Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c18.s2.t1: A. Origin of the Valangai or Right Hand and Idaṅgai or Left Hand Sections

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c18.s2.t1

Language
English

A. Origin of the Valangai or Right Hand and Idaṅgai or Left Hand Sections

v2.c18.s2.t1.1

We tread on slippery ground when we approach the question of the origin of the Idaṅgai and Valangai classes. Nevertheless it is interesting to know some details in connection with these two important sections of the people from traditional as well as epigraphical sources.

v2.c18.s2.t1.2

The mythical origin of one of these classes, the Idaṅgai or Left Hand section, is thus given in an inscription dated in the fortieth regnal year of the Chōḷa king Kulōttuṅga III: "While, in order to kill the demons (that disturbed) the sacrifices of the sage Kaśyapa, we (the ninety-eight sects of the Idaṅgai classes) were made to appear from the agnikuṇḍa, (i.e., the sacrificial fire-pit), and while we were thus protecting the said sacrifice, Chakravartin Arindama honoured the officiating sage-priests by carrying them in a car and led them to a Brāhmaṇa colony (newly founded by himself). On this occasion we were made to take our seats on the back side of the car and to carry the slippers and umbrellas of these sages. Eventually with these Brāhmaṇa sages we also were made to settle down in the villages of Tiruveḷḷarai, Pāchchil, Tiruvāśi, Tiruppiḍavūr, Urrattūr, and Kārikkāḍu of Sennivala-kūrram (all of which are places now situated in the Trichinopoly district). We received the clan name Idaṅgai, because the sages (while they got down from their cars) were supported by us on their left side. The ancestors of this sect having lost credentials and insignia (?) in jungles and bushes, we were ignorant of our origin. Having now once learnt it, we, the members of the ninety-eight sub-sects enter into a compact, in the fortieth year of the king, that we shall hereafter behave like the sons of the same parents, and what good or evil may befall any one of us, will be shared by all. If anything derogatory happens to the Idaṅgai class, we will jointly assert our rights till we establish them. It is also understood that those who, during their congregational meetings to settle their communal disputes, display the *birudus* of horn, bugle and parasol shall belong to our class. Those who have to recognise us now and hereafter, in public, must do so from our distinguishing symbols—the feather of the crane and the loose-hanging hair(?). The horn and the conch-shell shall also be sounded in front of us and the bugle blown according to the fashion obtaining among the *Idangai* people. Those who act in contravention to the rules shall be treated as enemies of our class. Those who behave differently from the rules (thus) prescribed for the conduct of *Idangai* classes shall be excommunicated and shall not be recognised as *Śrutimāns*. They will be considered slaves of the classes who are opposed to us."¹

v2.c18.s2.t1.3

¹ *Ep. Report* for 1913, p. 109. See also *ibid.*, pp. 99-102; *Ep. Report* for 1914-15, pp. 15, 106.

v2.c18.s2.t1.4

According to another tradition Karikāla Chōḷa divided the people into these two parties, assigning ninety-eight tribes to each and apportioning to their use distinctive flags and musical instruments for use at festivals and funerals.²

v2.c18.s2.t1.5

² Crole, *Chingleput Manual*, pp. 33-4.

v2.c18.s2.t1.6

T. W. Ellis in his edition of a portion of the *Kural* wrote the following about the origin of the two classes: "Intercourse with foreign nations, the extension of commerce, and other circumstances have in latter times materially altered the manners of the olden time and infringed the privileges of the landed proprietors, but they have not been able to prevent a lively tradition of them remaining, and this has given origin to the dissensions between the factions denominated *Valangcaiyār* and *Idungcaiyār*, or, as commonly though improperly called, the *right* and *left hand castes*; the former including the whole of the agricultural tribes, who endeavour, under a different order of things, to maintain their ancient pre-eminence; the latter, including chiefly the trading and manufacturing tribes, who endeavour, and in modern days generally with success, to evade it."³

v2.c18.s2.t1.7

³ T. W. Ellis, *Kural*, p. 44, (Madras, 1816), quoted by Oppert M. J. L. S., for 1887-8. *Org. Inhab.*, pp. 85, n, (56), 86.

v2.c18.s2.t1.8

Dr. A. C. Burnell was of the following opinion : "The distinction arises primarily from the landowners and their serfs being the heads of one class, and the Brahmans, artisans and other interlopers forming the other. But the constituent castes of either party vary".¹

v2.c18.s2.t1.9

¹ Burnel, *I. A.*, II, p. 274; Oppert, *M.J.L.S.* for 1887-8, *Org. Inhab.* p. 86.

