User talk:Kanatonian/archive 2

Caste system in Tamil Nadu
Raveen: Do you have any idea the emergence of caste system in Tamil Nadu? From my understanding the existence of Brahmin community did not automatically mean implementation of caste system. In Kerala society it was introduced after 10th century. In Bengal also around the same time. So almost a millennium or two after it was introduced in North, West of India. However, Brahmins were there in South Indian and Bengal society even before that. But it looks like caste system or Brhmanical Hinduism was introduced in Tamil Nadu society by 3rd century CE. Do you have any idea about this? Thanks.

Manjunatha (21 Apr 2006)
 * I think the general consensus is that the Brahminical system really only gained dominance in Tamil Nadu during the Pallava period. There's a paper by Prof. Hart on the possible Tamil antecedents of the caste system which you might find interesting.  Although Hart does not discuss this, there seem to be fairly strong parallels between some aspects the system he describes and, for example, the potharajus of modern Andhra Pradesh. -- Arvind 13:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * About so called caste formation in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. It is not a separate process, most sociologists and linguist call the shared cultural region as Tamilakam. In Wiki we have to rewrite the article to reflect this reality. If you read the Kerala and Malayalam entries, and www.kerlahistory.com site this new idea is brought out. Hence Kerala and Tamil Nadu are hitched at the hips up-until the 10 century regarding their cultural development.


 * Caste itself is not a proper word to describe the social condition of South Asia. What is more accurate is Jati and Varna. According to linguists like Proff Hart of Berkeley and others, indigenous societies specifically in South India there already were societal cleavage based on certain lineages that were slowly cornering certain economic productive mechanisms such as cultivation, fishing, security, drumming, bards etc. This was in response to a move away from hunter gatherers to slash and burn to settled agriculture and cattle herding.


 * The Sangam literature which is a kaleidoscope of the social conditions prevalent in ancient Cera, Chola and Pandya countries describes a situation where there was a lot of flux and violence used to maintain the economic advantages. In this milieu the northern ideas and people were also added their system such as the Varna. But in reality what the Brahmins did was to become just another Jati to fit the local model already prevailing and added religious sanction on top of the violence that is needed to maintain the Jati system . Thus  Brahminism, Jainism and Buddhism were  very important in pacifying the populace that lead to the development of later great empires.


 * The word Pulaiti and Pulayan are used in Sangam literature to describe people serving chiefs. They were attached to the wealthy because apparently they were dispossessed or had nothing to independably live on. The name of the Kannadiga caste is Holeya. Where Hole in archaic Kannada means menstrual blood thus indicating that even before Tamil and Kannada became independent certain lineages may have become debased. As you know that’s a long time ago:))


 * Why is ancient Tamilakam important as opposed to rest of India to understand the unique caste system. Because it was the last frontier to succumb to Indo Aryan population and cultural advance into South Asia. Further it maintained its cultural independence just enough to record (via the Sangam literature) the prevailing conditions before culturally becoming part of rest of India after the Bhakthi period. Today so called separate Keralite and Tamil cultures are just another appendages of a greater Indian culture with minor regional variations. RaveenS 19:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Aravind and Raveen:

Thanks for your views and the links.

You might like to see this article on how caste rules were codified and applied in medieval Kerala society.

Raveen:

I do have my reservations regarding the word "succumbing" to Indo-Aryans. First thing we do not even know that when Brahmins gained ascendency whether they were Dravidian speaking or Indo-Aryan speaking. Also, the question would be if the dominant communities considered these people one of their own priests or aliens. Are you looking at the situation during that period from our present day confusions about Indo-Aryan migration or invasion?

South Indian society did have many divisions. In fact, the left-hand and right-hand divisions also testify it. I wonder about the origins of this mindset considering that all male caste lineages derive from the same genepool throughout India.

I suppose Sangam(the name itself is Indo-Aryan origin) literature has enough examples in it to show it as part of composite Indian culture. Also, Saivism in Tamil Nadu(before Bhakti) is enough to give it a pan-Indian identity.

