When did palli and sanar call themselves as kshatriya
When aasari call themselves brahmins
When pallars devendrakula vellalars claim?
When vellalars claim as vaisyas?
A lot of purana palmleaf forgeries by lot of Nadar,Vanniyar
and Vellalar research scholers like kanakasabai pillai and manonmani
sundaram pillai is documented by british colonial accounts here.
A R Venkatachalapathy
‘ More Kshatriya than thou!’
Debating caste and ritual ranking in colonial Tamilnadu1
A. R. Venkatachalapathy
‘More Kshatriya than thou!’
Debating caste and ritual ranking in colonial Tamilnadu1
It is gratifying to note that the ethnological struggle on the part of the
several castes of Southern India for social supremacy in the scale of
God's creation is, in my opinion, not altogether without “a soul of
goodness’’ in that it contributes, to no small extent, to enrich the
knowledge of the students of the anthropology of the Baratha Kanda,
although it is viewed as a sign of an unhealthy state of society by
those, of whom I am one, who would like to see the equilibrium of
social happiness never disturbed.2
In this article I seek to recover and analyse an ideological conflict
between two castes in colonial Tamilnadu. In the early decades of the
twentieth century a series of acrimonious debates, leading up to even
court cases, occurred between two castes each of which not only claimed
Kshatriya (Skt. ksatriya, Tam. ksattiriyar) status for itself but also
contested the other’s claim to it. Caste conflict, often marked by violence,
is by no means novel in Indian society. That the two populous castes of
Nadars (Tam. natar) and Vanniyars (Tam. vanniyar) aspired to Kshatriya
status is well known in the literature. However what marks out the little-
known debates that I unearth and discuss here is the fact that these two
castes do not inhabit the same region. In the process of Sanskritising and
claiming a higher status in the caste hierarchy, M. N. Srinivas observes
that “occasionally a caste claims a position which its neighbours are not
willing to concede”.3 The assumption or suggestion here seems to be that
the caste(s) that contest the claim are physical neighbours. Nadars
predominantly live in the four erstwhile southern districts of Kanyaku-
mari, Tirunelveli, Madurai and Ramanathapuram, while the Vanniyars are
the most populous caste in the northern districts of Chingleput, North
Arcot, South Arcot and Salem districts. The only region where these two
castes live in any proximity is the working class neighbourhood of North
Chennai, viz., Royapuram, Vannarapettai and Thondaiyarpettai.
1 K. A. Manikumar commented on an earlier draft. Bernard Bate subjected the article to
detailed criticism. The late Tha. Kovendhan, Mamani and A. Thiruneelakandan provided
help with source material. All translations from Tamil sources are mine.
2 T. Balasundara Mudaliar, ‘Opinions’ in Arumuga Nayakar 1907: 11.
3 Srinivas 1966:
6.
A. R. Venkatachalapathy 276
Nadars faced the brunt of organised violence, especially at the hands of
upper caste Nairs (Tam. / Mai. nayar) and Vellalars (Tam. vellalar) in the
early part of the nineteenth century (in the Kanyakumari region) and at
the hands of the Maravars (Tam. maravar) (in the south Pandya country)
in the late nineteenth century (the place names of Kalugumalai, Kamudi,
Sivakasi have become metaphors for caste violence not only in Nadar
memory but in Tamil collective consciousness as well)4. In these cases
there is little evidence of ideological argument and only brute physical
force prevailed. But the debates I discuss here were carried out exclusive
ly in the emerging public sphere through the medium and modality of
print, and were mediated by colonial forms of knowledge.
Before I embark on the exercise of tracing and narrating these debates,
a brief summary of the changing status of Nadars and Vanniyars in the
context of the colonial transformation is in order. During the nineteenth
century, as is now very well known, the transformation of Tamil society
was marked by the improved means of communication and transport,
wider marketing networks, the incursion of the state in the farthest
reaches of society and economy, newer economic opportunities, western
education, and the rise of a new elite class within each community.
In his classic work on the history of Nadars, Robert Hardgrave Jr lucidly narrates
their dramatic and exemplary rise from a position barely
above the so-called untouchables to a position of vast economic, social
and political power in less than a century.5 From pursuing the stigmatised
occupation of toddy-tapping, Nadars, through a complex process of
engagement with Christianity and colonialism, became a major trading
caste in the late nineteenth century.
By the 1860s, buttressed by the newly
acquired wealth, Nadars adopted new social and ritual practices - they
turned to vegetarian diet, adopted teetotalism, wore the sacred thread,
applied sacred ash, changed their sartorial and coiffure styles, including
golden jewellery for women - and began to claim Kshatriya status. They
constructed an origin myth for their caste and claimed that they were the
descendants of the Pandya kings. Hardgrave counts at least 40 books
extolling the high status and greatness of the Nadars in the seventy five
years after 1857.6 Soon they attempted to enter Sanskritic temples, which
was thwarted not only by the violence of Maravars but by the colonial
4 In 1895, the Nadars of Kalugumalai village were prohibited by the zamin of
Ettaiyapuram from conducting street processions and, in the ensuing riots, many Nadars
were killed and their homes looted. In 1897, Nadars attempted to enter the Siva temple in
Kamudi in Ramanathapuram district. A suit was filed, which the Nadars lost. In 1899, there
was major conflict between Nadars and Maravars in Sivakasi, which resulted in the sack of
the Nadar settlement and many murders.