v2.c18.s2.t1.10

Dr. Gustav Oppert, whose exposition of the subject contains many interesting details, opined thus : "The influence of the Jainas was perhaps strongest in towns where the artisan classes form an important and powerful portion of the population, while the Brahmans appealed to the land-owning and agricultural classes, whom they won over by their entreaties or by threats. The Brahmans have not joined and strictly speaking do not belong to either side, but their interests lie mainly with the right side. As in various localities the same castes have embraced different sides, it is difficult to assign to all a permanent position. Yet, on the whole, the principal parties on both sides are always the same".²

v2.c18.s2.t1.11

² Oppert, *ibid.*, p. 90.

v2.c18.s2.t1.12

Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar brings forward some other considerations in addition to those adduced by Dr. Oppert. Among the causes which, according to Mr. Aiyangar, gave rise to the Iḍaṅgai and Vaḷaṅgai sections, the following were prominent: the political dissension which led to the final overthrow of the powerful kingdoms of the Pallavas and the Pāṇḍyas;³ the aspirations of certain castes to rise higher in the social scale;⁴ and the communal feeling (existing between the Jainas and the Brahmans), and between the different sections of the people due to the difference in food, occupation and physical environment.⁵ Mr. Aiyangar finally comes to the conclusion that "the arrangement of the Dravidian castes into two grand divisions (the right and left hand) took place at Kanchipuram under the royal command of a Chōḷa king"¹ (in about A. D. 1010 in the times of Rājarāja Chōḷa).

v2.c18.s2.t1.13

³ Srinivasa Aiyangar, *Tamil Studies*, p. 105.

v2.c18.s2.t1.14

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 108.

v2.c18.s2.t1.15

⁵ *Ibid.*, pp. 73, 92, 101-3, 106, 110.

v2.c18.s2.t1.16

¹ Srinivasa Aiyangar, *Tamil Studies*, p. 100. On the origin of these classes, see also Hemingway *Trichy. Gaz.*, I, p. 92; Nelson, *Mad. Country*, P. II, p. 6; Kearne, *I.A.* V., p. 353, *seq.*; Richards, *Salem Gaz.*, I, P. I, p. 126.

v2.c18.s2.t1.17

Dr. Barnett thus writes about the arguments put forward by Mr. Aiyangar: "It (i.e., the division of the posts of the temple staff and their quarters into those of the Right Hand and Left Hand) seems to be connected with the well known separation of the non-brahmanic castes of the South into those of the right and those of the left hand. In the temple of Kāḷi at Conjeeveram the right hand castes worshipped in one *maṇḍapa*, the left hand castes in another. If this view is correct, Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar must be wrong in his theory that the division of the castes arose about A. D. 1010 from the distinction of the two armies of Rājarāja Chōḷa into that of the right and that of the left hand. I believe the converse to be the truth : the division seems to have been in existence long before the eleventh century, and was indicated by the separation of the castes in public worship; and Rājarāja made use of the principle (or at least the name) to classify his armies".²

v2.c18.s2.t1.18

² *Ep. Ind.*, XV, p. 81. ns. 4-7. See *Infra*, The Pallava-Kadamba Controversy.

v2.c18.s2.t1.19

While the assumption that the division "seems to have been in existence long before the eleventh century" is justifiable, we may suggest that there was one cause which writers have failed to take into consideration as regards the origin of the two sections. This was due not so much to the difference in "the altered manners of the old times" resulting from the intercourse with foreign nations and the consequent extension in commerce, nor to the distinction which "arises primarily" from the landowners and Brahmans being the heads of two rival social groups, but to the fact that in the south extraordinary prominence has been given to the minute details of etiquette and privilege on socio-religious occasions which have deeply influenced the life of the Tamil and Karṇāṭaka people. We shall explain in a subsequent section these questions of honours and etiquette before and during Vijayanagara.

