Were Brahmins bad? – a sequel to Karunanidhi’s hate-Brahmin speech. (Part-7)

Were Brahmins bad? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8,Part 9, Part 10  

Brahmins were not the only people who were given land grants.

Many people were given lands either as gifts for their talent or for furthering their field of activity.

To quote some,

'Udukkaik kaaNi" (உடுக்கைக் காணி) was given to drummers,

Vuvacchak kaaNi (உவச்சக் காணி)  and Veenai-k- kaaNi (வீணைக் காணி) was given to musicians and Veena artists,

'koothu-k-kaaNi' (கூத்துக் காணி), Nattuva-k-kaaNi' (நட்டுவக் காணி), 'Nruthya  Bhogam (நிருத்தியக் காணி), "Saakkaik kaaNi" (சாக்கைக் காணி), "Kooththandik kaaNi" (கூத்தாண்டிக் காணி), "Mey mattuk kaaNi" (மெய்மட்டுக் காணி), "Muraliyak kaaNi (முரலியக் காணி)" etc  were given to dancers and dance teachers,

"PaaNak kaaNi" (பாணக் காணி) was given to composers called PaaNar.

One must know that all these people were ordinary folks who were engaged in music and dance during festival times in the temple. They did not have work on all days of the year. So lands were gifted to them both as remuneration and for their subsistence during other times of the year. Karunanidhi's daughter gloats over the "Sangaman" in which rural dancers performed. These performers were in good stead during monarchy. Their arts were respected by the kings and the people. Their area of activity was around the temples and as such hey had close interaction with the Brahmins of the temple.

Some of them worked in the temple everyday to beat the drums and other instruments. Others also had performed regularly in the temple. A land grant given to the temple Brahmin had laid a condition that the rice got form the land must be offered to God and shared with these singers and dancers!

Such an information is found in Thiru Marududaiyaar temple  in Kadaththur in Udumalpet. It is mentioned that the produce from the donated land must be offered on all Saturdays to Udayaar (the main deity), Nacchiyar (Deity's consort), Vinayaka and Kshetra-pala pillaiyar. This food must be shared among the Brahmins and the dancers and singers. (1). The Brahmins must also offer oil for lamps from the donations. The so-called Brahmin supremacy could not have happened in such a situation where they had to interact with all communities in a temple and even share the offerings.

There were other grants given to further one's field of activity. Some of them are as follows.

"Vaidhya Bhogam"(வைத்திய போகம்) or Vaidhya Vriddhi" (வைத்திய வ்ருத்தி) or "Salliya Vriddhi" (சல்லிய விருத்தி) was given to doctors,

"Kulaala Vriddhi"(குலால விருத்தி) was given to potters,

"Nandavana-p-puram" (நந்தவனப் புறம்) was given to gardeners to grow flower plants and supply the flowers to the temple.

"Mezhuguppuram" (மெழுகுப் புறம்)was given to those engaged in procuring sandal wood and other scented material for smearing on the deity.

"Ambala-p- puram" (அம்பலப் புறம்) was given to the one who procured water and firewood for the temple rituals.

"Kidaip puram",(கிடைப்புறம்),  Thiruk-kai-k- kOttip puram" (திருக்கைக்கோட்டிப் புறம்), "ozhukkavip puram" (ஒழுக்கவிப் புறம்) were given for some services in the temple.

"Amaavasip puram" (அமாவாஸிப் புறம்), "Ardha jaamap puram" (அர்த்தஜாமப்புறம்), Thiru mandirap pOnakap puram" (திருமந்திரபோனகப்புறம்) etc were given for services during specific times and festivals in the temple.

"Pudukkup puram" (புதுக்குப்புறம்) was given for renovation purposes.

"Padhikak kaaNi" (பதிகக்காணி)was given to the one who sang Padikam.

Compared to all these the Brahmins formed only a minor percentage in having received the land grants.

The temple archagar (pujari) received Bhatta Vriddhi (பட்ட விருத்தி) from which he had to make food to offer to the deity everyday.

"Brahma Deyam"(பிரம்ம தேயம்) and "Veda Vriddhi" (வேத விருத்தி) were given for Vedic excellence.

"Bharathap pERu" (பாரதப்பேறு) or "Bharathp puRam" (பாரதப்புறம்)  was given to the one excelled in giving discourses on Mahabharatha.

Apart from these, a number of land grants were made by common people to the temple to raise funds for temple use. All these grants were not under the supervision of Brahmins. Every temple had a committee to manage these grants and other donations. The system was working very well such that many people came forward to donate lands and other things. In the case of land grants, they were administered by people called "Adaippu MudalikaL"(அடைப்பு முதலிகள்)(2)

There is mention of Mandraayiars (மன்றாடியார்), Vaariyaththars (வாரியத்தார்) and Maaheswaras (மாஹேஸ்வரர்)who were entrusted with managing the lands given to temples. On the final analysis what is known is that there was atleast one temple in every village and that temple had vast stretches of land under its use either in its name or in the name of people who served the temple in many ways.

This was the situation about 1000 years ago. This has continued until the British took up the reigns of our country. In the Census of 1871, it was reported that 52 percent of the people were either owners or tenants of land. But in the Census of 1881, the land distribution in the Madras Presidency showed a lopsided hoarding pattern. The Brahmins and other common folks who possessed lands given by the kings were not in the reckoning at all. Only the affluent landed class dominated the scene. On page 34 of the report of the Census 1881, it is said,

"In the Madras Presidency the number so occupied is about 5¼ millions, of whom there are enumerated as landed proprietors 24,000, besides 668 zemindars, 61,000 inamdars, that is, holders of land exempt from payment of the Government revenue, nearly 73,000 mirasidars or holders of hereditary lands, 787 kudi-mirasidars, or village proprietors with similar rights, and 220 jagheerdars. The number of cultivators or ryots is nearly 4,879,000, including about 30,000 entered under the titles of agriculturists, farmers, gardeners, and irrigators, with 167 coffee gardeners. It must be remembered, however, that, in Madras, while the State has a right everywhere to sell up any proprietor of land if the tax thereon, fixed by the Government at discretion but in accordance with certain principles, is not paid, and also possesses a right to all land not held and paid for by farmers, except on permanently settled estates or where the ancient mirasi system, or hereditary lien on the village area, is in force,—nevertheless, throughout four-fifths of the Presidency the State collects its tax direct from the cultivator, who is practically a peasant proprietor with an indefeasible right of property on his land so long as he pays the tax."

