Talk:Brahminical culture and Dravidians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
	This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Template:WikiProject India

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 October 2006. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn pending rewrite.

_

Contents 1 Image suggestion 2 Only Tamils are Dravidians? 3 move/merge/scope?? 4 Requested Move

_ The Page has been moved to this title with an intention to make its context clear. This article will soon be revised suitably

---Harishsubramanian 10:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

you changed the title. Your text still has the same fundamental confusion of Indo-Aryans and arya. This is all explained in Aryan and sub-articles. You are not only using Wikipedia to host an essay of yours, your essay even confuses fundamental concepts that are explained on Wikipedia already, in detail. If we would clean up your text, we would end up with the precise content of the articles we already have. Merge. dab (ᛏ) 13:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont confuse this subject with the Aryan invasion or migration theory which is something that happened much prior to an interaction in south India with representaives of Aryan Culture(who you may say have become indigenous to India by then, yet retain the name Aryans)

The word Brahmin is not synonymous with the word Aryan, but the former are seen as the living representatives of Aryan Culture.My earlier title indeed was a mistake, it could have been Indo-Aryan Culture and Tamils(an Indo-Aryan culture can come into existence only a long time after an Aryan migration), and I have therefore changed the title, in acceptance of my mistake. .Thus one cannot separate the two words -Aryan and Brahmin from each other, but one has to understand the difference in the two terms. Aryan Invasion is not the same as Brahminical influence on other cultures, but understanding the latter requires understanding of the former.

I agree this article is confusing for two reasons 1. The article needs improvement and standardisation 2. Readers who find this article similar to Aryan Invasion theory have insufficent knowledge of this whole subject,because they confuse the two aspects. This confusion is fairly widespread and thus it has also been mentioned in the article and the subject will continue to require a reference to Aryan Invasion theory.

I am certain that addressing the first aspect solves the confusion, but this in no way calls for deletion. Such an action will only be based on ignorance and lack of knowledege of different aspects to the term Aryan, Brahmin , Indian and Dravidian, all of which are different and yet subtly interlinked.One thing cannot be mentioned without reffering to the other.

I would like to know how the other article in anyway explains the relationship of Brahminical culture with Tamil Culture.It only talks about the Aryan invasion theory, and does not in anyway deal with 'Brahminical interaction with Tamil Culture', which took place much later than an actual Aryan migration or invasion. I honestly agree that The content may need to be revised but the article should exist beyond any doubt.

This is not intended to be an essay. It seeks to put forward the various theories that have been put forward by scholars and none of the points which have been mentioned are mine. I have mentioned the theories as proposed by scholars such as Koenrad elst, witzel, Neelakantha Shastri, Romila Thapar, periyar and I have also shown all the references and this article is most certainly neutral. These references will comprehensively prove my point.

--Harishsubramanian 07:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There is once again some misunderstanding here,

Dravidians and Hinduism is once again a wrong topic.

Hinduism just like the word paganism is an umbrella of faiths. Moreover brahminism is not the same as Hinduism nor Hinduism an exclusive Indo-Aryan faith. Nor is brahminism always denoting religion - take for instance a most certainly brahminic atheistic tradition - that of charvakas. A sect, if at there is one such contemporary faith,which is completely dravidian without any external influence, can still be hinduism. There is a lot of debate on what is hinduism and what is not, and that's a completly different topic. So I am moving back this, until a more appropriate title can be suggested, in this case Brahminism and Tamils,which is not the same as Aryan,nor is it exactly the same as Hinduism.

I have good reason to move this topic , as the term Hinduism is really one of the most ambiguous words to be ever coined, and moreover what is essentially dravidian may already be what is hinduism today.Hinduism for instance may not require people to subscribe to vedas or brahminical works and may consist of only the religious aspects of brahminical culture.

--Harishsubramanian 09:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some places where it has been required to cite the sources- 1. Claim of Dravidian leaders of an exclsuive origin of Tmails - This can be proved from the reference to writings of periya, as edited by veeramani

2. Brahmins have been patronizd by Hindu Rulers is a well recorded fact based on innumerable royal inscriptions on Hindu monuments,structures existing brahmin villages and also refer to the work K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India, New Delhi: OUP, 4th edition (1975) for further clarification on this.

3. The Subject of Tamil separtism and how leaders like Periyar, were influenced by the concept of pure dravidian culture can be gathered from his writings, once again mentioned in the quoted reference on periyar.

4. Th Topic Anti-Brahminism itself discussed this issue in detail with specific reference to Tamil Nadu. It is more than established that 'Anti-Brahminism' was a fact in Tamil Nadu, and the inspiration of this was the Dravidian race model. Please refer to the writings of Periyar.

5. How can the Anti-Brahminism in modern tamil nadu be justified, when most of the land resources,power , political leadership is in control of the non brahmins. In any case please refer to the politics of Aryan debate, as written by Koenraad elst for more facts on this.

I have now added the section on the evolution of Tamil Culture, with the influence of Brahminical Traditions. Tamil Brahmins is a different subject and does not address the other communities of tamilnad. The points I have mentioned are fairly well known to people familiar with tamil history. If some one can add reference in the meantime it would be helpful.

I also suggest that this article be moved back as Brahminical culture and Tamils.

This is because the word Dravidian is not synonmous with Tamil, and much of what is discussed in the article is with specific regard to Tamil Culture.

