Ancient Tamil society

This is to answer the question whether Tamilians were ever a casteless society.

The ancient Tamilian social order was indeed without the castes associated with the varna system of Brahmanical Hinduism. But ancient Tamilian society had social divisions or classes based on work done (profession or vocation), for work is a natural criterion for individual / social identity anywhere in the world. There was, however, no claim by any class to divine descent as would be attributed to the four castes or varnas under the Brahmanical hierarchical social order. It was an inclusive social structure and certainly a more cohesive society without the forms of social distancing, segregation, contempt and exclusion associated with varnashramam. Birth was not a barrier to taking to any profession, though there is no denying that birth would endow one with advantages in knowledge / skill acquisition, even when education is not otherwise restricted.

The scholar T R Sesha Iyengar in his Dravidian India (1925) states categorically as follows:

The Aryan theory, that mankind is divided into four varnas or groups of
caste, such as Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra, was wholly foreign to the Southern Dravidians. Caste was non-existent. There is no reference to the term ‘sudra’ in the whole of the Tolkappiyam. In the words of Mr Manicka Naicker a transmutable, plastic, and barrierless professional distinction is all that is found in the work. The Tolkappiyam’s fourth class can never be identified with the degraded North Indian fourth class Sudra of any age. A caste system nearest to this can only be found in Dutt’s Rig Vedic castes. Manu’s compound castes cannot be gleaned the least in the Tolkappiyam. (p.180) (Note 1a)

Bhadriraju Krishnamurti in his Dravidian Languages (Cambridge University Press, 2003) says that Dravidians were scattered throughout the Indian subcontinent by the time Aryans entered India around 1500 BCE. It is certain that Dravidians were located in northwestern India, even as far as Afghanistan, by the time the Aryans entered the country around the middle of the second millennium BC. Rigvedic Sanskrit, the earliest form of Sanskrit known (c.1500BC), had over a dozen lexical items borrowed from Dravidian. The Dravidians were a highly civilized people, who lived in towns in tiled or terraced houses, with agriculture as the main occupation. They drew water from wells, tanks and lakes, and knew drainage. They also conducted trade by boat in the sea. But there are no reconstructible words for caste or caste names in the Dravidian languages of that age (p.21).

Ancient Tamilians identified themselves with kulams (குலம் ) which were occupation-related social groupings. Nowadays, at least in some communities that I know of, the kulam affiliation corresponds to family lineage or deity (kula deivam), thereby precluding marriages within the same kulam (as amongst the Chinese, a Lim, for instance, will have to marry someone other than a Lim, e.g. a Tan or Goh), unlike the endogamy of varnic castes (i.e. marrying only within a caste).

Sesha Iyengar further asserts:

“The influence of the Dravidians on the culture of India has been ignored, because the literature which records the development of the Hindu religion in India was the work of a hostile priesthood, whose only object was to magnify its own pretensions, and decry everything Dravidian. But the truth is that the Dravidians had already developed a civilization of their own, long before the Aryan civilization was transplanted into their midst. The division of society among the Tamils shows that they had emerged out of savagery at a remote period, and had enjoyed an orderly, peaceful, and settled form of government for centuries. Their civilization was more ancient than that of the Aryas; for among the latter the fighting men were next in rank to the priests, whereas among the Tamils, the farmers were next to the religious men, and the military class was below that of herdsmen and artisans." (p.119) (Note 1b)

M S Purnalingam Pillai’s Tamil Literature (1929) lists the social classes in ancient Tamil society as Arivar (scholars or ascetics), Ulavar (farmers), Ayar (shepherds), Vedduvar (hunters), Kannalar (smiths), Padaiadchier (soldiers), Valayar (fishermen) and Pulayar (tanners). (Note 2)

In the first division of ancient Tamil social classification were the Arivars, comprising the ascetic Anthanars or Aiyars (sages who have taken to ascetic life) and the scholarly Parppar (i.e. literally ‘those who look into books’ – and engaged in domestic / married life). Devaneya Pavanar in his The Primary Classical Language of the World (1966), says that the term Anthanar may, in some cases, be used collectively for both sub-divisions (Note 3). But this appellation would be later appropriated altogether by the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu as the creeping Aryan colonization tightened its grip on Tamil society with the ‘enticement’ of the gullible among the arasars (kings) (Note 4). It appears to be a case of ‘smothering by embrace’. It is likely that some of the Dravidian Anthanars were inducted into the ranks of the Aryan Brahmin caste that was embedding itself deeper into the host society (Note 5).