The names of people furnished in this were all wealthy people of vast landed possession whose designation continues even today in rural Tamilnadu. There is no clue about the ordinary people in this statement, who were in a majority during the rule of monarchy. A comparison between 1891 and 1901 as recorded in the report of Census 1901 showed that the number of land owners increased in 10 years in Madras Presidency! This was in contrast to the situation in other places of India.

"In some cases marked variations are noticed in comparison with 1891. In Cochin, for example, cultivating tenants have increased from 33 to 182 thousand; in Madras cultivating land-owners have increased from 8½ to 13½ million, while non-cultivating land-owners have fallen from nearly three, to less than four-fifths of a, million," (3)

How could this happen in a predominantly agricultural set up? Does this mean that people sold their lands to others? Or did they lose their lands for reasons like mortgage or non payment of tax? Also who were the people who gained these lands? The above statement raises the suspicion that small and marginal land holders who were mostly ordinary peasants having lands as hereditary property, which they got as grants from kings could have been rendered landless by the big owners who in most cases administered the land grants during the times of kings.

Of interest is the statement in the 1881 Census report (mentioned a little above) is that the Government had the right to confiscate the land if the tax was not paid. This rule was there even during the times of Monarchy in Tamilnadu!! The kings however made a distinction between the lands of private people and lands given as donations for religious and social purposes. The tax was waived in the case of donations for religious purposes. In the case of donations to temples given by common people, the tax was to be paid by the donor before donating it and in some cases the donor had to pay the tax every year for the donated land. (4) But the deeds came with a clause that the Government had the right to take back the property if tax was not paid. But there is no instance of such confiscation in the case of donations given to the temple related persons as those lands were tax free.

But with the gradual fall of monarchy, the kings could no longer have control over the officials particularly the tax officials and those in charge of the land administration. These officials had misused their positions and fleeced people through hook and crook.   

Such an incident happened in the 15^th century was reported in Nagappattinam where the local official had exploited the differences between two groups of people and extracted huge amounts as tax. This is in a famous inscription found in the temple of Veerattaaneswara in Korukkai. (5)

The two groups of people are known as Right-handed (வலங்கை) and Left-handed (இடங்கை) people. These names were due to their religious leanings namely Dakshinachara and Vama chara. There were 98 groups of them in each section. Almost all the down trodden people and those at the receiving end of caste conflicts belonged to these two sections. The inscription in the temple shows that these two groups decided to come together because they suffered exploitation from the officials (mostly tax officials) who used the feud among them to cheat them and collect more tax. This happened during the Vijayanagara rule. There was no connection to Brahmins to the tax issues discussed by these sections. But any article on these sections of people written by the Dravidian writers would somehow contain the term Brahmin and say that they joined others to exploit the down trodden castes of these sections.

Their rationale was that the Left handed people came to the Kongu nadu along with their priest by carrying his slippers in their head. In one version it is said that it was kasyapa rishi. But the Dravidian thinkers attributed it to a Brahmin who was over powering these people. The conflicts between these two sects have been a legend and it continues in some form even today as a conflict between "caste Hindus" and dalits.

The use of "Hindus" here is highly objectionable because Hinduism was in no way the cause of these conflicts Both sects were Hindus and had their own practices in worship. The most probable cause for the conflict could be the competition between them. One section came from outside (from North) and another was already present in the South. So it had started as a conflict between locals and immigrants. All the groups of these sections were given a caste-name by the British in the Census of 1881 based on the job they were doing at the time of enumeration. No one knows who suppressed whom because both the sections or groups among them had suppressed each other as and when they could. But the conflict was more on religious belief as the Left handed people (vamachara) brought tantric customs and worship to Tamilnadu for the first time. Their origins go back to Indus times and there is also a possibility to assume that they were the degraded castes of the Agni vamsa. A detailed study is needed to know their background which in my opinion would unravel some mysteries of the Indus culture.

These people were not initially accepted by the local people. However in due course they gained the goodwill of the kings, the prominent among whom was Kuloththunga Chola I. They had their own temples and worship forms. The Right handed ones had their own temples in such a way that the rival section was not allowed inside. Most of the caste conflicts in this region (Coimbatore, Nagappatnam, Kanyakumari) must be analsysed in the light of the long standing struggle between these sections.

But to cast aspersions on Brahmins as having suppressed the Left handed people was nothing but a strategy by the Dravidian writers to degrade Brahmins.

Infact there is a record in Rudram palayam in Kongu area which says that the Chathur Vedi Mangalam was protected by the Left handed section. The Left handed people had pledged to protect the Chathur Vedi Mangalam with a promise that they would kill the one who steals the calf, like how they used to kill the pigs. (6) Their aggressiveness is known from this. But they never had any issues with Brahmins.

The conflicts between the two sections have been recorded by the British on page 24 in the Report of the 1871 Census as follows:

"There is in Southern India, both in Mysore and in the Madras Presidency, a singular division of castes into the right-hand and the left-hand faction, which frequently gives occasion to disturbance at public festivals. The origin of the distinction is lost in fable, and the separation seems very arbitrary; thus, some weavers are found in the one faction, some in the other; the fisherman sides with the right hand, whilst the hunter ranges himself with the left; and, what seems yet more remarkable, the agricultural labourers' wives attach themselves to the left-hand, while their husbands take the right-hand side, and the shoemakers fight with the former, their wives joining the latter party. Many castes, however, occupy a neutral position, and take no part in these feuds."

This shows there was movement between these two sections. There could have been love marriages between the persons of these sections which had heightened the tension between them. Or else how could a situation of wife from one section and husband from another section have happened? Common people by and large had kept themselves away from them. Today no one knows who belongs to which section of these two. But the caste conflicts of this belt need to be understood from this backdrop.

Fortunately the British showed no interest in the feud between these two sections precisely because no Brahmins were involved. If the Brahmins were involved even by a negligible measure, the British would have blown it out of proportions because they had an agenda against the Brahmins.

 A reading of the Census report 1871 and subsequent reports gives rise to this opinion ( 7). Their utter despise for Brahmins as people who were fed by others and led a useless life can be read here.

