So instead of going over material already covered, I shall discuss something I have not discussed so far. I shall summarize the crux of my views briefly at first. Those who are interested in the details can read further.
For almost four decades, George Hart has propounded his views on the concept of dangerous sacred power,aṇaá¹…ku, among the Tamils and the practice of untouchability that resulted from contact with the sacred power. According to Hart, the PÄṇaṉs and Paṟaiyaṉs have always been the lowest castes because they were polluted because they came in contact with that sacred power. The only problem is that, as I had mentioned in 2009, there is clear epigraphic evidence that the Tamil Paṟaiyar (plural of the Paṟaiyaṉ) were not untouchables as late as the 11th century and Tamil PÄṇar (plural of the PÄṇaṉ) are not untouchables even today. These facts completely invalidate Hart's theories. The reason Hart came to a conclusion diametrically opposite to mine is that his research methodology had major errors of commission and omission.
Those who are interested in more details can read on below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the power of aṇaṅku, Hart (1975a: 43) wrote:
"This power had to be rigidly controlled. As a result, religious rites were carried out by the lowest castes: the Paṟaiyaṉs , the PÄṇaṉs, the Tuá¹iyaṉs, and the VÄ“laṉs...The VÄ“laṉ, who is even today found among the Paṟaiyaṉs of Kerala, would dance ecstatically as he was possessed by Murugan, an indigenous god...The Paṟaiyaṉ, the PÄṇaṉ, and the Tuá¹iyaṉ would each play a special instrument which was thought to be inhabited by a sacred power and which was used for various ritual purposes. The pollution which is attached to the low castes is thus a legacy of indigenous Dravidian religion."
Hart's views of Tamil untouchability and sacred power are inseparable. And for his whole theory to have any validity, the Paṟaiyar (plural of the Paṟaiyaṉ) and the PÄṇar (plural of the PÄṇaṉ) he has mentioned above should be untouchables or lowest castes. If even one group is not untouchable, his whole theory collapses. I have already mentioned that the Paṟaiyar were not untouchables in the 11th century.
Hart (1975b:144) also says the following in connection with the Paṟaiyar:
"Elsewhere, the drum played for the king in the morning is the muracu (Puṟ. 61, 397; Aiñ. 448) . While there is nowhere any indication of who played the muracu, it is not unlikely that a subcaste of the Paṟaiyaṉs had that office, especially as one of the modern subdivisions of that caste is called Muracu."2 [emphasis mine]
Footnote 2 reads:
Edgar T. Thurston, Castes and Tribes of Southern India (Madras, 1909), VI:80
But, as shown in page 1 of the attachment, what Thurston (1909:80) really said was:
"At the census, 1891, 348 sub-divisions were returned, of which the following were strongest in point of numbers:- Amma found chiefly in Tanjore and Madura;...; Morasu (drum) in Salem;...". [emphasis mine]
While Hart's change of -su to -cu may be understandable in terms of the Tamil transliteration system, the change of the radical vowel -o- to -u-, which changed the name of the Paṟaiyar subdivision matching the word for 'drum' used in the Classical Tamil texts he cited, was problematic. This change could not have been a typographical error since in a later publication Hart (1987: 475) also says:
"One of the modern subdivisions of the Paṟaiyaṉ caste is named "Muracu" (Thurston and Rangachari 1909: VI. 80), and it seems possible that this is a very ancient division." [emphasis mine]
In light of Hart's suggestion of the possible antiquity of this Paṟaiyar subdivision, there is some interesting information about the Morasu subdivision not mentioned by Hart (1975b) and Hart (1987). As can be seen from the highlighted portion in page 2 of the attachment, Thurston (1909: 81) says the following:
"It has been suggested to me that the Morasu Paraiyans, included in the above list are Canarese Holeyas, who have settled in the Tamil country." [emphasis mine]
Even more interesting is the situation with respect to the PÄṇÄr. Hart (1975b: 120) states:
"The low status of bards may also be inferred from the fact that several centuries after the anthologies, TiruppÄṇÄḻvÄr, who was a PÄṇaṉ by caste, was considered to be so low that he was not allowed into the temple."
(The story of TiruppÄṇÄḻvÄr occurs in different medieval Vaiṣṇava hagiographical works such as the ĀṟÄyirappaá¹i GuruparamparÄprabhÄvam. While the Vaiṣṇava hagiographical works depict the PÄnar saint TiruppÄṇÄḻvÄr as not being allowed to enter the temple, the PeriyapurÄṇam, the 12th century Åšaiva haigiographical work, portrayed the PÄṇar saint TirunÄ«lakaṇá¹ar as originally standing outside the temple and being brought inside due to intervention by Åšiva Himself. In another instance, the brahmin saint TiruñÄṉacampantar is said to have arranged for TirunÄ«lakaṇtar to sleep inside another brahmin saint's house.)
