u/e9967780

A recurring question is why indigenous populations in South Asia survived the arrival of organized steppe groups experienced in conquest. The answer is straightforward: they aimed to dominate and extract, not exterminate. A useful comparison is the Americas British settlers in North America often displaced and exterminated Native populations because their model was land-intensive settlement by themselves and other Europeans, whereas Spanish colonial systems depended on indigenous labor for agriculture and pastoral production for a few, so native populations were preserved as much as possible and incorporated at the bottom rather than exterminated. The enduring and exploitative caste system inn South Asia is an outcome of that initial settlement pattern.

Brahuī Proverbs #1

Brahui ( Perso-Arabic Script ):

“ہوُرک انگہ رزان
کل آن زیادہ توار کیک”

Romanized Transliteration:

“Hōrk-ińga Razān
Kul-ān Ziyada Tavār Kēk”

English Translation:

“Empty Vessels
make the most Noise”

- Usage:
This proverb conveys that people who know the least often speak the most, drawing attention to themselves rather than their knowledge.

I'm a global south student (Mauritian - doing history, language & socio A level), currently choosing my major; between politics and anthropology and politics and history and anthropology was my initial choice but reading up on the origins of anthropology(or how it was used) I'm double guessing my initial choice but initial because our culture is such a melting pot that studying how decoloniality will work for us is very complicated unless we study us in depth across our different origins. Unless I'm wrong on this, I don't feel like simply studying history will be enough. Plus, we're one of those people who're barely considered anywhere (by that, I mean, exactly how decoloniality will work for us as we're not indigenous to this land yet we're still brown and black with a history of slavery & indentured labourers & white masters.)

I want to understand the dynamics of pre-coloniality to coloniality to post-coloniality (essentially decoloniality) of cultures (& as beyond cultures as possible, thus history not feeling enough) but I have come across...debates saying anthropology can't be decolonized; in that regards are we talking about how anthropology is studied here? Or methodologies & how anthropological researches are used? (Feel free to explain it please, I'm open to understanding.)

And what if anthropological researches were instead used for decoloniality? To... promote (i don't like this word but for lack of any other) ancestral ways of living instead of eurocentric ones? (As i have informally observed how colonial chauvinist our current ways of life/culture is.)

Ps: since I'm a student (I'll forever be one), I don't know much about anything so I hope people don't pick on what might seem like naive question? I'll be thankful, especially if my confusions are cleared in good faith. Thank you!

Bank of America’s Arya reiterated a buy rating for Nvidia stock and the price target of $300, based on 28 multiple of his estimate for price-to-earnings ratio excluding cash for calendar year 2027, which is within Nvidia’s historical forward year P/E range of 25 to 56.

Pāla dynasty copper plate inscriptions (8th–12th centuries CE) employ a standardized formula listing the inhabitants of granted territories from highest to lowest status. At the bottom of this hierarchy appear three recurring terms: meda, āndhra, and caṇḍāla. The presence of āndhra, a Dravidian ethnonym associated with the eastern Deccan, within a Bengali social taxonomy raises a fundamental question: how did a geographically distant ethnonym come to function as a label for the lowest stratum of rural society?

This paper argues that āndhra represents a case of semantic pejoration through administrative importation. Rather than developing locally, the term entered Bengal through the Sanskrit textual tradition already carrying pejorative meaning and was subsequently embedded in Pāla administrative practice. This argument draws on epigraphic, literary, genetic, and dialectological evidence to propose a broader model: the portability of pejorated labels across geographic and social boundaries.

The Problem of Āndhra in Bengal

Pāla copper plate grants follow a consistent formula that organizes society hierarchically. At the top appear landholding groups mahattama, uttama, and kuṭumbin. At the bottom are meda, āndhra, and caṇḍāla. While all three function as markers of low status, their origins differ significantly.

Meda refers to a locally attested hunting or forest community. Caṇḍāla is a widely used Sanskrit term for the most stigmatized caste category across Indo-Aryan traditions. Āndhra, however, is the ethnonym of a Dravidian speaking population from the eastern Deccan, with no clear evidence of a corresponding community in medieval Bengal.

The problem, then, is not simply how a term becomes pejorative, but how a pejorative label travels. How does a word tied to one region and people come to be applied elsewhere, detached from its original referent? This paper addresses that question by examining the historical pathways through which āndhra acquired and transmitted its meaning.

Āndhra in the Sanskrit Tradition

The term āndhra appears in Sanskrit sources long before its use in Pāla inscriptions. In early texts such as the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the Andhras are described as peripheral peoples beyond the core Vedic region. While initially geographic, such references carry implicit hierarchies between center and periphery.

In later Dharmaśāstra literature, āndhra is reclassified as a degraded or mixed jāti, often linked to unions outside the normative varṇa system. By the time of the Epics and Purāṇas, the term appears alongside categories such as caṇḍāla and pāmara, reinforcing its association with low social status.

This historical trajectory from ethnonym to stigmatized social category meant that by the early medieval period āndhra functioned as a term of degradation within Sanskrit. Its later use in Bengal reflects not direct ethnographic observation but the inheritance of this textual meaning.

The Pāla Grant Formula and Social Classification

The Pāla copper plate grants employ a standardized address formula across regions and reigns. These inscriptions were public documents, often read aloud, and thus played an active role in shaping social understanding.

The consistent grouping of meda, āndhra, and caṇḍāla suggests a structured conception of the lowest stratum of rural society. Unlike meda, which corresponds to a locally identifiable group, āndhra lacks any clear regional referent in Bengal. Its inclusion is best understood as a textual borrowing rather than a reflection of local demography.

A comparison with the contemporary Candra dynasty reinforces this interpretation. Candra inscriptions use a simpler classification janapada (people) and karṣaka (cultivator) without elaborating a detailed lower-stratum taxonomy (Chattopadhyaya 2024). The more elaborate Pāla formula indicates a stronger tendency toward formalized social classification.

In this context, āndhra likely functioned as a generic label for degraded status, drawn from the Sanskrit lexicon and applied administratively without reference to a specific community.

Literary Corroboration

Early Bengali and Sanskrit literature supports the social framework reflected in the inscriptions. The Caryāgīti (c. 9th–12th centuries) employs figures such as the ḍombī to represent marginal identities, often reinterpreted symbolically within a religious context. The term pāmara (“base person”) appears as a general label for the rural underclass.

Similarly, Sanskrit anthologies compiled in Bengal, including the Subhāṣitaratnakoṣa and the Saduktikarṇāmṛta, depict low-status figures as recurring elements of rural life. These portrayals suggest that the hierarchical categories formalized in inscriptions were also embedded in broader cultural representations.

Like āndhra, terms such as pāmara illustrate how social labels can lose specific referents and become generalized markers of inferiority.

Genetic Context

Population genetic studies of communities historically placed at the lower end of the Bengali social hierarchy such as Namasudra indicate continuity with the pre-Aryan South Asian genetic baseline. These populations show high proportions of Ancient Ancestral South Indian (AASI) ancestry, moderate Indus Valley Civilization (IVC)-related ancestry, and relatively low Steppe ancestry, very similar profiles are found among many Dravidian-speaking populations in South India, high to low status. While this does not establish a direct linguistic or ethnic connection, it underscores the match between textual categories and underlying population histories.

The IVC–Dravidian hypothesis remains debated (McAlpin 1974; Witzel 1999). Regardless of its resolution, the available genetic evidence suggests that the labels used in administrative and literary texts reflect social classification systems that may match biological realities.

Dravidian Influence in Barak Valley

A useful parallel comes from the Bengali dialect of Barak Valley in Assam. Das (2011) documents extensive Dravidian-derived elements in place names, vocabulary, and kinship terms.

Although there is no strong historical evidence for large-scale Dravidian migration into the region, earlier or less visible forms of Dravidian presence cannot be ruled out.

This suggests that Dravidian linguistic material entered Bengali through multiple channels, including direct exposure, cultural contact and textual transmission. The Barak Valley case therefore provides a plausible model for how āndhra could enter the Bengali administrative lexicon without requiring the presence of a distinct Andhra or Telugu speaking population in Pāla Bengal.

The Portability of Pejorated Labels

The evidence points to a specific mechanism: the portability of pejorated labels. A term can acquire negative meaning within one context and then be transmitted across regions through elite textual traditions, where it is applied in new settings without reference to its original referent.

This differs from:

1) Contact-based pejoration, where stigma develops through direct interaction

2) Gradual semantic shift, where neutral terms acquire negative meanings over time

In the case of āndhra, the term appears in Bengal already carrying pejorative meaning and is incorporated into administrative usage through the Sanskrit textual tradition.

Conclusion

The use of āndhra in the Pāla grant formula demonstrates that social labels can travel independently of the populations they originally described. It highlights the role of textual traditions in preserving and transmitting systems of classification, as well as the role of the state in institutionalizing them.

More broadly, the Bengali lexicon of social hierarchy reflects multiple processes: local interaction, gradual semantic change, and the importation of externally developed categories. The case of āndhra illustrates the last of these most clearly, showing how language, power, and hierarchy intersect in the administrative structures of early medieval South Asia.

Bibliography

Chatterji, Suniti Kumar. 1926. The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language. 3 vols. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press.

Chattopadhyaya, Brajadulal. 2024. “Early Medieval Bengal.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Das, Rama Kanta. 2011. “Influence of Dravidian Languages on the Bengali Dialect of Barak Valley.” Language in India 11 (8): 273–277.

Grierson, George A., ed. 1903. Linguistic Survey of India. Vol. 5. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing.

Kuiper, Franciscus B. J. 1991. Aryans in the Rigveda. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McAlpin, David W. 1974. “Toward Proto-Elamo-Dravidian.” Language 50 (1): 89–101.

Risley, Herbert Hope. 1891. The Tribes and Castes of Bengal. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Note: The core idea is my own; AI was used only for grammar and stylistic refinement.

The phenomenon whereby ethnonyms function as autonyms that is, names a group uses to refer to itself frequently reflects an in-group bias in which one’s own community is implicitly equated with humanity or normalcy itself. The word Tamils (தமிழர், Tamiḻar), for instance, is widely understood to derive from Tamiḻ, associated with (proper) speech, implicitly positioning Tamil speakers as those who speak correctly. Similarly, the Ainu of Japan literally means “human” or “person” in their language, contrasting themselves with the non-human or supernatural. The Bantu peoples of Africa take their name from the root ntu, meaning “person,” with the prefix ba- forming the plural thus simply “people.” The Inuit of the Arctic equally derive their name from the word for “people,” as do the Dene of North America. Even the Deutsche (Germans) trace their name to the Old High German thiodisk, meaning “of the people.” Across these diverse cultures, the underlying logic is strikingly consistent: to name oneself is, at its most elemental, to claim the status of being fully human, a speaker of real language, and a member of a legitimate social world implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, distinguishing oneself from outsiders who may have been perceived as lesser, foreign, or unintelligible.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​