{"id":152526,"date":"2025-05-03T07:07:29","date_gmt":"2025-05-03T07:07:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/websitedesigns.com.au\/elankanew\/?p=152526"},"modified":"2025-05-03T07:07:56","modified_gmt":"2025-05-03T07:07:56","slug":"caste-in-jaffna-by-prashanth-kuganathan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/websitedesigns.com.au\/elankanew\/caste-in-jaffna-by-prashanth-kuganathan\/","title":{"rendered":"Caste in Jaffna-by Prashanth Kuganathan"},"content":{"rendered":"

Caste in Jaffna-by Prashanth Kuganathan<\/span><\/h2>\n

Source:<\/span><\/strong>Thuppahis<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

whose title runs thus:\u00a0\u201cSocial Stratification in Jaffna: A Survey of Recent Research on Caste\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

A SYNOPSIS:<\/strong>\u00a0Since 1983, war has dominated the perception of Sri Lanka. This has affected scholarship on the country, such that the subjects of an overwhelming number of research proposals and publications have been on the war and the prospects and prescriptions for peace. This survey paper is an attempt to locate the system of caste in transition in the Jaffna Peninsula by reviewing recent literature written after the commencement of the war. While detailed ethnographies of caste in Jaffna may have temporarily come to a halt, caste practices have not and remain a salient part of everyday life among the Tamils in Sri Lanka. As the war ended in 2009, it is therefore important that social scientists on Sri Lanka revisit the topic of caste, that is an integral part of not just Tamil culture or society, but being Tamil itself. As the study of caste is dominated by research in India, a microanalysis of Jaffna and Sri Lanka, particularly the nuances of this system in transition due to war and militancy, could contribute to the macro-study of caste at a sub-continental perspective.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"elanka\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/span><\/p>\n

Two thousand and nine was a watershed year in Sri Lankan history. In May of that year, the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, under the command of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, successfully annihilated the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) \u2013 simultaneously killing its leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran (1954\u20132009). Prabhakaran had spearheaded a rebel movement for an independent Tamil homeland in the northern and eastern parts of the island against the Sri Lankan state for over a quarter of a century. During this time period, Sri Lanka and war essentially became synonymous, with war dominating both the internal and external conceptions and perceptions of the country.<\/span><\/p>\n

A core structure in transition has been that of caste boundaries and identity. Over 25years of war and militancy have altered systems of kinship and social formation, as well as transformed conceptions of nationalism and shifted allegiances in Sri Lanka, particularly in the conflict-affected north and east. The mechanisms of war and militancy have been able to alter, even for a short period of time, who one may marry, who they associate with, how they choose to identify, and how they may subdue the innately inherent element of caste.<\/span><\/p>\n

This survey paper is an attempt to locate the system of caste in a post-war environment in the Jaffna Peninsula, known to be the most caste conscious and conservative region in the country (Pfaffenberger 1994, p. 162). As this journal is concerned primarily with recent literature, this article will only discuss caste research concerning Jaffna published after the commencement of the war. However, in order for non-specialized readers to grasp a complete historical understanding of caste in Jaffna, it is important for them to also look at Arasaratnam 1981, Banks 1971(1960), Casie Chitty 2004(1934), David 1972, Pfaffenberger 1981, Pfaffenberger 1982, Raghavan 1971, and Skj\u00f8nsberg 1982.<\/span><\/p>\n

The politics of naming the oppressed and a brief description of some castes in Jaffna<\/span><\/p>\n

It is important to mention that in Sri Lanka, there is no unanimous consensus on the name or term by which to collectively refer to the various castes formerly known as untouchable, a term of condescendence, that cuts right to the core of one\u2019s dignity. Various works have used a variety of terms over a period of over 50years. Michael Banks (1971[1960]) uses \u201cUntouchable\u201d (with a capital letter \u201cU\u201d). Kenneth David (1972) uses the Tamil term \u201ckorenja cati,\u201d which literally translates to low caste (p. 66) or diminutive caste, a term just as condescending as untouchable. While Bryan Pfaffenberger (1981; 1982; 1994) also uses \u201cUntouchable,\u201d he uses the term \u201cMinority Tamil\u201d as well. The term \u201cMinority Tamil\u201d expresses the fact that Tamils from castes considered untouchable constituted the minority in Sri Lankan Tamil society. As this term predates Sri Lanka\u2019s contemporary ethnic and political strife, the term \u201cMinority Tamil\u201d today may easily be conflated for Tamils in general, including those considered upper caste, who occupy a subaltern status vis-\u00e0-vis the Sinhalese majority of whom some perpetuated anti-Tamil violence, sometimes condoned and at other times coordinated by the Sri Lankan post-colonial state and its anti-Tamil policies.<\/span><\/p>\n