Hart (1975b: 158) also stated:
"The Paṟaiyaṉ is found in Tamilnad, Kerala, and the Kota-speaking areas, while the PÄṇaṉ is found in modern Kerala and Orissa, and in parts of ancient North India, where PÄṇa meant a low-class bard."
(The sources for the above statement were entries 3319 and 3351 in the first edition of Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (1960), which in turn, relied on Tamil Lexicon and A Malayalam and English Dictionary by Gundert for information related to Tamil and Malayalam words respectively.)
As one can see, Hart (1975b) had left out any mention of the Tamil PÄṇaṉ in present day Tamil Nadu. Based on the two statements of Hart quoted above, it seems Hart was not aware of the existence of the PÄṇar in present day Tamil Nadu. Otherwise, he would not have had to rely on medieval hagiography to ascertain the 'low' status of the PÄṇÄr. Here lay a fundamental problem with Hart's research approach. He was producing sweeping anthropological conclusions with insufficient knowledge of people he was writing about.
All Hart had to do was to turn a few pages in Thurston (1909), which he had anyway consulted in the case of the Paṟaiyar. Thurston (1909) spells PÄṇaṉ as PÄṇÄṉ, with the second vowel being long Ä. This spelling variation cannot be a reason for disregarding the entry. After all, Tamil Lexicon has entries connecting both variants as given below.
பாணனà¯Â¹ pÄṇaṉ, n. < பாணà¯. [M. pÄna.] 1. An ancient class of Tamil bards and minstrels; பாடலà¯à®µà®²à¯à®² à®’à®°à¯à®šà®¾à®¤à®¿. கூதà¯à®¤à®°à¯à®®à¯à®ªà®¾à®£à®°à¯à®®à¯ (தொலà¯. பொ. 91). 2. See பாணானà¯. (W.)
பாணான௠pÄṇÄṉ, n. < பாணனà¯Â¹. Man of the tailor caste; தையறà¯à®•à®¾à®°à®šà¯ சாதியானà¯
Note that the Tamil Lexicon derives 'PÄṇÄṉ' from 'PÄṇaṉ'.
The entry in Thurston (1909: 29-42) on the PÄṇÄṉ is a long one discussing both the Tamil PÄṇÄṉ as well as the Malayalam PÄṇÄṉ. The entry opens with a very brief discussion of the Tamil PÄṇÄṉ while discussion of the Malayalam PÄṇÄṉ takes up the bulk of the entry. But it is the brief discussion of the Tamil PÄṇÄṉ that Hart should have taken into account.
As can be seen in page 3 of the attachment, the entry on the PÄṇÄṉs opens with the following statement. "The Tamil PÄnÄns are said, in the Census Report, 1901, to be also called MÄ“stris. They are "tailors among Tamils in Madura and Tinnevelly. They employ BrÄhmans and VellÄlas as purÅhits. Though barbers and washermen will not eat food prepared by them, they are allowed to enter Hindu temples." Later in the entry, as shown in page 4 of the attachment, in regards to the PÄṇÄṉs of Travancore, Thurston (1909: 33) says, "For the following account of the PÄnÄns of Travancore, I am indebted to Mr. N. Subramani Aiyar. The word is of Tamil origin, and means a tailor. The title taken by them is Panikkan, the usual honorific appellation of most of the industrial castes of Malabar. They are supposed to be one with the PÄnÄns of the Tamil country though much below them in the social scale."
As Gundert's dictionary notes, in Southern Tamil usage PÄṇaṉ could indicate a bard as well as a tailor.
പാണനàµâ€â€ pÄṇaǹ T. M. (T. പാണàµâ€ = പണàµâ€ melody). A caste of musicians, actors & players; in So. T. also tailors B., necromancers D. (= à´®àµà´¨àµà´¨àµ‚ററനàµâ€, മലയചàµà´šàµ†à´•àµà´•à´¨àµâ€, പറയനàµâ€). പാ' à´¨àµâ€à´±àµ† നായി പോലേ prov. പാ'നോടൠഒപàµà´ªà´¿à´•àµà´•àµà´‚à´Žà´¨àµà´¨àµ† ആചാരàµà´¯à´¨àµ‹ Bhr. — കീഴàµà´ªà´¾à´£à´¨àµâ€ V1. a caste of slaves.
Based on Tamil Lexicon and Gundert's dictionary, it is clear that PÄnÄn and PÄnan are only variants of the same word. After all, there is no separate entry for PÄṇaṉs of Kerala in Thurston (1909). Hart should have investigated if the PÄnÄn/PÄnan, the tailor, and PÄnÄn/PÄnan, the bard, were related in any way. If he had conducted some fieldwork like anthropologists do before writing about different communities, he would have quickly realized that the tailors were from the same community as earlier bards. At least if he had done a careful literature review, he would have gotten the true picture of the PÄnans.
