see the actual change that they brought in 1970. They only half heartedly changed hereditary appointments. If you really want non-brahmins to become priests, how would you word your amendment? If it was me, I would proclaim it somewhat like this
"Right now, only Brahmins are priests in many big temples and they have a monopoly there. This has to be changed. From now on, caste will not be a factor that will be considered for appointments of priests"
Or, something like that, right? But see the change they brought. That too, they only amended the 1959 HRCE Act. Why didn't Periyar question it back then? (Answer : Because it did not have political potential back then, or, they were not in a mood to politicize it any further. If they want, they can weaponize and politicize anything. Such is the power of their propaganda and sway over the tamil psyche).
The bad cops, the 'deniers-of-god' (நாத்திகவாதி) Nagarathar-Vellalar carry out Brahmin hate disguised in various ways as 'social justice', 'caste annihilation', etc. The good cops, the believers, ஆத்திகவாதி Nagarathar-Vellalar cancel out and retracts the steps taken by the above group towards those ends. So what remains?
Article 16 Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
For example, watch how Anbazhagan presents the HRCE of Dravidian Movement. See this clip.
So, DMK has taken steps towards anaithu sadhi archagar (all-caste priesthood) only twice. 1970, and 2006. 1970 was the period when Vanniyar, Nadar had shifted base to DMK and took Periyar with them. It was the period this trio had won over DMK leadership from the hands of the Mudaliars. So, this archagar stunt was a sort of celebratory firework. A 'sambavam' which would complement the general propaganda of Periyar and Dravidian Movt. They will say Periyar had spoken about this in 1929 conference itself, blah blah blah. But why didn't he take steps towards it? Hell, temple entry itself was done by Congress only, not by SILF. And the 1959 act was passed by 'Congress' when Periyar had been supporting it. Periyar and Dravidian Movement never cared for actual reform (even if this can be counted as one). They only wanted publicity, political benefit, and vent Brahmin hate.
Im pretty sure all those 13 'Brahmins' who filed the 1972 'Seshammal & ors' case (link here -> Seshammal & Ors, Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 March, 1972) were 'asked to do so', by Chettiar-Mudaliar-Pillai (Dravidian) Movement. There are 2 sides to that group. The good cops, ஆத்திகவாதி (theists) and bad cops, கடவுள் மறுப்பாளர்கள் (the 'deniers-of-god', the periyar side). IDK if Brahmins were and are aware that these two are part of the same group, and complement each other. K. Parasaran was involved in both 1972 and 2006 cases. If somebody can, please do ask him if they were approached by somebody to file the case in 1972.
You can see very clearly that DMK never had the intent to challenge Brahmin priesthood. Just see the actual change that they brought in 1970. They only half heartedly changed hereditary appointments. If you really want non-brahmins to become priests, how would you word your amendment? If it was me, I would proclaim it somewhat like this
"Right now, only Brahmins are priests in many big temples and they have a monopoly there. This has to be changed. From now on, caste will not be a factor that will be considered for appointments of priests"
Or, something like that, right? But see the change they brought. That too, they only amended the 1959 HRCE Act. Why didn't Periyar question it back then? (Answer : Because it did not have political potential back then, or, they were not in a mood to politicize it any further. If they want, they can weaponize and politicize anything. Such is the power of their propaganda and sway over the tamil psyche).
The legal block for Anaithu Sadhi Archagar is said to be 'codes, conventions and customs' of religious nature. Agamas fall under this 'codes, conventions and customs'. The 1959 Act actually sought to strengthen these codes, conventions and customs. My guess is that Kamaraj was just a puppet in Congress. Just a poster boy, in order to get popular support.
This is the first layer. There are many layers to this issue. I will delve a little into the legal part now.
Legal Part
Article 25 & 26 of the Indian constitution protect religious rights.
Article 13 says that all laws which are inconsistent with, or trample upon the fundamental rights, are void.
Articles 14-18 talk about equality before law. Article 17 abolishes untouchability. Article 19 gives all citizens the right to settle anywhere in the country and to take up any profession that they wish. What are the fundamental rights under constitution of India.
These are the laws we need to be aware of, in order to understand this issue. Pretty simple stuff.
Basically, in 1970, the argument of the Dravidian Movement in the courts was that the exclusive appointments of Brahmins as priests is against the fundamental rights given to everybody. Violates articles 14, 15, 16, 19, etc.
So, any law, or practice/custom, has to pass the fundamental laws as above. Articles 25 & 26 are limited by the fundamental rights.
This is the first layer. There are many layers to this issue. I will delve a little into the legal part now.
Legal Part
Article 25 & 26 of the Indian constitution protect religious rights.
Article 13 says that all laws which are inconsistent with, or trample upon the fundamental rights, are void.
