A man, an ideology: The importance of EV Ramasamy Periyar

The universal condemnation of BJP leader H Raja’s remarks underlines the enduring iconic status of E V Ramasamy Periyar in Tamil Nadu and beyond. Why is an iconoclast, rationalist social reformer who died 45 years ago still so dear to so many people?

Written by Arun Janardhanan | Updated: March 8, 2018 1:09 am

Periyar is seen as an icon of OBC political assertion. Any attempt to deride him will be seen as an attempt to undermine the gains made by OBCs even beyond Tamil Nadu. (Illustration: Shaym)

To those looking for “Hindu” symbols of religiosity, Tamil Nadu would appear to be deeply religious: people wear vibhuti or kumkum on foreheads, deities and temples are everywhere from street corners to government offices, vehicles are decorated with colourful gods and offerings, even the lives of the minority communities are splattered with the colours of religious ritual. Why is an iconoclast, rationalist social reformer who died 45 years ago so dear to the people of such a state?

E V Ramasamy ‘Periyar’

Born in 1879, Periyar is remembered for the Self Respect Movement to redeem the identity and self-respect of Tamils. He envisaged a Dravida homeland of Dravida Nadu, and launched a political party, Dravidar Kazhagam (DK).

Periyar started his political career as a Congress worker in his hometown Erode. He quarrelled with Gandhi over the question of separate dining for Brahmin and non-Brahmin students at Gurukkulam, a Congress-sponsored school owned by nationalist leader V V S Iyer in Cheranmahadevi near Tirunelveli. At the request of parents, Iyer had provided separate dining for Brahmin students, which Periyar opposed. Gandhi proposed a compromise, arguing that while it may not be a sin for a person not to dine with another, he would rather respect their scruples. After failing to bend the Congress to his view, Periyar resigned from the party in 1925, and associated himself with the Justice Party and the Self Respect Movement, which opposed the dominance of Brahmins in social life, especially the bureaucracy. The Justice Party had a decade earlier advocated reservation for non-Brahmins in the bureaucracy and, after coming to power in the Madras Presidency, issued an order to implement it.

Periyar’s fame spread beyond the Tamil region during the Vaikom Satyagraha of 1924, a mass movement to demand that lower caste persons be given the right to use a public path in front of the famous Vaikom temple. Periyar took part in the agitation with his wife, and was arrested twice. He would later be referred to as Vaikom Veerar (Hero of Vaikom).

During the 1920s and 30s, Periyar combined social and political reform, and challenged the conservatism of the Congress and the mainstream national movement in the Tamil region. He reconstructed the Tamil identity as an egalitarian ideal that was originally unpolluted by the caste system, and counterposed it against the Indian identity championed by the Congress. He argued that caste was imported to the Tamil region by Aryan Brahmins, who spoke Sanskrit and came from Northern India. In the 1930s, when the Congress ministry imposed Hindi, he drew a parallel with the Aryanisation process, and claimed it was an attack on Tamil identity and self-respect. Under him, the Dravidian Movement became a struggle against caste and an assertion of Tamil national identity.

In the 1940s, Periyar launched Dravidar Kazhagam, which espoused an independent Dravida Nadu comprising Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and Kannada speakers. The Dravidian linguistic family was the foundation on which he based his idea of a Dravida national identity. These ideas had a seminal influence on the shaping of the political identity and culture of the Tamil speaking areas of Madras Presidency, and continue to resonate in present-day Tamil Nadu.

Periyar died in 1973 at the age of 94.

His work and his legacy

For the average Tamil, Periyar today is an ideology. He stands for a politics that foregrounded social equality, self-respect, and linguistic pride. As a social reformer, he focused on social, cultural and gender inequalities, and his reform agenda questioned matters of faith, gender and tradition. He asked people to be rational in their life choices. He argued that women needed to be independent, not mere child-bearers, and insisted that they be allowed a equal share in employment. The Self Respect Movement he led promoted weddings without rituals, and sanctioned property as well as divorce rights for women. He appealed to people to give up the caste suffix in their names, and to not mention caste. He instituted inter-dining with food cooked by Dalits in public conferences in the 1930s.

Over the years, Periyar has transcended the political divide as well as the faultlines of religion and caste, and come to be revered as Thanthai Periyar, the father figure of modern Tamil Nadu.

C N Annadurai, who was Periyar’s dearest pupil at one time, broke with him, split the DK, and formed the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in 1949. Anna, a man of the masses, recognised the value of electoral democracy and accepted that Tamil separatism had no future. He used the new medium of cinema to spread the ideals of the Dravidian Movement and established himself as the successor to Periyar. In 1967, the DMK won office in Tamil Nadu. Since then, Tamil Nadu has been ruled by parties who trace their origin to the Dravidian Movement and swear by its ideals. They may have diluted Periyar’s ideals in office, but both the DMK and the AIADMK proudly claim to be inheritors of Periyar’s social and political vision.

If Periyar was an iconoclast, Anna was a moderate reformist. On the pedestal of one of Periyar’s many statues in Tamil Nadu is the inscription: “There is no god, and no god at all. He who created god was a fool, he who propagates god is a scoundrel and he who worships god is a barbarian.” His successors moderated this radicalism — R Kannan recounts in Anna: The Life and Times of C N Annadurai, that Anna, who under the influence of his atheist mentor once broke Ganesha figures, would later say, “I would neither break the Ganesha idol nor the coconut (the offering).”

During the Emergency, a petition against “offensive” inscriptions on the pedestals of Periyar’s statues came before the Madras High Court. The court dismissed the petition, saying Periyar believed in what he said, and there was nothing wrong in having his words as inscriptions on his statues. In a judgment passed in another case on June 2012, retired Madras High Court Justice K Chandru said: “The installation of the Periyar statue in the school premises will not automatically covert the children into an atheist outlook… Ultimately the understanding of the philosophy of such a personality will only help them from having scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform as enshrined under Article 51-A(h) of the Constitution.”

Fallout of the attack on Periyar

The universal condemnation of BJP leader H Raja’s social media remarks — he has since removed the post and apologised — underlines the iconic status Periyar enjoys in Tamil Nadu. DK now has limited political influence in Tamil Nadu, but Periyar has grown beyond the DK and even Tamil Nadu. While caste discrimination continues to be prevalent in the state, every political party pays at least lip service to Periyar’s ideals of social and political justice.

In a way, Raja was right to compare Lenin and Periyar — Periyar is to the Dravidian Movement as Lenin is to Communism. Raja’s rejection of Periyar was construed as a rejection of his ideals. The BJP, which is trying to wear down the image of a Hindi-Hindutva outfit in Tamil Nadu, could find it difficult to live down Raja’s comments.

Periyar is seen as an icon of OBC political assertion. Any attempt to deride him will be seen as an attempt to undermine the gains made by OBCs even beyond Tamil Nadu.

Source: indianexpress

Dictum & Diaspora: Silence or near silence on intolerance ill behooves PM Modi

Just as Prime Minister Modi can't ignore a foreign military attack on India, he doesn't have the option of turning a blind eye or of remaining silent in the face of intolerance, communal strife and religious violence within the country.

Written by Ujjal Dosanjh | Updated: December 3, 2015 8:40 am

Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaking in Lok Sabha.

The intolerance being felt in the country is a serious threat to the idea of India. So is Prime Minister Modi’s silence or near silence about it. Recently my mind focussed on what it meant to be Indian – above and beyond the intolerance debate – when in answering a question from columnist Tavleen Singh, Aamir Khan criticised the extremists of all varieties including ISIS asserting he didn’t consider ISIS to be Muslims even if they held the koran in one hand butchering people with the other. Not satisfied with the answer, Singh went on to excoriate him in her column “Intolerance of the real kind” as a “Muslim leader” for not leading other Muslims in denouncing ISIS to the exclusion of all other extremists. I found it perplexing.

I have always thought an Indian is an Indian – no less than any other Indian. Aamir Khan is an Indian who happens to be an actor and a Muslim just as Tavleen Singh is an Indian who happens to be a columnist and hails from a Sikh family. None of that should matter and isn’t worth wasting even a smidgen of ink over. But it made me wonder whether any journalists had made an issue of any non Muslim Bollywood stars’ pronouncements or of whether they had ‘adequately condemned’ their coreligionists’ condemnable misdeeds. Recently, PTI reported Amitabh Bachan… on ‘growing intolerance’ as saying “Indian films taught… to banish communal prejudices”. He emphasised India’s social unity… at a time when “cultures are being questioned and prejudices against the communities are dividing the world.”