Ancient Tamil society was not aware of any divine mandate or karmic purpose to reserve education for any social group OR exclude any social group from education, contrary to the dictates of varnashramam. When Valluvar says: கற்க கசடறக் கற்பவை கற்றபின் நிற்க அதற்குத் தக (Let a man learn thoroughly whatever he may learn, and let his conduct be worthy of his learning), the message was not selectively targeted and was unqualified. It was meant for one and all. The right to education is not one to be earned by (type of) birth. Instead, education was seen as essential to make human birth right and wholesome. Take notice that this can spring only from a humanistic social philosophy and ethos, of which Valluvar was its greatest known exponent, NOT from a dehumanizing varnashramam which would be foisted later on the society to its enormous detriment. It was unfortunate that Manuvaatham ( மனுவாதம் ) or varnashramam eventually overpowered Kuraliyam ( குறளியம் - Kuralism).

Next in the social order was the Uzhavar (farmer), also called Vellalar and Karalar (lord of the floods and seasons). They formed the landed aristocracy of the country, which naturally equipped them for commerce, scholarship and kingship. Agriculture is given prominence in the Kural, but ranked lowly in the Manu’s social order (Note 6).

Tolkappiyam appears to reflect the change that Manuvaatham was already bringing about in the social order: it speaks of “four professional castes”, as Sesha Iyengar refers to them, viz. Anthanar, Arasar, Vanikar and Vellalar (Note 7). Even then learning is prescribed as a duty for all classes.

In short, the above is an outline of what is, in one sense, the earliest colonization of India stretching from the times that it was (primarily) a Dravidian civilization. There is an essential difference between this and subsequent waves of colonization or invasion: it’s the degree of assimilation of the intruders into the host society, to paraphrase a remark by the scholarly former Indian Prime Minister Narasimha Rao (late).

Note 1a:

"Aryans brought with them the old class distinctions seen in northern and central Europe, of Earls, Churls and thralls, with a fourth or priestly class super-imposed. The initial division of the population into Brahmins, or priests; Kshatriyar, or warriors; Vaisyar, or farmers and merchants; and Sudrar, or craftsmen, was elaborated in India into many subcastes, with outcastes, untouchables or sweepers added, but the basis of the caste system was imported."

- The living races of man, by Carlton S Coon, Jonathan Cape, London, 1968 (Chapt 7, Greater India) (quoted in Dr R Madhivanan’s Quotations on Tamil and Tamil Culture, 1981)

Note 1b:

Sir Nirad C Chaudhuri was described - in the citation for the award of the honorary Doctor of Letters by Oxford University in 1990 - as having had “interpreted Indian society and customs to us with great intellectual ability”. But he appears to be wholly ignorant of the heights of civilization reached by ancient (pre-Vedic) India. He writes in his Hinduism: a religion to live by (Oxford University Press, 1979) as follows:

“If the whole of Sanskrit literature, sacred or profane, makes one thing clear it is that there was one line no Hindu could cross, and that was the line which separated the Aryan in India from the non-Aryan. The two ethnic nouns even acquired moral connotations: to be Arya (Aryan) was to be noble and honourable, and to be Anarya (non-Aryan) was to be base and dishonourable. The non-Aryans were beyond the pale of Hindu society, and therefore untouchable. The Aryan Hindus regarded them with fear, hatred, contempt, disgust, but at times these feelings were mixed with some admiration for their physical strength, frankness, and joyousness. It is impossible even to imagine that with such pride of race as they always showed the Hindus would borrow anything from the non-Aryans to create their fully developed way of life. It is easier to believe that the Americans of the United States have created a new Christianity by borrowing ideas from the Red Indians, or that the Boers in South Africa have a religion which is a mixture of Christianity and the practices of the Zulus or Hottentots.”

It is astounding that so much bigotry is spouted by so learned a man. In contrast to his blinkered view of ancient Indian history is his narrative (in the same book) on the development of Hinduism after the ninth century:

Role of the South
“One very important aspect of the later development of Hinduism has finally to be noted. It is the part played in the process by south India from the ninth century onwards. From that time all the new speculation, exegesis, and movements originated virtually in the south. What had happened in the Gangetic plain to shift Hindu thinking to the south is not clear, but in any case religious life and thought seem to have become wholly static. On the other hand, the south created not only the philosophy of the Vedanta, but also a new religious feeling manifested both in Saivism and Vaishnavism. Another interesting aspect of the geographical shift is that in contrast with the north, where all the religious and philosophical texts had fictitious or eponymous authors, mostly the legendary sages, in the south these were composed by definite historical persons. The anonymity of Hinduism came to an end.

