The origin of Brahmanism, Caste and Riddles in Hinduism

 

The Brahmins wrote contradictory statements about the origin of Gods and their supremacy, about the Vedas and its origin, about the creation of Universe etc (Ref: RIDDLE IN HINDUISM – By Dr.B.R.Ambedkar). Why did they do so?

 

The guardian of Buddhism, the Mauryan Empire was brought down and Buddhism was demolished. There was chaos through out India.

It was the beginning of Brahmanism. So each one of the Brahmin philosophers tried to propose his own theory on creation.

For example during the 19 and 20 century AD, when Physics was born, with the discovery of atoms, electron proton, neutron and sub-atomic particles, there were so many theories that tried to explain atoms and the sub-atomic particles, e.g. the Nucleus theory, Dalton atomic theory, Quantum theory etc. Some of these theories were contradictory to one-another and some aided one-another. This happened with Brahmanism. This was the period, after 185 B.C, when Buddhism collapsed in India by a revolution and Brahmins were trying to introduce a new system with a new Political and religious Philosophy. Hence initially the Brahmins tried to use the Vedas as their basis and started to propose new theories about the creation of Universe and the God who created it. So there were so many conflicting and aiding theories. But this did not give a satisfactory explanation. So then they started writing the Upanishads attacking the Vedas and claiming they are inferior to the Upanishads and proposed new theories. This also did not work out. Then there were new proposals in the name of Smrithis. So in the name of Manu Smrithi, Sumati Bharagava wrote a set of rules (like a constitution) and made that as the final authority (Manu Smriti was written by Sumati Bharagava after 185 B.C. i.e. after the Revolution of Pushyamitra by Killing the Buddhist Mauryan Emperor Brihadratha – Based on Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India, Chapter 6: The Literature of Brahminism). This one got accepted and implemented by the then rulers of that time (Most probably by the Guptas between 2nd to 4th century AD and started spreading gradually through India over the next 1500 years with resistance and counter-resistance). The outcome of this is the 4 + 1 class system (Note: Earlier the Aryans had only a 3 class system). Brahmins held their position no matter, which Kingdom/dynasty came to power through the immunity given in the Manu Smrithy. The Kings who accepted the system were absorbed as Ksathrias itself as long as they were in power. The rich Businessmen were also absorbed as Vaisyas. All other classes were included in a new class called the Sudras. The ones that did not accept the system plus the Kings and his soldiers that were defeated in war were ex-communicated and ostracized from cities and towns and were gradually made untouchables.

 

            As the system started growing the Brahmins and their supporters wrote more and more stories (e.g. addition of Bhagawat Gita to the Mahabharata, elevation of Rama as an avathar of Lord Vishnu, contradictory and unfitting avathars, of Lord Vishnu, like Balarama and Parasurama during the same time as Krishna) to aid and support their system and added them to the existing pre-Vedic, pre-Brahmanism literature that people knew about like the Bharatha (to be renamed Mahabharata), Ramayana etc. But also to hold their position the Brahmins had to be flexible enough to praise and raise the God of the King that ruled. Hence if the King was a devotee of Lord Vishnu, the Brahmins wrote stories in high praise of Lord Vishnu and degraded the other Gods, similarly if the King was a devotee of Lord Shiva, the Brahmins wrote stories in high praise of Lord Shiva and degraded the other Gods, similarly if the King was a devotee of Goddess Kali, the Brahmins wrote stories in high praise of Goddess Kali and degraded the other Gods. This is the reason there are numerous conflicting ideas about the supremacy of various Gods in Hinduism.

 

NOTE: According to Tolgapeeam – a Sangam Tamil literature that describes the life and state of affairs in ancient Tamil Country (Like an Encylopedia of that time) the land was classified into four major regions – Marutham – Plain lands and agricultural fields that comprised most of the Urban civilization, Mullai – Forest and settlements surrounding Forests, Kurunchi – Mountains and settlements surrounding Mountaneous region, Neythal – Seashore, Sea and settlements surrounding the seashores.