Nandita Das declared “I don’t think freedom of expression has ever been so threatened.” Ranbir Kapoor said as much in describing his father Rishi’s battles with the Twitterati: “Unfortunately in this country you can’t really speak your mind”…without being misconstrued. No one has questioned Amitabh’s, Nandita’s or Ranbir’s patriotism; no one has called them “Hindu leaders”. That is as it should be in a democracy.

While citizens’ outspokenness makes for a better society, in a democracy they are nonetheless free to be silent and no one should be shamed or forced into speaking up on any issue including for or against his/her coreligionists no matter how wonderful or vile the latter may be. No matter how disagreeable or cowardly the silence of citizens may be, they only have a moral obligation to speak up.

VIDEO: Rahul Tears Into Govt, Rajnath Defends: Parliament Debate On Intolerance



On the other hand, the Prime Minister has both a moral and a legal obligation to lead on these issues. Over and above working for India’s economic progress, maintaining its territorial integrity and defending its borders, the Prime Minister of India is the legal guardian of the peace, order and good government in the country. Just as he can’t ignore a foreign military attack on India he doesn’t have the option of turning a blind eye or of remaining silent in the face of intolerance, communal strife and religious violence within the country.

Peace and harmony within India goes to the core of who we are as Indians; I say we because what happens in India has an impact on others’ perception of us even in the diaspora. Even if the level of intolerance in India is the same as it was before or more it must be fought. The stifling of free expression must be challenged. The communal and religious tensions must be defeated whether they are as bad as before or worse. No matter when it all began, who started it, who further fuelled it or whether it also happened under the previous regime, unfreedom, intimidation, violence or disharmony in the nation mustn’t be greeted by silence and can’t be vanquished by Prime Ministerial silence.

The Prime Minister is the ultimate official, legal and moral trustee of India’s heritage, its inherent diversity and social solidarity. His continuing silence on these fundamental matters is a serious threat to the survival of the idea of India – of multitudes of different ethnic, faith, cultural and linguistic groups.

Instead of haranguing Aamir Khan who professes to be nothing more than an Indian and an actor – the last I checked he hadn’t contested elections to even be a dog catcher for Mumbai let alone the PM of India – we should be urging the otherwise prolific speech maker PM Modi and politicians of all stripes to more vigorously speak up and stand up for Indian diversity, equality and freedom of expression; and to strike a strong and lasting blow against the forces of hate, division, fear and denigration of minorities. Uttering mealy-mouthed pronouncements on diversity and pluralism will not strengthen the idea of India for all Indians one whit. Modi must invoke the ancient Indian ethos of peaceful coexistence to robustly and loudly urge upon all Indians a compassionate, just, inclusive, strong and peaceful India. Silence – even near silence – isn’t an option.

Dosanjh is former Premier of British Columbia, and former Canadian Minister of Health. Views expressed are personal.

© The Indian Express Online Media Pvt Ltd

Source: indianexpress

Gita, Gandhi and Godse

Varghese K. George

Both Nathuram Godse and Mahatma Gandhi read the Bhagavad Gita but one became a martyr and the other a murderer
 

GRIM REMINDER: “January 30, the day Nathuram Godse killed Mahatma Gandhi, is the starkest reminder in the history of humankind of how the same text can be read differently.” Picture shows Mahatma Gandhi’s funeral procession in in 1948.

January 30 reminds us of the fact that even the holiest of texts can have subjective and differential meanings.

The sacred Indian verses of Shrimad Bhagavad Gita has been in the news for various reasons in recent months. Prime Minister Narendra Modi presented a copy of the Bhagavad Gita to United States President Barack Obama when he visited the White House last year and one to Emperor Akihito of Japan. He has declared that the Gita would be the gift that he would carry for all world leaders. More controversially, Union Minister Sushma Swaraj advocated that the Gita may be declared the national book of India. Most recently, the BJP government in Haryana declared its intention to teach the Gita as part of the school curriculum.

To say that religion and politics should not be mixed has not only become a cliché, but may be missing the point altogether. Many tall leaders found the reason for their political action in their religious faith. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr are examples. President Obama mentioned in his town hall speech in Delhi last week that his faith strengthened him in his life. It is also true that many kings and emperors of the past used religious faith to justify killings and destruction.