5 Hardgrave 1969. Also see Templeman 1996.
6 Hardgrave 1969: 78.
‘More Kshatriya than thou!’ 277
legal-judicial system as well - a situation that did not formally change
until late in the colonial period. Caste associations based on communal
solidarity and enterprise rarely seen among other castes underpinned the
rise of Nadars. The kinship organisation of uravinmurai, the subscription
system of makimai, etc., were used to construct temples, schools and
public wells. An attempt was made in 1895 to found the Kshatriya
Mahajana Sangam, a provincial level organisation, but floundered, and it
was not until 1910 that the Nadar Mahajana Sangam was formed.7 The
community’s association with the Non-Brahman movement, both in the
justice and self-respect phases, greatly enhanced the political position of
the Nadars, culminating in the spectacular rise of K. Kamaraj as ‘king
maker’ both in the provincial and, later, in the national Congress.
Vanniyars, despite their growing political power in northern Tamilnadu
since the reservation agitation in the 1980s and the rise of Pattali Makkal
Katchi with its shrewd negotiation of electoral politics in a situation of
fragmented polity, are yet to have their Hardgrave, or even a Dennis
Templeman. Based largely on secondary sources - especially Thurston,
census reports and contemporary newspaper reports and interviews - the
Rudolphs sketched the rise of Vanniyars in their classic work The
Modernity of Tradition.8 A community made basically of agricultural
labourers and tenant farmers, the Vanniyars, despite the proximity to the
presidency capital of Madras, have by no means matched the spectacular
rise of the Nadars. This is not to gainsay the significant mobility that the
community had enjoyed in colonial Tamilnadu. Even by the first census
in 1871, Vanniyars had claimed Kshatriya status as descendants of the
fire races9 with the publication of Cdticahkiracaram. By 1891 the
Vanniyakula vilakkam (A Treatise on the Vanniya Caste) was published.
Their caste association, the Chennai Vannikula Kshatriya Mahasangam,
was established as early as 1888.
Both Nadars and Vanniyars entered the emerging public sphere through
the medium of print and caste associations. The earliest Nadar journals
were Canrdrkula tipam (1889) and Canrorkula vivekapdtini (1909). By
1897 the first Vanniyar journal, Akkinikula ksattiriya mittiran, had been
launched by A. Subramania Nayagar, who figures prominently in the
debates of the 1910s and 1920s. These were followed by Akkinikulatittan
(1908), Vanniyakula ksattiriya tipam (1912), Vannikula mittiran (1913),
Ksattiriyan (1923), Ksattiriya cikamani (1923) and Viraparati (1927).10
7 Hardgrave 1969: 130-131.
8 Rudolph and Rudolph 1967.
9 Kshatriyas were said to have three lineages (Skt. kula): the solar (Skt. surya), the lunar
(Skt. candra) and the fire (Skt. agni, Tam. akkini).
10 Kavirinadan 2005: 11-12.
278 A. R. Venkatachalapathy
Even though the print runs of these journals were small, they made a deep
impact on the identity of these communities.11
The proximate reason for the mobilisation of these castes in the late
nineteenth century was the census. The Vanniyars demanded the drop
ping of the name ‘Palli’ (Tam. palli) and wanted to be returned as
‘Vannikula Khsatriyas’ (Tam. vannikula ksattiriyar). The Nadars
similarly did not want to be called ‘Shanar’ (Tam. canar). The demand for
a revised nomenclature was premised upon a certain view of Hindu social
structure which was being codified by colonialism. This drew upon the
Orientalist knowledge that was being recovered, produced and defined
using new disciplines such as history, ethnography, epigraphy, etymolo
gy, philology and lexicography. Traditional notions of caste hierarchy
coalesced with the Orientalist vision of a normatively ordered Indian
society. This was so especially in relation to caste as vama (Skt. vama) -
a theoretical construct -, as distinct from caste as jati (Tam. cati, Skt.
jati) - a functioning social unit and determined by endogamy.
While caste as jati was certainly a lived reality of indigenous society,
caste as vama - a more theoretical construct - had limited currency in
Tamil society. While the four-fold vama (Tam. nalvarunam) as a phrase
had usage, the slots of Kshatriya and Vaisya (Skt. vaisya) vamas were
empty in the Tamil caste structure. This explains, for instance, the pheno
menally erudite Sivagnana Munivar, writing in the eighteenth century,
being forced to claim a superior and ‘clean’ status for his Vellalar caste
by calling it Sat Sudra (Tam. carcuttirar) to distinguish it from other
lowly Sudras (Skt. sudra, Tam. cuttirar). By the late nineteenth century, at
the height of the Orientalist moment, we find many castes, as part of their
upward mobility, claiming higher status by wanting to be assigned a new
vama - either Kshatriya or Sudra.12 13 The Vellalars claimed Vaisya status
for themselves and produced the very influential Varuna cintamani.^
Similarly, Nadars and Vanniyars claimed the non-existent Kshatriya
vama status. History bears out that these claims for a higher vama status
never succeeded. But even the cul-de-sacs of history can often deepen our
understanding and it is in this hope that this article explores the now-
forgotten debates between the Nadars and Vanniyars.
11 David Washbrook argues that “... twenty-three years after the foundation [1888] of
their Vannikula Kshatriya Sangham, the wealthy Pallis had convinced remarkably few of
their depressed brethren to join their campaign (in the 1911 census, 89 per cent of the caste
continued to return itself as Palli)”. Washbrook 1975: 171 and endnote. This is completely
beside the point.