Naturally, this process was completed by the Muslim conquest, which destroyed the Hindu political and intellectual aristocracy in the north. Henceforth, in the south alongside of the Hindu political power, there also flourished the Hindu intellectual power. The task of maintaining Hinduism by exegesis was taken over by the scholars of the south, who might be likened to the Byzantine scholars who continued the study of Greek literature. The Vedas, the Upanishads, and all the major texts of Hinduism, including the Gita, found new commentators in the south, and it is the interpretations offered by these scholars which remain the most authoritative all over India. The only region in northern India where scholarly study of the Hindu philosophical and legal systems was continued was Bengal with the adjacent district of Mithila or the northern portion of Bihar." (p. 99)

Note 2:

Sesha Iyengar’s Dravidian India (1925):

…. Agriculture was practised by the Vellalas. From the higher kind of Vellalas, the major and the minor dynasties of kings were chosen. Next in rank to the Vellalas were the shepherds and huntsmen. Below these were the artisans such as goldsmiths, carpenters, potters, etc. After these came the military class, i.e. the Padaiachchier or the armed men. Last of all were the Valayar and Pulayar or the fishermen and scavengers respectively. The distinction of the four castes Brahma, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra observed by the Aryas did not exist among the Tamils. The expression ‘twice-born’, applied by the Aryans to those who were sanctified by the investiture of the sacred thread, was always used in ancient Tamil literature to denote only the Brahmans, and it is evident therefore that the Kshatriya and the Vaisya, who wore the sacred thread, were not known in Tamilakam.

based on Nedunalvadai :

… The science and practice of the fine arts were highly developed among the ancient Tamils. The study of music was an essential part of a liberal education. Dancing was cultivated as a fine art, and there were text-books already composed, in which rules were given in detail for the performance of the several kinds of dancing then in vogue. In the arts of painting and sculpture, the Tamils had acquired a considerable degree of proficiency. Figures of gods, men, and animals were painted with a variety of colours on the walls of private houses and public buildings, such as temples and palaces.

Dravidian Astronomy

Dr Maclean (‘Manual of Administration of the Madras Presidency’) observes, “The fishermen of the South, dependent on the moon’s phases for their operations early developed a primitive lunar computation of time. The agriculturists of the plains observed the seasons and the movements of the sun. The Tamils had a highly developed practical astronomy, before they were touched by Brahmanical influences, and their system still holds its ground in many respects. The Jovian cycle of five revolutions of Jupiter or sixty years, which regulates the chronology of the Tamilians, is no part of the Aryan system. The familiar period of twelve years for domestic events among the Tamils is similarly independent.” …… These remarks prove the independent origin of Dravidian astronomical science in South India, and hence should be borne in mind by scholars, when they contend that everything connected with astrology, astronomy, and time-measure in Tamil is from Sanskrit.

Dravidian Commerce

In the field of commerce, the activity of the ancient Dravidians has been equally striking. South India, the home of the Ancient Dravidians, was the heart and centre of the old world for ages. It was one of the foremost maritime countries, and was the mistress of the eastern seas…..

The Dravidians of South India were accustomed to the sea. They formed a large proportion of the sailors of the Indian Ocean. It is believed that regular maritime intercourse existed between South India and Western Asia even before the 8th century B.C. Various proofs have been adduced to establish the high antiquity of the maritime intercourse of South India with West Asia. The Dravidian speaking races of India traded with the Ancient Chaldeans, before the Vedic language found its way into India. Indian teak, was found in the ruins of Ur, and it must have reached there from India in the fourth millennium B.C., when it was the seaport of Babylon and the capital of the Sumerian kings. “This particular tree grows in Southern India where it advances close to the Malabar coast and nowhere else; there is none to the north of the Vindhya (vide Ragozin’s Vedic India).” This shows how advanced and enterprising were the Dravidians even as early as 4,000 years ago.