For instance, the Arumpatavurai commentary for the CilappatikÄram glosses tuṉṉakÄrar in CilappatikÄram (5.32) as PÄṇar. Also, as has been pointed out by Aiyar ([1924] 1999: 109), Travancore king BÄlarÄma Varma's Sanskrit work, BÄlarÄma Bharatam of the 18th century, presents as a tailor the bard PÄṇapattiran of Madurai mentioned in the opening poem of the 11th Tirumuṟai of the Åšaiva canon. Irakavan (1971: 79), a 20th century scholar, stated:
"பாணர௠கà¯à®²à®®à¯ இனà¯à®±à¯ உளதா? எனà¯à®±à¯ பலரà¯à®®à¯ à®à®¯à¯à®±à¯à®•à®¿à®©à¯à®±à®©à®°à¯? பாணர௠கà¯à®²à®®à¯ அழிநà¯à®¤à¯à®µà®¿à®Ÿà®µà®¿à®²à¯à®²à¯ˆ. பாணà¯à®Ÿà®¿à®¯ நாடà¯à®Ÿà®¿à®²à¯ இனà¯à®©à¯à®®à¯à®‡à®°à¯à®¨à¯à®¤à¯ வரà¯à®•à®¿à®±à®¤à¯. யாழ௠மறைநà¯à®¤à®¤à¯‹à®Ÿà¯ பாணர௠கà¯à®²à®®à¯à®®à¯ பாழà¯à®ªà®Ÿà¯à®Ÿà¯ விடà¯à®Ÿà®¤à¯ எனà¯à®±à¯ சிலர௠கூறà¯à®•à®¿à®©à¯à®±à®©à®°à¯. அத௠தவறà¯. ஆனாலà¯, பாணரà¯à®•à¯à®²à®®à¯ எணà¯à®£à®¿à®•à¯à®•à¯ˆà®¯à®¿à®²à¯ சிறà¯à®ªà®¾à®©à¯à®®à¯ˆà®¯à®¿à®©à®°à®¾à®¯à¯ மதà¯à®°à¯ˆ, திரà¯à®¨à¯†à®²à¯à®µà¯‡à®²à®¿, சாதà¯à®¤à®©à¯à®•à¯à®³à®®à¯ போனà¯à®± இடஙà¯à®•à®³à®¿à®²à¯ வாழà¯à®¨à¯à®¤à¯ வரà¯à®•à®¿à®©à¯à®±à®©à®°à¯.தொழிலினà¯à®±à®¿à®ªà¯ பலர௠தையல௠தொழில௠பà¯à®°à®¿à®¨à¯à®¤à¯à®µà®°à¯à®•à®¿à®©à¯à®±à®©à®°à¯."
Here is a translation of the above quote.
"Many wonder if the PÄṇar caste/lineage exists today. The PÄṇar caste/lineage has not perished. It exists in the PÄṇá¹iya country even today. Some say that with the disappearance of the lute, the PÄṇar caste/lineage is ruined too. That is wrong. But people of the PÄṇar caste/lineage live in small numbers in Maturai, TirunelvÄ“li, and CÄttaṉkuḷam. Without an occupation, many are engaged in the job of tailoring."
I have attached a table from Ludden (1996:123) showing the status of the PÄṇaṉ in Tirunelveli district in 1823. (See page 5 of the attachment. The date of 1923 shown in the table title should actually be 1823.) One can see that they were small in number but part of the large 'Sudra' category. So were barbers and washermen. None of them was/is an untouchable community. That is why K. K. Pillay (1969: 208), while discussing the use of pulaitti in Classical Tamil texts to refer to the washerwoman, said, "It is not known how the term 'Pulaitti' came to be employed to denote her, because in later times the class of washermen was not identical with that of 'Pulaiyar'."
Many of the traditional upper caste Tamil pundits of the 20th century did not distinguish between hagiography and history. For them what the PeriyapurÄṇam and the GuruparamparÄ Prabhavam were presenting was history. They did not see these works as propagandist texts intended to promote a specific ideology. So these Tamil pundits believed that the PÄṇar were untouchables of earlier Tamil society. These Tamil teachers and especially Tamil teachers in northern Tamil Nadu did not know that Tamil PÄṇar have continued to exist as a community even today and are suffering no untouchability.
Most of these Tamil pundits were not knowledgeable about the reality-based social information available in the inscriptions. For instance, they did not know that the PÄṇar were engaged in singing in front of the deities in brahminic temples, training the temple women in music, and were given houses and money by royal order to perform these duties. See page 6 of the attachment for a translation of a 12th century inscription in the Tiruviá¹aimarutÅ«r temple by Orr (2000: 102).
Some scholars in Southern Tamil Nadu like Irakavan (1971:78-79) were sold on the Periyapuranam's promotional view that it was the egalitarian nature of the Bhakti movement that allowed the PÄṇar to enter temples. (On this score, the PeriyapurÄṇam had succeeded in its promotional objective.) They had failed to note that Paripatal 3, a pre-Bhakti-movement Classical Tamil poem, calls Visnu "a good PÄṇaṉ of lute" in a poem that is full of Vedic and Puranic elements. As part of the poem's adoration of Viṣṇu, ParipÄá¹al 3: 81-86 offers the following praise: