Foundations of Anti-Caste Consciousness: Pandit Iyothee Thass, Tamil Buddhism, and the Marginalized in South India Gajendran Ayyathurai
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness: Pandit Iyothee Thass, Tamil Buddhism, and the Marginalized in South India Gajendran Ayyathurai Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2011 2010 Gajendran Ayyathurai All rights reserved Abstract Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness: Pandit Iyothee Thass, Tamil Buddhism, and the Marginalized in South India Gajendran Ayyathurai This dissertation is about an anti-caste movement among Dalits (the oppressed as untouchable) in South India, the Parayar. Since the late 19th century, members of this caste, and a few others from Tamil-speaking areas, have been choosing to convert to Buddhism based on conscience and conviction. This phenomenon of religious conversion-social transformation is this study’s focus. By combining archival research of Parayar’s writings among Tamil Buddhists, as these Parayar, settled in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, are called, I have attempted to understand this movement ethno-historically. In pre-colonial times, though the sub-continent’s societies were hierarchical, the hierarchies were fluid and varied: i.e., the high-low or self-other dichotomies were neither fixed nor based on a single principle. The most significant effect of the encounter of British Colonialism and India was to precipitate an unprecedented master-dichotomy of singular and absolute form of self and other, as colonizer and the colonized. This had three consequences. (a) India was itself seen as singular and served as the Self to the colonial Other in an absolute dichotomy; (b) the role of essentializing the Indian Self was assumed by the brahmin; (c) this in turn resulted in an internal dichotomy between the—brahmin—essential self and the—non- brahmin—non-essential other. The means chosen to fix this dichotomy was to nominate the non-essential other’s paradigmatic representation, the Dalit. I intend to read against the grain of the binary logic that was inaugurated at the moment of the colonial encounter by means of Tamil Buddhists’ oppositional, reconstructional, and representational discursive practices. Table of Contents Acknowledgments iv Dedication ix Introduction 1 Chapter One. Anti-caste Consciousness of the Self: Pandit C. Iyothee Thass and The Tamilan 18 Madras Mahajana Sabha –1892 22 Who is Human? 27 The Essential Principles which True Man Should Practice [sic] 28 Who are the Depressed, the Illiterate, and the Untouchables [sic] 34 “Saati” versus “Jati” 37 Who are Parayars? 41 Pseudo-brahmins’ Vedas [sic] 49 Repudiation of Brahmanical Practices and Institutions 58 Parayar Tolerance and Retribution 70 Polyphony of Opposition 73 Conclusion 82 Chapter Two. Reconstruction of the Self: Tamil Buddhists’ Self-Discovery and Authority 84 Nation as Beyond Caste and Religion 84 Indira Tesa Saritiram: Buddha as Indirar and Buddhists as Indiyar 88 Real Brahmin Vedic Details 100 i Parayars as Tamil Buddhists 107 The Buddhist Deities 118 Pongal, Deepavalli, and Karthikai as Buddhist Festivals 123 Buddhist Criticism of Mythic Characters, Medievalists, and Orientalists 127 The Census and the Indian Buddhists 133 Heteroglossia of Tamil Buddhists 140 Conclusion 147 Chapter Three. Representation of the Self: Staking Claims through Political, Economic, Cultural and Institutions 149 The Public Petition 1891 151 Brahmin Industrial Fund [sic] 156 The Non-caste Dravidian Industrials Limited 159 Indentured Labor and Repatriation 166 Land to the Tiller 175 Rejection of the Swadesis 180 Education, not for Degrees, but for Agriculture and Skills 186 Depressed Classes Category Rejected 192 Women of the Marginalized 195 Conclusion 212 Conclusion. Seeds of Emancipated Identity and Movements 213 Archival Sources 221 ii Bibliography of Published Sources 222 Note: For readability Tamil words have been transliterated, in lieu of diacritics. iii Acknowledgments This dissertation is, in fact, a foray into anti-caste studies. Whether I succeed in making a case convincingly or not, there are many who have made this worth the try. Foremost among them is Professor Nicholas Dirks. But for his interest in the theme I was planning to undertake upon my arrival at Columbia University––to follow the footsteps of Dr. Ambedkar after close to one hundred years––this research could not have been possible. Apart from learning immensely from his scholarship on the history of Tamil Nadu and caste in India, I will forever cherish the dignified relationship that I have had with Nick all these years at Columbia. My sincere thanks to him for all the support. I do not think that I could have shaped my writings, especially my dissertation, but for my mentor Professor