The Story of Joseph, who came to Egypt about 1700 B.C., is a notable evidence of the early caravan trade which, crossing Arabia, carried the merchandise of India to Egypt, Syria, and Babylonia. In the tombs, dating from the time of the 18th Dynasty of the Egyptian rulers which ended in 1462 B.C., were found mummies wrapped in Indian muslins. The Egyptians of those times, says Prof. Lassen, dyed cloth with indigo, and this vegetable product could have been obtained only from India at a time when the major portion of it was still non-Aryan……

Note 3:

மொழிஞாயிறு ஞா.தேவநேயப் பாவாணரின் 'திருக்குறள் தமிழ் மரபுரை' ( 2000 ):

ஆரியர் வருமுன் ஐயரென்றும் பார்ப்பாரென்றும் சொல்லப்பட்ட
இருவகையந்தணரும் தமிழரே. அவருள் முன்னவர் துறவியர்; பின்னவர் ஆசிரியர், புலவர், பண்டாரம், உவச்சர், குருக்கள், திருக்கள், நம்பியர், போற்றியர் எனப் பல்வேறு பெயர்பெற்ற இல்லறத்தார்.

What does the term “valluvar” ( வள்ளுவர் ) signify?

.....வள்ளுவர் என்பார் இன்றும் கணியராயிருந்து வருவதனாலும், பண்டை வள்ளுவனும் கணியம் அறிந்தவனே என்று கருத இடமுண்டு. நாள்கோள்களின் இயக்கத்தையறிந்து ஐந்திறம் (பஞ்சாங்கம்) வகுத்தற்கும் அரசர்க்குப் பிறப்பியம் (சாதகம்)
எழுதுதற்கும் நுண்மாண் நுழைமதி வேண்டியிருத்தலின், கணியருள் ஒரு பிரிவார் வள்ளுவர் எனப்பட்டதாகத் தெரிகின்றது. (ப. 25)

Note 4:

One cannot cease wondering how a civilization / tradition of such profundity (Kural is enough as a sampler) and antiquity was hijacked by so few with such ease and finesse. A more recent example would be the manner in which a few thousand British officers took over India and lorded over her 300 million people, including our cerebral ‘twice-borns’, for so long. Now, more than half a century after independence (from British colonial rule), it takes a Dr Rice to offer – on behalf of the United States - to build India into a super-power in the 21st century, apparently to check, if not match, China which has already made it by its own effort.

Note 5:

It is the ‘chanakyam’ (ploy) of embracing out of existence, ELSE squeezing or hounding out. Some scholars like Pavanar believe that Thiruvalluvar was hounded out of the king’s court (as Thirukkural was, in effect, his salvo against varnashramam) :

மொழிஞாயிறு ஞா.தேவநேயப் பாவாணரின் 'திருக்குறள் தமிழ் மரபுரை' ( 2000 ):

……. அவர் (திருவள்ளுவர்) நூல் ஆரியத்தை வன்மையாகக் கண்டிப்பதால், அது இயற்றப்பெற்றபின் பிராமணர் கிளர்ச்சியாலும்....... அவர் தம் பதவியை இழந்திருக்க வேண்டும். அதன்பின், அவர் நெடுந்தொலைவிலுள்ள மயிலை சென்று நெசவுத் தொழிலை மேற்கொண்டிருக்கலாம். அல்லாக்கால் ஏலேலேசிங்கன் தொடர்பிற்கும், பட்டப்பகலில் நெசவுக்குழலைத் தேட வாசுகி யம்மையார் தம் கணவர் சொற்படி விளக்குக் கொண்டுவந்தார்
என்னும் கதைக்கும் இடமில்லை (ப. 33) ......

திருவள்ளுவர் காலத்தில் ஆரியம் வேரூன்றிவிட்டது. நிறம் பற்றிய நால்வகை வரணப்பாகுபாடும் புகுத்தப்பட்டுவிட்டது. தமிழரெல்லாரும் பிராமணருக்குத் தாழ்ந்தவராயினர். பார்ப்பாரென்று சொல்லப்பட்ட இல்வாழ்க்கைப் பிராமணரும் தம்மை அந்தணரென்று கூறிக் கொண்டனர். தொழில்பற்றி யேற்பட்ட குலங்களும் பிறப்புப் பற்றிப் பெயர் பெறலாயின .....மூவேந்தரும் மன்னர் சிலரும் ஆரியச்சார்பாயிருந்ததினால் பிராமணியத்தைக் கண்டிக்க எவருக்கும் வாயில்லாமற் போயிற்று. அதனாற் புலவரும் அடிமையராயினர். பிராமணர் தெய்வப் பிறப்பினர் என்னுங் கருத்து தமிழருக்குள் வளர்ந்து வந்தது. அதனால் வடசொற்கள் மறையவும் புதுத் தமிழ்ச் சொற்கள் தோன்றாதிருக்கவும், வழிவகுக்கப்பட்டது. (ப. 35)

