The Naamam-Wearing Muslim and the "Mleccha" Question in Sri Vaishnavite Religious Law

Many, many years ago (I mean back when I was maybe seven years old) there was a bit of a local buzz about a Triplicane Muslim who became initiated under the Thenkalai tradition. Knowing Triplicane's blend of Vaishnavite and Muslim culture, this is not extremely surprising. But looking back, the idea was weirdly exciting to so many people only because the bearded Muslim presence in the temple, wearing namam and all, was considered "strange" enough to be fetishized; it was seen almost as a mishmash of "opposites," rather than as a proper conversion where the subject was offered any sort of seamless integration (at least not immediately).

This is complicated upon first look, because where did Sri Vaishnavite treatment of Muslims as the "other" (and, of course, vice versa) really begin? Despite Islam's presence in South India during the very heyday of many organized Sri Vaishnavite theologians (meaning Ramanuja and onwards), there is not a lot of documented scriptural interaction between Sri Vaishnavism and Islam—especially not to the degree in which Sri Vaishnavite teachings spent refuting Shaivism, Jainism, Buddhism, and the local Tamil folk religions. Instead, what we mostly see are mentions of a historical tussle regarding the entry of Malik Kafur and the ascension of the (very short-lived) Madurai Sultanate. I have already outlined some of these events' roles in Vaishnavite hagiographies (as well as many of its problematic aspects, particularly in the modern day) here through the subject of Bibi Nachiyar, and it answers at least half of how Muslims are otherized in Sri Vaishnavite retroactive memory.

But the point of this particular post is to look at a rare scriptural note of Muslims in regards to Sri Vaishnavite religious law—and the implications it has on the inclusion of caste-oppressed communities into the Sri Vaishnavite faith. 

Firstly, we must distinguish between the Tamil Bhaktic movement of the Alwar saints and the later codification of that Vaishnavism into the Vedantic system. The first movement was gathered very loosely around a caste-diverse set of Alwars, who sometimes were not even aware of each other’s presences. It was Nathamuni who gathered these scattered Tamil Vaishnavite poems into the 4000 Divyaprabandham, laying the foundations for an organized religion which would eventually become Sri Vaishnavism under the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta philosophy of Ramanuja. This required the now largely Brahmin theologians to tackle the question of caste and mediate between and possibly unite the Sanskritic, Brahminical spheres with the native Tamil Vaishnavite communities, creating a religious identification which could perhaps transcend caste. 

The Brahmin figureheads however largely relied on commentating earlier Sanskrit works in order to provide rationale for the new face of caste under Sri Vaishnavism. One such verse can be found in the Garuda Puranam, which says: 

“भक्तिरष्टविधा ह्येषा यस्मिन् म्लेच्छो ऽपि वर्तते
स विप्रेन्द्रो मुनिः श्रीमान् स याति परमां गतिम्
bhaktiraṣṭavidhā hyeṣā yasmin mleccho 'pi vartate
sa viprendro muniḥ śrīmān sa yāti paramāṃ gatim”

That is: 

“This is the eightfold devotion, which, even if found in a Mleccha
Would consider him a great Brahmin and learned sage and render him unto the Supreme Destination” 

The phrase “even if found in a Mleccha” is noteworthy because it implies that the Mleccha is the least likeliest source of Vaishnavite bhakti. But who exactly is this Mleccha who represents everything the Vaishnava doesn’t? In the first millennium CE where the bulk of the Garuda Purana is thought to have been composed, the term Mleccha could have very well still referred to an array of Western or West Asian tribes. Our point of focus however, is in how two Sri Vaishnavite theologians, 12th-century Periyavachan Pillai and 13th/14th century Vedanta Desika, commentated on this verse—during a time when Mleccha had already come to refer specifically to Muslims, in the same way the Tamil term “Yavana” (Ionian) came to mean the same thing. 

Desika writes in Chapter 25 of his “Srimad Rahasyatrayasara”:

“என்றதுவும் கந்யாப்ரதாநாதிபரமன்று, ஞானப்ரதாநாதிபரம் என்று வ்யாக்யானம் பண்ணினார்கள். பூஜ்ய: என்கிற சப்தமும் சாதாரணமாகயலே ‘பாகவதத்வமுண்டானால் ஸர்வரும் சாஸ்திரம் சொன்ன மட்டுக்களிலே ஆதரணீயர்; இவர்களை ஸஜாதீயரோடு ஓக்க நினைத்து அவஜ்ஞை பண்ணினபோது நரகமாகும்.' ”
“Eṉṟatuvum kan'yāpratānātiparamaṉṟu, ñāṉapratānātiparam eṉṟu vyākyāṉam paṇṇiṉārkaḷ. Pūjya: Eṉkiṟa captamum cātāraṇamākayalē ‘pākavatatvamuṇṭāṉāl sarvarum cāstiram coṉṉa maṭṭukkaḷilē ātaraṇīyar; ivarkaḷai sajātīyarōṭu ōkka niṉaittu avajñai paṇṇiṉapōtu narakamākum.'”

That is: 

“This is not to mean we should give our daughters’ hands in marriage to them or wed from their daughters, but rather that we can receive and give knowledge from and to them. What is meant by ‘pujyah’ (reverence) is exactly just that—that if they [the Mlecchas] attain Vedantic consciousness, we must revere them only within the bounds of the sastra (divine law). One attains hell only if he treats them the same way as he does with the others of their caste.”

