The ninety-four shades of E.V. Ramasamy "Periyar" Naidu

You have to know me as a person before you read this article. This is not history, but a perspective and it is absolutely necessary to know the relevant details about the writer before reading their perspectives. 

I'm not a Brahmin. I was born into the Nadar caste, which was suppressed by the then upper castes in the colonial era and liberated later. However, I do not consider myself a part of that caste anymore. Under the cover of building an identity and a sense of community, organised castes have developed only hatred towards other castes and I do not belong there. Though I'm an atheist and though I do not practice/preach religious rituals, my spiritual(not religious) beliefs are rooted in the philosophy of Tamils, most of which modern-day Hinduism has encapsulated. So, I'm part atheist, part Hindu (rather a strange combination). I love Tamil immensely. I will do anything to promote her, but I will not impose her on a non-Tamil speaker. I believe in freedom, equality and inclusiveness for all cultures in the country including Tamil, but I do not believe in a separate nation for any culture, again including Tamil. My position on this would have been different before independence had I lived then. I'm not a Tamil nationalist now. I believe in freedom and the use of it, but not the abuse of it(which unfortunately is prevalent today). So, there you go. Now to the subject of this piece...

Periyar:
The prophet of new age, Socrates of South East Asia - The honours UNESCO conferred upon E.V. Ramasamy Naidu, fondly known as Periyar(the great one), in the year 1970 for his efforts towards reforming the Tamil society for over fifty years. His self-respect movement, which he started in the early twenties, is no less significant than the Indian independence movement. In essence, both opposed suppression and dominance. While one took great leaders over two hundred years of struggle, the other was achieved in a very short time by a common man who had less than six years of formal education. Such was the influence of Periyar and his self respect movement. He opposed casteism. He opposed untouchability and slavery. He opposed women suppression. And fought vigourously against these evils till the end of his life. Yet, even today, opinions are divided on his ideologies and actions. While some worship him, others criticize him. While some question his motives, others deny such allegations. While his devotees(no, they are not mere followers) consider him a hero, others disapprove of him as a cruel villain. But who was he really? 

Who was Periyar ?
Periyar was born as Erode Venkata Ramasamy Naidu to Venkatappa Naidu and Chinna Thayammal in 1879 in Erode. He spent his early childhood with his widowed grandmother before his father decided to admit him to a school near Erode at the age of six. During those times, children from upper castes were prohibited from befriending children from the lower castes. However, Periyar, belonging to an orthodox family, seemed to have made friends with children from lower castes. His parents disapproved of it and when he failed to change his stance, they withdrew him from school at the age of twelve. For the next two decades, Periyar helped his father with his business and when the old man died in 1911, he took over the business.

In 1919, Periyar joined Indian National Congress(INC). In 1924, he led a protest in Vaikom (then a small town in Kerala) where lower caste people were prohibited from entering the street leading up to the temple. This was his first major agitation against untouchability. The same year he started a weekly called Kudiyarasu (The Republic). In 1925, he left INC. At that time, the TN wing of INC was under the control of Rajaji and Sathyamurthy Iyer, both Brahmins, whom Periyar thought only served the interest of Brahmins. The same year he joined the Justice party and started the self-respect movement. In 1930, he supported the bill to abolish Devadasi system. His wife, Nagammal, whom he married in 1898, died in 1933. The couple's only child died when she was just five months old. In 1937, when Rajaji made Hindi compulsory in TN schools, Periyar led an agitation against it. In 1944, he became the president of justice party and renamed it as Dravidar Kazhagam(DK). In 1948, he married a twenty-six year old Maniammai. In 1949, when Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam(DMK) split from DK and ventured into electoral politics, Periyar decided to stay away from it and continued his fight against social evils as a common man. He died in 1973. 

Though Periyar was not adept in English, he could speak Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada. Though he did not receiving formal education for long, he is considered to have learnt well by observing and studying and through his own experiences. Also, he is widely seen as an atheist, anti-religionist, anti-casteist, rationalist, feminist, and a leader for all Tamils, while there is also a perception that he was a mere traitor. This article will try to determine which of these was he.

