i saw this in one of my netsurfing sessions sorry the link to the original response didnt work.
it is a debate in Forum Hub and this was somebodies response to a Critisicsm on Kalki
Pasupathy: Thanks for pointing out the link. How amusing!
Poor Mr. vElsAmi's confused on all the charges he has imagined - 1. Brahminism, 2. hindutva, 3. Jain/Buddhist hatred, & 4. male domination. I say imagined & confused because what I read there doesn't pass muster as criticism and I give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't pushing a hidden agenda on these 4 points. I only wish I knew how to use tamil software to post a reply in tamil on the ARAmthiNai site. Oh, well here goes & sorry for the length!
He finds brahminism in kalki because he does not describe/mention that ravidAsan et al were brahmins. In the next sentence, he cites the inscriptions which indicate that those called 'brahmadhirAyar' were warriors. Kalki does describe them as warriors. Kalki belonged to the freedom generation - he probably didn't believe in caste, religion as divisive issues. He deliberately glosses over caste in his historical novels - beyond the obligatory temple priest, AzhvArkkadiyAn & his family there aren't any brahmins. Beyond poongkuzhali and her family there are no ?? (he never gives them a clear caste designation). The rest are all warriors w/ no caste distinctions made. In fact, poonkguzhali's aunt is acknowledged as a queen. Going back to Mr. vElsAmi, he implies that the brahmAdirAyar were also brahmins. However, my recollection is that you could not kill people and still be a brahmin in ancient times. And brahmAdirAyar means warriors who used to be brahmins. These may explain why kalki did not describe them as brahmins.
2 & 3 are linked and Mr. vElsAmi starts w/ 3. He finds hatred for other religions in sivakAmiyin sabatham (SS). However, he conveniently forgets that in ponniyin selvan (PS) there are several model buddhist monks - the choodAmani vihAra thalaivar, his disciples, the buddhist sangam in sri lanka etc. Let's take up SS - it's historical fact that mahendra pallavan converted to hinduism from jainism. Is it surprising that there may have been resentment to this? Does it indicate hatred for jainism if kalki uses this as a plot device?
Then Mr.vElsAmi refers to places where kalki taks about vedAntham. Again, he conveniently forgets that kalki presents non-vedic hinduism too - from aravAn kathai and the bali peedam to velan koothu and the story of durgA parameswari. Perhaps, he forgot that the cholas were great temple builders and patrons of hinduism even as they were tolerant towards other religions. The cholas also used the brahmadEyam system of land grants to brahmins as administrative policy - hardly surprising if they thought highly of vedAntam.
On hindutva: the cholas & pallavas were hindus - there's no way they can be converted into religion-less rulers. Beyond this, there is no trace of modern day hindutva (i.e., hatred for non-hindus) in kalki's historical novels.
And finally to 4 - he finds male domination in sivakAmi's decision to dedicate herself to god. Mr. vElsAmi assumes that this makes sivakAmi a devadAsi - had he checked a few history books he'd have realized that this system didn't become prevalent until chola times fully 200/300 years after narasimha pallavan's time. Beyond this, in sivakAmi's case kalki shows her as having brought up narasimha pallavan's daughter - evidently Mr. vElsAmi's reading didn't include pArthiban kanavu. In fact, if he had read PK he'd have seen that nAganadhi is portrayed as a villain but he's disguised as a kALAmughar. kALAmughar were hindu tantriks - should we take this to mean that kalki hated hinduism??
Lastly, Mr.vElsAmi remembers that devadAsi ozhippu happened a few decades before kalki wrote SS. We must remember that sivakami at the end of SS has no one to turn to/nowhere to go - kalki may be suggesting that sivakami's decision may have been an option in earlier times. Regardless of how the system degenerated, it started out as a noble idea?