Periyar
Periyar
Main page
1274990

Periyar

logo
Community Hub0 subscribers
Read side by side
from Wikipedia

Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy (17 September 1879 – 24 December 1973), commonly known as Periyar,[a] was an Indian social activist and politician. He was the organiser of the Self-Respect Movement and Dravidar Kazhagam and is considered the architect of Dravidian politics, as well as a leading figure of left-wing politics in India.

Key Information

Periyar joined the Indian National Congress in 1919 and participated in the Vaikom Satyagraha, during which he was imprisoned twice. He resigned from the Congress in 1925, believing that they only served the interests of Brahmins. From 1929 to 1932, he toured British Malaya, Europe and the Soviet Union which later influenced his Self-Respect Movement in favour of caste equality. In 1939, he became the head of the Justice Party,[b] which he transformed into a social organisation named Dravidar Kazhagam in 1944. The party later split, with one group led by C. N. Annadurai forming the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in 1949. While continuing the Self-Respect Movement, he advocated for an independent Dravida Nadu (land of the Dravidians).

Periyar promoted the principles of rationalism, self-respect, women's rights and eradication of caste. He opposed the exploitation and marginalisation of the non-Brahmin Dravidian people of South India and the imposition of what he considered Indo-Aryan India. Since 2021, the Indian state of Tamil Nadu celebrates his birth anniversary as 'Social Justice Day'.

Biography

[edit]

Early years

[edit]

Erode Venkata Ramasamy was born on 17 September 1879 to a Kannada speaking Balija[1][2] merchant family[3][4][5] in Erode, then a part of the Coimbatore district of the Madras Presidency.[6] Ramasamy's father was Venkatappa Nayakar (or Venkata), and his mother was Chinnathyee Muthammal. He had one elder brother named Krishnaswamy and two sisters named Kannamma and Ponnuthoy.[7][6] He later came to be known as "Periyar", meaning 'respected one' or 'elder' in Tamil.[7][8][9][10][11]

Periyar married when he was 19, and had a daughter who lived for only 5 months. His first wife, Nagammai, died in 1933.[12] Periyar married for a second time in July 1948. His second wife, Maniammai, continued Periyar's social work after his death in 1973, and his ideas then were advocated by Dravidar Kazhagam.[13]

In 1929, Periyar announced the deletion of his caste title Naicker from his name at the First Provincial Self-Respect Conference of Chengalpattu.[14] He could speak three Dravidian languages: Kannada, Telugu and Tamil.[15][16][17][18][19] Periyar attended school for five years after which he joined his father's trade at the age of 12. He used to listen to Tamil Vaishnavite gurus who gave discourses in his house enjoying his father's hospitality. At a young age, he began questioning the apparent contradictions in the Hindu mythological stories.[7] As Periyar grew, he felt that people used religion only as a mask to deceive innocent people and therefore took it as one of his duties in life to warn people against superstitions and priests.[20]

Kashi pilgrimage Incident

[edit]

In 1904, Periyar went on a pilgrimage to Kashi to visit the revered Shiva temple of Kashi Vishwanath.[7] Though regarded as one of the holiest sites of Hinduism, he witnessed immoral activities such as begging and floating dead bodies.[7] His frustrations extended to functional Hinduism in general, when he experienced what he called "Brahmanic exploitation".[21]

Periyar, c. 1910s

However, one particular alleged incident in Kasi had a profound impact on Periyar's ideology and future work. At the worship site, there were free meals offered to guests. To Periyar's shock, he was refused meals at choultries, which exclusively fed Brahmins. Due to extreme hunger, Periyar felt compelled to enter one of the eateries disguised as a Brahmin with a sacred thread on his bare chest, but was betrayed by his moustache. The gatekeeper at the temple concluded that Periyar was not a Brahmin, as Brahmins were not permitted by the Hindu shastras to have moustaches. He not only prevented Periyar's entry but also pushed him rudely into the street.[7]

As his hunger became intolerable, Periyar was forced to feed on leftovers from the streets. Around this time, he realised that the eatery which had refused him entry was built by a wealthy non-Brahmin from South India.[7] This discriminatory attitude dealt a blow to Periyar's regard for Hinduism, for the events he had witnessed at Kasi were completely different from the picture of Kasi he had in mind, as a holy place which welcomed all.[7] Periyar was a theist until his visit to Kasi, after which his views changed and he became an atheist.[22]

Member of Congress (1919–1925)

