Maravar,Parathavar are Wrongly cosider and Written by KK Pillai A vellanist
Fake "The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago-1956" Book
is inspired by Pallars community ashirvatham,gurusamy and Nadars community telugu brahmin
S.Ramachandran,Ganeshan,Nedumaran is truly written by a fellow vellala name Kanakasabai pillai.V
Caldwell and his followers who wrote
and spoke about Tamil culture and history endeavoured to show that Tamils were
essentially a peaceful people who had achieved a high level of civilization
independent of and prior to the arrival of the ‘Aryans’ in the Indian
subcontinent. This was the unique Dravidian civilization. The theory of
Dravidian linguistic and hence cultural independence also contained in it the
idea that the Tamils were originally a class of peaceful farmers. The politics
of Caldwell’s teleology compelled him [to] introduce this idea into his
writings. (It was seen earlier that it arose from the attitude he shared with
the English rulers towards the Maravar.) The views of Bishop Caldwell were
found to be extremely useful by the newly arisen Vellala elite which was
contending for higher status in the Varna hierarchy of caste. Therefore the
‘histories’ which were written by the Dravidian school of Tamil studies at the
turn of the [20th] century were underpinned by,
(a) The political and religious concerns of Caldwell and other missionaries
like Henry Martyn Scudder and G.U.Pope
(b) The caste politics of Vellala upward mobility.
The interests of both were intertwined. Their express political interest was to show that Tamil culture in essence was pre-Aryan-Brahmin and non-martial. The first non-Brahmin Tamils to take up the Dravidian theory to examine theTamil past belonged to the Vellala elite and were supported and encouraged by Protestant missionaries (and sometimes by English administrators).
 Professor Sunderam Pillai, 1855 - 1897 |
The writings of Professor Sunderam
Pillai of the Trivandrum University on Tamil history and culture inspired many
of his castemen who had been seething at being classified as Sudras by the
Brahmins, and worse, by the British caste census and courts of law as well.
Thus, the historical works of the early Dravidian school were produced as
“social charters directed toward the census, where the decennial designation of
caste status became a major focus for contests over rank between 1870 and 1930.
 V.Kanakasabhai Pillai 1855 - 1906 |
The first Dravidian history of the Tamils, ‘The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago’, was written by V.Kanakasabhai Pillai, a Vellala from Jaffna who was a civil servant in Madras. Edgar Thurston thought it appropriate to quote the following excerpt from that work, in the section dealing with the Vellala caste in his ‘Castes and Tribes of South India’.
Kanakasabhai Pillai 1925. The book carried forewords from as many as two dozen people of various castes. C. Subramania Bharati, the iconic Tamil poet, wrote prefaces to only two books in his lifetime and Varuna cintamani was the first.
Kanagasabai Pillai wrote in this article that Nagars are not Tamils and the races listed as Maravar, Einar, Oliyar, Oviyar, Aruvalar are Nagas really are not Nagas.
It is proof that they are the original Tamils.
His comments in the book , ‘The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago’, was written by V.Kanakasabhai Pillai
some,
"They are the oldest tribe of Tamilians called Villavars and Meenavars are Bhills and Meenas lived in today's Rajasthan They are fishermen and bearers of the bow.".
Bhil Meena
भील मीणा | |
|---|---|
 Woman of Bhil Meena tribe. | |
| Regions with significant populations | |
| Rajasthan, | 1,05,393[1][2][3] |
| Madhya Pradesh, | 2,244[2][3] |
| Related ethnic groups | |
| • Bhil • Meena | |
The Bhil Meena (also spelled Bhil Mina) are a tribal group found in the state of Rajasthan, India.
Mainly they are mixed tribe of tribal Meenas and Bhils.[4]
Social status[edit]
As of 2001, the Bhil Meenas were classified as a Scheduled Tribe under the Indian government's reservation program of positive discrimination.[5]
"Historians say that in the very old days, a group called Nagas spread all over the country of India, then the Dravidians entered India from the northern countries outside of India and gradually spread throughout this country, and then the Aryans also entered and spread in this country. There are many types of principles about this;‘The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago’, was written by V.Kanakasabhai Pillai says:
He says that the Nagas defeated Villavar and Meenavar tribes.