Valentine Daniel. It is part of the Columbia anthropology lore that those who visit him have always enjoyed an enormous amount of his time at the cost of his own work. I am not an exception to this. Every time I left his office––many times very late at night––I left with a great feeling of not only grasping many things but also with the thought that he could see my struggles with methodologies problematic to those outside of the mainstream. This was largely due to his being generous with me in many ways. However, Professor Val never hesitated to point out, with hard-hitting frankness, what needed to be reworked in my writings. I can’t thank Val sir enough for all this. My defense committee members Partha Chatterjee, Sudipta Kaviraj, and Bernard Bate gave detailed observations, which have enriched my work significantly. Barney’s suggestions particularly helped me enormously to rework my dissertation. I am grateful to all of them. Needless to say, the unelaborated ideas and even the limitations that a reader may encounter in this work are all mine. iv My field visits in Tamil Nadu could not have been possible but for the help from some who were indispensable at many levels. Foremost among them are Professors Balamurugan and Armstrong. Despite their own workload and family commitments they found time to travel with me to build contacts and to participate in many meetings and programs in Tamil Nadu that have shaped my dissertation. Equally important were their spouses, Priya and Caroline respectively, whose observations and food gave me enormous strength to complete my work as I had planned. Tamil Nadu High Court lawyer Gauthaman was a fund of information and archival materials on Tamil Buddhists in South India. In fact, I would not have discovered Hubli but for Gauthaman’s insistence that I make this long trip to Karnataka to see links between the Tamil Buddhists, between generations and between distances. It is because of him that I could educate myself about the Hubli Buddhist Association (1924) and could interact with its leaders and members such as Kannambal Ammal, Suddhodhanan, Kamalanathan, Shanmugam, Kannamal, Tailor Gopal, Vajravelu, R. P. Munuswamy, Ghanasekaran Kannambal, Devraj, Maarimuthammal, Geetha, Purushothaman, Panneer, Ghanasekaran, Muthammal, Nagammal Natesan, Bangaramma, Prabavathi, and other women, men, and children who practice Tamil Buddhism today. I owe a lot to brother Gauthaman for convincing me that what I was into was on the right track. My meetings with many practitioners of anti-caste thought in South India were truly rewarding. In Tamil Nadu Erimali Rettinam warmly welcomed me to see his own publications Erimali (Volcano) and other materials that are of immense value in understanding the history of Tamils. Professor Thangavelu, who sadly passed away recently, strengthened me with his deep understanding of Tamil Nadu’s history and v by allowing me to see his students’ dissertations on caste and marginalized communities. Raj Gauthaman, X-ray Manickam, Pari Chezhiyan, Dayanandan, Anne, Sandru, Madurai Anbuselvam, Amaithi Arasu, Azhagiya Periyavan, Itu Peria Elutu D. Dharmaraj, A. Marx, Gautaman Sanna, Yakkan, Piralayan, Muthu, Ara, Scientist Sekar, Stalin Rajankam, Dalit Murasu Punithapandian, Azhaganantham, Krishnakumar of Thalapathi Krishnasami family, Rice Fields (Perambur) South Indian Buddhist Association Sugunan, Vellore Pournami DKS, Tirupatur Asothi Ammal and Kasinathan, Marques, and Kolar Gold Fields South Indian Buddhist Association Loganathan, Sakramallur Kuppamma, Karanai Sundaravelu and Panchacharam, Pondicherry Gokul Gandhinath, Gajendra Baskara, Kaliavardhan, and Kannan shared with me their own anti-caste observations and practices, and others. My sincere thanks to all of them. Research scholars Dr. Sundarababu, Dr. Selva, Dr. Jerome Samraj, Dr. Geetha, Dr. Bala, and Dr. Kokila engaged me with their ideas and materials on social movements against caste in various parts of Tamil Nadu. My heartfelt appreciation for all their camaraderie. Over the years Nakkeeran, Santhi. N.S, and their writer and soon-to-be- attorney daughter Barathi have extended affection and exchanged ideas that I hope find some resonance in this project. A. Anbu, the people’s conservator of forests in Tamil Nadu, by his uncompromising commitment to theories and practices of social transformation has moved me for many years now. At Columbia and thereafter Rupa Viswanath and Nathaniel Roberts have remained great comrades. Their thoughts helped my work at Columbia in crucial moments. vi Anu Rao was instrumental in my experimentation of ideas at the American Historical Association conference in New York and in other forums. My heartfelt thanks to her. Adriana Garriga-López, Ayça Çubukçu, Danielle Dinovelli-Lang, Khiara Bridges, Lisa Uperesa, Varuni Bhatia,