Articles 14-18 talk about equality before law. Article 17 abolishes untouchability. Article 19 gives all citizens the right to settle anywhere in the country and to take up any profession that they wish. What are the fundamental rights under constitution of India.
These are the laws we need to be aware of, in order to understand this issue. Pretty simple stuff.
Basically, in 1970, the argument of the Dravidian Movement in the courts was that the exclusive appointments of Brahmins as priests is against the fundamental rights given to everybody. Violates articles 14, 15, 16, 19, etc.
So, any law, or practice/custom, has to pass the fundamental laws as above. Articles 25 & 26 are limited by the fundamental rights.
Agamas
As we know, there are certain documents/scriptures known as 'agama'.
We will not understand the issue and see the games if we do not see beyond the halo that has been built around certain words and concepts. There are many such strong connotations loaded onto the word 'agama' too. Evokes strong emotions. But very few go deeper.
What are 'agamas'? 'agama' itself is supposed to be a sanskrit word. It is a generic term, like "book", or "scripture". Agamas are religious documents. But, it is a generic term. The agamas of Assam need not be similar to, or have a connection to, agamas of Tamil Nadu. Agamas are like a handbook for temples and religious stuff. They carry rules for how religious procedures should be carried out, and also other philosophical stuff.
The agamas of Tamil Nadu are unique.
Nellai Kannan and other vellalas often say that Brahmins cannot enter some of their saivite temples/mutts because that would desecrate them. தீட்டு பட்டுடுமாம். This is apparently written in their agamas.
Some agamas say that while the idol of some god/deity is brought out, a few hundreds of temple dancers (devadasis) must be present outside the temple, or should be dancing in the hall, or whatever. We know what kind of places temples were, in Tamil Nadu, until recently. Its a separate topic in itself. Point is...agamas are rarely consistent with each other. It is the 'practice' that matters.
So basically, agamas are the rulebooks for the temples and religious activities. It is not exactly known who the authors of the collection of documents/scriptures of the works that go by the generic name, 'agama', were (In TN). Such unknown authorship often carries an aura of mystique, which is a good thing, in religion. As if the works were written by the invisible hand of God, or by persons in whom God had temporarily taken residence. 'Inspiration'. These elements of 'mystery' might be useful within the domain of religion and spirituality, but disadvantageous in socio-politics, and legal proceedings.
Within TN, there are many many 'agamas', and of course, a lot them contradict each other. It has been the 'practice' in TN to appoint priestly Brahmins of certain specific texts to be the priests in certain temples. Thillai Chidambaram Temple, for ex, is run by podhu dikshitars. And, apparently, the agamas dictate that only a certain subsect of Brahmin priests, trained in certain agamas, can be priests in particular types of temples. Having said that agamas are highly flexible and non-consistent, we can of course find another agama which says that caste should strictly not be followed in matters of priesthood. In fact, they are so flexible that I can write such an agama today, and say that "agamas are in favor of Anaithu Sadhiyinarum Archagar". The key point is that this has been the *current practice*, and it has been done in the name of agamas.
Just like Constitution, IPC, etc contain the formal laws of the land, we can say that in TN, 'agamas' are some sort of a lawbook that are applicable only within the realm of religious worship. An informal, or, native lawbook for worship.
As we know, there are certain documents/scriptures known as 'agama'.
We will not understand the issue and see the games if we do not see beyond the halo that has been built around certain words and concepts. There are many such strong connotations loaded onto the word 'agama' too. Evokes strong emotions. But very few go deeper.
What are 'agamas'? 'agama' itself is supposed to be a sanskrit word. It is a generic term, like "book", or "scripture". Agamas are religious documents. But, it is a generic term. The agamas of Assam need not be similar to, or have a connection to, agamas of Tamil Nadu. Agamas are like a handbook for temples and religious stuff. They carry rules for how religious procedures should be carried out, and also other philosophical stuff.
The agamas of Tamil Nadu are unique.
Nellai Kannan and other vellalas often say that Brahmins cannot enter some of their saivite temples/mutts because that would desecrate them. தீட்டு பட்டுடுமாம். This is apparently written in their agamas.
Some agamas say that while the idol of some god/deity is brought out, a few hundreds of temple dancers (devadasis) must be present outside the temple, or should be dancing in the hall, or whatever. We know what kind of places temples were, in Tamil Nadu, until recently. Its a separate topic in itself. Point is...agamas are rarely consistent with each other. It is the 'practice' that matters.
So basically, agamas are the rulebooks for the temples and religious activities. It is not exactly known who the authors of the collection of documents/scriptures of the works that go by the generic name, 'agama', were (In TN). Such unknown authorship often carries an aura of mystique, which is a good thing, in religion. As if the works were written by the invisible hand of God, or by persons in whom God had temporarily taken residence. 'Inspiration'. These elements of 'mystery' might be useful within the domain of religion and spirituality, but disadvantageous in socio-politics, and legal proceedings.