Was he an atheist and anti-religion?
The first thing anyone who have met or read Periyar would recollect about him is his famous quote. 

There is no god and no god at all,

He who invented god is a fool,

He who propagated god is a scoundrel,

And he who worships god is a barbarian. 

The quote keeps cropping up on roadside walls in Tamil Nadu from time to time. Atheists and Periyar's devotees have abused this quote for very long, trying to portray Periyar as an hardcore atheist even from a very young age. Periyar himself has stated that he had been an atheist even before the 1900's. But was he a hardcore atheist?

As an atheist myself, I started reading about Periyar a few years ago when I bumped into the above mentioned quote. Over the years, I've formed a picture of him in four different stages of his life - a young man with certain disregard for everyone and everything about life, a husband and a son-in-law being or pretending to be a man of faith, a middle-aged man who believed in monotheism and an old man bitter about all religions. 

Born into privilege, the son of a wealthy business man, Periyar seemed to have been indulgent in his early years. Sami Chidambaram, a long time associate and friend, says the following about Periyar in the book, Tamizhar thalaivar, the authoritative biography of Periyar 

"Before venturing into public life, Periyar spent his days as if there was no tomorrow. He was a man with his own mind and ways and mostly, unruly."

Sami Chidambaram also goes on to say that Periyar's ways were largely philandering during this time. 

"As an young adult, Periyar spent a lot of his time with prostitutes. This continued even after his marriage to Nagammai Ammaiyar. He and his friends spent a lot of their evening and nights by the banks of the river Cauvery with a group of prostitutes. He also had ordered Nagammai to prepare food for the whole group and have it sent to the party." 

Nagammai Ammaiyar was six years younger than Periyar and was probably in her teenage when Periyar indulged in such activities. It seems that Periyar had read and had given his consent for its publication, which is sign of acceptance to the above said events. It is also claimed by some writers that whenever Periyar travelled abroad, he was a regular in strip clubs. However there are no evidences to suggest the same and these writers are too young to have lived alongside Periyar. So, these claims can be disregarded.

Periyar's beliefs in the next stage of his life are shrouded in mystery and are the most difficult to understand. During this time, he might have been a believer or might have been masquerading as one. In 1925, when he started the weekly Kudiyarasu and served as its editor-in-chief, he invited Sri la Sri Swamigal to inaugurate the weekly and spoke highly of the theologian in the said function. Also, the first edition of Kudiyarasu carried an editorial, the excerpts of which I quote below.

"In our endeavour to help our mother land, this weekly shall play its part and for helping us realise this dream of two years, we thank the almighty.... "

And it continues...

"In this great venture of ours, we pray to the almighty god to give us the necessary knowledge and courage..."

Also, in many later editions of Kudiyarasu, the obituary section always referred to the dead as someone who has reached the feet of almighty. Some claim that none of these penned by Periyar himself and would have missed his attention for some reason. Other deny such claims. Periyar himself tried to put these allegations to rest by clearing the air. In 1937, he wrote the following in Navamani's annual edition of the week.

"I have neither followed any religion nor worshiped a god for as long as I can remember. At times, I have had to fake my faith and I have done for the greater good. I have also never considered myself to belong to a caste or be proud of it."

From the above, one can safely assume that by 1937, Periyar had donned the identity of an atheist. However, the period between 1925 and 1937 reveals another identity for the man. During this period, he shunned the polytheistic Hinduism for it was filled with superstitions and developed a fondness towards monotheistic religions like Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. The following are excerpts from his articles in Kudiyarasu that attest the same.

April 15, 1928: Buddhism is the best of religions that are out there. Its philosophies are not narrow minded. 

August 25, 1929 : Today, as we celebrate the birth of prophet Muhammed, I will say that he was best among all religious leaders we have ever had. He made Islam accessible to common man and a religion of peace. 

November 3, 1929: Islam is better than Hinduism. It preaches unity and peace. And it does not have idol worship.