An etymological explanation of the word ‘Brahman’ or ‘Brahmin”:

The Sanskrit word derives from the Dravidian radix par meaning "eye" or "seer", just as does the radix kan. The radix par also implies the idea of "guardian" or "shepherd" (Drav. para = Skt. pala), as well as that of "father"(pappan) and, hence, of "priest".

(appears to be based on A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary of T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau (Oxford, 1984) – to be verified.)

I recall reading a report some time ago that talked about how the Brahmin priesthood, during more recent times, penetrated a mountainous tribe in Central India by winning over the chieftain by holding out the prospect of absorbing him into the caste structure, complete with a fit-to-measure storyline to make out a Kshatriya lineage, thus effectively ‘detaching’ him and his extended family from his own people. I hope to locate the report and post it here.

Note 6:

Sesha Iyengar’s Dravidian India (1925):

….. The names of Marutham, the land where paddy and other grains are cultivated with the aid of irrigation, and of paddy, nel, are Dravidian terms. The term paddy was not known to the Aryans at the time of their first appearance (in India). Sir John Hewitt in his treatise on The Pre-historic Ruling Races says that the Dravidians were of all the great races of antiquity the first to systematize agriculture. Archaeology also confirms the evidence obtained from tradition, literature, and language as regards the acquaintance of the ancient Tamils with agriculture. The labours of Alexander Rea, M.J. Walhouse, Captain Newbold, Colonel Branfill, Burgess, Caldwell, R.B. Foote, R. Sewell, and other distinguished archaeologists have made us familiar with the existence of monuments such as rude stone circles, cromlechs, dolmens, menhirs, Kistvaens, urns, Tumuli, and Pandukulies at Adichanallur, Perumbair, Coimbatore, Pallavaram, Palmanir, Kollur near Tirukovilur, and many other places in South India. It is affirmed that the people, who use these burial urns, must have been an agricultural race, as brass and iron implements of agriculture were often found buried in their graves.

The Dravidians had made much progess in the industrial arts. They worked in metals. The Dravidian name for a smith, karuma, from which the vedic Karmara is probably borrowed, meant a smelter. Their artificers made ornaments of gold, pearls, and of precious stones for their kings. The explorations of the Hyderabad Archaeological Society have brought to light pottery with incised marks resembling those of Minoan Crete. The Adichanallur remains, we have already indicated, consisted of bronze figures of a variety of domestic animals and of fillets of gold beaten very thin. These afford conclusive proof of the artistic development of the Dravidian races in pre-historic times…..

Note 7:

Sesha Iyengar’s Dravidian India (1925) lists out the duties of the four classes as stated in Tolkappiyam:

Anthanar or Parpar (Brahmans): learning, teaching, sacrificing, officiating at sacrifices, giving alms, and receiving alms.

Arasar (King): learning, sacrificing, giving alms, protecting the people, crushing the wicked.

Vanikar (merchants): learning, sacrificing, giving alms, cultivation, trade, and tending cattle.

Vellalar: divided into two classes, the higher and the lower.
The duties of the higher type of Vellalars are learning, sacrificing, giving alms, cultivating lands, trade, and tending cattle, while those of the lower type of Vellalars are learning (excepting the Vedas), giving alms, cultivating lands, tending cattle, trade, and services to others.

Only certain duties were special to each class. The higher Vellalars and the merchant class had at first the same duties to perform, even though in actual practice each class specialized in one walk of life. The merchant class attended to commercial matters. The attention of the higher Vellalas was absorbed by high matters of state. They could enter into vocations allotted to the upper three classes. Nachchinarkiniar states that Vellalas could give their girls in marriage to those of the kingly class, serve in the army as commanders, and could become kings of the second class, and be called ‘Arasu” and 'Vel’ (Kurunilamannar). The Vellalas occupied a high position during the days of Tolkappiyar. In the words of Tiruvalluvar, the author of the Kural, they constituted the noble heritage of a nation.

Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com