[edit]
A statue of Periyar at Vaikom town in Kottayam, Kerala

Periyar joined the Indian National Congress in 1919 after quitting his business and resigning from public posts. He held the chairmanship of Erode Municipality and wholeheartedly undertook constructive programmes spreading the use of Khadi, picketing toddy shops, boycotting shops selling foreign cloth, and eradicating untouchability. In 1921, Periyar courted imprisonment for picketing toddy shops in Erode. When his wife as well as his sister joined the agitation, it gained momentum, and the administration was forced to come to a compromise. He was again arrested during the Non-Cooperation movement and the Temperance movement.[23] In 1922, Periyar was elected the President of the Madras Presidency Congress Committee during the Tirupur session, where he advocated strongly for reservation in government jobs and education. His attempts were defeated in the Congress party due to discrimination and indifference, which led to his leaving the party in 1925.[24]

Vaikom Satyagraha (1924–1925)

[edit]

Vaikom Satyagraha was a nonviolent agitation for access to the prohibited public environs of the Vaikom Temple in the Kingdom of Travancore by the Congress Party. The Kingdom of Travancore was known for its rigid and oppressive caste system and hence Swami Vivekananda called Travancore a "lunatic asylum".[25][26][27][28][29][30]

In Vaikom, a small town in Kerala state, then Travancore, there were strict laws of untouchability in and around the temple area. Dalits, also known as Harijans, were not allowed into the close streets around and leading to the temple, let alone inside it. Anti-caste feelings were growing and in 1924 Vaikom was chosen as a suitable place for an organised Satyagraha. Under his guidance a movement had already begun with the aim of giving all castes the right to enter the temples. Thus, agitations and demonstrations took place.

Periyar was invited to lead the movement as he was the President of the Madras Presidency Congress.[31][32] On 14 April, Periyar and his wife Nagamma arrived in Vaikom. They were immediately arrested and imprisoned for participation. Periyar and his followers continued to give support to the movement until it was withdrawn during which he was arrested again.[33][34][35][36]

The way in which the Vaikom Satyagraha events have been recorded provides a clue to the image of the respective organisers. In an article entitled Gandhi and Ambedkar, A Study in Leadership, Eleanor Zelliot relates the 'Vaikom Satyagraha', including Gandhi's negotiations with the temple authorities in relation to the event. Furthermore, the editor of Periyar's Thoughts states that Brahmins purposely suppressed news about Periyar's participation. A leading Congress magazine, Young India, in its extensive reports on Vaikom never mentions Periyar.[21]

After the intervention of Mahatma Gandhi, the agitation was given up and a compromise was reached with the Regent Sethu Lakshmi Bayi, who released all those arrested and opened the north, south, and west public roads leading to Vaikom Mahadeva Temple to all castes. However, she refused to open the eastern road. The compromise was criticised by Periyar. Only in 1936, after the Temple Entry Proclamation, was access to the eastern road and entry into the temple allowed to the lower castes.[37] In 1925 the Madras Presidency Congress passed a unanimous resolution hailing Periyar as Vaikom Veerar or Hero of Vaikom in the Kanchipuram Session.[38][39]

Self-Respect Movement

[edit]
Periyar during the early years of Self-Respect Movement

Periyar and his followers campaigned constantly to influence and pressure the government to take measures to remove social inequality (abolish untouchability, manual scavenging system etc.) even while other nationalist forerunners focused on the struggle for political independence. The Self-Respect Movement was described from the beginning as "dedicated to the goal of giving non-Brahmins a sense of pride based on their Dravidian past".[40] He questioned what he felt was the subjugation of non-Brahmin Dravidians as Brahmins enjoyed gifts and donations from non-Brahmins but opposed and discriminated against non-Brahmins in cultural and religious matters.[24] He declared his stance to be "no god, no religion, no Gandhi, no Congress, and no Brahmins".[41] He rebelled against Brahmin dominance and gender and caste inequality in Tamil Nadu.[42][43][44][45]

In 1952, the Periyar Self-Respect Movement Institution was registered with a list of objectives of the institution which may be quoted as follows:

for the diffusion of useful knowledge of political education; to allow people to live a life of freedom from slavery to anything against reason and self respect; to do away with needless customs, meaningless ceremonies, and blind superstitious beliefs in society; to put an end to the present social system in which caste, religion, community and traditional occupations based on the accident of birth, have chained the mass of the people and created "superior" and "inferior" classes ... and to give people equal rights; to completely eradicate untouchability and to establish a united society based on brother/sisterhood; to give equal rights to women; to prevent child marriages and marriages based on law favourable to one sect, to conduct and encourage love marriages, widow marriages, inter caste and inter-religious marriages and to have the marriages registered under the Civil Law; and to establish and maintain homes for orphans and widows and to run educational institutions.[21]