Raghavan (1971) uses the at.imai\/kut.imai1\u00a0<\/sup>dichotomy to divide Jaffna Tamil society (pp. 166\u2013167). These terms, however, do not refer collectively to castes that have previously faced untouchability. At.imai and kut.imai refer to two categories of collective caste groups employed by the Vell..\u0101.lar2\u00a0<\/sup>caste, the largest and most dominant caste group in the peninsula, comprising over 50 percent of the total population (Banks 1960, p. 67). The Vell..\u0101.lars are landowning agriculturalists by traditional caste occupation. Raghavan (1971) describes the at.imai, who are also known as kut.imakkal, as castes \u201cattached\u201d to the Vell..\u0101.lar, as they were their former slaves (p. 167). The at.imai are comprised of the K\u014dviyar (domestic servants specifically to the Vell..\u0101.lar), the Nal.avar (toddy tappers and tree climbers), and the Pall..ar (agricultural laborers) castes. The kut.imai, on the other hand, were not private slaves to any family and served society in general. The kut.imai are comprised of the artisan Goldsmith, Blacksmith, Brazier, stone-mason, the Ampatt..ar (barbers), the Van.n.\u0101r (dhobis), and the Par-aiyar (funeral drummers) castes. Only the Ampatt..ar, the Nal.avar, the Pall..ar, and the Par-aiyar castes were formerly considered untouchable in Sri Lankan Tamil society (Silva et al. 2009, p. 56). As they are split between both the at.imai and kut.imai groups, both of these terms do not specifically imply untouchability. The at.imai category may undergo some sense of subjugation, but this is definitely minimal in comparison to the kut.imai category, particularly with the artisan castes, which are considered intermediary in status and not low.<\/span><\/p>\n

Pa\u00f1camar is a term used to collectively refer to the five castes of Van.n.\u0101r, Ampatt..ar, Nal.avar, Pall..ar, and Par-aiyar. While it may not be widely used as a term of self-identification, Jeyarajah (2001) uses it in his writing and self-identifies as Pa\u00f1camar (personal communication, November 14, 2011). I use this term in this paper, as it has been used in Sri Lankan scholarship on caste (Jeyarajah, 2001; Silva et al. 2009); it has a sense of locality and is considered an inoffensive and somewhat neutral word to refer to the five castes formerly considered \u201clow\u201d in Jaffna society. \u201cOtukkappatt..avarka.l\u201d or \u201cotukkappatt..a camukam,\u201d both of which loosely translate to \u201cthose who have been set apart,\u201d3\u00a0<\/sup>has been used in Jaffna by anti-caste activists in the past and the present to refer to these groups. These terms, however, were used by members of the Eelam People\u2019s Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF); as they were a paramilitary group, some feel otukkappatt..avarka or otukkappatt..a camukam to have political connotation or implication. In this paper, therefore in addition to the use of Pa\u00f1camar, I also adopt the term \u201cdepressed castes,\u201d which Silva et al. 2009 use, and<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201coppressed castes,\u201d both of which are similar to otukkappatt..avarkal..<\/span><\/p>\n

Today in India, Ambedkar\u2019s term Dalit has become the approved and accepted appellation, most importantly, by the members of these traditionally marginalized and oppressed groups themselves, as well as the normative term of reference used by national and international scholars. The Puducherry based activist and politician Ravikumar (2002) uses the term \u201cDalit\u201d when referring to these groups in Sri Lanka, which may be somewhat problematic as it is appropriative, since most of these groups do not use it as a label of self-identification. This new name is rarely used in Sri Lanka (Silva et al. 2009, p. v); however, in a recent field visit to Jaffna in the summer of 2013, I noticed its usage was on the rise, particularly by certain political elements that were mobilizing. The term Dalit then becomes an important term, perhaps not locally, but in forging certain sub-continental political alliances with other entities across the Palk Strait, who have undergone similar experiences of oppression and are better organized. It also facilitates for comparative academic study and discourse \u2013 so while I am careful to limit my use of the word Dalit, I do not necessarily shy away from it in the pages that follow.<\/span><\/p>\n