According to Kanakasabhai pillai about the Nagar:- "A prosperous and civilized caste once ruled over large parts of India, Kataram (Burma) and Sri Lanka. The sculptors who made these idols according to their skill, seem to have thought of the Nagara as a mixture of people and snakes. The ancient Tamils also had the same idea.
There are many sects in Nagar such as Maravar, Einar, Oliyar, Oviar, Aruvalar, Bharatavar.
Manimegalai says that there are divisions.?
The warlike people in Nagas were Maravars. They were bitterly hostile to the Tamils. They were later included in the armies of the Tamil kings. Among them, the chera chieftain was pittan Kotan. The Pandyan chieftain was Nagan.
Next in Nagar were the Eyinars who sacrificed a buffalo to Kali. Later they were known as thieves or thieves.
They are referred to as Maran Eyinan in the Pandya inscriptions.
In Nagar, the Oliyars were oppressed by Karikalan. Their country is olinadu was near Kaveripatnam.
olinagan Matayan
olinagan Narayanan
They are found in Chola inscriptions.
Aruvalar rule thondai Mandal.
Oviyar rule Uraiyur before Cholas
Among Nagas Bharathavars were fishing,pear diving people. They were in the southern parts of the Pandyan country.
The Cheras are Vanavars came from the Himalayas.
Chola are thirayars came from Burma.
Pandyar are Marans came from Mongolia.
These research from kanagasabai pillai.
‘The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago’, was written by V.Kanakasabhai Pillai, a Vellala from Jaffna who was a civil servant in Madras. Edgar Thurston thought it appropriate to quote the following excerpt from that work, in the section dealing with the Vellala caste in his ‘Castes and Tribes of South India’.
“Among the pure Tamils, the class most honoured was the Arivar or Sages. Next in rank to the Arivar were Ulavar or farmers. The Arivar were ascetics, but of men living in society the farmers occupied the highest position. They formed the nobility, or the landed aristocracy, of the country. They were also called Vellalar, the lords of the flood or karalar, lordsof the clouds…The Chera, Chola and Pandyan kings and most of the petty chiefs of Tamilakam, belonged to the tribe of Vellalas.” (Thurston, 1906: p.367-368)
Among them, the kosars who created the Kongu kingdom belonged to the Gujjar Gujran Empire of Gujarat.
Among them, Vaduga Vellala created the Vijayanagara Empire.
He ruled Karnataka as the most skilled among them.
He ruled Andhra Pradesh under the name of Velama Naidu.
The Ganga kings of Karnataka were Vellalar."
This is little but Mr. Kanakasabai Pillai's measurements are high
Are Maravars and Bharathavars are Nagas?
It is said somewhere in Manimekalai that there is a section called ``Maravar Eyinar oliyar Oviyar Aruvalar Bharatavar'' in Nagas. We will reward of one lakh rs is given to those who discover this.
If we look at the single word Nalai Kilavan Nagan Maravan, today Vellalan, Nadan, Pallan named as Nagaraj and Nagasamy names more than a crore.
Villavan, Meenavan are the titles of Pandyan, Cheran kings for their flag indication.
There are not ethinic villavar and meenavars and It is ironic that the lower class of Rajasthan and the non-Tamil ethnic group whose profession is hunting and fishing are called Tamils
is shameful claim.
The real tamils like Maravar and Bharathavar of unknown other state language to wrong claim as nagas.
The real Villavar and Meenavar may be Maravar and Bharathavars by proffassions.