12 The much maligned Viswakarma caste, quite exceptionally, claimed Brahman status!
13 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.
"More Kshatriya than thou!’ 279
I From the available evidence the first salvo in the war of the Kshatriyas
appears to have been fired in 1907.14 Ka. Arumuga Nayagar’s elaborate
Vanniya interpretation of the history of vamas and the place of Vanniyar
in it (the volume runs into about 400 pages), Varuna taruppanam (The
Mirror of Caste),15 devotes the last section of the book to refuting the
claims of other castes to higher, especially Kshatriya status. After
putatively establishing the Vanniyar claim to Kshatriya-hood, Varuna
taruppanam devotes about 10 pages exclusively to demolishing Nadar
claims for Kshatriya status. Varuna taruppanam first provides a detailed
account, through a verbatim reproduction of Justice Benson’s judgment,
of the Kamudi temple entry movement and its ultimate failure. Con
sistently using the derisive word ‘Shanar’ to refer to the Nadars, Varuna
taruppanam emphatically states that “there is no evidence to show that
the Shanars are of the Kshatriya lineage or that they come in the line of
Pandya and Chola kings”.16 Refutation of caste status cannot of course be
without recourse to etymology and philological exegesis! Varuna
taruppanam argued that ‘Nadan’ (Tam. natan) meant “the un-approached
or unapproachable” and that ‘Gramani’ (Tam. kiramani)17 derived from
‘grama-anniyan’ (Tam. kirama-anniyan) or “outcaste to the village”18 -
clearly assigning the Nadar status to outside the caste fold.
But this refutation is not without sociological merit, though couched in
patronising terms, when Varuna taruppanam goes on to observe that:
Even though toddy-tapping is the customary caste occupation [of the Nadars],
with education, enterprise and wealth they have captured trade. ... As their status
had risen due to their wealth they have tried to elevate themselves in the religious
temple rituals as well. But in their efforts to equate their status with those of other
castes they should not usurp the freedom of the castes above them. They should
strive to rise among themselves [?]. If their efforts are in this direction without
14 In an appendix to his work on the Nadars, Hardgrave provides a chronology of Nadar
caste histories in which he lists an 1892 work entitled ‘Pallihal Vayappu’ (= Pallikal
vayappu) (A Refutation of the Palli Caste?) by one K. Shanmuga Gramani. I have not been
able to trace this work. Since Hardgrave also does not cite or quote it, one can barely guess
its content.
15 The Rudolphs misdate this volume to 1901 and also wrongly attribute it to T.
Ayyakannu Nayagar. They also indicate that the place of publication is not known, while it
was in fact published from Madras. Rudolph and Rudolph: 50n.
16 Arumuga Nayagar 1907: 378.
17 Gramani is a toddy-tapping caste in northern Tamilnadu. In the colonial period,
through the familiar process of aggregation, Gramanis came to coalesce with Nadars, many
of whom were migrating to the colonial city of Madras. The aggregation was more political
than social and rarely included marriage.
18 Arumuga Nayagar 1907: 379.
280 A. R. Venkatachalapathy
harming others not only will the fair-minded sympathise with them but they can
also win the protection of law courts.19Finally, Varuna taruppanam rested its case with
the words:
Some later day ‘wise’ men, akin to imprisoning the wind in a pot, published
books that the Shanars were Kshatriyas. But all these books contradict one
another. Following our earlier arguments it is clear that they are neither
Kshatriyas nor Vellalars. As stated in the tivakaram and pinkalam [two
authoritative medieval verse dictionaries] they rank below the Sudras.20
The arguments and insinuations of Varuna taruppanam were carried over
in a few years by Srf vanni vamcapirakacikai,21 This short catechism was
written by Salem Ardhanareesa Varma (1874-1964), a man of many parts
and a stalwart in the politics of the Vanniyars.22 In his long career span
ning over seven decades, Ardhanareesa Varma wrote copiously (he com
posed the only known verse elegy on Subramania Bharati’s death),
published journals, took part in nationalist agitation and organised
Vanniyars. Basing himself on Caticankiracaram and Varuna
taruppanam, Ardhanareesa Varma explicated the ideas of Vanniyar
superiority in questions and answers apparently for the benefit of ‘boys’.
After providing an etymology of ‘Vanniyar’ (Tam. vanni / Skt. vahni =
fire, and Skt. ja = bom of), the catechism elaborates the proliferation of
castes by anuloma, pratiloma and samkara marriages. Finally it settles
down to refuting the Kshatriya claims of some lower castes such as
Paravar, Maravar and Vadugar (Tam. vatukar), including Shanar. With
reference to the Nadars it rephrases the etymological arguments of
Varuna taruppanam and ridiculed the Nadars for calling themselves
cdnrorkula ksattiriyar, “a caste (kulam) that does not occur in any textual
authority”.23
Interestingly there is no evidence to suggest that the gauntlet was
picked up by the Nadars until many years later. It was the Kammalars
who went to court in the Salem Sub-divisional Magistrate’s court
immediately after the first edition was published in 1912. The case
however was dismissed as the magistrate observed that “it is difficult to
19 Arumuga Nay agar 1907: 378.
20 Arumuga Nay agar 1907: 318.
21 Sri vanni vamca pirakacikai appears to have been first published in 1912 and
reprinted the very next year. I have followed the 2007 reprint edited by V. Balakrishnan.