--Harishsubramanian 08:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image suggestion

This suggestion was made in the context of the earlier title Dravidians and hinduism.

This article if chosen to remain can make use of this image in the right side. It shows a pair of local deities in Ettayapuram in lying posture. Traditionally these deities were worshipped in this posture and were offered fowl and goats. I've witnessed the annual "carnival" a few times in my childhood. There are several temples hosting these deities - all nearly identical. About ten years though, they've pulled down one such temple and have installed stone idols in sitting posture along the lines of Shiva temples, on the advice of some "expert" who didn't want them to be in lying posture. Also, they've installed the navagrahas and have prohibited offering meat here because of that. Some village elders do grumble about that. I don't have primary sources now. But, I'll try to get a picture of the new version temple and if possible gather some newspaper clipping on this. That'll take some time though. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only Tamils are Dravidians?

A quick read of the article shows that the content treats Dravidians to be the same as Tamil people. Either change the title or we should include information about other Dravidian peoples. Whoever moved the earlier article to this title, please clarify what you mean by "Brahminical culture"? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's one of the numerous problems here. Before we had "Brahminical culture", we had "Aryan theory". The problem is that the author is himself confused about these terms. We should decide what this article is about and then move it to an appropriate title (it would have been less bother to delete and start from scratch, but there you have AfD these days) dab (ᛏ) 09:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of deleting this and starting from scratch unless someone comes up with a clear scope and an appropriate title. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Some or all the contents of this article may be encyclopaedic. But the way it has been stitched together into one article(this article) is questionable. Some of the contents of this article should go into Periyar, some into Tamil Brahmins, some into maybe Dravidian Politics of Tamil Nadu or just Politics of Tamil Nadu and some of it should just be trashed. And also, care should be taken not to equate Dravidian brahmins and Tamil brahmins. Well, here is the grey area. It is like this - while some may argue that anti-brahminism exists in all 'dravidian' states or maybe all over India, it has manifested itself 'notably' only in Tamil Nadu - in the politics of Tamil Nadu to be precise. Also, we have the other grey area where seldom do we have non-Tamilians calling themselves or even identifying themselves with a 'Dravidian race' though linguists have clubbed all 'Dravidian' states under one language group. What I mean is, from what I understand and have been led to believe, the 'Dravidian' politics of Tamil Nadu as engendered by Periyar and co is built on the premise that the brahmins of Tamil Nadu are actually 'Aryans' - a different race, though linguistically they are Dravidians. So the way I see it is, if we were to keep this article even with a new title, it would call for performing an elaborate surgery that will consume excruciating hours of many editors' time, I suggest this article be deleted and the contents find someplace else to go. My 2 cents. Sarvagnya 09:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As an Iyer, I find this article to be somewhat funny. My ancestors never migrated southward, they migrated only westward. The "Dravidian" race is little more than an invention of the British to further divide-and-rule, and nonsense spouted by Periyar doesnt need a megaphone.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many divergent views on the relationship between Tamil culture and Vedic culture in ancient India. What you have presented above is your view to which you are, of course, perfectly entitled, but it cannot possibly be the only view represented on Wikipedia.

I do think Sarvagnya's point is a good one. I remain concerned about what the scope of this article is. Is it intended to discuss the roots of the so-called "anti-Brahminical" sentiment in Tamil Nadu politics (in which case it belongs under Dravidian movement or Self-respect movement)? Or does it propose to discuss the role which Tamil Brahmins have played in Tamil society over the centuries (in which case it definitely belongs in Tamil Brahmins)? Or is it attempting to discuss the causes behind the rather significant changes in Tamil society between the Sangam and mediaeval periods (in which case it needs an article of its own, but shouldn't be restricted to "Brahminism")? At the moment, it seems to want to combine these very different issues into one article, something which I am not sure makes sense. -- Arvind 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You will find that view extremely commonplace among Iyers. Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And many more than just Iyers. But that still doesn't mean it is correct, or that it is the only view that should be represented here. "Race", incidentally is something of a strawman here, since Periyar's views don't reflect - and never reflected - the scholarly position on "Aryan" and "Dravidian", so arguing against Aryan and Dravidian races is quite beside the point. -- Arvind 09:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

indeed, we are here looking at a partisan position, or a popular misconception, or both, not at a scholarly viewpoint. dab (ᛏ) 09:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The South Indian groups are: Kannadas, Tamils, Telugus, and Malayalis. So Tamils are not the only "Dravidians" (read as South Indian).Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone has agreed that the title needs changing. What exactly is your point? -- Arvind 10:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] move/merge/scope??

I see Mgekelly has been bold and redirected Tamil brahmins here. However, if this is to be the article on Tamil brahmins (are there any non-Tamil Dravidian brahmins?), Tamil brahmins is the more natural title, or seeing that Tamil brahmins should probably redirect to Iyers (?), this should be Dravidian Brahminism or something (?? it still isn't clear if this article tries to be about ancient history, or about contemporary propaganda. If it is about history, treat scholarly sources, not propaganda. If it is about propaganda, discuss' propaganda as such, not as if it was part of some scholarly discourse). dab (ᛏ) 09:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that Tamil brahmins should not redirect here and be its own article. Similarly I think Tamil brahmins are not just Iyers, but even Iyengars. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. In this case:

{move|Tamil brahmins}. dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've listed it under Wikipedia:Requests for move. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move