Martyr and murderer

Many individuals and organisations advocate and indulge in violence today, and justify it on the basis of religious texts. January 30, the day Nathuram Godse killed Mahatma Gandhi, is the starkest reminder in the history of humankind of how the same text can be read differently. Both read the Bhagavad Gita. One became Gandhi. The other became Godse. One became a martyr. The other became a murderer. Jawaharlal Nehru, for whom the Gita was “a poem of crisis, of political and social crisis and, even more so, of crisis in the spirit of man,” wrote in the Discovery of India: “... the leaders of thought and action of the present day — Tilak, Aurobindo Ghose, Gandhi — have written on it, each giving his own interpretation. Gandhiji bases his firm belief in non-violence on it; others justify violence and warfare for a righteous cause ...”

What is curious is the fact that the two opposite interpretations of the Gita that Nehru refers to were responses to the same shared reality that their respective proponents encountered —  colonialism and Christianity. Two strikingly different responses emerge to the same situation. The divergence is evident from the debate between Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. In 1920, Tilak wrote to Gandhi: “Politics is the game of worldly people and not of Sadhus, and instead of the maxim, ‘overcome anger by loving kindness, evil by good,’ as preached by Buddha, I prefer to rely on the maxim of Shri Krishna, ‘In whatsoever way any come to me, in that same way I grant them favour.’ That explains the whole difference.” Gandhi replied: “For me there is no conflict between the two texts quoted by the Lokamanya. The Buddhist text lays down an eternal principle. The text from the Bhagavad Gita shows to me how the eternal principle of conquering hate by love, untruth by truth can and must be applied.”

For Tilak, the Gita was a call for action, political and religious. He declared that the Gita sanctioned violence for unselfish and benevolent reasons. While Tilak’s interpretation of the Gita that he wrote while in prison inspired a generation of warriors against British colonialism, it also informed Hindutva politics. Godse used similar arguments to justify the killing of the Mahatma, and quoted from the book during his trial. For Gandhi, the Gita and all religious texts were not excuses for exclusion and bigotry, but inspiration for compassion and confluence. In The Bhagavad Gita According to Gandhi — incidentally, the book that Mr. Modi gifted Mr. Obama — the Father of the Nation wrote: “But there is nothing exclusive about the Gita which should make it a gospel only for the Brahmana or the Hindu. Having all the light and colour of the Indian atmosphere, it naturally must have the greatest fascination for the Hindu, but the central teaching should not have any the less appeal for a non-Hindu as the central teaching of the Bible or the Koran should not have any less appeal for a non-Christian or a non-Muslim.”

Challenged by Christian missionaries, Gandhi learned more about his own religion, but more importantly, he imbibed Christian values rather than rejecting them. “Gandhi integrated several aspects of Christianity in this brand of increasingly redefined Hinduism, particularly the idea of suffering love as exemplified in the image of crucifixion. The image haunted him all his life and became the source of some of his deepest passions. He wept before it when he visited Vatican in Rome in 1931; the bare walls of his Sevagram ashram made an exception in favour of it; Isaac Watts’s ‘When I behold the wondrous Cross,’ which offers a moving portrayal of Christ’s sorrow and sacrifice and ends with ‘love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all,’ was one of his favourite hymns...” Bhikhu Parekh writes. Gandhi was accused of being a ‘closet Christian’ and ridiculed as ‘Mohammad Gandhi’ by Hindu radicals.

Support for Godse’s reading

Godse’s reading of the Gita appears to gather more supporters in contemporary India. BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj knew what he was talking about when he praised Godse. Several individuals and organisations have become active in propagating the ideas of Godse. There is also a move to build a temple for him.

After gifting the Gita to the Japanese emperor, Mr. Modi wondered whether his act would irk secularists. The greatest of Indian secularists, Nehru, had this to say: “During the 2,500 years since it was written, Indian humanity has gone repeatedly through the processes of change and development and decay; but it has always found something living in the Gita...The message of the Gita is not sectarian or addressed to any particular school of thought. It is universal in its approach for everyone… ‘All paths lead to Me,’ it says.”

But then, it is all about reading it like Gandhi.

varghese.g@thehindu.co.in

Source: The Hindu