If Maravar had a deep enmity with the Tamils. The claim Vellalar Kosar, Velama Naidu, Kannada Pallalan, Kanganlam, Pandyan Mongolian, Cholan Burmakaranlam claim as
tamil is joke. and the book title name as"Tamils Eighteen hundred years ago" is LOL
Maravar, Eyinar, Oliyar, Oviyar, Aruvalar, Bharatavar are present in the Sanga literature. So Vellalar is not a Tamil
The above Maravar, Einar, Olyar, Oviyar, Aruvalar and Bharatavar are pure Tamils.
Who are the Kallars? Let's see what caste Kallar are Mutharaiyar kings of Tamil nadufrom 3rd centuary.
The Ganagasabai Pillai book fail in this one inscription:
When the name "Vellalar" did not exist in Sangha Tamil literature, Tamils.How is it fair to claim Vellalar as a Dravidian or tamil?
Another name of Vellalar was "Karalar" were found in the book paripaadal written during Kalabharas periodwhich means that it comes only in the 4th century. The Kalabhra interregnum, which had the backing of Jaina and Buddhist clergy probably created a conducive atmosphere for the elevation of the status of Velalar. But this was only one phase of the metamorphosis. In the all
Pudukottai district History (V. Manickam) says.
When hill tribes such as Paliyar, Malayar, Malayalis, Kunnuvar (Kundravar), izhavar and other mountain farming people got the name 'Karalar'.
The evidence that Vellalar is a carer is also false. Like this
How can it be true that they are not Nagas when the two castes mentioned as Eyinar and oliyar in Nagas have got the name Vellalar.
This means there Nagas may be vellalars too.
Vellalan Eyinan Inscriptions:
Location: Kattumannarkovi
Temple: Thirumulanathar Temple
King: Chola King Adithan II
Period: 10th century
Inscription:
Swasti Sri Kopparakesari Panmar's birthday............
.............Vellalan Tuthumpadi Udaiyan in the family (Field)......
..................Moveli also Vellalan Eyinan in the family, Thambi udayan.......
In the family
This is an inscription taken in the year 1946. How come Kanakasabai Pillai was not aware of it. He has seen many Chola Pandyar inscriptions.
Like this, theOliyar are also known as Olinatu Vellalar.
Apart from this, the Kongu inscription mentions hunters, gypsys, musicians, hill tribes and many others as Vellalars. Who is the Vellalar that the Kanakasabha said then?
Is it not ironic that the Arivar knows himself and is a Munivar when there are no people called Arivar and Arivar in the five types of land(Kurinji,mullai,marutham,palai)?
Shouldn't there have been Alagar, Kamar, Muttalar, Mudavar and Sirippara may be listed in tribes?
Nagas were people before the history and how the kings of Sri Lanka were classified as Nagas when none of the Sri Lankan lord names not match the names of Maravar, Kallar and Bharatavar who were legitimate tamil tribes.
To my mind, these caste genealogies used inscriptional material as sources much earlier than any professional historian - it certainly pre
dates the use of epigraphs by P. Sundaram Pillai to mark “some mile
stones in the history of Tamil literature” and date “the age of
Thirugnanasambanda”. Oral history and proverbs were also extensively
used.The 1934 edition of the Vanniya puranam pub
lished by A. Subramania Nayagar is a good example of this. Some caste
groups openly commissioned the writing of caste Puranas. The life of
290 A. R. Venkatachalapathy Mahavidwan Meenakshisundaram Pillai, the prolific nineteenth-century
poet, is replete with instances of such commissioning.Another intellectual discipline that was frequently employed in the exercise of claiming higher caste ranking was etymology.
Similarly he made fake palm leaf manu scripts for the vellalars It has gone to British inquiry.Kanakasabhai Pillai, Kudalur (Tam. ku. kanakacapai pillai) 1925. Varuna cintamani.
(1901) Cennai: Taniyampal vilakam acciyantiracalai.Kanakasabai Pillai also wrote his own script for the adaptation by Vellalar Varuna Chindamani. Kanakasabai Pillai's name is Velir Vellalan is proved
to be false by researchers.It has been reported.
None of the three velirs like namely Athiyaman, Malayaman and Irukuvelir have not named as Vellalar.