"They are all, of course, Bráhmans, and a considerable number of them are purohits or hereditary family priests, who receive as of right the alms and offerings of their clients, and attend upon them when the presence of Bráhmans is necessary. But besides the purohits themselves there is a large body of Bráhmans who, so far as their priestly office is concerned, may be said to exist only to be fed. They consist of the younger members of the purohit families, and of Bráhmans who have settled on cultivation or otherwise in villages where they have no hereditary clients. These men are always ready to tender their services as recipients of a dinner, thus enabling the peasant to feed the desired number of Bráhmans on occasions of rejoicing, as a proprietory offering, in token of thanksgiving, for the repose of his deceased father's spirit, and so on. The veneration for Bráhmans runs through the whole social as well as religious life of a Hindoo peasant, and takes the practical form of either offerings or food. No child is born, named, betrothed, or married; nobody dies or is burnt; no journey is undertaken or auspicious day elected, no home is built, no agricultural operation of importance begins, or harvest gathered in, without the Brahmans being feted or fed; a portion of all the produce of the field is set apart for their use, they are consulted in sickness and in health, they are feasted in sorrow and in joy; and though I believe them to possess but little real influence with the people of the Punjáb,* a considerable proportion of the wealth of the Province is diverted into their useless pockets. But with the spiritual life of the people, so far as such a thing exists, they have no concern. Their business as Bráhmans is to eat and not to teach—I am speaking of the class as a whole, and not of individuals—and such small measure of spiritual guidance as reaches the people is received almost exclusively at the hands of the regular orders which constitute the first of my priestly classes. In theory every Hindoo has a guru or spiritual preceptor, in fact, the great mass of the peasantry do not even pretend to possess one; while those even who, as they grow old and respectable, think it necessary to entertain one are very commonly content to pay him his stipend without troubling themselves about his teaching; but the guru is almost always a Sadhu or professed devotee."

Be that as it may, this narration shows that Brahmins subsisted on what others gave. (Remember this was as on 1871). Can such people be oppressors of others? The Brahmins had no wealth and regular income. They also had no bias against any castes as is seen from the narration that they attended to all the calls by people. Their life depended on everyone else around them and they could not afford to be choosers.

The report also speaks of the disgust that the British had for Brahmin-feeding. Feeding a guest (athithi) was a daily routine for the Hindus. Feeding Brahmins also was considered as a noble act. There are many inscriptions on feeding Brahmins even by kings. But the British could not stomach the respect given to Brahmins by all sections of the society. The influence of the Brahmins in all the affairs of the people is something the British wanted to thwart because the Brahmin posed an obstacle in their missionary and political goals.  The Brahmin must be stopped and discredited somehow. This is reflected in the report.

One of the first action plans of the British to stop the role of the Brahmin in the common households is to threaten the people not to feed the Brahmins. The Feeding comes as a part of a puja or a ritual that was done for any activity at the household. Each family had a Brahmin as a family priest. The British wanted to stop this close interaction between the Brahmins and other people. This was executed as a threat to people not to feed the Brahmins. The report of the Census 1871 says that the people were sacred to see the census official because they thought (among other reasons) they had come to levy some new tax for feeding the Brahmins.

"it was variously supposed that the tax would fall on those who trod on the village-path, who swung an arm, who carried an umbrella, or who fed Brahmins." (8)

Why should the people think like this unless they were previously threatened by the British officers against feeding the Brahmins? A persistent campaign to defame Brahmins and separate the locals from them had thus stated in the middle of the 19^th century. The people by and large did not fall a prey to the machinations of the British. But such a thing did not happen in Tamilnadu. The Dravidian chauvinists who did not want the British to leave the country took up the hate-Brahmin campaign of the British and used it for their selfish goals.

(to be continued)

References:-

1.      "Kongu naattuk kalvettugal – Coimbatore maavattam" page 132

2.      S.I.T.I., Op.cit, p.1391

3.      http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&action=next&record=1344

4.      A.R.E,. 127 /1914

5.       "Kongu naattuk kalvettukaL" page 151

6.      "கிராமத்திலும் பிடாகைகளிலும் கன்று குண்டை கட்டிநார் உண்டாகில் பன்றில் ஒன்றாக குத்தி தூக்குவொம்"

7.      http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/main.htm (achieves of the Census reports in the British period)

8.      http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&record=39

Were Brahmins bad? – a sequel to Karunanidhi’s hate-Brahmin speech. (Part-6)

Were Brahmins bad? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8,Part 9, Part 10  

The kings have had some interest in Chathur Vedi Mangalams and in Saalai (சாலை) such as the one found in Parthivasekara puram. The Mangalams were settlements of people of different background whereas the Saalai were  Pata-shaala – schools for Vedic learning. Both these places supported Vedic studies. Both were given some level of autonomy in administering their affairs and in self generation of funds through land donations. Though the aim was to enable Brahmins to study and excel in Vedic knowledge, the management and administration was not entrusted with the Brahmins. These two places have generated interest among the Dravidian thinkers who see them as proof of Brahmin domination. According to them the Brahmins were the Aryans and they promoted Sanskrit and Manu's rules which ultimately resulted in subjugation of other castes. If that is true,  the Tamil Kings would not have promoted these centers. The Tamil kings were certainly more concerned about the welfare of their subjects than these Dravidian thinkers. They promoted Tamil much better than any of these people.

The important matter in these two (Chathur Vedi Mangalam and Saalai) is that the temple was in primary place around which they were developed. The popular Tamil adage "Koyil illaa ooril kudiyirukka vendaam" (Don't reside in the place where there is no temple) was respected verbatim, that whenever they created a new village or a settlement, the first thing they did was to build a temple there. This automatically means that Brahmins were brought there for conducting the rituals. The primary focus was to make provisions for uninterrupted worship at the temple. This was made available through land grants. Land was seen as a principal and the income from the land namely, the cultivated produce was considered as the interest. Without a plan for grants, no temple, no saalai and Chathur Vedi Mangalam was created.