22 Shanmugasundaram 1995 is the only available biography on him. Though sloppily
written it contains a wealth of information.
23 Sri vanni vamca pirakacikai: 32-33.
obtain sensible replies from the plaintiff. ... I do not believe that there are
defamatory words in the book”.24
Vanniyar intellectuals seem to have continued with their tirade against
Nadars and their Kshatriya status. It appears that the Vannikula mittiran,
edited and published by A. Subramania Nayagar from the Perambur
Barracks region of North Madras, was at the forefront of this attack. A.
Subramania Nayagar, who began his career as a printing apprentice, had
risen to be a journalist and activist in Vanniyar politics. He seems to have
wielded considerable influence on the Vanniyar working class of the
region with its large number of textile mills. He also seems to have
evinced antiquarian interests and had started collecting material for his
histories and genealogies of Vanniyars, including the Vanniya puranam,
from a very early age.25 He was also instrumental in commissioning,
printing, and publishing many works which provided intellectual ammu
nition for the Vanniyars’ Kshatriya guns.
September 1919 saw the publication of two journals devoted to Nadar
uplift and organisation. Ksattiriya mittiran, published from Thondiar-
pettai in North Madras, was edited by T. Vijaya Duraisamy Gramani.26
The journal was certainly published until 1925 (volume six) but I have
been unable to find when it ceased publication. T. Vijaya Duraisami
Gramani was prominent in the debates concerning the caste and he
authored a number of works on Nadar history and culture: Ariya ksatti-
riyakula vilakkam (1910), Namatu kula tolil yatu? (1922), Ksattiriyar
(1923), Namatu kula tolil (1926), Natar ennum col araycci: Araca
kulattai kurittu elutiya or pirapantam (1927). Some of these works were
originally serialised in the Ksattiriya mittiran. The other journal, Natar-
kula mittiran, began its career as a monthly and later became a bi
monthly and then a weekly. After the first few years, when it showed
Indian nationalist leanings, it became an important mouthpiece for E. V.
Ramasami’s Self-Respect Movement within the community. It was edited
by S. A. Muthu Nadar and ceased publication only in 1931. Both these
journals played a leading part in the acrimonious debate with the
Vanniyar journals, Vannikula mittiran and Ksattiriyan.
24 Sri vanni vamca pirakacikai: appendix.
It is interesting to note that Kammalars with
their Brahman pretensions were often in the forefront of disputing caste claims, starting
from the famous Chittoor Adalat Court case (1818) to the use of ‘Achari’ as a caste suffix
(during the first Rajaji ministry). The above case, however, seems to strengthen M. N.
Srinivas’ assertion: ‘Normally Sanskritisation enables a caste to obtain a higher position in
the hierarchy. But in the case of the Smiths [kammalar] it seems to have resulted only in
their drawing upon themselves the wrath of all the other castes.’ Srinivas 2002: 202.
25 See his preface, dated 12 June 1955, to Tirukkaivalam (Subramania Nayagar 1955).
26 I have been able to consult volumes I, II and VI. I remember with gratitude my
mentor, Tha. Kovendhan, who brought this journal to my notice.
282 A. R. Venkatachalapathy
Vannikula mittiran was started in 1913 and appears to have continued
until 1930. As indicated earlier, it was edited and published by A.
Subramania Nayagar. Ksattiriyan, edited by Ardhanareesa Varma, was
published from Salem as a monthly. After two abortive attempts to run
this journal, he revived it in Chennai when he moved to the city in
January 1925. While one issue of Vannikula mittiran has survived (a
bumper issue containing the June, July, August and September numbers
of 1924) nobody seems to have traced even a single issue of Ksattiriyan.
Our information of the articles in the Vanniyar journals comes, apart from
the single bumper issue mentioned above, from the refutations published
in the two Nadar journals. Thankfully, Vijaya Duraisamy Gramani had
the habit, something he prided himself upon and challenged his adver
saries to emulate, of reproducing verbatim the opponents’ views before
proceeding to demolish them.
The very third number (November 1919) of Ksattiriya mittiran carried
“A Warning to Vannikula mittiran”.1'1 Adverting to the insinuations that
Nadars and Gramanis were not Kshatriyas and that there were no textual
authority to prove this status, Vijaya Duraisamy Gramani stated that
“abusing other castes is the habit of the unlettered” and asked it to desist
from such abuse immediately.
It was only towards the end of 1919, years after the publication of S/T
vanni vamca pirakacikai, that the Nadars seem to have taken notice of it.
In the very next issue of Ksattiriya mittiran a detailed refutation of the
book appeared by one Ne. Mu. Sha. Shanmugasundara Nayanar of
Vannarapettai, Chennai. Ridiculing the claim that only Vanniyars (the de
rogatory word Palli is used) belong to the Agnikula Kshatriyas and that
all royal dynasties including the Chera, Chola, Pandyas, the Kerala kings,
and the Vijayanagara kings are their kin, the author also criticised the
invidious nature of the book when the nationalist movement was going on
towards uniting all the people. Stating that he was writing an elaborate
refutation of the book with the title Vannikku varunan (Rain on the fire),
he claimed that many of the notaries who had provided opinions and
prefatorial comments had been misled and that they were now willing to
set the record straight by writing for the new volume.27 28 (Writing in 1924,
in the context of litigation against Nadar journals, A. Subramania Naya
gar claimed that he had ignored this particular piece as being too ridicu
lous to require a refutation.29)
27 Ksattiriya mittiran, 1,3, November 1919: 93.
28 Ksattiriya mittiran, 1,4, December 1919. 123-124.
29 Vannikula mittiran, ‘Tirunanacampanta cettiyar mannippu katitam’, June-September
1924.