Within TN, there are many many 'agamas', and of course, a lot them contradict each other. It has been the 'practice' in TN to appoint priestly Brahmins of certain specific texts to be the priests in certain temples. Thillai Chidambaram Temple, for ex, is run by podhu dikshitars. And, apparently, the agamas dictate that only a certain subsect of Brahmin priests, trained in certain agamas, can be priests in particular types of temples. Having said that agamas are highly flexible and non-consistent, we can of course find another agama which says that caste should strictly not be followed in matters of priesthood. In fact, they are so flexible that I can write such an agama today, and say that "agamas are in favor of Anaithu Sadhiyinarum Archagar". The key point is that this has been the *current practice*, and it has been done in the name of agamas.
Just like Constitution, IPC, etc contain the formal laws of the land, we can say that in TN, 'agamas' are some sort of a lawbook that are applicable only within the realm of religious worship. An informal, or, native lawbook for worship.
The agamas dictate that only persons who are born in certain sects of vaishnava Brahmins, and are trained in the vaikhanasa agamas, can become priests in agamic temples worshipping vishnu, for example.
The term 'agamic temples' or 'agama-governed' temples is important. It automatically means that there are such things as non-agamic temples. So, presumably, the important, big, money-making temples are all agamic temples. Agama-governed temples are run according to the rule of the agama. But do all agamas agree on all rules? No, right? So how do these 'agamic temples' decide which rule to follow? I don't know.
What I do know is that temples are not exactly public property. Certain people, or groups, have a greater say in the temples. This is simply because they were the investors. The 'practices' of temples in TN have the approval of these decision-makers. The trustees of big 'agamic temples' are from this group too. So, the agamas are secondary. The will of this group is primary.
Since agamas are highly flexible, this group can approve something, and make it seem as if it is being carried out 'according to the agamas'. For any X, you can find some part of the agama that says X is the rightest thing to do, and also some other agama that says that X is wrong, or not compulsory. It's up to the interpretation. What im trying to convey is that it is not the agama we must focusing on, but the will/wishes of the groups with deciding power. The groups who are also the 'trustees' a lot of time. Nagarathar + Vellalar.
So, in general, the agamas say the Brahmins must be priests in the temples (following subsect, agama-training rules, ofc), and this has been the practice too. Let's forget the fact that Dravidian Movement only took forward a ghost-step in 1970, and only their talk was big. Let's try to find answers to the questions.
It is believed that agamas to say that Brahmins should be priests in the temples, and Dravidian movement filed a case saying that this is a casteist thing to do, and that this also goes against the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution. Articles 25 & 26 give everyone the right to practice and preach any religion, but no law, including 25 & 26, can violate the fundamental rights of equality. This seems to be the heart of the conflict. But it's not.
The term 'agamic temples' or 'agama-governed' temples is important. It automatically means that there are such things as non-agamic temples. So, presumably, the important, big, money-making temples are all agamic temples. Agama-governed temples are run according to the rule of the agama. But do all agamas agree on all rules? No, right? So how do these 'agamic temples' decide which rule to follow? I don't know.
What I do know is that temples are not exactly public property. Certain people, or groups, have a greater say in the temples. This is simply because they were the investors. The 'practices' of temples in TN have the approval of these decision-makers. The trustees of big 'agamic temples' are from this group too. So, the agamas are secondary. The will of this group is primary.
Since agamas are highly flexible, this group can approve something, and make it seem as if it is being carried out 'according to the agamas'. For any X, you can find some part of the agama that says X is the rightest thing to do, and also some other agama that says that X is wrong, or not compulsory. It's up to the interpretation. What im trying to convey is that it is not the agama we must focusing on, but the will/wishes of the groups with deciding power. The groups who are also the 'trustees' a lot of time. Nagarathar + Vellalar.
So, in general, the agamas say the Brahmins must be priests in the temples (following subsect, agama-training rules, ofc), and this has been the practice too. Let's forget the fact that Dravidian Movement only took forward a ghost-step in 1970, and only their talk was big. Let's try to find answers to the questions.
It is believed that agamas to say that Brahmins should be priests in the temples, and Dravidian movement filed a case saying that this is a casteist thing to do, and that this also goes against the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution. Articles 25 & 26 give everyone the right to practice and preach any religion, but no law, including 25 & 26, can violate the fundamental rights of equality. This seems to be the heart of the conflict. But it's not.