The God for Marutham was Indran

The God for Mullai was Thirumal (Lord Vishnu)

The God for Kurunchi was Murugan (Lord Karthik)

The God for Neythal was Varunan

 

The people in the 4 regions were considered as stable settlers.

 

All four Gods among other Gods were described as Mallas.

Later one more region was added as Palai – Desert region.

The God for Palai was Kotravai or Kali.

The people who wandered in the deserts were robbers and did not have stable settlement. As the men of these robbery tribes always wandered they did not have families.

These robbers looted people travelling outside the 4 regions and killed the male travellers most often and sacrificed these travellers to their Godess Kali.  These robbers took the female travellers and had sex and left them. The children born to these robbers and raped women were raised by females. So usually a female is the head of a group or tribe. Hence they had female Godess named Kali.

At some point in time one of the robbery tribe should have gained power and established a Kingdom. The Brahamins who served this Kingdom performed pujas for the Godess of this Kingdom - Kali and later equated Kali to the wife of Lord Shiva.

 

 

The evolution of the concept: ‘Work by Birth’ in Brahmanism.

 

Now a days, we know there are certain inert characteristics of each individual. Say some never seem to get tired and seem to work all the time, some take short breaks between works. Some take long rest and suddenly erupt into massive burst of speed intensive work and then go back to rest for long duration, some have specific talents on specific engineering tasks, some have specific talent as surgeon etc that we call as natural. (This may be attributed to the Sun signs e.g. Aries have certain traits, Taurus have certain traits, Cancer have certain traits etc)

The ancient Indians were aware of this. So at the time of birth astrologers tell the child’s parents of what the newborn will become to be and what special talents it will have so that the parents can nurture those fields that the child is supposed to naturally possess and become an expert in it. (There are numerous examples of these incidents in ancient Indian stories, e.g. Astrologers said Siddhartha would become King of Kings if took interest in warfare or will become a Buddha, a great teacher if he took interest in Philosophy. The Sangam age Tamil Poet Elango (born to Chera King) to become much famous than his elder brother Senguttavan. Thinking that Elanglo may become powerful than his elder brother as a king to become famous and hence to avoid a war within the family, Elango choose to become a Jain Monk and wrote the Tamil poem Silapathigaraam and became very famous). So ancient Indians believed that a person had a natural talent for a specific field and was destined to go to that field. This is what they specified by birth a person was destined to become. In the case of Vashista and Vishwamitra this was the conflict. Vashista was talented to become a sage and became a sage. Vishwamitra was already a King so as a child he was supposed to be destined to be a King. But when Vishwamitra saw the magic / mantric powers of Vashista, Vishwamitra also wanted to learn those magic / mantric powers and approached Vashista to teach him. But as Vashista believed that the natural talents of each individual was pre-destined / determined during the time of birth, Vashista told Vishwamitra that by birth Vishwamitra was destined to be a King and not a sage and hence cannot learn those tricks / mantras and refused to teach Vishwamitra (with the belief of natural talents by birth). Vishwamitra out of great curiosity and will learned the tricks elsewhere and proved to be a great sage with great power. This shattered the belief of Vashista and hence there were numerous stories about the conflict between Vashista and Vishwamitra. But the Brahmins during the evolution and rise of Brahmanism were looking into the Vedic stories to get their theories, as mentioned earlier, misinterpreted / misrepresented the concept of by birth (natural) talents and wrote that each person was destined to specific work when they were born (by birth), but instead of taking into account the natural talents took parentage (to whom the child was born) to mean by birth and wrote a child born to a Brahmin should work like a Brahmin (Priest), a child born to a King should become a King, a child born to a Merchant should work as a Merchant and a child born to a worker should work as a worker(Sudra). This concept very well helped the King as well to very easily make his sons as the next King without outside competition, similarly for the aristocrats to hold the position for their sons in the Kings court without difficulty. Hence the concept was well received by the King and rich to spread the concept of Brahmanism. (Note: In ancient India Democracy was well established. E.g. Within Koshlas – clan of Buddha, the King was selected from a round robin among a group of Chiefs for a specific tenure. The Mallas at the time of Buddha had democracy, Perumal was elected as the King for a period of 12 years from the chiefs of group of villages, When a King dies before his tenure, the new King was selected using the Chief King Temple Elephant from public – The Elephant was taken in procession from the King’s Temple with a garland in its trunk. Whom ever the Elephant places the garland on, becomes the next King). With the adoption of Brahmanism, the Kings had a secure way of making his son as the next King and very happily adopted Brahmanism, which gradually led to the strict enforcement of tight caste compartments and prevented anyone from switching profession.