November 16, 1930: Though Christianity brings its own set of problems, we don't have to be bothered too much about it. Christians have become rationalists. So, its an exercise in futile to criticize them now.

August 2, 1931: Islam was the first religion to shun caste and class systems. 

August 23, 1931: Buddha, Christ and prophet Muhammed were social reformers of their times. Though it generally considered that the world will become a better place only after the abolition  of organised religions, if one religion can do that when its still in practice, it has to be Islam.

February 2, 1935: Islam is the religion best suited for Tamils. Culture, life and literature of ancient Tamils show common practices with Islam and to some extent Christianity.

January 19, 1936: It is my belief that conversion to Islam will help Indian Independence. It will also eradicate untouchability. 

May 31, 1936: If untouchability has to be uprooted, Islam is the way to go. Both Islam and Christianity preach a single god and a single caste. So, I urge all Tamil Hindus to convert to Islam.

Even after his own confession in 1937 that he had no belief in any of the organised faiths, Periyar kept making contradicting statements about god through out his life. In 1943, he wrote, "Every Tamil with self-respect should shun Hinduism and convert to Islam or some other religion." In 1948, he wrote, "Christianity and Islam portray their god as one of virtues and those are the gods we need." In 1959, he wrote, "I do not ask you to shun god. I ask you to shun polytheism like Christians and Muslims have."  

Such statements make me wonder whether Periyar was ever was a hardcore atheist? No,I don't think so. He seems to have believed that polytheism and its superstitions were the cause of all social evils. While he suggested monotheism as an alternative to the masses, he seems to have assumed the identity of an atheist. Even if he were an atheist ever, he was never hardcore and could have only been part atheist, part monotheist. And he was not anti-religion, he was anti-hindu(probably because hinduism was dominant than other religions). However, it cannot be denied that he and his self-respect movement played a vital role in abolishing many of the superstitions that existed in Hinduism.


Was he anti-caste?
Before discussing the question, lets look at three incidents that is believed to have taken place in Periyar's life. There is no evidence to suggest that they did really take place or did not. So, find a pinch of salt from your kitchens. 

Incident 1: When Periyar was about ten years old, he stole valuables from a Brahmin house. He was caught and beaten badly.

Incident 2: In 1904, when Periyar ran away from his house and visited Kasi on a pilgrimage(yes, you read it right), he was forced to feed on leftovers of others as choultries in Kasi, even the ones built using donations from South Indian non-Brahmins, did not serve non-Brahmins. And when he tried to pass into one of them as a Brahmin, he was spotted and thrown out.

It is also said that he met a priest while he was in Kasi who allegedly boasted about having sex inside the temple premises and that disgusted Periyar. 

Incident 3: The third one is not really a single incident, but a theory - the rise of Brahmins and the fall of Naidus/Naickers in British India. Before the arrival of British, Naickers ruled over large parts of south India, the most notable one being Thirumalai Nayak or Thirumalai Naicker. He belonged to the Balija group of Naickers. However, when the British arrived in India and took control over the land, they appointed Brahmins to administrative posts and the Naickers who had ruled the southern parts of the country were reduced to mere landlords or zamindars. Periyar was born into the same Balija group of Naickers and was a wealthy landlord himself. And he harbored an enmity towards Brahmins whom he thought were the reason for the fall of Naickers. 

Now, let's see some quotes of Periyar.

"The Dravidian movement is not against the Brahmins. It is against Brahminism as a concept. We will not tolerate its ways of degrading other people."

Later he goes on to say,

"If you encounter a snake and a Brahmin, kill the Brahmin first."

He also calls for destruction of Brahmins.

"Only if the Brahmins are destroyed will castes be destroyed. They are snakes coiled around our feet and they will not hesitate to bite. We should not hesitate to destroy them."

He even took a dig on the poet Bharathi when he wrote that,

"They say he(Bharathi) is an immortal poet. Even if a rat dies in agraharam (the part of town for Brahmins), they will glorify it. Why should this man be glorified? Because he sang in Tamil and about Tamil Nadu? What else could he sing about. His mother tongue Sanskrit has been dead for years. He calls Tamil Nadu the land of aryans." 

From the quotes, it is apparent that Periyar believed Brahmins and their Vedas were the only proponents of the caste system. He must also have believed that Brahmins were the only dominant caste in TN and they were directly responsible for untouchability. We know that this was not the case. In south Tamil Nadu, Mukkulathor were suppressing Shanars. In the west, Kongu Velalars were suppressing others in the region. In North Tamil Nadu, Naickers were playing that role. However, there is not an iota of evidence to suggest that Periyar protested against these groups. 

Also, Periyar went about criticizing and insulting Brahmins almost for everything. He organised a protest to tear off the thread they wear around their torsos. He ridiculed their customs and beliefs and instigated the mob to be violent against them. 

However, it cannot be denied that Periyar played a vital role in the upliftment of Dalits by being a proponent of the reservation system. His movement was also one of the primary reasons Tamils lost their surnames which used to be the caste name. His works created an environment of awareness, which gradually helped to liberate the downtrodden.

So, was he anti-caste? Yes, he was, but unfortunately, it manifested as anti-Brahminism and in some cases anti-Brahmins. So, there will always be a section that hates him. To help someone he destroyed someone else and they will harbour that hatred against him. I wish he had fought against the other castes too, but a man can only do as much. However, I do not accept his criticism on Bharathi. He probably let his emotions override rationalism in that case.


Was he a feminist?
This, I have no doubts, he was. 

He was a vehement supporter of equal rights for men and women. He argued for equal property rights for women and succeeded in achieving it. He was instrumental in abolishing the Devadasi system that existed in Tamil Nadu then. He fought through out his life against the dowry system, which undoubtedly led to suicide of a large number of women and female infanticide. He also criticized traditional marriages for caging women. He was opposed to attaching chastity to women and argued that it must apply for both men and women or none at all. He also opposed child marriage. He advocated women to not enter motherhood which he thought enslaved them. He was also a proponent of widow remarriage. 

However, I have a few qualms about this. 
1) Being an anarchist more than an ideologue, his means weren't necessarily good. He instigated more than he motivated. Here are some quotes. 

"Why should women spend their lives alone as widows? Instead, they should say no to marriages. That way, they wont have to bear the burden of motherhood or become a widow ever." 

"If you are not happy in marriage, tear the thali off and leave."

"Why should you lose your identity when you marry? Say no to changing your name."

"Parents should christen their daughters with traditional names of men. Only then there can be equality for women."

2) I also wish he had shown the same respect towards women from his family.
- Standing amidst the crowd, he called his first wife a "dasi (a prostitute)" for participating in a temple festival. It was supposed to change her attitude towards god.
- He married a 26 year old when he was 70 and changed her name to E.V.R. Maniammai, while he was opposed to idea of women losing their identity.
- We also saw in an earlier section that he frequently partied with prostitutes and ordered his first wife to prepare food for them. So much for women freedom.

3) As Periyar devotees would have us believe, he was not the first feminist of his times, Long before he considered to fight for women, people like Bharathi, sister Nivedita and others were fighting for women freedom. Periyar succeeded in it because he had political backing.


Should Tamils consider him a leader?
It is sometimes funny what Periyar devotees would have you believe. They would tell you Periyar is only Tamil leader worth glorification. They would tell you without him Tamil Nadu would still be in the dark ages. And they would tell you he was the only one who was instrumental in changing the name of the state to Tamil Nadu. 

Let's face some facts:
1) Periyar was of Telugu descent. He was born into a Kannada speaking family. He conversed mostly in Telugu at home. 

2) Before the arrival of Periyar onto the political stage, there was a cry for Tamil Nadu for Tamils. He successfully changed that to Dravida nadu for Dravidians. He wanted all the four states of South India to unite and oppose the North Indians who he considered Aryans. All the other three states turned a blind eye to this call. And the rest is history. Tamils were never able to rise above this notion of Dravidians and destined to be enslaved forever.