The groups who opposed Dravidian Movement's amendments gave some arguments challenging the 1970 amendment of the DMK, and the general nature of their arguments. They said that appointing Brahmins as priests does not violate fundamental rights because its not like all Brahmins can become priests. Only priests of certain denominations who are trained in the appropriate agamas can become priests of that particular variety temple. Priests of one denomination cannot become priests of a temple following another denomination simply because they are Brahmins, and not all Iyer/Iyengar/gurukkal can become priests in any temple simply because they are Brahmins. Therefore, they said, Brahmins as well as non-Brahmins are equal before the law in this case. There is no violation of equality. The practice of appointing some denominations of Brahmins to the corresponding temples did not violate fundamental rights of equality, and thus they were apparently eligible to claim protection under right to religious freedom (granted by article 25 & 26).
These were the arguments placed by both the opposing groups. Brahmins often take the stance of the 2nd group, as described in the above paragraph. But IMO this is a wrong thing to do. We are not seeing the games that are being played.
Dravidian Movement creates a build-up as if its really against 'Brahmin' priesthood and that an attack on this Brahmin priesthood is an attack on the caste system itself. This is the part that we need to expose and attack. They never meant to break Brahmin priesthood. I mean, look at the sub-clause of section (55) that DMK amended in 1970! Does that look like revolution? And, attacking Brahmins or Brahmin priesthood does nothing to weaken caste system.
These were the arguments placed by both the opposing groups. Brahmins often take the stance of the 2nd group, as described in the above paragraph. But IMO this is a wrong thing to do. We are not seeing the games that are being played.
Dravidian Movement creates a build-up as if its really against 'Brahmin' priesthood and that an attack on this Brahmin priesthood is an attack on the caste system itself. This is the part that we need to expose and attack. They never meant to break Brahmin priesthood. I mean, look at the sub-clause of section (55) that DMK amended in 1970! Does that look like revolution? And, attacking Brahmins or Brahmin priesthood does nothing to weaken caste system.
We shouldn't be defending ourselves or the agamas from their attacks, but should rather show that they don't have any intentions of attacking at all. This was all arranged by the vellalas, and spewing Brahmin hate was the sole purpose. They only take one ghost step forward, get political benefit out of it, and use is as a framework for Brahmin hate. Then, they quickly arrange for their own steps to be retraced. One step forward, two steps backwards.
The verdict of the 1972 Seshammal case was that appointments based on hereditary principle could be abolished, but that new appointments must happen as per agamic rules. In other words, only those denominations could be appointed as priests. This is when Periyar famously said "operation success but patient dead".
But see the game. DMK deliberately only attacked hereditary appointments in 1970. They didn't attack the 'practice' of Brahmin priesthood, or those parts of the agamas that spoke of appointing denominations of priests at temples. They only attacked hereditary appointments. So, the court said "that is ok, but you still have to follow agamas". If Dravidian Movement really wanted to do this, couldn't they have worded their 1970 amendments more strongly? This is obvious even to the casual outsider. They only ever bothered about the political mileage in the issue.
Of course, they will say "இதுவே முடியல. இன்னும் ஆகமத்தை, பார்ப்பன பூசாரி நியமனத்தை வெளிப்படையா எதிர்க்க பார்ப்பனீயம் அனுமதித்திருக்குமா?".
("Brahminism hit us back even for touching hereditary appointments. Do you think it would have allowed us to attack the base of the tree, i.e., agamas, or Brahmin priesthood, as a whole?")
They will keep creating that illusion of the invisible hand of the 'Brahmin', the Brahmin ghost. To see their games, we have to look closer.
The verdict of the 1972 Seshammal case was that appointments based on hereditary principle could be abolished, but that new appointments must happen as per agamic rules. In other words, only those denominations could be appointed as priests. This is when Periyar famously said "operation success but patient dead".
But see the game. DMK deliberately only attacked hereditary appointments in 1970. They didn't attack the 'practice' of Brahmin priesthood, or those parts of the agamas that spoke of appointing denominations of priests at temples. They only attacked hereditary appointments. So, the court said "that is ok, but you still have to follow agamas". If Dravidian Movement really wanted to do this, couldn't they have worded their 1970 amendments more strongly? This is obvious even to the casual outsider. They only ever bothered about the political mileage in the issue.
Of course, they will say "இதுவே முடியல. இன்னும் ஆகமத்தை, பார்ப்பன பூசாரி நியமனத்தை வெளிப்படையா எதிர்க்க பார்ப்பனீயம் அனுமதித்திருக்குமா?".
("Brahminism hit us back even for touching hereditary appointments. Do you think it would have allowed us to attack the base of the tree, i.e., agamas, or Brahmin priesthood, as a whole?")
They will keep creating that illusion of the invisible hand of the 'Brahmin', the Brahmin ghost. To see their games, we have to look closer.
We saw an overview of 1970. Lets see 2006. 2006 was the 2nd time DMK 'tried' to bring Anaithu Sadhi Archagar, after 36 years. DMK issued a G.O. on 23.5.2006. (Link -> Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal ... vs Govt. Of Tamil Nadu & Anr). I think this was the first amendment that DMK brought after coming to power. The entry was nice.
So, the G.O. said that “Any person who is a Hindu and possessing the requisite qualification and training can be appointed as a Archaka in Hindu temples”. Later, they did a lot of hanky panky business. They brought an ordinance, and then an act. An ordinance is like a temporary law (அவசர சட்டம்). The ordinance contained very strong words. The G.O. was, as you can see above, generic. The act did not contain the changes suggested by the ordinance!
So, the ordinance was brought just for show (பூச்சாண்டி). This whole game itself is for show only. appointments must be within the rules of the agamas. If Dravidian Movement really wanted to bring a change, they must have expressly attacked the *verdict of the 1972 Seshammal Case*. They didn't, because this was all for political mileage and Brahmin hate. They didn't care about the actual Brahmin priesthood. There is a twist there. I'll get to that in a while.
DMK govt's 1970 amendment/act only roughly restated the existing practice.
So, the G.O. said that “Any person who is a Hindu and possessing the requisite qualification and training can be appointed as a Archaka in Hindu temples”. Later, they did a lot of hanky panky business. They brought an ordinance, and then an act. An ordinance is like a temporary law (அவசர சட்டம்). The ordinance contained very strong words. The G.O. was, as you can see above, generic. The act did not contain the changes suggested by the ordinance!
So, the ordinance was brought just for show (பூச்சாண்டி). This whole game itself is for show only. appointments must be within the rules of the agamas. If Dravidian Movement really wanted to bring a change, they must have expressly attacked the *verdict of the 1972 Seshammal Case*. They didn't, because this was all for political mileage and Brahmin hate. They didn't care about the actual Brahmin priesthood. There is a twist there. I'll get to that in a while.
DMK govt's 1970 amendment/act only roughly restated the existing practice.
Anyways, the archakas of Madurai Meenakshi temple and an archakas association filed a petition in court challenging the G.O and the ordinance. The act had not come into being, and the ordinance was dropped from the act. It had expired. So, the case in court was only the petition vs the initial G.O. (which only re-stated the practice, one half of it).
We can't show openly if the people, the so-called brahmins who challenged DMK's 1970 amendment were sent by Chettiar-Mudaliar-Pillai (Dravidian) Movement. I personally can connect the dots easily, but I can't substantiate, for now.
But, 2006 is pretty much straightforward. The group which filed a petition against DMK in 2006 was - 'Adi Sivachariargal Nala Sangam'. If you watch the following clip, you will notice two things.
We can't show openly if the people, the so-called brahmins who challenged DMK's 1970 amendment were sent by Chettiar-Mudaliar-Pillai (Dravidian) Movement. I personally can connect the dots easily, but I can't substantiate, for now.
But, 2006 is pretty much straightforward. The group which filed a petition against DMK in 2006 was - 'Adi Sivachariargal Nala Sangam'. If you watch the following clip, you will notice two things.
a. Adi Saiva Sivachariar are not Brahmins. They are saiva vellalas who have put on poonool.
b. The archakar (priests) who filed the 2006 petition against DMK, and the ADMK govt were talking with each other for an 'out of court settlement'.
The ADMK part is probably a hoax. It was the DMK, or vellalas, who are common to both. Those petitioners were not Brahmins at all! They are vellalas. And, the group which made DMK play such a drama are also vellalas!!! Sathyavel Murugan was the agama-expert who appeared on behalf of the Dravidian Movement, and there were other vellalas with him too. Do you see the game?
The vellalas sat on the Dravidian Movement side, playing the drama of social justice. There, they said, and made other people say, that opposing (hating) Brahmins was an important prerequisite for social justice. They carried out this Brahmin hate, have been doing it for a century now. The Brahmin hate of DMK, DK, Karunanidhi, and Periyar was from the Chettiars and Vellalas. This also gave a lot of political mileage to DMK. They could tell the people that they were fighting against the great brahminical oppression, and saving tamils from it.
Then, on this side, they resisted and sought to undo the very same changes that they had tried to bring, from that side. This is clear as daylight in the 2006 case, and yet to be substantiated in the 1972 Seshammal case, but it is not too far a stretch at all.
b. The archakar (priests) who filed the 2006 petition against DMK, and the ADMK govt were talking with each other for an 'out of court settlement'.
The ADMK part is probably a hoax. It was the DMK, or vellalas, who are common to both. Those petitioners were not Brahmins at all! They are vellalas. And, the group which made DMK play such a drama are also vellalas!!! Sathyavel Murugan was the agama-expert who appeared on behalf of the Dravidian Movement, and there were other vellalas with him too. Do you see the game?
The vellalas sat on the Dravidian Movement side, playing the drama of social justice. There, they said, and made other people say, that opposing (hating) Brahmins was an important prerequisite for social justice. They carried out this Brahmin hate, have been doing it for a century now. The Brahmin hate of DMK, DK, Karunanidhi, and Periyar was from the Chettiars and Vellalas. This also gave a lot of political mileage to DMK. They could tell the people that they were fighting against the great brahminical oppression, and saving tamils from it.
Then, on this side, they resisted and sought to undo the very same changes that they had tried to bring, from that side. This is clear as daylight in the 2006 case, and yet to be substantiated in the 1972 Seshammal case, but it is not too far a stretch at all.
The bad cops, the 'deniers-of-god' (நாத்திகவாதி) Nagarathar-Vellalar carry out Brahmin hate disguised in various ways as 'social justice', 'caste annihilation', etc. The good cops, the believers, ஆத்திகவாதி Nagarathar-Vellalar cancel out and retracts the steps taken by the above group towards those ends. So what remains?
Only the Brahmin hate, and the political mileage that was gained!
You can observe this ஆத்திகவாதி-நாத்திகவாதி technique of A+B - B followed even in NEET. They know that NEET is going to stay anyways. So why oppose? There is political benefit in opposing. In 'trying' to change, even if they know it is impossible, or that they are not going to do it.. It is important to rip open their games fully because if NEET is indeed stopped for other reasons, then it will appear like their victory, and make all their other propaganda true.
So, they 'took a step forward', did Brahmin hate, then arranged for their own step to be retraced by sending a group to oppose them. Adi Saiva Sivachariar are not Brahmins at all. Dravidian Movement never wanted to attack Brahmin priesthood. Even if they wanted to, there is no need to fight the Brahmins, or get their approval. The Nagarathar/Vellalar/Mudaliar who created the Dravidian Movement are themselves the trustees of the big temples and mutts. They are the deciding authority. There is no need to fight or oppose the Brahmin, but they did. This is what I call infinite malice.
You can observe this ஆத்திகவாதி-நாத்திகவாதி technique of A+B - B followed even in NEET. They know that NEET is going to stay anyways. So why oppose? There is political benefit in opposing. In 'trying' to change, even if they know it is impossible, or that they are not going to do it.. It is important to rip open their games fully because if NEET is indeed stopped for other reasons, then it will appear like their victory, and make all their other propaganda true.
So, they 'took a step forward', did Brahmin hate, then arranged for their own step to be retraced by sending a group to oppose them. Adi Saiva Sivachariar are not Brahmins at all. Dravidian Movement never wanted to attack Brahmin priesthood. Even if they wanted to, there is no need to fight the Brahmins, or get their approval. The Nagarathar/Vellalar/Mudaliar who created the Dravidian Movement are themselves the trustees of the big temples and mutts. They are the deciding authority. There is no need to fight or oppose the Brahmin, but they did. This is what I call infinite malice.
I will summarize the ground covered until now. 1970 was when the all-caste priesthood drama of Dravidian Movement starts. DMK only just added a sub-clause to section 55 of the HRCE Act of 1959 which roughly read "nobody can be appointed to posts in temples simply on principle of hereditary succession". It was a stunt for the 1971 assembly elections. 13 Brahmins are supposed to have filed a petition in court against DMK's 1970 amendment. This happened conveniently after the elections. This was the famous 1972 Seshammal case. The verdict of Seshammal case was that hereditariness could be abolished, no problem, but agamas must be followed in new appointments. In other words, only those born into the particular sub-sects of Brahmins could become priests in the corresponding temples.
The 1972 Seshammal Verdict was simply a response of the court to the change brought by DMK in 1970. Why didn't DMK implement a stronger change, if they really wished to? Why didnt they attack the agamas? Sathyavel Muruganar has been saying that Agamas are not an obstacle to all-caste priesthood -> ஆகமங்கள் தடையா! உண்மை என்ன? அலசுவோம். Seems perfectly fine to me. Why didn't this stand in court? Agamas are protected by Article 25 & 26. But agamas say both 'yes' and 'no' to all-caste priesthood. Its all about which part you're looking at. The vellalas fought to lose. They need 'Brahmin' priesthood the most because their superiority in the caste hierarchy is hinged to a large extent on their proximity to, and imitation of the Brahmins. They want Brahminism, but also the Brahmin hate. If all this is pointed out, they might escape by saying "we don't want radical change, we want step by step change", we must know enough to spot them and see their malice.
DMK next took steps towards this in 2006. They again brought a generic G.O. which read something like "any Hindu can become priest in hindu temples". This was challenged in court very (surprisingly) shortly after they brought the G.O. and ordinance.
Such a change had happened in Kerala in 2002. Nambudiri Brahmins had been priests and a case was filed to make other caste people as priests. Other castes could become priests. Do you know why the cases which attacked Brahmin priesthood won in Kerala and lost in Tamilnadu?