 

What Brahminism did to India?

 

  1. Destroyed democracy in India
  2. Removed equality for women
  3. Prevented Philosophy and Science from developing.
  4. Divided people from socializing.
  5. Made life a misery to most of the population.

 

 

 

In ancient India Dravidians did not have caste or Varna but there were many tribes and the people were identified by the individual tribal names. Tamil was the major language throughout India and most civilized Indian (at that time Dravidians) spoke Tamil (Damita). The old Tamil Scripture was completely different than the current Tamil Scripts. (Note: Costanzo Giuseppe Beschi (1680-1746), later called as Veera-ma-munivar, an Italian Jesuit missionary learned Tamil and formed the current Tamil letters to make it easier to write).

 

( Note: The original Vedas might have been writen in Tamil or similar Dravidian language. The original Vedas did not specify about caste. They are collection of songs praising their King – Indra and sang the then state of affairs. The Upanishads, Sastras and Smrithis including the Manu Smrithi were written in Classical Sanskrit after the Mauryan Era. The German historian Max Muller and English historian James Mill saw the similarity in syntax and vocabulary between Classical Sanskrit and Greek and Latin and tied that to the language of the Vedas and called it Vedic Sanskrit to give a superiority link to the Greek and Europeans and a so called Aryan civilization. The so-called Vedic Sanskrit is completely different from Classical Sanskrit and has no connection. Max Muller called the language of the Vedas as Vedic Sanskrit and gave an artificial connection between the original Vedas and Classical Sanskrit that was developed after the Maurian Era.)

 

In Ancient Tamil Literature Aryans were called as Mlecchas – meaning uncivilized and the ones that did not learn the Tamil Language well.

The arrival of Greeks and other Central Asian settlers to India brought the concept of slaves and class division to India. Thus the Aryans brought /made the 3 class system in line with Plato’s ideas of an egalitarian society. Thus before Ashoka converted to Buddhism there were only 3 classes (Varnas – Kings, Priests and Merchants) among the Aryans. After Ashoka converted to Buddhism, Buddhism was dominant in most / major parts of India for about 300 years under the Mauryan Empire. Hence the followers of the 3-class system lost their relevance and were becoming out of place in dominantly Buddhist society. This prompted them to plan an attack on Buddhism and took extreme measures. One of the Commanders of the Buddhist Mauryan Emperor Brihadratha murdered him and took measures to prevent Buddhism from coming back. As it is common to form a new constitution, adopt a new language with the formation of a new nation (especially when the new nation is formed out of hatred for an existing nation), a new language was formed which was classical Sanskrit. A new constituition evolved in the form of Smrithis. The new language called as Sanskrit was used to write the Upanishads, Sastras and Smrithis and to rewrite MahaBaratha and Ramayana to suite the needs of the new formed order that was called Brahamanism. The Guptas were the pioneers to adopt and propage Brahamanism, Sanskrit and the new Constitution – that was later called the Manu Smrithi. The people that did not adopt Brahamanism were termed as Vrathyas (Meaning Ignoble) and were made gradually as UNTOUCHABLES over a span of several centuries as and when opportunities arouse to subdue the so-called Vrathyas.  The Kings, Priest and Merchants that adopted Brahamanism were absorbed as Ksatryas, Brahamins and Vaysyas. The commoners that lived in those Kingdoms that adopted Brahamanism were termed as Sudras and were used as workers of various types. The Kings that opposed Brahamanism and refused to accept the class system and refused to accept Brahamins as their advisors were ex-communicated and when these kingdoms fell from power the people inthose Kingdoms that adopted Brahamanism were absorbed as Sudras and the people that still opposed Brahamanism were made as UNTOUCHABLES.

