Why academic scholars don't give a damn about people like Mannar Mannan?

this is just an example,

Mannar Mannan views Brahmadeyam not as a benign religious act, but as a systematic land-grabbing mechanism that altered the traditional Tamil social structure. His key arguments include:

Displacement of Indigenous Rights: He argues that these grants involved seizing lands from the common people (Vellan-vagai lands) and reassigning them to a specific priestly class, thereby creating a new, non-cultivating landed elite.

The Kalabhra Connection: He interprets the "Dark Age" of the Kalabhras differently. While traditional history (relying on the Velvikkudi plates) claims the Kalabhras "evil" for revoking Brahmadeya grants, Mannar Mannan suggests the Kalabhras were actually restoring lands to the original owners or resisting a priestly takeover.

Political Legitimacy: He posits that later kings (like the Pandyas and Cholas) used Brahmadeyam to buy religious legitimacy and administrative support from a literate class, often at the cost of the existing local Kudi (clan) structures.

Why Critics/Historians Consider It "Wrong"

Scholars who lean toward a more synthesis-based view of history find Mannar Mannan’s view reductive for several reasons:

Legal Continuity: Inscriptions like the Velvikkudi plates specifically state that kings were restoring an injustice. To dismiss these records entirely as "propaganda" ignores the legal and administrative complexity of the period.

Economic Productivity: Historical evidence suggests that Brahmadeya settlements often acted as agricultural hubs. By bringing scholars and managers to uncultivated or disorganized lands, these grants often increased the overall productivity and irrigation infrastructure of the region.

The "Vedic-Tamil" Synthesis: His view often treats Vedic and Tamil cultures as two warring, distinct entities. Most academic historians argue that by the time of the Pandyas and Cholas, these cultures had already merged into a single, cohesive Tamil-Hindu identity. The grants weren't a "foreign imposition" but a local king’s investment in his own state's spiritual and intellectual infrastructure.

Lack of Evidence for "Revolt": There is little archaeological evidence to suggest the common people saw Brahmadeyams as an act of theft; instead, many inscriptions show local village assemblies (Sabhas and Ur) working in tandem with these new settlements.

The Historical Friction: Mannar Mannan treats the Sengol (scepter) as a tool of oppression when it favors Brahmadeyam, whereas traditionalists see it as the symbol of Dharma, the king’s duty to uphold the sacred promises made by his ancestors