3) The name Tamil Nadu was neither coined nor backed by him. Long before him, Bharathi penned poems about Tamil Nadu and it was K. Kamaraj the then chief minister of India who brought a bill to change the name of the state as Tamil Nadu. It was Congress and Periyar backed DK that defeated that bill for political reasons.

4) Periyar constantly went about criticizing the language, its culture, its traditions and its traditions when it was not his place. Here are some quotes. 

"Tamil is the language of barbarians."

"English is better than Tamil in all respects. One who knows English becomes a rationalist. One who learns Tamil gets bogged down by orthodoxy."

"What will you lose by rejecting Tamil? What is it useful for?"

"Tamil is a nuisance and all Tamil poets are enemies of rationalism."

"Tholkappiyan was sold-out to Aryans. He is a traitor who simply wrote Aryan dharma as Tamil grammar"

"Thiruvalluvan wrote Aryan nonsense that suited those times. He let go off rationalism and made some emotional rants."

"Kamban is a traitor. He considered himself a Brahmin and portrayed Brahmin traditions as Tamil cultures."

"The Bhakti movement and all the Tamil literature that came out of it have to be set on fire. It was a movement by Brahmins who wiped out the Jains by instigating the common people using Hinduism."

"I suggest to get rid of all Tamil letters which belong to time of Barbarians and use the English alphabets to reform Tamil."

"I urge everyone to converse at home in English. Shun Tamil and converse in English with your wife, children and even, the servants. Only English will reform you."

Periyar devotees will have counters for these said quotes: He was trying to reform Tamil. He was urging people to learn English so that they could have better employment opportunities. He was a free thinker who wanted to right the wrongs in the system. They would also have questions: Didn't he oppose Hindi imposition? Didn't he oppose the use of Sanskrit in temples? Didn't he suggest the use of Tamil in temples? 

Here are some answers and questions to them: Did Periyar say the same things about Kannada and Telugu ? Were they free of all social evils? Was he the first to suggest English education? Did he not donate land to a Hindi medium school in Tamil Nadu ? Did he want to right the wrongs in the system by destroying the system? Did he know nothing about the Christian crusades? Did he know nothing about sex slaves in Islam? And why didn't Periyar suggest the use of Tamil in mosques and churches? Didn't he also say that he opposed Hindi purely for political reasons?

I will let you think about Periyar's stand on Tamil and jump to the source of Periyar's philosophies and beliefs, one Robert Caldwell.

Who was Robert Caldwell? 
He was a Christian missionary who arrived in India in 1838 to spread Christianity. He appealed to the lower castes, especially shanars (who are now called nadars) to shun Hinduism, which discriminated on the basis on caste and creed and take up Christianity. He promised the shanars a life of peace and happiness in the folds of Christianity. 

He was also the first one who used the term "Dravidian" among the Tamil and Kerala masses. The term Dravidian was used in many Sanskrit texts and it generally referred to the south Indians. Though, initially, Caldwell used the term to differentiate south Indian languages based on Tamil from the north Indian languages based on Sanskrit, later in his life, he began to use it to refer to a different race that was far superior than the north Indian Aryan race. This was not a new technique to missionaries. They had done it before in Germany and it worked here too. People took his bait and what followed was mass conversion (about 10% or more of Nadars are Christians today). Robert Caldwell's suggestion of the existence of two different races in India was what led to the invention of Aryan invasion theory later. 

Periyar was one of the victims of Robert's Caldwell's lies to spread his own religion. We will never if Periyar believed in Caldwell's two-race theory or he just used it for political reasons. 

So again, who was Periyar?
Periyar was a common man who took up the cause of the downtrodden and suppressed and liberated them. However, his means were anarchistic, his motives unclear and his stand wavering. I don't consider him neither a villain nor a hero. I appreciate him for good things he has done to the society, but I do not consider him a leader. A leader rights the wrongs in a system, not uproot it. In that sense, Periyar had more grey in his life than his hair.