 

 

 

 

(From  

Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India,

Chapter 12: Shudras and the Counter-Revolution – By Dr.B.R.Ambedkar)

 

“…history shows that the two dynasties which preceded Manu were dynasties of Shudras Kings. The Nandas who ruled from B.C.413 to B.C. 322  were Shudras. The mauryas who succeded the Nandas and who ruled from 322 B.C, to 183 B.C.  were also Shudras. What more glaring piece of evidence can there be to show the high dignity enjoyed by the Shudra than to point to the case of Asoka who was not merely the Emperor of India but a Shudra and his Empire was the Empire built by the Shudras.”

 

 

Some of the rules of Manu Smrithi (From The 1936 Annual Conference of
the Jat-Pat-Todak-Mandal of Lahore -
Annihilation of Caste, Section XXII – By Dr.B.R.Ambedkar)

 

1.      Rationalism as a canon of interpreting the Vedas and Smritis is absolutely condemned. It is regarded to be as wicked as atheism and the punishment provided for it is ex-communication.

 (The following within the parenthesis is written by the author for clarity: After the downfall of Mauryan Buddists Empire, those who accepted the Vedas and Smritis were included as Sudras as explained earlier. Those Buddists and others who questioned the Vedas and Smritis were ex-communicated according to this Manu’s rule and gradually became Untouchables – This was one way. The other way to ex-communication and gradually to Untouchability was when a King and his army lose in war and did not accept the new order. The ones that accepted were absorbed as Sudras)

 

2.      When there was conflict and contradiction between the rules of different Smriti then only the Manu Smriti must be used.

3.      Not to follow even God in their good deeds, if they are contrary to the rules of Shurti, Smriti and Sadachar!

 

 

From "Riddle In Hinduism, RIDDLE NO. 11, WHY DID THE BRAHMINS MAKE THE HINDU GODS SUFFER TO RISE AND FALL?"

...

Let us take the case of Shiva.That Shiva was originally an Anti-Vedic God is abundently clear. The following two incidents recorded in the Bhagvata Purana (and also in the Mahabharata) throw a flood of light on the subject. The first incident shows how enmity arose between Shiva and his father-in-law Daksha...

 

 

Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India, CHAPTER 9, Essays on the Bhagwat Gita: Philosophic Defence of Counter-Revolution: Krishna and His Gita,

IV,

According to astronomical calculations, the date when the Uttarayana should start with the Sun in the Dhanistha constellation to about 1,500 years before the Saka era; and according to astronomical calculations, it takes about a thousand years for the Uttarayana to start one constellation earlier. According to this calculation, the date when the Uttarayana ought to start with the Sun in the Shravana constellation comes to about 500 years before the Saka era. This conculsion would have been proper if it was true that the Mahabharata was one whole piece, written at one time by one author. It has, however, been shown that there is no warrant for such an assumption. In view of this Mr. Tilak's astroncomical evidence cannot be used to determine the date of the Mahabharata. It cam be used only to determine the date of that part of the Mahabharata which is affected by it—in this case the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata…

 

All that one can say is that the Mahabharata was composed between 400B.C. to 400A.D

 

 

Note:

 

Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu were worshipped in India before pre-vedic period and even before 1500 B.C

 

The Bhagawat Gita has 4 philosophies that are contradictory to one-another. According to the original Bharata, Krishna reasoned Arjuna to fight. But according to Mahabaratha – rewritten during rise of Brahmanism, Bhagawat Gita was included into it as a means to justify various theories of Brahmanism. Moreover Krishna pleaded Arjuna to fight at the Battlefield were the armies have assembled and ready to fight – not in a home or some place before the armies were assembled to fight. So at the maximum Krishan could have advised Arjuna for a few minutes to few hours. But given the length of the Bhagawat Gita, it would have taken months for Krishna to tell that to Arjuna, and was realistically not possible in a battlefield. For more details review the references given below.

 

Also according to Ramayana, Rama did not know he was an avatar of Lord Vishnu till the end of Ramayana when he ousted Sita out of suspicion of adultery and Gods appeared and explained to him that he was an avatar of Lord Vishnu.