There are more than 20 inscriptions where irukkuVelirs and Malayaman called himself Maravans.
Then how come it will velir be vellalas?
Dissimilarities between Velirs and Velalars
Most of the scholars who have dealt with the above subject have either identified Velir, with Velalar or traced the origin of the Tamil Velalar to the Velir clan. They have no doubt studied the subject matter exhaustively but failed to observe the glaring dissimilarities between the Velir and Velalar: First of all, it can be pointed out that the term velanvayil occurs in Perumbanarrupadai. Generally vayil denotes those who serve as intermediaries. (Tol.Purat..28) There is no mention of Velalar in sangam literature but there are lots of references about Velir, connecting them with the rulership over the soil4. But, Tolkappiyam, the eariiest Tamil grammar which is silent about Velir equates Velalar with the ploughman and points out that the only avocation of the Velalar was agriculture. (This clearly shows that the Porulatikaram of Tolkappiyam or Marabiyal must have been written after the Sangam period). The trend of connecting Velalar with agriculture is reflected even today in the term of Velanmai or Vellamai used in the sense of cultivation. The term Velanmai occurs in this sense in Kalittokai (verse 101:45). In a Paripadal verse (no.20, line 63) the term Velalar occurs, in the sense of a ploughman
History-writing was still the preserve of antiquarians, crackpots and vicarious nationalists (with a considerable degree of overlap!). To my mind, these caste genealogies used inscriptional material as sources much earlier than any professional historian - it certainly predates the use of epigraphs by P. Sundaram Pillai to mark “some milestones in the history of Tamil literature” and date “the age of Thirugnanasambanda”. Oral history and proverbs were also extensively used. Palm-leaf manuscripts were the jokers in the caste historians’ pack. Apparently long-lost and mutilated manuscripts were pulled out of nowhere and published. The 1934 edition of the Vanniya puranam published by A. Subramania Nayagar is a good example of this.
Some caste groups openly commissioned the writing of caste Puranas. The life of 290 A. R. Venkatachaiapathy Mahavidwan Meenakshisundaram Pillai, the prolific nineteenth-century poet, is replete with instances of such commissioning. Another intellectual discipline that was frequently employed in the exercise of claiming higher caste ranking was etymology. Even though India’s long history of linguistic analysis, with pinnacles of achievement such as Panini and Tolkappiyam, was aware of word origins and (as Thomas Trautmann has demonstrated) words were classified as tatsama, tadbhava and desya, etc. based on origins,49 the specialisation of etymology concerned with word-roots was a new intellectual method, extensively used and abused in colonial India.
“Among the pure Tamils, the class most honoured was the Arivar or Sages. Next
in rank to the Arivar were Ulavar or farmers. The Arivar were ascetics, but of
men living in society the farmers occupied the highest position. They formed
the nobility, or the landed aristocracy, of the country. They were also called
Vellalar, the lords of the flood or karalar, lordsof the clouds…The Chera,
Chola and Pandyan kings and most of the petty chiefs of Tamilakam, belonged to
the tribe of Vellalas.” (Thurston, 1906: p.367-368)
 Maraimalai Atikal 1867 -1950 |
The efforts of the early Dravidian
school of Tamil ‘historiography’ culminated in the work of Maraimalai Atikal – the founder of the Pure
Tamil movement which became a powerful force in the anti-Hindi struggles from
1928 onwards. He published a book called, ‘Vellalar Nakareekam’ – The
Civilisation of the Vellalas – in 1923. The book was a lecture he had given at
the Jaffna Town Hall on January 1, 1922 on the ‘Civilization of the Tamils’ A
contribution of Rs.200 was made in Jaffna towards the publication of the
lecture, as a book. The Jaffna Vellala of that time saw his interests as being
bound with that of his castemen in South India, who were attempting to rid
themselves of the Sudra status assigned to them in the Varna hierarchy of caste
by Brahmins.