The colonial period<\/span><\/p>\n

While the system of caste is derived from ancient Hindu texts such as the Purus.as\u016bkta4\u00a0<\/sup>and thus sanctioned by religion, caste as it is perceived today has undergone evolutionary changes over time, just as the progress of the term Dalit itself. It is important to comprehend the nuanced influence the colonial period in particular has had on the perceptions and lived realities of contemporary caste manifestation. In his article \u201cCaste as a social category and identity in colonial Lanka,\u201d John Rogers (2004) mentions that caste was viewed by colonial administrators as \u201cprejudices of the people,\u201d which led to the argument for its official nonrecognition and eventual policy of repudiation (p. 63). He goes on to explain that this policy countered that of the administrators in neighboring India, where caste was not only used for enumeration purposes but also exacerbated by the regime (p. 64). Historical anthropologists such as Bernard Cohn, Susan Bayly, and Nicholas Dirks have argued that processes undertaken by colonial officials in regard to the collection of caste-specific data and ranking have in fact idealized and solidified the conception of caste as it is known today in India (Bayly 1999, p. 4; Cohn 1990[1987], p. 248; Dirks 2001, pp. 8\u20139). Rogers (2004), however, highlights the fact that from the time of the inception of the modern census in Ceylon in 1871, no census has collected caste specific data (p. 72). In contrast, India has been able to harness this widely available data and apply it to constructive policies, such as reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. While the constitution of Sri Lanka outlaws caste-based discrimination (Silva et al. 2009, p. 15), no progressive caste based legislation has been implemented to directly uplift or empower depressed castes.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a similar train of thought, B. E. S. J. Bastiampillai (1988) has argued in his article, \u201cCaste in Northern Sri Lanka and British Colonial Administrative Practice in the Mid 19th Century: Compromise and Expediency,\u201d that the British played a crucial role in eliminating caste as an official category of inhabitant classification from 1845 (p. 50). Paradoxically, it was during this colonial period that \u201cthe dominant caste was even strengthened and made use of by the British colonial power\u201d (p. 48), which points to Vell..\u0101.lar domination in intra-Tamil community affairs, and Tamil domination in inter-ethnic affairs \u2013 largely due to colonial policies of divide and rule. Interesting are his observations in regard to caste and Christianity. While overt caste distinctions were eliminated through the colonial government, the Sri Lanka National Archives find that the Government Agent did not intervene in the late 1850s when two caste groups of Roman Catholics argued over the burial of their dead, stating \u201cno wish on the part of the government to interfere with native customs\u2026\u201d (Bastiampillai 1988, p. 51). The church also seemed to exercise minimal protest over discrimination against students from oppressed backgrounds by those considered upper caste, possibly due to the repercussions missionaries would face had they upset or alienated the dominant Vell..\u0101.lar community. Bastiampillai (1988) writes of a pupil of the Van.n.\u0101r caste who had to be withdrawn from a Wesleyan Methodist school due to opposition of his enrollment by those considered upper caste (p. 53). Similarly, he also writes of students considered upper caste who dropped out of a Wesleyan school when a student from the Nal.avar caste was admitted. Despite the introduction of western notions of egalitarianism through the high level of education prevalent in the peninsula, adherence to caste distinction was rigidly upheld (p. 51). While it was the belief of the state that universal, free education would extirpate caste inequality (Silva et al. 2009, p. 15), Bastiampillai (1988) argues that neither education nor conversion to Christianity could eradicate caste prejudice among Tamils (p. 58).<\/span><\/p>\n

A subaltern perspective on how Pa\u00f1camars were treated by Vell\u0101lars and Christian missionaries has come from Benjamin Jeyarajah, a pastor with the Church of the American Ceylon Mission (CACM) in Jaffna. Jeyarajah (2001) argues that the Church, specifically the American Missionaries, not only adopted caste practices but propelled them into continuity by perpetuating favoritism of the Vell..\u0101.lar (p. 20). While he acknowledges that education did not reach oppressed caste communities until the entrance of the Christian missionaries (p. 12), he argues that the American Missionaries primarily educated people considered upper caste (p. 30). Furthermore, he claims that children from oppressed caste communities were still subject to humiliation and indignity, some having to sit shirtless at the back of classrooms (p. 12). His theological argument is that throughout history, the church has never stood in solidarity with \u201cthese marginalized people for their development including their spiritual growth\u201d (p. 2) and that the Church needs to follow the gospel that itself preaches (p. 41) and not sanction caste distinction, particularly caste discrimination in the church. The element of caste was inherently woven into the fabric of Tamil culture that even Christian missionaries could not extract it from their converts.<\/span><\/p>\n