 

 

CLARIFICATION

 

The writtings of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar gives lot of information about ancient India, Buddhism, Brahminism, orgins of Untouchability.

But with the new information and light on history, some of the assumptions and theories put forth by Dr. B.R.Ambedkar seem to be wrong or slightly different from history. Most of the research work used by Dr. B.R.Ambedkar was from English Translations of Ancient literature and Hindi. Moreover the new evidences found now were not available for Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. This may be the reason for these mistakes. 

 

  1. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar assumed that the Pandavas and Kavravas from Bharatha / Mahabharatha are Aryans.

Based on the books of Thiru.Deva Asirvatham, Tamil literature and other evidence it seems Pandavas and Kavravas were Dravidians and Mallas. As the old epics of ancient India – Baratha and Ramayana were used to support and explain Brahminism, new stories and Philosophies were added to – Baratha to make Mahabharatha and Ramayana from ~185 BC onwards. From this period onwards these epics got many new stories aiding Brahminism. To add to this confusion Britishers also wrote the Aryan invasion theory (to uphold the idea that Europeans were a superior race) and connected Brahmins to Aryans and further darkened the truths of History.

This could have lead Dr.B.R.Ambedkar and many others to believe Pandavas, Kavravas and Rama to be Aryans.

 

Also to note, in ancient India, outsiders were called as Aryans and they were considered as uncivilized. Later the meaning of Aryan changed to citizen and Noble (According to change of status of outsiders at that time). So Aryan was not a specific class or race of people. Only Britishers equated Aryans to Brahmins. Brahmins were initially the worshippers of Brahma, then a class of worker that performed of the job of Brahma (priestly activities), that were obsorbed from various worker classes by Kings as neccessatity arose (especially during times of great yaggams Kings converted many people to Brahmins for the purpose of Charity), then Brahmin became a caste. Because Manu smriti gave protection to Brahmins – that a Brahmin should not be killed or attacked by anyone, and as they worked as priest no one bothered to attack a Brahmin. Because of this they alone prevailed economically with any change of Kingdom / change of power / change of rule. So when Britishers came to Power, the Brahmins were maintaining the good economic status (that others lost with change of power) and were harmless to the Britishers. So Britishers educated the Brahmins, taught them English and placed them in British government offices and passed laws supporting and aiding Brahminism. They also created the theory that Brahmins were Aryans and a superior race. Once Brahmins were well placed in British governmnet next to Britishers, they started modifying historic litrature to their liking / advantage. At a later stage Brahmins started opposing the Britishers asking for freedom. Only then Britishers realized their mistake and started educating others and brought about reforms in India. But by then the Aryan invasion theory, the notion of an Aryan as a Brahmin was well established in India and history books.

 

  1. He wrote that most of the ancient Indian Kings were Nagas and mentioned that Rajendra Chola was a Naga.

From Thiru.Deva Asirvatham’s books, Tamil literature and other newly found evidences it is well established that Rajendra Chola,

Cholas, Cheras and Pandyas are all Mallas – Dravidians.

 

  1. He wrote that the poor / broken beef eating people became Untouchables.

The People who questioned or who did not accept the rules of Manu and hence Brahminism were ex-communicated in a Kingdom that supported Brahminism. Because of ex-communication these people removed / robbed of their wealth and belonging and were driven out of towns and cities and were not given any opportunity to work within the Kingdom.  Over a period of several generations the descendents of these driven out people became very economically poor. These people were made as Untouchables during the peak of Brahminism (Nayaks / Vijayanagar dynasity of Andra and Tamilnadu, Peshawars of Maharastra and mid part of British rule -when only Brahmins and certain so called upper castes of that time were educated).

 

After the downfall of the Mauryan Empire, the Kalabras attack was the raise of Brahminism. The supporters of Mauryan / Buddhist were the first to be attacked. Millions of Buddhists were killed and many fled to China, Ceylon and other places. Many hid in the forests. Some accepted Brahminism and became Sudras. The ones that escaped the killings but escaped to the forests were ex-communicated. Buddhists Philosophy was NOT TO KILL ANY LIVING BEING / ANIMAL. So they did not delibrately kill animals to eat. But they ate animals that already died. So when the Buddhists were ex-communicated and over a period of time when their descendants became poor but dependant on the towns and cities, they started to eat the dead cows from the villages and towns which were disposed by the inhabitants of the towns. So the Buddhist turned untouchables ate Beef.