For example, the Parthivasekarapuram temple of Vishnu built by Aay king Kookaru nanthadakkan , was built after gradually acquiring lands from the Sabha of Meenjhirai in exchange of some other lands.(1) Once the location of a temple was decided based on the availability of cultivable lands and adequate water supply, the king had acquired the lands without any coercion and with adequate compensation. A temple was built on that location along with provisions for school (Pata saalai) and a medical centre (Adhular saalai). In some cases Chathur Vedi Mangalams were developed and in some others, the Vedic Patashala was developed within the precincts of the temple. The temple itself formed an active economic and social centre and not a political centre. By building a temple, the king, at one stroke had fulfilled the development of a school, a hospital and an eatery for the people of the village.

In this set up, the land grants to the Brahmins came with a responsibility. They had to use the cultivated produce for the offerings to the deity. The amount of food to be offered during the worshiping times was fixed in the land deed. The amount was huge so that the food could be shared among the temple servants. The temple offered food for many people such that there was a need for servants to clean the vessels and the places where people ate. Females were employed for this purpose. The grants have a mention of this and  the kind of payment to be given  to these women. Among other kinds of payment, it included a sari also! (புடவை) (2)

In an instance recorded in the Kaalaakaalesar temple in Kovilpalayam in Coimbatore district, the donated land lost "kaal". As a result the land was returned to the Government. But the offering to the deity could not be stopped. The Brahmins pooled gold to purchase a land so that the produce of the land could be used for the temple. (3) Here the term "kaal" refers to "vaayk kaal" (வாய்க்கால்)– the canal which was used for irrigating the land. (4) In all land grants, it was made sure that adequate water supply was ensured for cultivation. This was mentioned in the land deed itself. When water sources had dried up, the people had to obtain permission from the king to renovate them or dig up new ones (5). Until then an alternative arrangement had to be made to continue the offerings to the deity. Thus it is seen that it was the personal responsibility of the temple Brahmins to see to it that the offerings did not get interrupted. Offerings to the deity were the main objective of land grants to the temple priest than conferring any personal gains to him.

A similar incident was reported in Karapureeswara temple, where the Brahmins of the Amani Narayana Chathur VEdi Mangalam brought to the notice of the Village Committee the drying up of the water way that was irrigating the donated land. The members made alternate arrangements to get rice for offering to the deity. (6)

In another incident recorded in the Veerattaneswara temple at Korukkai in Nagappattinam, in the year 1179 AD, the produce from the donation given by a woman did not come through. The Brahmins made arrangements for alternate sources to ensure that offerings continued. (7)

The grants to the Brahmins of the Chathur vedi Mangalam also carried this responsibility. In the records chiselled on stone in the Kailasamudaiyaar temple in Cholamaadevi in the year 1000 AD, the Maha sabha charted out the grants in gold and also the responsibilities of the Brahmins. This grant was called as "Archana Bhogam" given for Puja. Certain amount of rice was calculated in proportion to the gold and the Brahmins had to  procure that amount of rice to offer to the deity, failing which they would be punished by the  Committee of the Village people (ஊர் வாரியப் பெரு மக்கள்)(8) 

 In yet another incident recorded in the temple of Karunambika in Avinasi, Coimbatore, the temple Brahmin who did not fulfil the stipulations of the grant was replaced by another Brahmin. (9)

Not all Brahmins were chosen for grants. Only qualified Brahmins were given grants. Similarly all the activities of the temple were given to only those persons whose integrity and ability to carry out the function was unimpeachable. Suppose some of them died or went on pilgrimage, their relatives could take up that function only if they were qualified for it. If no relatives were there, the persons identified by them (in the case of going on pilgrimages) were allowed to do the function. In the absence of this, qualified persons were recruited by the temple committee (10)

By and large, we do not come across any misuse of land grants given to Brahmins. From an incident recorded in a slab found in front of the Garbha griha of Parthasarathy Swamy at the temple in Triplicane, it comes to be known that the offering to the deity came down as the land was mortgaged in the 8^th century AD. The reason for this is not known. Since there is no mention of a reprimand or a replacement, it is assumed that the land was mortgaged for raising money for buying food offerings. The deputy of the King Danthi varman, restored the land and ensured the continuity of the offerings. The Brahmins named Sanga sarman, Saththi sarman and Ilaya saththi sarman were ordered to do the offerings. In case of shortfall, arrangements were made to get rice from some other lands. It was also stipulated that those failing to do these, would be punished.  (11)

There were instances of another type of land which were bought by the people as KaaNi aatchi (காணியாட்சி). It was not a donation, but a right over lands meant for temple use. The right could be purchased from the Government by paying a price for it. However this also came with a commitment to supply stipulated amounts of paddy to the temple. This right was purchased by many which included Brahmins also. In the event of not fulfilling the commitment, the right could be sold to another who would however continue the commitment to supply paddy. This right was available to others also. Brahmins were not solely enjoying this right.

Thus wherever we see in the past, there was no special privilege to the Brahmins. They were responsible for the worship of offerings made to the deity. All the activities of the village or Mangalam were temple- centric. The temple was the prime owner of lands that brought to it good amount of cultivated products. This was used during times of famine. An inscription at Thakkolam shows that there was a committee called "Panja vaara vaariyam" (பஞ்சவார வாரியம்) which was given the responsibility of distributing the grains to the people during times of famine. (12) Yet another inscription shows that the "Panjavaara vOoriduvari" (பஞ்சவாரவூரிடுவரி) committee was rested with the responsibility to undertake measures of redress during times of famine. (13) This is a remarkable feature of the administrative system in India which was well in place in Tamilnadu also. The temple based economy and administration made sure that no one was without food.

Another feature of this system was that every person living in the village had something to contribute as a means of employment. This made the entire village / town completely self dependant and self satisfied. In this way different jobs came into place which was judged by the British as inferior and superior. They categorized the people as castes based on the jobs they did at that time of enumeration by them. This categorization went to a ridiculous extent that the 1881 census recorded more than 3000 castes within Tamil speaking people of the Madras Presidency. But the fact of the matter was that all the people irrespective of whatever caste they belonged to were inter dependent on each other. The social system was such that there was give and take within each other. This included the Brahmin too whose services were needed by each household, for all the happenings right from birth to death and on all festival days. This inter-dependence was well preserved in such a way that when a migration took place, the entire community comprising of these people including the Brahmins migrated together. This kind of social structure and contended life of all the people existed even as late as the beginning of the 20^th century when the Dravidianism cropped up.