However, Maraimalai Atikal had decided to publish it as a book in order to
refute a claim in the caste journal of the Nattukottai Chetti community, that
the Chetties did not marry among the Vellalas because they (the Vellalas) were
Sudras. In the English preface to the work, Maraimalai Atikal says that his
book
“is written in scrupulously pure
Tamil style, setting forth at the same time views of a revolutionary character
in the sphere of social religious and historical ideas of the Tamil people…In
the first place attention is directed to Vellalas, the civilized agricultural
class of the Tamils, and to their origin, and organization…it is shown that at
a time when all the people except those who lived all along the equatorial regions
were leading the life of hunters or nomads, these Vellalas attained perfection
in the art of agriculture…and by means of navigation occupied the whole of
India. When the Aryan hordes came from the north-west of Punjab and poured
forth into the interior, it was the ten Vellala kings then ruling in the north
that stopped their advance.”
Maraimalai Atikal goes on to claim
that the eighteen Tamil castes were created by the Vellalas for their service;
that they (the Vellalas) were vegetarians fo the highest moral codes;that
Saivism and the Saiva Siddhantha philosophy nurtured by the Vellalas for more
than 3,500 years were the pre-Aryan religious heritage of the Tamils; that the
classification of Vellalas as Sudras was the result of an insidious Aryan-Brahmin
conspiracy. Maraimalai Atikal was also defending fellow Vellala Dravidian
scholars and their claims against attacks and veiled criticisms of Brahmin
Tamil academics, M.Srinivasa Aiyangar, a respected Brahmin Tamil scholar who
had worked as an assistant to the superintendent of census for the Madras
Presidency.
Mr.Stuart, had made a devastating attacking on the claims of the Dravidian
school of Tamil historiography, which derived its authority from the
‘scientific’ philological works of Bishop Caldwell. He debunked the theory of
the Caldwell-Vellala school that Tamil culture was constituted by the high
moral virtues of an ancient race of peaceful cultivators, on the basis of what
he had studied of the religion and culture of the Tamil country-side, as an officer
of the census, and on the basis of ‘pure’ Tamil works that had been
rediscovered towards the latter part of the 19th century.
Srinivasa Aiyangar noted in his ‘Tamil Studies’, “Within the last fifteen years
a new school of Tamil scholars has come into being, consisting mainly of
admirers and castemen of the late lamented professorand antiquary, Mr.Sunderam
Pillai of Trivandrum.” Aiyangar argued that contrary to the claims of the new
school, the Tamils were a fierce race of martial predators. He wrote,
“Again some of the Tamil districts
abound with peculiar tomb stones called ‘Virakkals’ (hero stones). They were
usually set upon graves of warriors that were slain in battle…The names of the
deceased soldiers and their exploits are found inscribed on the stones which
were decorated with garlands of peacock feathers or some kind of red flowers.
Usually small canopies were put up over them. We give below a specimen of such
an epitaph. A careful study of the Purapporul Venba Malai will doubtless
convince the reader that the ancient Tamils were, like the Assyrians and the
Babylonians, a ferocious race of hunters and soldiers armed with bows and
lances making war for the mere pleasure of slaying, ravaging and pillaging.
Like them the Tamils believed in evil spirits, astrology, omens and sorcery.
They cared little for death. The following quotations from the above work will
bear testimony to the characteristics of that virile race.
(1) Garlanded with the entrails of
the enemies they danced with lances held in their hands topside down. (2) They
set fire to the fertile villages of their enemies, and (3) plundered their
country and demolished their houses. (4) The devil’s cook distributed the food
boiled with the flesh of the slain, on the hearth of the crowned heads of
fallen kings.