One cannot, however, blame the missionaries entirely for an element that is inherent in Tamil culture. The Pa\u00f1camars may have overestimated the powers of missionaries. It is important to point out that the hierarchy of the Church of South India (CSI) to which the Jaffna Diocese belongs to, was, and continues to be Vell..\u0101.lar dominated. It was somewhat inevitable for the missionaries to favor the Vell..\u0101.lars dominated the political and social realms of Jaffna life, alienating them could indeed have threatened the stability of missionary activity. It is no surprise the Vell..\u0101.lars would definitely have numerically dominated the schools due to their proportion of population in Jaffna and their influence in society. However, despite Jeyarajah\u2019s argument that students primarily considered upper caste went to these Christian schools, many Pa\u00f1camars, including Jeyarajah himself, patronized these institutions in Jaffna following the 19th century and are also the products of a western missionary education.<\/span><\/p>\n

Temple Entry<\/span><\/p>\n

The 1960s saw some change in regard to caste discriminatory policy, particularly in the Hindu religious arena, where caste originally stemmed from and was practiced most conservatively. In his article \u201cThe political construction of defensive nationalism: The 1968 temple entry crisis in Sri Lanka,\u201d Pfaffenberger (1994) argues that the caste agitations and riots at Maviddapuram, one of Jaffna\u2019s most sacred shrines, were not only a victory in regard to caste discrimination but also a \u201cstepping-stone on the path to the creation of a decidedly modern Sri Lankan Tamil identity\u201d (p. 162). He gives the reader a brief overview of some discriminatory restrictions imposed upon oppressed castes by the Vell..\u0101.lars:<\/span><\/p>\n

In Jaffna in the 1940s and 1950s, for instance, Minority Tamils were forbidden to enter or live near temples; to draw water from the wells of high caste families; to enter laundries, barber shops, cafes, or taxis; to keep women in seclusion and protect them by enacting domestic rituals; to wear shoes; to sit on bus seats; to register their names properly so that social benefits could be obtained; to attend school; to cover the upper part of the body; to wear gold earrings; if a male, to cut one\u2019s hair; to use umbrellas; to own a bicycle or car; to cremate the dead; or to convert to Christianity or Buddhism. To enforce these sumptuary restrictions extra legally, Vellalars have been ready to field gangs of thugs to punish upwardly mobile Pallars or Nalavars. Such gangs pollute Untouchable wells with dead dogs, fecal matter, or garbage; burn down Untouchable fences or houses; physically assault and beat Minority Tamils; and sometimes kill them. Preceding the Maviddapuram crisis were several altercations in which Minority Tamils had died (p. 148).<\/span><\/p>\n

Pfaffenberger (1994) states that the 1968 Vell..\u0101.lar violence against oppressed caste groups that were engaged in Gandhian saty\u0101graha or peaceful protests proved and exposed Jaffna to be \u201cthe most caste-conscious and conservative region of the island country\u201d (p. 143). This fact would be used by Sinhala politicians and parties (pp. 159\u2013162) to undermine Vell..\u0101.lar dominated attempts at Tamil nationhood (Pfaffenberger 1981). The protest at Maviddapuram proved that something similar to Dalit mass mobilization in India was indeed possible in Jaffna and could have influence on the public and policy. After the protests ended, temple doors all over the peninsula were gradually opened to oppressed castes, with the Government Agent promising to intervene on behalf of them \u201cto put more teeth into the Prevention of Social Disabilities Act\u201d (Pfaffenberger 1994, p. 162). Pfaffenberger (1994) found, however, that temple entry to depressed castes still sparked scuffles in the 1970s, with a caste riot in 1973 being a major example (p. 162). He concludes by pointing out that it was militant groups such as the LTTE that have been committed to the abolition of caste, which had been given overwhelming support from all cross-sections of Jaffna society. \u201cBut the unity that has been achieved is founded in terror and wedded to an antidemocratic ethos\u2026,\u201d he comments (p. 164).<\/span><\/p>\n