The report of the 1901 census shows how this system of the village -centered economy hurt the British interests. The report confirms the existence of the village centric economy right from time immemorial - a facet of which was described above. The British found it difficult to break it until the beginning of the 20^th century. The self contentment of the villages was so strong that the British resorted to discrediting the Brahmins through which they achieved the break-up of the unity of the village community.

At first they targeted the Vedas and pushed in the Aryan invasion theory.

Then they attacked the Brahmins by projecting them as perpetrators of the Manuwadi system which was unknown to many including the Brahmins until then.

Whatever the Tamils could relate with Manu was the Manu neethi Chola who killed his own son as a punishment to him for having killed a calf.

By harping on Manuwadi and classifying people as castes – nearly 3300 castes among Tamil speaking people alone in the 1881 census, they succeeded in driving a wedge between Brahmins and others.

This made easy their job of demolishing the temple centric life of the people and with that, their involvement in Hinduism.

What they were doing with considerable difficulty was made easy by the Dravidian 'thinkers' who took up the triple responsibility of attacking Vedas, Brahmins and temples. What followed was a century of Dark age in Tamilnadu history.

Before going into how the Brahmin was attacked, let us take a look at what the Britishers wrote in the Census Report of 1901 on the until-then working system of traditional economy of India. (14)

From the Report on the Census of India, 1901.page 197
"Organisation of village industries.
     323. A peculiar feature of Indian rural life is the way in which each village is provided with a complete equipment of artizans and menials so that, until the recent introduction of western commodities, such as machine-made cloth, kerosine oil, umbrellas and the like, it was almost wholly self-supporting and independent. The subject is somewhat trite, but the following extract from Mr. Rose's Report presents some of the main facts in a new and interesting light:-
     "Under the old social system of these Provinces every tract, and, to a certain extent, every village, was a self-contained economic unit, in which were produced the simple manufactures required by the community. This system facilitated the development of a caste system based on hereditary occupation. Below the land-holding tribe, and subject to its authority, were the various sacerdotal, artizan and menial classes, which have more or less crystallized into castes and these classes were, economically and socially, closely dependent on the dominant tribes -who owned the land and controlled its allotment. These castes were all more or less servile, and were paid by a, share of the produce of the soil, or, more rarely, by fixed allowances in kind, cash payments being probably a very recent innovation. But the better classes among them were also assigned land for maintenance, and this system was especially fostered by the priestly groups, so much so that, according to Pathan custom, all Saiyads, all descendants of saints, and all descendants of mullahs of reputation for learning or sanctity are entitled to grants of free land called seri, the amount of the grant varying accord- ing to the degree of inherited sanctity. In precisely the same way to Bráhmans were given grants of land (sasan), varying in extent from a group of villages conferred by the State, to a mere plot granted by the village community or a section of it. The possession of such a grant conferred a high social status on the grantee, so that the Sasani, or beneficed, Brahman of the hills stands higher than those who hold no such grants. Similar grants were also made to any religious personage, or to a shrine or temple, and, by an extension of the same principle, to men of the artizan classes. These grants were alike in character and conferred no absolute right of ownership, the grantee having an inherent power to resume a grant if the purposes for which it was made were not fulfilled, but the grants varied in degree, those to shrines or sacred personages to all intents and purposes conferring a permanent right of possession hardly distinguishable from ownership, and those made to menials being wholly precarious.
The tenures thus conferred, whatever their precise legal nature, enabled the servile classes to eke out a living by cultivation, but it left them menials, or artizans, or priests as before, and custom forbade them to change their abode without the consent of the landholders. And if the dominant tribe migrated its dependent castes went with it, the Bráhmans of the tribe, its Bháts, Doms, and other menials migrating also, a custom which even now may be found in operation in many cases in the Chenáb Colony.
      "Thus each tribe, at least, if not each village, was, economically, a water-tight compart- ment, self-contained and independent of the outside world for the necessaries of life, but for commodities not obtainable within its own borders it depended on foreign sources of supply and on the outside castes such as the Labanas, or salt-traders, who formed no part of the tribal or village community. Thus there have never arisen, in this part of India, any great industries. Foreign trade, necessarily confined to the few large towns, was limited to superfluities or luxuries, and such industries as existed were necessarily on a small scale. Further, inasmuch as each community was absolutely independent, as far as necessaries were concerned, the few industries which supplied luxuries never became firmly rooted and have succumbed at the first breath of competition. Everywhere in our official literature one reads of struggling industries in the small towns, though fostered by intermittent official encouragement, dying of inanition. The causes seem obvious enough. Everything essential can be, and for the most is, made in the village or locality, so that there never is a demand for imported articles of ordinary make, those made by the village artizans, however inferior in quality, satisfying all requirements. In good seasons there is some demand for articles of a better class, but when times are bad that demand ceases, and the industry languishes. Thus the village industries alone are firmly established. If the crop is short, everyone from the landlord to the Chuhra, receives a diminished share, but small as the share may be, it is always forthcoming, whereas in the towns the artizan is the first to suffer in times of scarcity, and if the scarcity is prolonged, the urban industries are extinguished. But if, on the one hand, these industries are precarious, the village industries are firmly established and will probably die hard in the face of the increasing competition which menaces them."
(to be continued)
References:-

1.      Travancore Archeological series Vol 1

2.      Govinda puththur inscription. "எச்சில் எடுத்து எச்சில் மண்டலம்ன் செய்து கலம் சாம்பல் இடுவாள் ஒருத்திக்கு நிசதம் ... புடவை முதல்..."

3.      "காணியுடை சிவப்பிராமணன் காலற்று இது நம்முதா நமையில்…" (Kaalakaalesar temple, Kovil palayam, year 1293 AD)

4.      Kooram plates – line 78 ("இவ்வூர் பரமேச்சுர தடாகத்துக்குப் பாலாற்று நின்றும் தோண்டின பெரும் பிடுகு 'கால்'")

5.       'KalvettukaL kaattum kalaich soRkaL" page 90 and 91.

6.      "30 kalvettukaL" page 20, Karapureeswara temple in Walajabad during the reign of Parthivendra padman.

7.      "Thamil naattuk kalvettukal, 2004" page 216 and 217.

