Hindis thought crossing the ocean led to impurities

# Why did the Chola Empire mount a naval invasion of Sumatra if Hindus believe sailing overseas makes one an Untouchable? ## Metadata - Author: [[thestoryteller69]] - Real Title: Why did the Chola Empire mount a naval invasion of Sumatra if Hindus believe sailing overseas makes one an Untouchable? : AskHistorians - Link: https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qzndgg/why_did_the_chola_empire_mount_a_naval_invasion/hm6b25m - [i] Outline - [[Brahmin were restricted from ocean crossings]] - [[religious restrictions did not prevent many Hindis from sea crossings]] - [[Hindis exaggerated religious restrictions against sea travel to avoid overseas military service for Britain]] - [[Britain misjudged importance of religious restrictions against sea travel]] - [[forced exile is oppressive]] ## Highlights ### id255397492 Brahmin were restricted from ocean crossings > The restriction you’re referring to is known as ‘kala pani’ (black water), and it wasn’t a blanket, unchanging rule. Rather, it was viewed differently by different Hindus depending on moment in time, caste, vocation, community and variety of Hinduism. The number of Hindus who actually refused to travel overseas because of it seems to have been rather small, and it does not seem to have prevented large numbers of Hindus from crossing the ocean in search of gold and glory. > > The earliest known mention of a ban on crossing the ocean is in the 5th century BC sutra of Baudhayana, which also contains a purification ritual to remove this ‘sin’. In the Laws of Manu, a text that outlines the norms of domestic, religious and social life from around 500 BC, it is also stated that a brahmin who undertakes a sea voyage is considered a sinner. However, the text does not state that such a person would become untouchable. > > The restriction in these texts seems to apply only to Brahmins. S. C. Bindra (2002) has postulated that other castes may have adopted it as a way of emulating the Brahminic practices. - [View Highlight](https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qzndgg/why_did_the_chola_empire_mount_a_naval_invasion/hm6b25m?__readwiseLocation=0%2F1%2F0%2F4%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A0%2C0%2F3%2F0%2F4%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A183#:~:text=The%20restriction%20you%E2%80%99re%20referring%20to%2Cof%20emulating%20the%20Brahminic%20practices.) ### id255397619 religious restrictions did not prevent many Hindis from sea crossings > So Indian merchants undoubtedly crossed the seas. But what about Brahmins, to whom the original kala pani restriction supposedly applied? There is also ample evidence of their travels. > > For example, there were numerous SEA Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms from the 5th to the 15th centuries. These kingdoms were ruled by locals, but had adopted many aspects of Indian political structure and religion. It was once thought that these practices were brought by Indian traders, however it is now believed that it was Brahmins, with their familiarity of religion and statecraft, who brought this knowledge to SEA. > > The Indian merchants also built temples to service their communities. The remains of one such example can be found in Quanzhou, China, along with a Tamil inscription dating to 1281: > > ***Obeisance to Hara*** [Shiva]***! Let there be prosperity! On the day Citra in the month of Chittira in the Saka year 1203*** [1281 A.D.]***, the Tavachchakkarvarttigal Sambandhap-perumal*** [a Shaiva religious leader] ***caused, in accordance with the firman*** [written permission] ***of Chekachai Khan*** [the Mongol authority]***, to be graciously installed the God Udaiyar Tirukkadalisvaram Udaiya-nayinar*** [Shiva]***, for the welfare of the illustrious body of the illustrious Chekachai Khan.*** > > But Hindu temples do not function by themselves, and must have been staffed by Brahmin priests from India, especially when they were first built. > Thus, the reason the Cholas launched an invasion of Srivijaya despite the kala pani was probably that the kala pani was not much of a restriction for the vast majority of the Empire. There probably were some Brahmins who really did refuse to cross the ocean, but nowhere near enough to hamper an invasion. > > So why is it now assumed that the kala pani was so much more serious than it actually was? - [View Highlight](https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qzndgg/why_did_the_chola_empire_mount_a_naval_invasion/hm6b25m?__readwiseLocation=0%2F10%2F0%2F4%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A0%2C0%2F16%2F0%2F4%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A90#:~:text=So%20Indian%20merchants%20undoubtedly%20crossed%2Cserious%20than%20it%20actually%20was%3F) ### id255397631 Hindis exaggerated religious restrictions against sea travel to avoid overseas military service for Britain > It is thought that the kala pani began to be taken more seriously during the colonial era. Indian sepoys who were not keen to fight overseas for entirely logical reasons (fear of disease, separation from their families, lack of leave of absence to participate in Hindu rituals) would often throw the kala pani into the mix, and then bargain for more pay. When the pay was attractive enough, there were many Hindus who volunteered for a stint overseas, including higher caste Hindus. > > However, it seems that it was the kala pani argument that stuck in the minds of the British whom the sepoys were bargaining with. - [View Highlight](https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qzndgg/why_did_the_chola_empire_mount_a_naval_invasion/hm6b25m?__readwiseLocation=0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A0%2C0%2F1%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A129#:~:text=It%20is%20thought%20that%20the%2Cthe%20sepoys%20were%20bargaining%20with.) ### id255397635 Britain overestimated how much Hindis cared religious restrictions against sea travel > A firm British belief in the kala pani being a fate worse than death was also extremely convenient, for it allowed them to severely punish criminals by deporting them to other parts of the British Empire that required labour. However, British administrators admitted that some Hindus actually committed crimes just so they could be deported to join their relatives condemned to deportation, thereby implying that the kala pani was not, in fact, as horrible as they supposed. - [View Highlight](https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qzndgg/why_did_the_chola_empire_mount_a_naval_invasion/hm6b25m?__readwiseLocation=0%2F3%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A0%2C0%2F3%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A474#:~:text=A%20firm%20British%20belief%20in%2Cas%20horrible%20as%20they%20supposed.) ### id255397636 forced exile is oppressive > On their release, several Indian nationalists wrote about their experiences of kala pani, not just in physical terms but in emotional ones as well. Kala pani thus became strongly associated with colonial oppression. The British intent to cause spiritual suffering through forcing Hindus to cross the water became widely known. This strengthened the belief that the kala pani was a truly serious taboo, and the British must have been truly cruel to have employed it as punishment. - [View Highlight](https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qzndgg/why_did_the_chola_empire_mount_a_naval_invasion/hm6b25m?__readwiseLocation=0%2F7%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A0%2C8%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A0#:~:text=On%20their%20release%2C%20several%20Indian%2Chave%20employed%20it%20as%20punishment.)