With these compare same passages
from the Assyrian stories of campaigns: ‘I had some of them flapped in my
presence and had the walls hung with their skins. I arranged their heads like
crown…All his villages I destroyed, desolated, burnt; I made the country
desert.’ And yet the early Dravidian are considered by Dr.Caldwell as the
farmers of the best moral codes, and by the new school of non-Aryan Tamil
scholars…”
Aiyangar even claims, “We have said
that the Vellalas were pure Dravidians and that they were a military and
dominant tribe. If so one could naturally ask, ‘How could the ancestors of
peaceful cultivators be a war-like race?” He argues that the etymology of the
root Vel is connected to war and weapons, that it was not uncommon for cultivating
castes to have been martial tribes in former days as in the case of the Nayar,
the Pillai, the Bants, etc. He also cites an official census of the Tamil
population in the Madras Presidency, which shows that Tamil castes with a claim
to traditional marital status constituted twenty six percent of the total
number of Tamils in the Presidency. (Srinivasa Aiyangar; 1915, pp.40-58)
Aiyangar’s attack on the Dravidian theory of Caldwell and the Vellala
propagandists had political undertones. Learned Brahmins of the day were
acutely aware of the political interests that lay behind the claims of the
early Dravidian school. Vellala Tamil revivalism and its idea of Dravidian
uniqueness were closely related to the pro-British and collaborationist
poltical organization that was formed in 1916, by the non-Brahmin elites of the
Madras Presidency – the South Indian Liberal Federation. Its proponents were,
therefore careful not to emphasise the narratives of the martial reputation of
the Tamils that were embodied in the ancient ‘high’ Tamil texts or in the folk
culture of rural Tamilnadu. (Tamil revivalism had been promoted by Protestant
missionaries and British officials in the latter half of the 19th century, only
in as much as it was seen to facilitate the social, economic and religious aims
of demilitarizing Tamil society and diminishing the influence of Brahmins in
it.)
This was done not only out of a desire to promote Vellala caste culture, as
Tamil national culture, but also in conscious deference to the concerns of the
Raj about the ‘seditious’ views of Tamil cultural revival that were being
propagated by the ‘terrorists’ and their sympathisers which were aimed at
stirring the “ancient martial passions” of the Tamils in general and the
military castes in particular, by appealing to martial values inscribed in the
caste traditions of the Maravar and linking them to a glorious past that had
been sustained by, what according to them, was the unique and powerful Tamil
martial tradition. The political life of Purananooru, the foundation text of
Tamil militarism had been initiated by two Brahmins who were sympathisers of
the Indian revolutionary movement at this juncture. (The one was the great
Tamil poet Subramanya Bharathi; the other was the great Tamil scholar M.Raghava
Aiyangar, the court pundit of the Marava kings of Ramnad.)
David Washbrook argues that “the
subvention and protection of the north Indian dominant caste communities, and
the martialization of their culture, were but two of the many ways in which south
Asia paid the price of liberal Britain’s prosperity and progress.”(18) On the
other hand the strategy of emasculating and destroying the hegemony of Tamil
military caste communities and the demartialization of Tamil culture were two
important ways in which the Tamil South paid the price of India’s development
as a nation.
The legacy of these strategies in
the north and south of the subcontinent, embodied in the structure of the
modern Indian army, is central to the emergence of modern Tamil militarism. The
gains of this demartialization were consolidated by favouring and encouraging
non-military castes in Tamil society which “contrasted favourably with the
Maravar”.(19)
The more important of these were the
Vellalas, Nadars and Adi Dravidas. The culture and values of the “peace loving”
(Madras census, 1871) Vellalas who had “no other calling than the cultivation
of the soil” eminently suited the aims of demartialization and suppression of
the traditional military castes. In this the British were following local
precedents which had been based on the principle that the best way to ensure
control and security was to “have none there but cultivators” (21). Thus, under
active British patronage the Vellala caste established its dominance, and its
culture became representative and hegemonic in Tamil society. The Nadars and
Adi Dravidas were considered amenable to conversion. A large section of them
had become Anglicans. The recruitment base of the Indian army in the Madras
Presidency was constituted strongly in favour of these groups. The Dravidian
ideology emerged as the cultural and academic basis for their pro-British
politics, led by the newly arisen Vellala elite.