8.      Thirukkailayam udaiyaar thirukkOyil-"Thamil naattuk kalvettukaL 2004" page 8

9.      "Coimbatore maavattak kalvettukal – part 1" page 9 and 10. (இவர்கள் குடுக்க மாட்டாமை தண்டேசுரப் பெருவிலையாக இவர்கள் காணியுள்ளது அறவிலையாக எழுதிக் கொடுத்தமையில் இவர்கள் இப்படி செய்கையால் காணியுற விட்டமையில் இக்கொயிலுக்குக் காணியாளரை வேறேயிட்டுக் கொண்டு காணியாளரை வேறேயிட்டுக் கொண்டமைக்கு இப்படி செம்பிலும் சிலையுலும் வெட்டிக் கொள்வாராக.." )

10.  Rajarajeswaram Udayar temple, Tanjore.

11.  "30 kalvettukaL" page 1

12.  S.I.I., Vol. III, No 190.

13.  S.I.T.I., op.cit., p. 1458

14.  http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&record=1336

Is Hinduism a mighty Fortress of Brahmanism?

From

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012/03/mighty-fortress-of-brahmanism-dr-vijaya.html

 

The mighty fortress of Brahmanism' -- Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

March 16, 2012

' The mighty fortress of Brahmanism' is the phrase used by Monier Williams (author of the Sanskrit English Dictionary, 1899) to describe Hinduism. It is a mix of ignorance, hatred, fascination, racism and the desire to overcome this religion by an ignorant colonialist of the 19th century, but it sums up the general ignorance of the Christian West concerning Hinduism, very much like the seven blind men who tried to describe an elephant by touching one part of the animal and claiming that the particular part was indeed the elephant !The exact quote from Monier Williams is :

" When the walls of the mighty fortress of Brahmanism are encircled, undermined & finally stormed by the soldiers of the cross, the victory of Christianity must be signal and complete" ( Modern India and Indians, p.247).

His compatriot Max Mueller the Indologist saw the Rig Veda as the root of all the problems that needed to be resolved (in a private letter to his wife). Macaulay destroyed Hindu education in 1835 by replacing it with English education. He had confidently predicted that the Indians would in 30 years abandon their 'paganism.' Alas, for him, this did not happen. As early as the 12th century the Pope had been setting up councils to learn Indian languages so that the 'pagans', the 'infidels' could be converted to the true faith, Christianity.

The mission to destroy Hinduism would not/could not/ will not succeed simply because of their lack of understanding of the religion. It was not 'Brahmanism'. Even today, writers like Arundhati Roy mistakenly speak about the Brahmanic Hindu state. It is not Brahmanism, but the entire religious and social structure of Hinduism that originated with the Vedas and continued down the millenia. Its innate strengths could not be analysed or defeated. It was also held up by the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths. Thousands of Hindus lost their lives defending the sacred sites whether it was Somnath or the Ram temple at Ayodhya since 150 B.C. when the greek king Menander destroyed it. Hundreds of Hindus continue to lose their lives in Bangla Desh and Pakistan. Many brave the hostile atmosphere to continue to go to Amarnath and so on. As observed once by Belgian scholar Koenraad Elst there is a constant ongoing low level violence against Hindus through out India, which is not reported by the liberal media, which, however jumps up and down if even a single member of the minority communities is affected. Even P.N. Benjamin of the Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue ( a confirmed Christian by his own statements) has stated that the violence against the Christian community in Karnataka is exaggerated. It is rare and on a very small scale. Hindus have seldom initiated violence, it has in almost all instances been retaliatory. He was also talking about the incidents in Kandamahal when Swami Lakshmananda, the 80 year old Hindu sant was killed for having resisted the conversion activity of the Church in that region.

We are not talking aboout the barbarian invasions. Those are in a category by themselves.Attempts have been made since the time of the Nestorian Christians (7th & 8th centuries)who destroyed Hindu temples or the cruelty, murder and mayhem of the Goa Inquisition of the 17th century or the first Vatican Council in the 17th century which planned to destroy Hinduism. Journalist Kanchan Gupta has called for an apology from the Church, but none has been forthcoming and indeed the Church in India went ballistic when the topic was mentioned. Then came the Inculturationists (starting with Robert de Nobili in the 17th century)who tried to infiltrate the society by devious means and thus subvert the social and religious order, a process that still goes on under euphemistic titles such as interfaith dialogue (the present writer has written about this in previous articles). It has never been made clear as to why there should be an olive branch style dialogue from the Hindu side. There is lofty rhetoric such as 'understanding,' respect' etc. but again it is not clear why a tradition that has tolerated, even welcomed religious/ ethic groups into the country should tie themselves up in knots with such words and engage with a tradition that has been known for its conquest and violence. Then there is the covert and overt conversion activity by the Church and evangelists through force, fraud and bribery. Then there are the attempts by social groups and political groups to overcome Hinduism in various devious ways, but they too are not entirely successful.

The most recent assaults against the 'mighty fortress'(so called) is the encroachment by the state on Hindu temples and their jurisdiction. This began noticeably with the ascent to power of an Italian Catholic at the Centre. This too is an ongoing process, with temple lands being brazenly stolen as happened under Chief MinisterYS Reddy in Andhra Pradesh. Only the action by the Sadhu community stopped further incursions in Tirupati and so on. Last year witnessed the attempt to appropriate the wealth of the Padmanabhaswamy temple in Trivandrum under the rubric of legalisms. The immense wealth generated by the Sabarimala pilgrimage goes into the pockets of bureaucrats. The allied forces of the Communist- Congress- Islamic- Christian forces in Kerala are now seeking to further use state power to remove the traditional priests in temples from their jobs and replace them with their candidates. The ploy is to claim that this is being done in the interests of social justice. This claim must be seriously investigated.

On this occasion Hindu politicians have alas assisted in the enterprise in the mistaken notion that training non Brahmin priests is the right way to go. In principle this sounds good but extreme caution has to be exercised in proceeding with this project. This was first attempted in Tamil Nadu under the DMK regime and now is being experimented with in Kerala. The way to empower the non Brahmanic community (in the opinion of the present writer) is to provide them with economic prosperity, not throw out the existing Brahmin priests onto the streets. Careless meddling with temples is fraught with danger. The writer Tamizhchelvan has provided an incisive commentary on what happened in Tamil Nadu with the priests (archagas). He has provided some interesting statistics also.

" This 'All Caste Archagas' concept is a Christian ploy. They did the same in Tamil Nadu during the previous DMK regime, which passed a bill framing the 'All Caste Archagas Act'. That was a well crafted political stunt by the DMK regime in the name of 'social justice' (whatever that means).