 

Tamil Kings – Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas and their kinsmen amd women – the Mallas, Devendrakula Vellalars etc did not eat Beef because their occupation was farming during peacetime and warriors during wartime. Since they used cow to get Milk and OX to plough the field, Cow and Ox were considered as part of their family. Hence did not eat them. They specifically grew goat and chicken for meat. After they were defeated in war and driven out of towns and cities and were ex-communicated by Nayak Kings, their descendants became poor over a period of 500 years but became agricultural laborers in the land owned by their forefathers under the new landlords. But they followed their tradition of not eating Beef. But owing to their poverty and ex-communication adopted by the newly formed upper castes they were treated as untouchables between 19 and mid part of 20 century.

 

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar was right to some extant in saying the Broken Beef eating people became Untouchables, but it was not because they ate Beef they became Untouchables. It was because they challenged Brahminism and laws of Manu and resisted to become Sudras once they lost their Kingdom and hence were Ex-communicated and in due course became Untouchables. Gradually as they became poor as they were not given opportunity to study, to work, to bear arms their condition degraded further which lead the descendants of ex-communicated Buddhists to eat dead meat – beef as it was easily available and was allowed in Buddhism, and were further degraded and made Untouchable. By this time (more than 15 generations) they left / forget most of their Buddist tradition and origin. The descendants of Saivite and Vishnavite Kingdoms that were ex-communicated after their defeat went through the same degradation and humiliation, as the Buddhists, but they still did not eat Beef. But at the peak of Brahminism during British rule all the differences became hazy as all ex-communicated communities were branded as Untouchables. In 1784, a law was passed by Britishers declaring that all Indians except Muslims, Christines, Buddists and Jains as Hindus and stated the Vedic and Smrity rules (which the Brahmins were trying to implement since the down fall of Mauryan Empire) is applicable to all Hindus. Also the British law declared most non-Brahmin communities under the Hindu corrider as Sudras except the Tribes, Untouchables and the 18 worker communities (that supported the Malla Kings) that did not accept Brahminism.

It should be noted that in ancient India only Pullayar (in South India) and Chamar (in North India) were considered impure and Untouchable – Note the degree of Untoucability towards the Pullayar and Chamar in ancient India was much different than that of the Untouchability towards all Untouchables during the peak of Brahminism in 17, 18, 19 and 20th Century AD.

The Pullayar and Chamar were treated as impure because of their Job. The Pullayar burnt dead bodies at Cremation. So they were considered impure. For example now a days all Biohazards in hospitals and other places are kept and disposed seperately. Likewise Pullayar and Chamar were avoided. To prepare general public to taking care of themselves from the perceived impurity the Pullayar and Chamar were supposed to blow a horn when they arrive at public place. Women were prevented from directly giving food to them. They were not restricted or castrigated like the Untouchables were treated during the peak of Brahminism in 17, 18, 19 and 20th Century AD.

  

 

 

The following is taken from various pages of http://en.wikipedia.org/

 

 

The Manusmriti (Sanskrit मनुस्मृति), translated "Laws of Manu" is a foundational work of Brahmin law, written c.200 in India. It is one of the eighteen Smritis of the Dharma Sastra (or "laws of righteous conduct"). The Smritis contain laws, rules and codes of conduct to be applied by individuals, communities and the nations.

 

Manusmriti (verse II.39) informs that, if after the last prescribed period, the people (twice-born) remain uninitiated, they become Vratyas, fallen from Savitri and thus discarded by the Aryans.

 

The Mallas, like the Lichchhavis, are mentioned by Manusmriti as Vratya Kshatriyas. They are called Vasishthas (Vasetthas) in the Mahapparnibbana Suttanta.