After these two pieces of writing in Ksattiriya mittiran there appears to
be a lull for a few years in the debate, or at least the issues of the journals
have not survived. In the first number of volume VI (September 1924)
there appears a refutation of the writings in Ksattiriyan. By this time the
bulk of the journal is taken up by the Nadar-Vanniyar debate. As stated
earlier, Vijaya Duraisamy Gramani published Ardhanareesa Varma’s
accusations verbatim and then proceeded to contradict them. It appears to
be a continuation of published work in earlier numbers, which unfortu
nately have not survived. In the absence of these files, it is not clear when
the tirades had actually been revived. It can probably be dated to early
1924.
An important point in the revived debate turned around the semantics of
the words ‘Sandror’ (Tam. canrdr) and ‘Nadar’. While the Vanniyars
contended that it meant ‘noble’ people in general, the Nadars claimed that
it referred exclusively to their forbears. Another twist to the semantics
was the etymology: while Vanniyars claimed that the term came from
cdru meaning ‘toddy’ the Nadars contended that it came from cal or
‘abundance’ and later extended to mean ‘noble character’. While Nadars
treated natu as a noun (meaning ‘country’ and by extension its rulers),
Vanniyars treated it as a verb (‘to seek’ and its antonym to ‘avoid’)!
Ksattiriyan had also thrown a wager of Rs 500 to any one who could
prove that the term Sandror referred to the Nadars. Ksattiriya mittiran
countered it by saying that now that it had demonstrated this meaning he
should, “if he was a true-born upper-caste Palli”, not only republish his
refutation but send the wager amount immediately.
If the Nadars’ association with the palm tree and tapping toddy came in
for consistent criticism and derision the Nadars in turn always used the
term Palli, deeply detested by the Vanniyars, to refer to them. In a quick
counter move Ksattiriya mittiran also went into the origins of the word
‘Palli’ and claimed that it came from the word paUam (pit) and played on
this sense of the word to denigrate Ardhanareesa Varma.30
The response from Ardhanareesa Varma seems to have been swift. In
the 23 July 1924 issue of Ksattiriyan he raised the wager to a thousand
rupees. The Vannikula mittiran had also by then joined the issue. One S.
Krishnaswamy Iyer raised many questions in an open letter to Ksattiriya
mittiran. He asserted that the evidence cited by the Nadars thus far were
‘shameful’ and that their arguments relied on:
Mere word play not befitting intelligent people ... All you have done so far is to
keep repeating the three words, canror, natar and kiramani. ... Even the words
30 Ksattiriya mittiran, 6,1, September 1924.
284 A. R. Venkatachalapathy
konar, cenaikkaran, aruntati-kulam and campan [all lower caste names] appear
majestic. ... Therefore mere wordplay won’t do.
He raised seven questions. These questions revolved around the antiquity
of the titles that the Nadars claimed, the traditional occupation of toddy
tapping, the absence of ruler-ship in terms of zamins, palayams, etc., the
prohibition of entry into temples and the lack of literary works on
Nadars.31
The sole surviving issue of Vannikula mittiran also carries a refutation
by M. S. Subramania Iyer, a journalist and author of several works of
vicarious nationalism (the expression of nationalist sentiment and rhetoric
by writing about the past wherein the enemy figure is Muslim rather than
overtly criticising British colonialism), including a book extolling the
bravery of Rajput kings. Written in response to an attack on his book,
Rajaputtira vijayam, by one Murugadasan in the pages of Natarkula
mittiran, he argued that there the division of Surya Kulam, Candra Kulam
and Agni Kulam among kings did not exist; he asserted that Vanniyars
were indeed of the Agni Kulam. He added that, based on the “vulgar
essays” by Vijaya Duraisamy Gramani “some Nadar friends are raising
pointless arguments”.32
Vijaya Duraisamy Gramani now attempted to reply to the questions of
both Ardhanareesa Varma and M. S. Subramania Iyer point by point and
posed the counter question of the antiquity of the Vanniyar titles such as
Nayagar, Varma, Boopathy, etc.33
While a modicum of intellectual and social decorum was maintained in
the pages of Vannikula mittiran and Ksattiriya mittiran, no punches
seems to have been pulled in Natarkula mittiran. One S. S. Sankaralinga
Nadar, writing in the pages of Natarkula mittiran offensively termed the
writings of Ardhanareesa Varma as ampattan kuppai (waste bin of the
barber)! He also quoted offensive proverbs and popular sayings about
Vanniyars. In a number of places Ardhanareesa Varma’s frequent change
of names - Varma, Nayagar, Rajarishi, etc. - came in for much ridicule.
Vanniyar accusations and innuendoes about the fiasco of Kamudi temple
entry and the sack of Sivakasi seem to have particularly rankled in the
minds of the Nadars.34
31 Vannikula mittiran, June-September 1924.
32 Vannikula mittiran, June-September 1924.
33 Ksattiriya mittiran, 6,1, September 1924.
Natarkula mittiran, 15 September 1924. See articles by Sankaralinga Nadar and
Nathan.