We have different types of Temples in Tamil Nadu. They are the Agama Temples, Non-Agama Temples, Community Temples and Village Temples. The Agama Temples are the ancient ones which are built as per Agama Shastras and where the rituals are also conducted as per the Agama rules. Here the Sivacharyas (from Siva temples) and Bhattacharyas (from Vishnu temples) have been serving as traditional Archagas for centuries. The non Agama temples are those which are not built as per Agama Shastras and the Agama Shastras are not so strictly followed. The community temples are the ones built and owned by the various communities (castes) who mostly employ their own people as Poojaris. Some have opted for Brahmin poojaris. The Village Temples are mostly manned by Poojaris from the SC, BC, and MBC categories.

Barring the Agama Temples, in all other temples we have archagas from all castes employed for ages. "

(Comment on 'Swargeeya Madhavji's dream comes to reality' Haindava Keralam, 14/03/2012)


In that context, while social evils such as Untouchability (which scholars have placed as originating around three hundred years before the Christian era) can and is being eradicated, the preservation of ancient Hindu rituals by groups that are trained in carrying them out must be protected, and not treated as part of 'social reform'. MIXING UP the two enterprises is a sure recipe for disaster and will only please those elements in India who would like to see the end of Hinduism. Deracinated and secular Hindus must learn to distinguish between legitimate social reform and the endless ploys devised to destroy Hinduism.

Perhaps this requires that post colonial Hindus who have for so long been indoctrinated by the likes of Monier Williams, Max Mueller and Macaulay revisit the Vedas and the entire Hindu tradition. What has held the country together is Hinduism, not the mighty fortress of Brahmanism of Monier Williams's distorted imagination.

(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university. Her academic training has been in Philosophy, Literature, Political Science, Political Economy & History).

 

Were Brahmins bad? – a sequel to Karunanidhi’s hate-Brahmin speech. (Part-5)

Were Brahmins bad? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8,Part 9, Part 10  

A common perception even among scholars is that the Vedic Brahmins who were gifted with villages, enjoyed the lands as a kind of fiefdom for them. These villages were called as Chathur Vedi Mangalam. The Dravidian influence on the thought process of most people is such that you would not come across a writer or a speaker who would speak kindly of the Brahmins of Chathurvedi mangalam. This is the only place where the Brahmins were supposed to be in charge of the lands gifted to them by the kings. The Dravidian rationale holds that the Brahmins had complete control on the affairs of the people in these Mangalams under whom other caste-people suffered subjugation. But the existing records show a different picture.

The Chathur Vedi Mangalam was created by the kings to promote Vedic learning. It consisted of a group of villages. The activities of the Chathurvedi Mangalam were centered around a temple where the Brahmins conducted the worship. The main feature of the Chathur Vedi Mangalam was that it was exempted from paying taxes to the Government. But it did have its own Committee to raise money for the upkeep of all the activities in the Mangalam. This did not mean that the committee was all powerful and had the freedom to frame its rules. Right from the process of creating the Mangalam, till the last detail about its governance, every rule was framed by the Government. The Government's role did not stop with that. It continued to have a supervisory role on the way the Mangalam was managed.

This is the reason why we have more inscriptions on Chathurvedi mangalams than on general governance. The Government's rule in the country was fixed and therefore there was no need to write them on stones. But the extent of Chathur Vedi Mangalam, the rules governing them and the grants made to them were unique for each of them and therefore they had to be given in writing. Perhaps the availability of these rules on stone had made the Dravidian chauvinists think that Brahmins enjoyed special favours from the kings.

The fact was that the Brahmins of the Chathur vedi Mangalam did not control the entire area. Contrary to what the Dravidian thinkers have projected, the Maha Sabha (Grand Committee) of the Chathur Vedi was not an all-Brahmin committee. It had representation from different sections of the Mangalam. This is known from the inscription of Amani Narayana Chathur Vedi Mangalam. It says the Maha sabha consisted of the members of the Village committee (ஊர் வாரியப் பெரு மக்கள்), members of the Udhaaseena committee (உதாசீன வாரியம்), members of the committee in charge of Lakes, members of the committee in charge of fields, 200 elders and then only continues to mention Bhattars (Brahmins conducting worship in the temple) and Visishters  (விசிஷ்டர்) (1)

The hierarchy shows Brahmins coming in the end and not in the leading position. The Village elders had taken the prime position. Next came the Udhaaseena members who were mediators or Madhyasthas, having no stakes in the affairs of the proceedings. This nature of these people is known from the inscriptions found in Kaveri paakkam in Arakkonam area. (2). Next came the members of utility works in which a majority of the residents of the Mangalam had a stake. Then came the elders of the Mangalam. After that only the Bhattars were mentioned. The Visishters were those who were highly respected for their character and life style. The saintly people perhaps were called as Visishters. (3)

Even though the gifted lands were known as Chathur Vedi Mangalam, it did not mean that the entire land was owned by them. The villages of the Mangalam came under the jurisdiction of the committee of the Mangalam in which they had their representatives. All the affairs of the Mangalam were discussed and decided by this Maha Sabha in the presence of the elders and officials and duly carried out only after their approval. This is known from Udayarkudi inscriptions. (4)

Most importantly the proceedings of the Maha Sabha took place in the presence of a representative of the King. The King's representative in most occasions was a tax official and also one who carried King's orders on specifics.  In an instance recorded in the temple of Cholamadevi in Trichy, (11^th century CE), this official had overruled some of the decisions of the Committee of the Cholamadevi Chathur Vedi Mangalam and had them rewritten as per the King's orders. This decision was signed by the Madhyasthan of the village as a mediator between the committee and the King. (5) This shows that though the village was said to have been given to Brahmins – which most scholars think – the records show that the Brahmins did not have exclusive control over the committee and the committee too did not enjoy autonomy. The kings had not let off control over them.