In the same chapter, Vedanta Desika provides examples of this “reverence within bounds” through the lives of the Alwars—the very precursors for the Sri Vaishnavite faith in Tamil country—by considering them models of caste restrictions, that though they possessed powers superior to even the Puranic saints, they “refused to transgress the realities of their castes.” He concludes the subject of caste differences in Sri Vaishnavism by stating that its complete eradication is only possible through mukti (moksha/liberation after death). In this way, the hypothetical of the Muslim-born Vaishnavite, who represents an unlikely and extreme reconciliation of complete opposites, provides a framework for Vedanta Desika to apply over all other castes as well; though such a person can become a Vaishnavite scholar (though within limits) he cannot intermarry with Iyengars and shatter the caste endogamy which separates him and the Brahmin. 

That being said, Desika represents only one subsection of the Sri Vaishnavite religion, specifically as the founder of the Vadakalai (Northern Sect) branch, which is known for its relative caste rigidity. The sect most often associated with Bahujan Vaishnavites is instead the Thenkalai (Southern Sect) branch, spearheaded by theologians Pillai Lokacharya and Manavala Mamuni. These figures were much more active in proselytizing to the masses and dictating measures for their inclusion—to the extent that Thenkalais are still discriminated by Vadakalais to this day for their alleged “mixed-caste” origins. 

This supposed leniency, however, should not be overstated, for there are Bahujan communities both within the Thenkalai and Vadakalai movements, despite popular perception, and these rarely enjoy equal status with their Brahmin counterparts. The OBC Satani/Sattada Vaishnavites, for example, do not wear poonul nor are they allowed intermarriage with Iyengars, even though they follow extremely similar dietary, ritual, and purity (madi-acharam) laws. The Dalit Mala Dasaris (some of whom do wear poonul) still wrestle with Brahmin priests for control over their own hereditary temples. Other groups such as the Namadari Pillais and the Yadavas/Konars still keep strictly to their own caste affiliations and fraternities. For whatever reasons, these groups have all slipped through the fingers of Pillai Lokacharya’s vision for a united Vaishnavite society—perhaps because the contemporaries and predecessors of his Sishya Parampara or Spiritual Heritage (and even he himself) were just as reluctant as Desika in allowing caste exogamy. 

Periyavachan Pillai, one of Pillai Lokacharya’s predecessors in the Thenkalai tradition, writes regarding the same Garuda Puranam verse: 

"ஆகிலும் பெண் கொடுத்தல் கொள்ளுதல் செய்கிறார் இல்லை; அதற்கு ஜாதி நிபந்தனமாகை..."
"Ākilum peṇ koṭuttal koḷḷutal ceykiṟār illai; ataṟku jāti nipantaṉamākai..."

That is: 

“However, [this verse] does not mean we give or receive brides [with the Mleccha]; the caste laws are still to be followed.” 

It is important to note here that Islam was still understood in the region at this time as a distinct caste, clan, or tribe rather than as a world religion as we know it today. In fact, it was understood even by Tamil Muslims themselves in this fashion via the three major clan fraternities of Maraikayar, Lebbai, and Ravuthar, though endogamy was not as stringent as with neighboring non-Muslim castes. (Hence you could even find Tamil Muslims identified with a mixture of all three clan names, and at times ex-Hindu converts identified with one on the basis of parallel caste origin and/or profession.) In modern times, however, these affiliations are gradually breaking down, and a close relationship between Muslims and the Dalit castes have culminated in post-caste Islamic events such as the mass conversions at Meenakshipuram and the participation of Muslims in the Dravidian movement. That being said, just a hop away in Kerala, Muslims still operate under multiple lines of caste-like clans (though in my humble opinion, these are castes), and the presence of Urdu Muslims in Tamil Nadu has resulted in unique ethnolinguistic oppressions as well as Ashraf-Pasmanda hierarchies between the Urdu and Tamil Muslim communities. While I was in Chennai, my Urdu Muslim friends told me a story of a Tamil Muslim man who had asked for the hand of a Syed Shi’a woman. Her parents rejected him—not due to sectarian reasons, but because he was a “Hindu,” by which they meant he was Dravidian and Pasmanda, therefore not occupying the same “Muslimness” which they regarded themselves with.

This example is particularly noteworthy because it exemplifies the way upper castes make complete religious brotherhood an impossibility despite all their enthusiasm to proselytize; to the Syed, a Pasmanda is always a “Muslim Lite” if not sometimes considered an outright Hindu, while to the Iyengar, a Bahujan Vaishnava is never allowed to assimilate into his community.

So it comes off as no surprise, for example, when a Muslim-born dancer who identifies as Sri Vaishnava is denied entry into Sri Rangam.* Meanwhile, musical giants like Sheikh Chinna Moulana and the devotional cassettes of singer Mano become fetishised because this mode of “bhakti” is considered odd or strange when coming from Muslims, even if they are literal hereditary artists who have been part and parcel of these performance art traditions for generations. Similarly, the namam-wearing Triplicane Muslim reciting Divyaprabandham becomes encapsulated in Iyengar memory solely as that—and never truly as a Sri Vaishnavite of his own right, for even if the Mleccha attains all eight modes of bhakti, he, as the epitome of all opposites and others, will forever be unfit to become family and community, just like his Bahujan counterparts.

***

*(Important to remember Z*kir H*ssain’s problematic allying with the Brahminical “classical arts” establishment, his harassment of hereditary artists, and his sexual misconduct cases, though these were not the reasons he was excluded from the Sri Rangam temple.)