Natarkula mittiran carried a series of articles by Murugadasan and
Sankaralinga Nadar. It asserted that, contrary to their claims to royalty,
Vanniyars descended from Kuravar (Tam. kuravar) and Vettuvar (Tam.vettuvar)
tribal communities, ate snails and crabs, remarried widows and
had loose morals. The culture of the poor Vanniyars in the Royapuram
and Vannarapettai region of North Madras - their poor hovels, their
squalor, irregular baths, immodest attire, wearing of ornaments made of
brass, the women addressing the men folk in the singular, etc. - was
ridiculed: “they conduct a whole marriage in fifteen rupees”!35
The tenor and the trajectory of the debate, if you could call it that,
inevitably led to the courts and litigation. Both Nadar journals were sued
by the Vanniyars. In April 1924, A. Subramania Nayagar and A.
Balasundara Nayagar (the son of the author of Varuna taruppanam) sued
T. Vijaya Duraisamy Gramani and Thirugnanasambanda Chettiar for
defamation at the Chief Presidency Magistrate’s Court, Egmore, Chennai.
The prefatorial poem by Vijaya Duraiswamy Gramani, written for
Thirugnanasambanda Chettiar’s Vannikku varunan and republished in the
February 1924 number of Ksattiriya mittiran, was the subject of dispute.
In the hearing on 7 May 1924, Thirugnanasambanda Chettiar apologised
but Vijaya Duraisamy Gramani did not appear and the case was
adjourned. In the next hearing on 30 May 1924, Vijaya Duraisamy
Gramani appeared in court with the issue of Ksattiriya mittiran carrying
Thiruganasambanda Chettiar’s apology. This is the version of the events
provided by Vannikula mittiran which claimed victory.36
Ksattiriya mittiran gives a very different story. Vijaya Duraisamy
Gramani claimed that he did not at first notice A. Subramania Nayagar’s
pamphlet wherein he had drawn attention to the alleged defamatory
remarks. Only after the legal notice was served had he consulted a
lawyer. The following reply was sent: “My client is not in a position to
understand a reference to the February part of Ksattiriya mittiran, which
passage you refer to as defamatory to the Vanniya community ...” To
further replies, Vijaya Duraisamy Gramani’s lawyer maintained the line
of incomprehensibility. I have been unable to find out the outcome of this
particular litigation.37 But suffice it to say that, given the nature of the
case, whatever the outcome, each party could claim victory.
A few months later, in January 1925, another case was filed at the
Second Presidency Magistrate’s Court in George Town, Madras. The
article “Varma vamcattar”, wherein many derogatory comments were
made about the poor Vanniyars living in the North Chennai region, was
the bone of contention. The author of the article, Sankaralinga Nadar, and
35 Natarkula mittiran, 22 September 1924. See articles by Sankaralinga Nadar and
Murugadasan. See also the continuation in the subsequent issue dated 29 September 1924.
36 Vannikula mittiran, ‘Tirunanacampanta cettiyar mannippu katitam’, June-September
1924.
37 ‘Policu korttum Tirunanacampanta cettiyarum’, Ksattiriya mittiran, 6,2, October
1924.
286 A. R. Venkatachalapathy
S. A. Muthu Nadar, the editor of Nadarkula mittiran which carried it,
were sued.38 Meetings were organised, especially by Vanniyars, to cam
paign for the case.39 The case dragged on for many months with frequent
adjournments. The hearings were further delayed by the death of S. A.
Muthu Nadar’s wife. Campaigns were launched in the pages of Nadarkula
mittiran to gamer financial support for the legal expenses.40 Two defence
committees were formed in Madurai and Chennai by Nadars.41 The case
seems to have stirred up widespread interest in the community. Reports in
the newspapers reproduced in Nadarkula mittiran indicate that large
crowds gathered in the court.42 But it was clear that the Nadarkula
mittiran was on the defensive.43 The verdict in the case was finally de
livered in early July 1925. The magistrate found the defendants guilty of
defamation and imposed a fine of Rs 201. However S. A. Muthu Nadar
stated in the court that he would prefer an appeal.
I have not been able to trace any further information on this. The virtual
print war between the Vanniyars and Nadars also seems to have come to
an end. Interestingly, however, no overt and tangible evidence for past
animosity has survived. Even during the 1950s, when a political under
standing was reached between Congress, then led by K. Kamaraj (Nadar)
and the Vanniyar parties, Commonweal Party and Tamilnadu Toiler’s
Party, the signs were barely discerable. In the course of my oral histories
with intellectuals of the Nadar community, and even some Vanniyar
intellectuals, no one was aware of these disputes of the last century. Caste
stereotypes of course prevail in the Royapuram region, but apparently
these do not draw from this history.
The acceptance by the census authorities of the preferred nomenclature
viz., Nadar and Vanniyar in the 1921 census, and the discontinuation of
caste as a category in the 1931 census, perhaps put an end to the print
war.
38 Nadtarkula mittiran, 1 December 1924.
39 Nadtarkula mittiran, 5 January 1925.
40 Nadtarkula mittiran, 9 February 1925.
41 Nadtarkula mittiran, 2 March 1925.
42 However,
S. A. Muthu Nadar states in his unpublished diary (entry dated 11.2.1925)
that 100 Nadars and 20 Vanniyars turned up at the court (I am grateful to A.