v2.c18.s2.t1.20

So profoundly have these trifling details affected the life of the people that the division seems to have cast asunder even the Brahmans. This is inferred from the following account styled *Idaṅkai Vaḷankai Kaifiyut*: "This relates to the great dispute between the *Vaishnava-Brahmans*, with their followers, who have the epithet of right-hand, and *Saiva Brahmans*, with their followers, termed left-hand. The dispute is stated to have arisen from the usage of a *Garuda* banner, or flag bearing the eagle or kite of *Vishnu*, as a device. The right of bearing this banner, and the question of which of the two classes it belonged, created so hot a dispute, that the matter was referred in arbitration to *Vicrama-Chola-deva Perumāl*, in *Cali yuga* 4894, *Paritabi* cyclic year. That prince caused the old copper-plate records at *Conjeevaram* to be disinterred and examined, and legal authorities to be consulted. As a consequence the claim of the Saivas to the *Garuda* banner was admitted; but another result was, the more accurate distinction and definition, of what rights and privileges were proper to the two classes; and what were not so. The book further contains an enumeration of the classes or castes, into which the two lines of *Vaishnavas* and *Saivas* became divided; and of the *Pariars* and others, who range under the right-hand class. These castes, on both sides, are stated to be ninety-eight. The sub-divisions are those of persons having castes; that is, not *Pariars*".¹

v2.c18.s2.t1.21

¹ Taylor, *Cat. Rais.*, III, p. 7. ² Kaliyuga 4894, Paridhāvi=A. D. 1792. Sewell, *Siddhantas*, p. 218.

v2.c18.s2.t1.22

Since we know that the early and mediaeval canonists have nothing to say about the Right Hand and Left Hand Sections, we may dismiss the idea mentioned in the above account that there was any legal sanction behind the two divisions. From the foregoing *Kaifiyut*, which is obviously of the modern times,² as well as from the earliest account relating to the times of Kulōttuṅga Chōḷa III, we may suppose that the conflict arose round what was essentially a question of social etiquette and honours.¹ But we confess that it is impossible to find in what manner this problem was related to that of the intermixture of castes about which there is definite evidence in a record written in the Tamil-Grantha characters. This inscription, which is unfortunately effaced, informs us that the people registered the opinions of Gautama, Nārada, Yājñavalkya and other authorities regarding the origin, duties and privileges of certain mixed (*anulōma*) castes.² From the manner in which even the lowest castes are grouped together with the highest, it seems that the division of the people into the Right Hand and Left Hand sections was a sort of challenge to the ancient *varṇāśramas*, at least so far as petty social privileges were concerned. This explains why the Vaishṇava Brahmans are clubbed together with the Pariars who are called the Valangai-mattar or friends, the toddy-drawers, the Kannagiḍans, the Sāliyans, (weavers), the Kōmaṭi, and the Vellāḷans or agriculturists, in the Right Hand faction, and the Śaiva Brahmans, the Seṭṭis, the Paḷḷis, the Kammāḷans (or artisans) and the Chucklers, in the Left Hand division.³

v2.c18.s2.t1.23

¹ Srinivasa Aiyangar, *Tamil Studies*, pp. 96, *seq.* 106-7; Taylor, *Cat. Rais.*, III, p. 351; Abbe Dubois, *Hindu Manners and Customs*, I, pp. 25-6 (1897 ed.); Richards, *Salem Gaz.*, I, P. I, pp. 125-6. See also *S. I. I.*, III. P. I, p. 46, *seq.*; 562 of 1893; 151 of 1905; *Ep. Report* for 1921, p. 103. The petty differences have effected even the humblest of classes. The Chakkili women, who belong to the Right Hand class, it is said, deny marital rights to their husbands who belong to the Left Hand faction, *Nelson Mad. Country*. P. II, p. 7. Oppert gives in detail the insignia of the two classes. *M. J. L. S.* for 1887-8, *Org. Inhab.*, p. 90 n. 59, *seq.*

v2.c18.s2.t1.24

² 558 of 1904.

v2.c18.s2.t1.25

³ For a detailed account of the various subsects of the Iḍangai and Valangai communities, see *Madras Manual of Administration*, III. pp. 1036-7; Oppert, *M. J. L. S.* for 1887-8, p. 85, *seq.*; Buchanan *Journey Through Malabar*, I, p. 77, *seq.* In what why this classification can be connected with the Kadamba-Pallava controversy mentioned in the Shikarpura stone inscription of Mayūraśarma dated about A. D. 450 cited above, I cannot make out. But it is curious to note that at Kañchi, where that Kadamba monarch overcame the Pallavas, these differences between the Right Hand and Left Hand sections are most rigorously observed. "In this city the differences between these two classes are more marked than in any other place as evidenced by the existence of Valangai and Iḍangai temples, Valangai and Iḍangai *maṇḍapas*, and Valangai and

Linked texts (3)