The nascent Dravidian movement was
clearly underpinned by the concerns of British administrators and Anglican
missionaries (22) in consolidating the social, economic and religious gains of
demartialization. This is why the early Dravidian school of Tamil studies and
historiography had a strong political compulsion to reject, ignore or play down
the dominant role of the traditional military castes in Tamil history and
culture, and to assert that Tamil civilization was Vellala civilization.
(Maraimalai Atikal, was the chief proponent of this view.)
Thus in the early decades of the
twentieth century we find two contending narratives (23) of Tamil national
identity – the ideology and caste culture of the anti-British and “turbulent”
military castes and the ideology and caste culture of the pro-British and
“peace loving” Vellala elite – claiming authentic readings of the Tamilian past
and present. The one claiming that the “pure Tamils” were Vellalas. The other
claiming that all Tamils are Maravar and that the Tamil nation was
distinguished by its ancient martial heritage. How then did Tamil militarism
which originally was related to a political and social milieu that was opposed
to the Dravidian movement become its dominant feature in the [nineteen] fifties
and sixties to the levelof strongly impacting on the Tamil nationalist movement
in Sri Lanka’s north and east?
It was related politically to
changes that took place in the Dravidian movement and the changes that took
place in Maravar – Indian National Congress relations after the [19]30’s. In
the Dravidian movement the change was connected mainly with, (a) the rejection
of the pro-British elitist leadership of the Justice Party in 1944. (b) the
radical change in the attitude towards British rule and imperialism in 1947048
which gave rise to sharp differences within the movement.
These concerns, had compelled the Raj to take lines of action aimed at the
terrorists and the military castes. One, it carefully sifted through the Tamil
revivalist propaganda of the suspected sympathisers of the terrorist movement,
to charge them with sedition. Two, it introduced the Criminal Tribes Act of
1911, with the express objective of throughly obtaining knowledge of,
supervising and disciplining the Kallar and Maravar who were classified as
dacoits and thugs under this act. The political mobilization of the Tamil
military castes began as reaction against this act. The political leadership of
this mobilization was inspired by the militarism of the terrorists. Modern
Tamil militarism as a political force emerged from this conjuncture.
Thanks:
https://tamilnation.org/forum/sivaram/920801lg.htm
https://tamilnation.org/forum/sivaram/920901lg.htm
(a) Place Name Studies – Kankesanthurai Circuit, by Dr.E.Balasunderam of the Jaffna University, 1988, pp.5-6. The book was published for the Mani Vizha of S.Appadurai of Myliddy.
Kanakasabhai Pillai, Kudalur (Tam. ku. kanakacapai pillai) 1925. Varuna cintamani. (1901) Cennai: Taniyampal vilacam acciyantiracalai. Rajadurai, P. (Tam. pu. iracaturai) 1992. Cuyamariatai iyakkattirku natarkal arriya tontu. Virutunakar: Ilamaran patippakam. Rudolph, Lloyd and Rudolph, Susanne. 1967. The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India. Bombay: Orient Longman Shanmugasundaram, K. (Tam. ka. canmukacuntaram) 1995. Kaviccihkam rajarisi arttananca varma. Cennai: Pe. kantacami nayakar kalvi arakkattalai. 292 A. R. Venkatachalapathy Srinivas, M. N. 1966. Social Change in Modern India. Berkeley: University of California Press. -- . 2002. Collected Essays. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Subramania Nayagar, A. (Tam. a. cuppiramaniya nayakar) 1955. Tirukkaivalam. Cennai: A. cuppiramaniya nayakar. Templeman, Dennis. 1996. The Northern Nadars of Tamilnadu: An Indian Caste in the Process of Change, Delhi: Oxford University Press. Trautmann, Thomas. 2006. Languages and Nations: the Dravidian Proof in Colonial Madras. Berkeley: University of California Press. Washbrook, David. 1975. ‘Development of Caste Organisation in South India’, in C. J. Baker, D. A. Washbrook, South India: Political Institutions and Political Change, 1880- 1940. Delhi: Macmillan.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.