Thiruneelakandan for this reference).
43 See the letter of Sankaralinga Nadar, one of the defendants, in Ndtarkula mittiran, 2
February 1925.
44 For a rich study of Nadars in the Self-Respect Movement see Rajadurai 1992.
Further, by the mid-1920s, the radical anti-caste Self-Respect Move
ment, led by E. V. Ramasami, had begun to take hold of the Nadars;44 and
Ramasami did not mince words when it came to rejecting the caste
system as a whole and ridiculing claims to Kshatriya status. For instance,
addressing a conference of the ‘untouchable’ caste of Pallars (Tam.pallar) or
Devendrakula Vellalars (Tam. teventirakkula velalar) in Sep
tember 1929, Ramasami was quite forthright in ridiculing the Sanskriti-
sing efforts of various castes.
You want to call yourselves Vellalars. Vanniyars want to call themselves
Kshatriyas. Chettiyars want to call themselves Vaisyas. What for? All these
amounts to only degrading yourselves ... Nadar masses too have taken to Aryan
ways by wearing the sacred thread across their chests. When I exhorted them to
tear away the sacred thread one friend asked me, “It has taken so long for our
struggle to wear the sacred thread succeed and now you are asking us to take it
away even before the thread has got dirty?” The desire to call oneself Kshatriya,
or Vaisya, or Vellalar and wear the sacred thread only means that there is a caste
above one’s own and conceding that that caste is superior.45
All this no doubt contributed to the fizzling out of these debates.
IIWhy dig up the past and resurrect pointless debates? Even contempora
neously this issue was raised. With their own axe to grind, both Ksattiriya
mittiran and Natarkula mittiran published an open letter by a Vanniyar,
S. Packirisami Padaiyachi, a driver from Rangoon, who claimed that he
was sending it to the Nadar journals as the Vanniyar journals did not
publish it.
Even though there are learned men in our community, they are wasting their time
in unwanted affairs and pointless debates. ... When a number of our community
men are wallowing in depraved activities, a few from Salem proclaim “I am a
Kshatriya, I am Kshatriya” in a manner opposed to truth. We do not have the
Kshatriya blood, valour or custom in us; therefore we are not really Kshatriyas.
Brahmins have written about our tradition in such terms. It is despicable that we
should glory in such meaningless-ness ... Therefore, the present unwanted debates
should be spumed and we should work for the benefit of our people.46
If this was the view of a member of the community we have a similar
position being articulated by an intellectual from outside the two commu
nities. In the recently unearthed diaries of the highly respected Tamil
scholar Na. Mu. Venkataswamy Nattar we find the following entry for 10
July 1925.
Three numbers of the monthly Ksattiriya mittiran arrived today. ... The Nadars
are calling themselves Kshatriyas. Similarly the community of Pallis or
Padaiyachis (Tam. pataiyacci) too claim to be Kshatriyas. I am neither happy nor
45 Anaimuthu 1974: III. 1607.
46 Ksattiriya mittiran, 6,1, September 1924 and Natarkula mittiran, 3 November 1924.
288 A. R. Venkatachalapathy
unhappy by such Kshatriya claims. Let them happily make these claims. But, in
my humble opinion, the evidence that they present to call themselves Kshatriyas
fly in the face of wisdom and common sense. Further, both these communities
call themselves Kshatriyas while denying that to others. The struggle that these
have waged for this title is not a little. Whatever has been written by Padaiyachis
condemning the Sandror and by Sandror on Padaiyachis evoke disgust. If only
they make these claims to increase the prestige of their community and inspire
them to uplift rather than to abuse others it would not be objectionable.47
On the face of it, of course, Venkataswamy Nattar’s position sounds
sensible. But when one recollects that he used a similar logic in his work
on the history of his own caste, Kallar carittiram, this necessarily sounds
hollow.
It is in the very nature of caste as a system that not physical but notional
ranking, in a theoretical structure, is at the root of such conflicts.
In By the mid-nineteenth century, the British colonial state had launched a
massive exercise to collect and organise systematic knowledge about the
colonised. The first decennial census of 1871, delayed by about a decade
by the uprising of 1857-1858, made a major impact on the way Indians
saw their status and rank in the caste order. As Bernard Cohn has pointed
out, “Most of the basic treatises on the Indian caste system written during
the period 1880 to 1950 was written by men who had important positions
...as census commissioners”.48 If the colonisers’ view was shaped by the
census, the census in its turn had an even bigger impact on the rising
modem intelligentsia of various castes. The data of early census on caste,
organised on the principle of rank within the caste order (‘social
precedence’ in the words of Herbert Hope Risley), and even the very
nomenclature of the caste itself, created quite a stir among the emerging
Western educated elite of the various upwardly mobile castes. In the case
of both Vanniyars and Nadars, both contested their designation as Pallis
and Shanars respectively. At the time of the very first census itself,
Vanniyars produced Caticankiracarcim to stake their claim for a different
nomenclature and a ranking of their preference. Nadars too followed a
similar path. However, it was not until 1921 that the change was
conceded. By the next census it had even dropped the ranking of castes.
47 Navalar nattar tamil uraikal. Vol. 21, Chennai, 2007: 88.
48 Cohn 1987: 242-243.
‘More Kshatriya than thou!’ 289
Caste associations proliferated at this time and these were in the
forefront of petitioning the government to concede their demands in
regard to the census. The texts and the arguments produced and
adduced - though ostensibly based on tradition - were anything but that.
