From a posting by Professor George Hart in 1997 on Tamil, Brahmins, & Sanskrit: " ....here are some facts:
1. Brahmins are only 2% of the population, yet they have contributed much more to Tamil literature than their number would indicate.
2. The purest (i.e. least Sanskritized) Tamil was written by the medieval Saiva Brahmin commentators on Tamil. For example, Parimelazakar translates the yoga asanas into Tamil, and the only way anyone can figure out what he is saying is to read the sub commentary (by Gopalakrishnamachari), who gives the original Sanskrit terms. You will find no Tamil any purer than that of Naccinarkkiniyar et al.
3. Brahmins have contributed to Tamil from Sangam times. Kapilar is one of the greatest Tamil poets.
4. Yes, of course Brahmins have had their own political agenda to push. They have been responsible for many things that I feel are entirely unconscionable. But is this any different from the other high castes? I have heard many many stories of high non-Brahmin castes killing and abusing Dalits. You can't blame the Brahmins for this. In fact, the most pernicious example of the caste system was in the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka, where there are virtually no Brahmins and never have been.
5. You cannot blame the Brahmins for Sanskritizing Tamil. Tenkalai Aiyengars often use Tamil words where most non-Brahmins use Sanskrit ones. The Sanskrtization of Tamil is a very old process and cannot be understood except in an all-South-Asian context. The Bengali used in Bangladesh is highly Sanskritized, and the Muslims are quite proud of their language. The fact is, Sanskrit was the lingua franca of South Asia for intellectual purposes, much as Latin was in Europe. Buddhists used it, Jains used it, much as Spinoza, a Jew, wrote his philosophical treatises in Latin. The Tamil of Ramalinga Swamigal, a non-Brahmin, is highly Sanskritized.
6. Sanskrit and Tamil are part of the same intellectual and literary tradition. The fact is, Sanskrit literature owes an enormous amount to Dravidian -- much of its syntax, its literary conventions, vocabulary. When we come to the great kavya of Sanskrit (e.g. Kalidasa), it is definitely part of the same stream as Tamil literature, just as French, English and German belong to a Western European literary tradition. This is even true of Sangam literature -- it is clearly of the same cultural tradition as, say, the Sanskrit Mahabharata.
7. Tamil is richer because it has many styles. It is the only Indian language that has a pure, unsanskritized style (well, there is a pure Telugu, called accu telugu, which was cultivated mainly by Brahmins). This style is very rich, no doubt. But Tamil has innumerable other styles -- many dialects, a highly Sanskritized style, a style with many English words, etc. etc. All of these add to the richness and expressiveness of the language -- why impoverish the language by removing its resources?
8. ... a personal note from an outsider. Tamil culture has not suffered because of one group. It has suffered because of the caste system and because of its treatment of women... Let's promote inter caste marriage, let's get rid of dowry and give women independence and self-respect, and above all, let's avoid a victimization complex which only plays into the hands of those who have a vested interest in continuing the inequities that exist in Tamilnad. If every Brahmin were to disappear from Tamilnad, the Dalits and others who are exploited would benefited not one iota.
9. Please note that I am not pro- or anti-Brahmin. I am acutely aware of the negative role Sanskrit has played in the development of the Indian regional languages. Indeed, A. K. Ramanujan, a Brahmin, once told me that the worst things that ever happened to South India were Sanskrit and English. A slavish devotion to Sanskrit has had a negative effect on Tamil and, even more so, on other South Indian languages. But we cannot change the past. There is nothing inherently good or bad in a word, whatever its origin, so long as it has been adopted for general use in a language. What is bad -- and what I deplore -- is the mindless assumption that Sanskrit is somehow superior. It is not. Indeed, Sanskrit is a very limited language, because it has no spoken substratum. But where Sanskrit words have come into common usage in South India, they have acquired broad connotative powers that enhance the spoken languages that have borrowed them (much like Latin and French words in English). It is insulting to Tamil to claim that the language cannot borrow words without being corrupted. Tamil has a long, powerful tradition, and it is a very rich language. Judicious borrowing can only enhance, not spoil it..."
Bookmarks