Because in Kerala, the Brahmins had tried to plead on behalf of Brahmin priesthood with practice alone. They were naive or non-malicious. They openly exhibited their casteist mindset and the court said 'No'.
Whereas in TN, there was a whole world of malice and trickery. The vellalas were behind both the agama and the Dravidian Movement, and cunningly portrayed as if Brahmins were coming in the way of Drav movt. Do you know why the case filed for all-caste priesthood won in KL, and lost in TN?
Because in TN, they had a counter law to the Indian law. A native law. The formal Indian law was protecting the native law. They tricked the formal law into believing that the native law abided by the overarching principles of the formal law, and was thus eligible to enjoy the protection to religious freedom granted by the formal law (25 & 26). The difference between KL and TN is the 'agama'. Kerala didn't have this. They didn't have malice.
So basically, the vellalas made the Indian law system and the Supreme Court of India protect their own casteism, and blamed the Brahmins for it.
Vellalas and Nattukottai Nagarathar built Brahmin hate in TN anyways, and it is them who have kept it alive for one hundred years. This anaithu sadhi archagar (all-caste priesthood) case is a good case study to understand their games and malice. They used this as a pretext or excuse or justification to incite Brahmin hate, and they have been doing this for a hundred years. Im not sure if the judiciary is aware of the games that are played on the ground in TN.
The final judgement in the 2006 case was delivered in 2015 by Supreme Court, by Justice Ranjan Gogoi. The judgement drew on the 5th sub-clause of Article 16.
Now, what Im doing might seem like an own goal. Well, Drav movt seems to be attacking Brahmins, and Seshammal and Adi Saivas seem to be countering that, right? So why should I question those who seem to be opposing our enemies? But no. Both the attack and counter attack are arranged by the same group. The Brahmin is, technically speaking, nowhere in the picture, but the Dravidian Movt has been spewing vitrolic hate on the Brahmins with this matter (too) as an excuse. The steps taken by the DMK were to enable this hate and justify it, and gain political mileage out of it. In Tamil country, this Brahmin hate and the political mileage are not two different things. The political mileage is the political form of the Brahmin hate. The USP of the Dravidian Movement is being able to rescue and protect tamils from the clutches of the evil and cunning Brahmin and his -ism (whatever that means). So, they need to keep recreating that ghost of Brahmin+ism in order to be relevant.
So...both 1970 as well as 2006 cases are frauds. Brahmins did not and cannot stop tamils from appointing whoever they want as priests in their temples. The trustee is the final authority in temples since 1863 and Brahmins are trustees in almost none of the temples. In chidambaram the podhu dikshitars do not have powers of trustee. They are nominal trustees. Chettiars are the trustees and chettiars also instigate the crowd, on this side.
This is the political + legal overview.
Now, lets have a look at the juicier social part. They have been saying that Brahmins are sitting in the cockpit of temples that tamils built, and are ill treating those very tamil people and language, and insisting superiority of sanskrit over tamil. This tamil vs. sanskrit fight of Dravidian Movement is completely a non-issue. It is just a device to assert vellala supremacy. Within that 'tamil' in their non-sensical 'tamil vs sanskrit' is included all the stuff in hinduism. In fact, within that 'tamil' in 'tamil vs sanskrit', sanskrit is also included!!! It is fully a non-issue. Iraianbu IAS is said to know sanskrit!! Howzzaat? Dravidian Movement is full of non-issues and false alarms designed purely for Brahmin hate and politics.
So, how and why would Brahmins stop other castes from entering the cockpit of the temple? Leave that aside. How many Brahmins know the names of tamil castes? How many do you think can tell the name 'Thondaimandala Thuluva Vellala Mudaliar', or 'Kaarkatha Vellalar'? Most Brahmins are not even aware of the caste names in Tamil Nadu. How could they put these rules?
We have to rewind history to understand and appreciate this. We know that nadars carried out many fights since end of 19th century to enter temples and take part in the rituals and customs. Kindly read about the Kalugumalai case in JSTOR - > The Burning Question. Sacred and Profane Space in a South Indian Temple Town and about other cases in early 20th century.
In those days, there were very strict rules regarding temples, how far each caste could go. The farther inside you could go towards the cockpit (sanctum sanctorum), the higher in the caste ladder you were. Dalits and other lower castes were symbolically restricted from entering the temple itself. The social hierarchy was reflected in the temple entry rules.
Now, let alone enforcing, could Brahmins have laid down these rules? Do they know the names of the castes, let alone the place of that caste in tamil society. No, right? But Dravidian Movement blamed Brahmins for not letting lower castes into temples. They even deny Rajaji and Vaidyanathan Iyer the credit for the 1939 temple entry. These temple entry rules are not so simple as they seem. They are a proxy for a larger conflict.
