Criticism of Tamil Brahmins
 | It has been suggested that this article be merged into Anti-Brahminism. (Discuss) Proposed since July 2013. |
 | This article has no lead section. (November 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) |
Relations with other communities
Iyers have often[dubious ] been by accused of racism[dubious ] against non-Brahmins
It was found that prior to Independence, the Pallars were never allowed to enter the residential areas of the caste Hindus particularly of the Brahmins. Whenever a Brahmin came out of his house, no Scheduled Caste person was expected to come in his vicinity as it would pollute his sanctity and if it happened by mistake, he would go back home cursing the latter. He would come out once again only after taking a bath and making sure that no such thing would be repeated.
However, as a mark of protest a few Pallars of this village deliberately used to appear before the Brahmin again and again. By doing so the Pallars forced the Brahmin to get back home once again to take a bath drawing water from deep well.[1]
Sir T. Muthuswamy Iyer, the first Indian judge of the Madras High Court, once made the controversially casteist remark:
Hindu temples were neither founded nor are kept up for the benefit of Mahomedans, outcastes and others who are outside the scope of it[2]
According to a British survey in 1912, though Brahmins represented only 3.2 percent of the male population of Tamil Nadu, they held 83.3 percent of the subjudgeships(immediately under British personnel), 55 percent of the deputy collectorships and 72.6 percent of the district administrative posts. Sixty seven percent of those receiving baccauleaurate degrees from The Madras University were Brahmins.[3] Of those receiving Law degrees Brahmins outnumbered all non-Brahmin Hindus 3.5 to 1 and Brahmins receiving teaching licentiates outnumbered non-Brahmin Hindus by more than 6.5 to 1.[3] These realities created resentment, not only among the British administrators who saw Brahmins as a threat to their hegemony but also among non-Brahmin Hindus of all stripes.[3] AntiBrahmin sentiment became organized in the formation of the Justice Party in late 1916. This party, composed of upper-class non-Brahmins was committed to enhancing the opportunities for non-Brahmins.[3]
Grievances and alleged instances of discrimination by Brahmins are believed to be the main factors which fuelled the Dravidian Movement.[4] With the dawn of the 20th century, and the rapid penetration of western education and western ideas, there was a rise in consciousness amongst the lower castes who felt that rights which were legitimately theirs were being denied to them.[4] This led the non-Brahmins to agitate and form the Justice Party in 1916, which later became the Dravidar Kazhagam. The Justice Party banked on vehement anti-Hindu and anti-Brahmin propaganda to ease Brahmins out of their privileged positions. Gradually, the non-Brahmin replaced the Brahmin in every sphere and destroyed the monopoly over education and the administrative services which the Brahmin had previously held.[5]
However, with the destruction of Brahmin monopoly over the services and introduction of adequate representation for other communities, anti-Brahmin feelings did not subside. On the contrary, they were fully exploited by politicians, who often indulged in anti-Brahmin rhetoric primarily in order to get non-Brahmin votes.[6][7] With the passage of time, they reached such a pitch that even individuals who had previously been a part of the Dravidian Movement began to cry foul. Deprived of opportunities, Tamil Brahmins began to migrate en masse to other states in India and foreign countries in search of livelihood.[8] There were frequent allegations of casteism and racism against Brahmins very similar to the ones made by the lower castes against them in the decades before independence.
Dalit leader and founder of political party Pudiya Tamizhagam, Dr.Krishnasamy admits that the Anti-Brahmin Movement had not succeeded up to the expectations and that there continues to be as much discrimination of Dalits as had been before.
So many movements have failed. In Tamil Nadu there was a movement in the name of anti-Brahmanism under the leadership of Periyar. It attracted Dalits, but after 30 years of power, the Dalits understand that they are as badly-off - or worse-off - as they were under the Brahmans. Under Dravidian rule, they have been attacked and killed, their due share in government service is not given, they are not allowed to rise.[9]
References
- ↑ A. Ramiah. "Untouchability in villages". Untouchability and Inter Caste Relations in Rural India: The Case of Southern Tamil villages. tamilnation.org. Retrieved 2008-08-19. [dead link]
- ↑ P. Chidambaram Pillai. "THE RIGHT OF TEMPLE ENTRY" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 June 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-19.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Ritualizing on the Boundaries by Fred W. Clothey
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 K. Nambi Arooran (1980). "Caste & the Tamil Nation:The Origin of the Non-Brahmin Movement, 1905-1920". Tamil renaissance and Dravidian nationalism 1905-1944. Koodal Publishers. Retrieved 2008-09-03. [dead link]
- ↑ "Drive out anti-Tamil evil forces: DMK". Chennai Online News. 16 February 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-19.
- ↑ V. Sundaram, I. A. S., Retd. (2007). "Aryan vs Dravidian — Lord Rama vs E V Ramaswamy ???". India Varta. Archived from the original on 12 May 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-19.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
- ↑ Vishwanath, Rohit (23 June 2007). "BRIEF CASE: Tambram's Grouse". The Times of India. Retrieved 2008-08-19.
- ↑ Gail Omvedt. "The Dravidian movement". ambedkar.org. Retrieved 2008-08-19.
This article "Criticism of Tamil Brahmins" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