The importance of the Madhyasthan in finalizing the decisions of the Maha Sabha can be ascertained from other inscriptions also. In the findings of Thirumal puram, the Madhyasthan is mentioned as "Nadu irukkai" (நடுவிருக்கை) the one who was seated in the middle or the centre. (6) Only those persons who have established their non partisan approach were appointed in the committee of Madhyasthan (Udhaaseena committee).The Madhyasthan negotiated between the members of the Maha Sabha to bring out the final decisions. He delivered the final decision which was recorded by the scribes. The names of these Madhyasthans as found in one of the inscriptions show that they were not and need not be Brahmins. There was the mention of one Annamalai, the Senapti of the Mangalam and one Ettik kula Srikavai mangala desan as Madhyasthans in the inscriptions of the Garbhapureesawar temple. (7) The decision also must carry the signature of the Madhyasthan as a stamp of authority. (Vanavan Maadevi Chathur Mangalam found in Ganga Jadadarar temple of Govinda puththur) (8)

There was "Naattaamai" (9) in those times – a name which continues even now in the rural side. He was the core member of the Grama sabha and supervised the land and tax issues. Perhaps the Madhyasthan who was also called as Nadu irukkai, could have come to be known as Naattaamai. From what we are seeing in the rural side, a Brahmin had never held the post of a Naattaamai.

The kings had a kind of obsession with the Chathur Vedi Mangalam. Kings of the same lineage and from other lineages too, who had conquered the region where the Chathur Vedi Mangalam was situated, held their sway on the Mangalam. The names of the Mangalam changed with the change of Kings perhaps to express their control over them. A prominent example can be seen in the case of Mani Mangalam in Kancheepuram. From the inscriptions of Raja Gopala Swamy temple, it comes to be known that Manimangalam was called as Lokamahadevi-chaturvedimangalam in the times of Rajakesari varman. It was renamed as Rajachulamani-chaturvedimangalam during the reigns of Rajadhiraja, Rajendra and Virarajendra I. After that it was known as Pandiyanai-irumadi-ven-kanda-Sola-chaturvedimangalam. During the reign of Rajaraja III, it was known as Gramasikhamani-chaturvedimangalam. (10)

This obsession with the Chathurvedi Mangalam could have been due to the fact that the Mangalam was excluded from paying taxes to the king. So a new king had to take a fresh look at the Mangalam once he assumed power and decide about that status. Another reason could have been that the Tamil kings of those days were fond of self boasting as seen in the numerous titles they had which they got written in their Meykeerthi (Prasasthi). The temple honours and pujas done by the Brahmins for their sake perhaps made them nurture the Mangalams.

An inscription to this effect is recorded in the Kailasanatha temple at Cholamadevi, Trichy. One Paranthakan Adhiththa Pidaariyaar, a kin of the king made a donation of gold with a condition that the interest from the donation must be used for the rituals conducted on the birth star of the king by singing his achievements (prasasthi). One Kalanju of gold from the interest must be paid to the person (Brahmin) who conducted the pooja. The remaining amount must be given to the other Bhattars (poojaris). If they fail to sing the prasasthi, none should be given the interest amount. (11)

At any time, the King had the power to change the composition of the Chathur Vedi Mangalam. He could secede a part of it and gift it to others. A record of this is found in the Thiruvalangadu copper plates which tells about a village called Palaiyanur separated from Singalantaka Chathur Vedi Mangalam and  gifted as a Deva daana to the temple at Thiruvalangadu. This shows that the king had a privilege of taking away lands form the Chathur Vedi Mangalams. This also shows that those Mangalams were not exclusive possessions of the Brahmins. A host of officials of the Kingdom were involved in the process of making this Devadaana. The village people also were involved.  The order was addressed to the headmen of the districts, the headmen of the brahmadeya villages and the residents (urar) of the devadana, showing that the entire society and not just Brahmins were involved. (12)  If the Chathur Vedi Mangalam was a possession of the Brahmins, this could not happen. It is a specious campaign promoted by Dravidian ideologists that Brahmins were a favored lot and that their writ was running high in the Chathur Vedi Mangalam. .

The hidden fact was that there was State control over the lands and grants to Brahmins and temples whereas no such State control was evident in the case of donations to Jains. What the government of today is doing to the Hindu religion was also there in the past. The lands were also given to the Jains. They were known as 'Devadaana paLLi-ch-chandham' (13). But there is NO instance of the Government (king) taking away a part of it or overseeing the Maha sabha of these lands. The lands were enjoyed by the Jains without any control from the Monarchy (government). But the Chathurvedi Mangalam and Devadaana donations were audited and controlled by the Government.

Though this discrepancy looks glaring, the probable reasons could be that such donations could have been small and sparing and that the kings had no keen interest in the affairs of the Jains. If they were really impressed with Jainism and were patrons of the Jains, their interaction with the Jains could have found way into the inscriptions. One of the fond theories of the Dravidian scholars of Tamil nadu has been that the Jains held sway on the kings and contributed significantly to the Tamil society. But the Kings had more interest in Hindu temples and Chathur Vedi Mangalams and were after the Vedic customs and Hindu practices for most times in the past. The importance to Jains is more of a projection by Tamil scholars who are prejudiced against the Brahmins.

(More on how Brahmins were not favored in the Mangalams and in land grants to be discussed in the next post)

References:-

(1)    A.R.E.,689 / 1904

"ஸ்வஸ்திஸ்ரீ கொப்பர கேசரி வற்மற்கு யாண்டு நாலாவது பழுவூர் கொட்ட்த்துக் காவதிப் பாக்கமாகிய அமனி நாராயண சதுர் வேதி மங்கலத்தில் வாட்டை ஊர் வாரியப் பெருமக்களும், உதாசீன வாரியப் பெரு மக்களும், (எ)ரி வாரியப் பெரு மக்களும், கழநி வாரியப் பெரு மக்களும், இருநூற்றுவப் பெருமக்களும், பட்டர்களும், விசிஷ்டர்களும் உள்ளிட்ட மஹாசபே"

(2)    S.I.I., Vol XIX, No. 84, and  S.I.I., Vol, XIII, No.307.

(3)    S.I.I., Vol.III, pt3,No 156

(4)    A.R.E. 556/1920

(5)    Thamiz naattuk kalvettugal" page 30

(6)    S.I.I., Vol.III,No 142

(7)    A.R.E. 688/1904

(8)    A.R.E. 168 / 1929

(9)    S.I.I., Vol 3, No 142

(10)http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_3/manimangalam.html

(11)"Thamiz naattuk kalvettugal" page 14

(12)http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_3/no_205a_aditya_ii_karikala.html

(13)S.I.I, Vol. III, No 128