These restrictions were enforced *in the name of the agamas*, but the agama didn't do it. The elites and dominant players of tamil society did. Since it was done *in the name of the agamas*, and since Brahmins were associated with agamas, the blame for not letting lower castes in was conveniently put on Brahmins. The Brahmins did not and could not enforce these rules, but their name was invoked to provide *religious sanction*.
Religious sanction in the sense of "God has ordered to deny you lower castes entry to this sacred place". Casteism and exclusion are only enforced "in the name of" these religious sanctions. They don't *cause* the former. The casteism of the elites and dominant forces only leans on the agamas/Brahmins/scriptures. The need to exclude and enforcement of the same was theirs, but the blame was put on Brahmins, and they were the very people who did it!
But, today, why are they saying that they are trying really hard to make any tamil as a priest in temples built by tamils, and to chant 'mantra' in tamil? Does not their history say otherwise? Are they really earnest in saying what they say? If you grasped the content above, you will see their games.
The very groups who had excluded lower castes and segregated them in temples, are claiming to fight for rights of those lower castes in temples. 'Agama' is a sanskrit word and there are many agamas all over India. But all texts are written by man. My guess is that of the 'agamas' of Tamil Nadu, many must have been written by vellalas. Because the agamas uphold the supremacy of the vellalas. The vellalas need the agama the most, and the connection to the larger Vedic, sanskritic corpus, and to 'Brahmin' as a brand is central to upholding the sanctity of the agamas of tamilnadu.
So, the vellalas (Nattukottai Nagarathar can be taken to be part of vellala culture.) need Sanskrit, Vedas, Hinduism and the brand 'Brahmin' the most, but also have deep hate for all of these. The hate actually comes from the fact that they are relegated to a lower social status vis-a-vis the Brahmins. The great attachment for that very thing they hate so deeply comes from the fact that that is crucial to their superiority vis-a-vis rest of tamil society. That is what differentiates them and makes them superior in caste to all other tamils. Aren't Chettiar, Mudaliar, Pillai considered to be (or consider themselves to be) the topmost tamil castes?
The trick they played in the court was how these infinitely flexible texts called 'agama's were interpreted. Sathyavel Murugan has nothing but malice and hate in his heart and he was the agama expert for Dravidian Movt in both 1972 as well as 2006 cases. Obviously, he gave inputs to the Seshammal/Adi Saiva groups as well!! The vellalas fought to lose, so they could keep the case open, and could go on carrying out Brahmin hate, and milk the issue for political benefit.
So, to summarize, the agamas are a fork between tamil and sanskritic works, and were prepared by the vellalas using merely the 'sanction' or touch of the Brahmins. The 'practice' hitherto has been to appoint specific sub-sects of Brahmins who have been trained in the corresponding agamas, as priests in the corresponding agamic temple. The vellalas/mudalairs/chettiars are trustees of most big, agamic temples. Since 1863 itself, trustee is the final authority in all matters of the temple/mutt/endowment. The Brahmins are nowhere in the picture. In fact, if DMK really wanted to bring all castes as priests, they needn't even have gone to court, needn't have had to brought a G.O., Act, etc at all.
If they *really* needed all-caste priesthood, they could have simply called the trustees of all big, agamic temples, and said "See. Why don't you appoint other castes as priests? Like Sathyavel Murugan says, the agamas are ok. Agamas are written by us only."
As simple as that. The Brahmin is nowhere in the picture. Brahmins did never and can never be an obstacle to all-caste priesthood in tamil temples. But Nagarathar-Vellalar have been saying, via the Dravidian Movement, that that was so. They simply wanted to vent out and express their deep hate for Brahmins, and they have been at it for a 100 yrs. All-caste priesthood case is just a set up for that. A chapter in the 100 yr old Brahmin hate of Nagarathar-Vellalar.
DMK has taken steps towards this twice. Both the times, their *steps* were only excuses. To show to others, for record. The steps were not sincere. And the groups which made DMK take that step was also the group which arranged for those steps to be retraced very quickly (by filing counter cases) after the political benefit was gained, and the pretext for Brahmin hate set up.
Now for the final part.
Most of those 'brahmins' who have currently been employed in tamil temples are not Brahmins at all.
Most of them are Adi Saiva Sivachariar (vellala) only! So, the Brahmin is literally nowhere in the picture, but Nagarathar-Vellalar (Dravidian) movt has been blaming Brahmins for it. Most of the priests are already பார்ப்பனரல்லாதார் (non-brahmins) only, and the very people who instigate Brahmin/sanskrit hate are the ones who put them there, and made them chant in sanskrit.
This in unparalleled malice and hate in the whole world. I know the thread was a little repetitive and long, but please absorb it, and spread it to Brahmins. If we keep thinking in terms of "Hinduism, Bhakti", etc, we wont grasp the games that have been played.