The information, the categorisation and disciplines that they invoked
were deeply inflected by Orientalism.
The first set of authorities that they invoked was Sanskrit texts:
Purusasiiktas, the Dharmasastras (with precedence given to Manu), and
various other Puranas. In the case of Tamilnadu, along with these Sanskrit
texts, a range of Tamil texts, newly entering the medium of print, were
cited. The entire range of Sangam literary texts, and later verse dictionar
ies / thesaurus or nikantus, was cited. In fact, each caste picked up one or
the other pirapantam or minor literary works as a text glorifying their
caste, (cilai-elupatu in the case of Vanniyar.) The Tamil and Sanskrit
texts often gave very conflicting views, but they were reconciled by intel
lectual sleights.
We know that, since the late eighteenth century, Orientalists evinced a
keen interest in various orthographies. The department of the Ashokan
Brahmi script by James Prince was undoubtedly a major intellectual
achievement which effectively inaugurated the field of epigraphy in
India. By the later nineteenth-century stone inscriptions were being
systematically collected. In the debates we discussed above we find these
caste intellectuals frequently taking recourse to various copper plate
grants, stone inscriptions and palm leaf manuscripts. Such pre-modem
written artefacts were privileged as historical documents that were
assumed to provide unmediated access to the past. Here it is important to
underline the new status given to history. Even though history was being
taught in schools and colleges at that time, history as a discipline had not
yet emerged; and certainly there was no professionalisation of the prac
tice of history. History-writing was still the preserve of antiquarians,
crackpots and vicarious nationalists (with a considerable degree of over
lap!). 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.
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 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. 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 etymol
ogy concerned with word-roots was a new intellectual method, exten
sively used and abused in colonial India. Therefore, we need to include
folk etymology (“sound etymology is not sound etymology” as the saying
goes) within this rubric. In our case, both Nadars and Vanniyars, indulged
in a free use of etymology to not only claim higher status for themselves
but also to condemn the other to a lower status. Even when their etymol
ogy descended to mere wordplay and ingenuity - their analysis of trans
formation of words over time fly in the face of all established etymologi
cal, historical and historical geographical principles - the exalted status of
the new discipline itself is not in question. Both sides acknowledged and
indulged in it. T. Vijaya Duraisamy Gramani wrote a whole series of
articles on Natar ennum col araychi (A treatise on the word ‘Nadar’) in
his Ksattiriya mittiran, which was later published as a book. Natarkula
mittiran also published a series of articles titled Vanniyar ennum col
araycci, wherein the same etymological method was used to decry
Vanniyar claims to Kshatriya-hood.
Lexicons and dictionaries were also extensively cited and contested.
Both sides criticised the famous Rottier and Winslow and later dictionar
ies for wrong word origins and derogatory definitions.
Not only history, but anthropology and ethnography as well were
invoked in the disputes over caste ranking. Both sides looked up to
colonial ethnographers and Orientalists. James H. Nelson, Gustav Oppert,
Eugen Hultzsch, Elerbert Hope Risley, not to speak of Edgar Thurston,
were special favourites. However, it needs to be added that a great
amount of selectivity and opportunism was involved. As Varuna
taruppanam observed even when it was citing colonial authorities for its
own purposes:50
49 Trautmann 2006: 157-161.
50 Arumuga Nay agar 1907: 370.
When Tolkappiyam and other texts written thousands of years ago state that the
Vellalars are Sudras how can one cite the works of English scholars written 50-
60 years ago as authorities?
The knowledge foundation of the caste histories and the disputes -
sources, authorities, epigraphies, methods, disciplines - were undoubtedly
inflected and mediated in and by colonial discourse. This is by no means
an earth shattering revelation but fully borne out by the debates and
documented in this article.
IVThe debates documented and analysed in this article throw new light on
struggles to re-negotiate caste status and ranking in colonial Tamil
society. While the much-abused (in both senses of the word) concept of
Sanskritisation has its use as a starting point to understand processes for
negotiate caste ranking it has to be invoked with a keen awareness of the
reality in a specific context. Opposition to claims for a higher ranking
need not necessarily come from physically proximate communities but
from adjacent castes in the hierarchy, even when they are separated by a
wide distance. The re-negotiation of caste ranking, deeply embedded in a
colonial discourse, drew from a wide range of sources, both indigenous
and foreign. They were mediated by Orientalism and other colonial forms
of knowledge.
Bibliography
Anaimuthu, V. (Tam. veJ anaimuttu), ed. 1974.
Periyar i. ve. rd. cintanaikal. 3 vols.
Tiruchirappalli: Thinker’s Forum.
Arumuga Nayagar, K. (Tam. ka. arumuka nayakar). 1907. Varuna taruppanam. Cennai:
Star of India Press.
Cohn, Bernard. 1987. ‘The Census, Social Structure and Objectification in South Asia’, in:
Bernard Cohn, An Anthropologist Among the Historians and Other Essays, Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 224-254.
Hardgrave, Jr., Robert L. 1969 The Nadars of Tamilnad: The Political Culture of a
Community in Change. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kavirinadan (Tam. kavirinatan), ed. 2005. Akkinikula tittan ital tirattu. Vol. 1. Cennai:
Annal veliyTtu.
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.