 

Manusmriti (X/43-44) informs us that, in consequence of the omission of sacred Brahmanical rituals/codes and of their not heeding to the Brahmanans, the following noble Kshatriyas have gradually sunk in this world to the state of vrishalatam i.e become degenrate Kshatriyas: the Paundrakas, Chodas, Dravidas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Shakas, Paradas, Pahlavas, Chinas, Kiratas and Daradas.

 

A formal procedure is detailed in Mahabharata as to how these Vratya Kshatriyas (or the alien hordes) could attain the high status of noble Kshatriyas in the Hindu society. The most important among the recommendations are the performance of paka-yajanas (minor sacrifices) and giving rich gifts to the Brahamin priests at these sacrifices (MBH XII.65.13-22; also see: Comprehensive History of India, Dr K. A. Nilkanta Sastri, Vol II, 1957, p 468)

 

 

From the above description it is clear that Kings that did not support / adopt Brahminis were degraded as Vratya Kshatriyas. As long as these Kings were in power the supporters of Brahminism could not do anything about them.

 

But once the Kings lost power the Kings and their Kinsmen were degraded to Sudras. If they did not accept that and questioned the laws / validity of Manu’s laws they were ex-communicated according to Manu’s law. These ex-communicated communities became untouchables over a period of time.

 

For example the Chera, Chola and Pandyas are Mallas and also Dravidas. They were great Kings of India. Infact in Tamil Poems all the Gods – Lord Shiva, Godess Uma, Lord Murugan (Lord Karthik), Lord Ganesh (Lord Vinayaka), Lord Vishnu, Godess Lakshmi, Lord Brahma, Godess Sarswathi are all sung as Mallas. The Mallas were great devotess of Shivaism, Vishnavism, Buddhism and Jainism. Inspite of that they were branded as Vratya Kshatriyas ( degraded Kshatriyas) by Manu because they did not support Brahminism. With the downfall of Mallas (Mala, also called Palla in Tamilnadu after the down fall of the Tamil Malla Kings – Chera, Chola, Pandya) they were ex-communicated and were branded as Untouchables throughout India as they did not adopt Brahminism.

 

 

The Brahmins were originally the devotees of Brahma. This is the reason in the Vedas written during the raise of Brahminism (after ~185 BC), the creation of Universe was attributed to Lord Brahma. The Brahmins also followed the priestly work of Brahma.

But they were always looking for an opportunity to over throw the Kings and become powerful. But their attempt miserably failed as illustrated in the following Story.

 

The claim for superiority between Kings and Priests is illustrated in the story for the claim for superiority between Lord Vishnu (the protector - Kings were protectors in ancient times) and Lord Brahma (the celestial chief Priest in Heaven who was incharge for saying Mantras, conducting Heavenly Marriages etc that are works of Priest). In this contest, Lord Shiva banished Lord Brahma from being worshipped because Lord Brahma lied to claim superiority. The actual truth of the story may not be clear, but with this the worship of the God of Brahmins – Lord Brahma was stopped.

 

But the Brahmins adopted Vishnavism and Shivaism which the Kings and their country men followed but always awaited opportunity to topple the Kings (with vengence as their God Brahma was removed from prayers). Gradually over a period of time they were able to achive this by ex-communicating a King and his Kinsmen while pretending to support another, untill all Kings and his Kinsmen that opposed Brahminism were ex-communicated and made Untouchables.

 

 

 

Based on   

 

1.       REVOLUTION AND COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN ANCIENT INDIA – By Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

2.       RIDDLE IN HINDUISM – By Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

3.       PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISAM – By Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

4.        THE UNTOUCHABLES WHO WERE THEY AND WHY THEY BECAME UNTOUCHABLES? – By Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

5.       WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS? – By Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

6.       Moovendar Yaar? In Tamil (Translates to: Who are the three Kings - Tamil Kings – Chera, Chola and Pandya?) – By Thiru. R.Deva Asirvatham

7.     Pallar alla Mallar aam Mannar. In Tamil (Translates to: Not Pallas but Mallas – Kings.) – By Thiru. R.Dev Asirvatham

8.     Who are Vellalar? – By Thiru. R.Dev Asirvatham