Well, Tamilakam in fact extended to Southern parts of present day Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. It would be naive to believe that powerful kingdoms rule over only the linguistically/culturally homogenous people. The Kerala distinct culture was initially developed in the region of Malabar. The political history of Kerala and Tamil Nadu could be the same until 10th century CE but the later separate Kerala culture was the product of the native rulers is unacceptable. Probably,you would like to hold on to your views that Tamils came from South-East Asian region. However, from Y-chromosome lineages I can only see that the region of present day Tamil Nadu could be inhabited by the people who migrated from the regions of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. In other words the regions of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh had Dravidian speakers before the region of Tamil Nadu. And since Proto-Tulu branches earlier from Proto-Kannada-Tamil, there are all possibilities that people who spoke Proto-Tulu language and followed the traditions of Tuluvas could have moved to Kerala region. We can hold on to our views until better genetic and other studies on Tulu/ Malayaless of Malabar are conducted :-). All, I want to say, it's Tamils who became distinct cultural entity(and patriarchal) because of Kashmiri/Northern Saivism :-). Malayalees just built upon the oldest traditions.

Manjunatha (22 Apr 2006)

just few clarifications Tamilakam was a cultural region not a political entity. Sangam litearture records countless number of cheifs and only 3 kings that fit the northern model. Kilar were village level cheifs, Velir were mountain area cheifs and Ventar were Moventar (3 ventar) were sort of Kings but in general big cheifs, from prestigious families compared to others. But this region held on to its native traditions that were recorded for everyone to understand cannot be deniad. Som of the bards recording this were Brahmins along with Pulayars who came to be illiterate later in Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

Within this elite concept of Tamilakam there obviously were many dialect diiferences and even dialects that had taken different langauge forms (for example Toda,Kodagu and may be even the early form of Proto-Malayalam) There is a saying a langauge is a dialect with a navy amongst linguists. Thus even the Sri Lankan Tamil dialect can become an idependant language if Tamil Eeelam becomes a reality one day :-)))

Saivism became a dominant religion only after the Bhakthi era reformation not before. It might have been important for some Kings and priests but it was Jainism that had popular following in elites and midlevel people of Tamilakam leading to mass literacy that even the pot makers (considered to be lower in Hindu ritual scale later) were marking their pots in Tamil Brahmi in their millions.

It is true that Kashmiri Saivism gave an identity to Tamils later on and patriarchal but only at the elite level. If you had travel back in time just 100 years ago and talke to a Parayar on either side of the so called border of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, I am pretty sure that would have had no concept of a Malayalee or Tamil. After all it is these people who made the true majority not the tiny Nair, Velallar, Iyer or Namboothiri elites then. RaveenS 13:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry. My mistake. I mistook Tamilakam for the regions ruled by Chola, Chera, Pandya kings. I am not sure about Jainism(or even Buddhism) in the region of Tamil Nadu. However, I'm quite sure both these religions in Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra were purely elitist. The Tulu Jains are indeed very prosperous community. Probably, all the South Dravidian dialects could have been mutually intelligible around that time, I suppose. Of course, that doesn't mean dialect spoken in the region of Tamil Nadu is the Proto-Dravidian :-). Let's wait for the migration history of Dravidian speakers.


 * Well, I'm not sure if you can use the adjective "tiny" for Nair caste. I suppose till mid of 20th century they were the single largest group of Malayalees but later overtook by Ezhavas. Even now they are the second biggest community of Hindus in Kerala(around 15-20%). I'm not sure if the big chunk of Pulayans embraced Christianity but their(Dalits) numbers are very low(around 10%) compared to any other regions of India(I suppose in Tamil Nadu they account 20% of the population). I don't think 0.5% of Namboothiris in Kerala would have increased Nair numbers but being the rich feudal caste I can see they could be the only caste multiplying greatly before 20th century. I suppose it's the elites who were the biggest breeders before modern era. When do you think castes became endogamous units? I suppose, even in medieval Kerala there used to be intercaste marriages. Well, one of Malayalees on Wikipedia told me about Ezhavas getting Menon, Kurup titles and later becoming part of Nair caste in old days.


 * If I see Kerala society, the effect of education was immediate as both Pulayans and Ezhavas fought for their rights. So I'll remain skeptical about literacy in old days or for that matter endogamous community identities in the past.


 * Also, you must see the so-called original/primitive Dravidian traditions like matrilineality, goddess worship, snake worship was kept alive by the feudal elites of Malayala and Tulu regions. But Tamil elites were the first one to embrace pan-Indian religions. Also, agrarian societies can also modify the rules to remain matrilineal. The distribution of properties of father and mother follow their own rules among matrilineal Malayalees. So I don't think loss of matrilineality in some other societies could be generalized. Also, the present day Malayaless losing their matrilineality mainly due influence of other regions. Also, many found that the rules are inflexible in certain cases and got a legal reprieve from it.

Manjunatha (22 Apr 2006)