Militancy<\/span><\/p>\n

Likewise, Dagmar Hellmann-Rajanayagam (1993) also looks at the LTTE in her article \u201cThe Jaffna Social System: Continuity and Change under Conditions of War,\u201d focusing on the evolving influential role of the Karaiy\u0101r (fishermen) caste during the period of war, and how they modified the notion that the Vell..\u0101.lar caste constituted the ideal Tamil (pp. 251\u2013270). While she argues the military prowess and anti-caste social policy of the LTTE played the key role, she also points to pre-war facts of Karaiy\u0101r contestation of Vell..\u0101.lar hegemony, such as early conversions to Catholicism to evade caste obligations (p. 268) and a significant number of Karaiy\u0101rs taking advantage of education (p. 270), similar to the Vell..\u0101.lars. As the Karaiy\u0101rs often claim a ksatriya (ruler) lineage (David 1972, p. 261), it is pertinent that Hellmann-Rajanayagam (1993) recounts their history in taking the lead in the revolt against foreign occupation (p. 267) and points out their contemporary battle against the state as warriors, \u201cprotectors, but also to some extent, rulers of the people,\u201d culminating in a possible \u201cKshatriyaization\u201d of their caste (p. 278). She argues that this goes against the \u201cslowly, slowly become Vellalar\u201d proverb,6\u00a0<\/sup>since non-Vell..\u0101.lar castes nowadays \u201cdemand respect and equality in their own right\u201d (p. 281). This aphorism, however, may never have applied to the Karaiy\u0101r to begin with, as David (1972) has shown that the Karaiy\u0101r have a long history in contesting Vell..\u0101.lar hegemony and asserting their distinctiveness. Hellmann-Rajanayagam (1993) also points out that allegiance to antiquated caste solidarity has shifted to a contemporary one based on ethnicity (p. 280); while caste hierarchies still exist, these hierarchies fade into the background as distinctions with the ethnic other are increasingly and boldly contrasted at the forefront. This is what Kalinga Tudor Silva (2000[1999]) argues in his article \u201cCaste, Ethnicity and Problems of National Identity in Sri Lanka,\u201d when he says the primary identity of individuals in Sri Lanka has shifted from caste to ethnicity (p. 201) largely due to militant movements like the LTTE and the Sinhala-Buddhist Janatha Vimukti Peramuna (JVP), which both fostered ideologies of ethno-nationalism while simultaneously trying to eliminate hierarchies of caste and class.<\/span><\/p>\n

In contrast, Indian Dalit rights activist and politician Ravikumar (2002) in his provocative article, \u201cCaste of the Tiger,\u201d has argued that Dalit rights have taken a back seat at the expense of Tamil nationhood and that any assertive writing for the rights of Pa\u00f1camars was seen as traitorous to the Tamil cause, despite the number of LTTE cadres from depressed caste backgrounds. Ravikumar has given the reader a historical narrative of how Vell..\u0101.lar-dominated parliamentary politics failed to address the plight of the Pa\u00f1camars, if not going directly against their interests, and has also highlighted some discriminatory restrictions and atrocities committed against them. He adduces the particularly disturbing words of celebrated Jaffna \u015aaiva Hindu tradition reformer Arumuga Navalar (1822\u20131879),7\u00a0<\/sup>who stated that the Par-ai[yar], the woman, and the Pa\u00f1camar were \u201call born to be beaten\u201d (para. 5). Ravikumar clearly conveys the normative casteist undertone inherent in the nature of Sri Lankan Tamil culture. As this was written during a time of ceasefire between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government, Ravikumar argued that the LTTE must clearly articulate a policy that guarantees and safeguards the rights of Pa\u00f1camar citizens.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sinhalese connections and recent Jaffna case studies<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. M. M. Mahroof (2000), however, has made the argument in his paper, \u201cA Conspectus of Tamil Caste Systems in Sri Lanka: Away from a Parataxis,\u201d that militancy and \u201cexteriorisation\u201d of depressed castes, such as migration, may \u201csoften caste deprivations,\u201d causing the Vell..\u0101.lars to rethink their rank in relation to other castes (p. 56). Mahroof gives the reader a general summary of the features of the Tamil caste systems on the island and an explanation as to how the Vell..\u0101.lars were able to become the most dominant and powerful, by patronizing the educational institutions founded by American and British missionaries and mastering English, which created a dichotomy between elite and common (pp. 47\u201348). He points out that the 1956 Social Disabilities Act would have been more effective if it had been coupled with a system of reservations or quotas for depressed castes in educational institutions and government employment (p. 55), as they have in India. As Mahroof is a researcher of caste in Sinhala society, he makes useful comparisons between the Tamil and Sinhala systems (p. 43), namely<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n