Propagation of the philosophy of self-respect became the full-time activity of Periyar since 1925. A Tamil weekly Kudi Arasu started in 1925, while the English journal Revolt started in 1928 carried on the propaganda among the English educated people.[46] The Self-Respect Movement began to grow fast and received the sympathy of the heads of the Justice Party from the beginning. In May 1929, a conference of Self-Respect Volunteers was held at Pattukkotai under the presidency of S. Guruswami. K. V. Alagiriswami took charge as the head of the volunteer band. Conferences followed in succession throughout the Tamil districts of the former Madras Presidency. A Self-Respect training school was opened at Erode, the home town of Periyar. The object was not just to introduce social reform but to bring about a social revolution to foster a new spirit and build a new society.[47]

International travel (1929–1932)

[edit]

Between 1929 and 1935, under the strain of the Great Depression, political thinking worldwide received a jolt from the spread of international communism.[48] Indian political parties, movements and considerable sections of leadership were also affected by inter-continental ideologies. The Self-Respect Movement also came under the influence of the leftist philosophies and institutions. Periyar, after establishing the Self-Respect Movement as an independent institution, began to look for ways to strengthen it politically and socially. To accomplish this, he studied the history and politics of different countries, and personally observed these systems at work.[48]

Periyar toured Malaya for a month, from December 1929 to January 1930, to propagate the self-respect philosophy. Embarking on his journey from Nagapattinam with his wife Nagammal and his followers, Periyar was received by 50,000[citation needed] Tamil Malaysians in Penang. During the same month, he inaugurated the Tamils Conference, convened by the Tamils Reformatory Sangam in Ipoh, and then went to Singapore. In December 1931 he undertook a tour of Europe, accompanied by S. Ramanathan and Erode Ramu, to personally acquaint himself with their political systems, social movements, way of life, economic and social progress and administration of public bodies. He visited Egypt, Greece, Turkey, the Soviet Union, Germany, England, Spain, France and Portugal, staying in Russia for three months. On his return journey he halted at Ceylon and returned to India in November 1932.[48]

The tour shaped the political ideology of Periyar to achieve the social concept of Self-Respect. The communist system in the Soviet Union appealed to him as appropriately suited to deal with the social ills of the country. Thus, on socio-economic issues Periyar was Marxist, but he did not advocate for abolishing private ownership.[49] Immediately after his return, Periyar, in alliance with the enthusiastic communist, M. Singaravelar, began to work out a socio-political scheme incorporating socialist and self-respect ideals. This marked a crucial stage of development in the Self-Respect Movement which got politicised and found its compatibility in Tamil Nadu.[48]

Opposition to Hindi

[edit]

In 1937, when Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari became the Chief Minister of Madras Presidency, he introduced Hindi as a compulsory language of study in schools, thereby igniting a series of anti-Hindi agitations.[50] Tamil nationalists, the Justice Party under Sir A. T. Panneerselvam, and Periyar organised anti-Hindi protests in 1938 which ended with numerous arrests by the Rajaji government.[51]

During the same year, the slogan "Tamil Nadu for Tamilians"[52] was first used by Periyar in protest against the introduction of Hindi in schools. He claimed that the introduction of Hindi was a dangerous mechanism used by the Aryans to infiltrate Dravidian culture.[52] He reasoned that the adoption of Hindi would make Tamils subordinate to the Hindi-speaking North Indians. Periyar claimed that Hindi would not only halt the progress of Tamil people, but would also completely destroy their culture and nullify the progressive ideas that had been successfully inculcated through Tamil in the recent decades.[53]

Cutting across party lines, South Indian politicians rallied together in their opposition to Hindi.[53] There were recurrent anti-Hindi agitations in 1948, 1952 and 1965.[54]

As President of the Justice Party (1938–1944)

[edit]

A political party known as the South Indian Libertarian Federation (commonly referred to as Justice Party) was founded in 1916, principally to oppose the economic and political power of the Brahmin groups. The party's goal was to render social justice to the non-Brahmin groups. To gain the support of the masses, non-Brahmin politicians began propagating an ideology of equality among non-Brahmin castes. Brahmanical priesthood and Sanskritic social class-value hierarchy were blamed for the existence of inequalities among non-Brahmin caste groups.[55]

In 1937, when the government required that Hindi be taught in the school system, Periyar organised opposition to this policy through the Justice Party. After 1937, the Dravidian movement derived considerable support from the student community. In later years, opposition to Hindi played a big role in the politics of Tamil Nadu. The fear of the Hindi language had its origin in the conflict between Brahmins and non-Brahmins. To the Tamils, acceptance of Hindi in the school system was a form of bondage. When the Justice Party weakened in the absence of mass support, Periyar took over the leadership of the party after being jailed for opposing Hindi in 1939.[56] Under his tutelage the party prospered, but the party's conservative members, most of whom were rich and educated, withdrew from active participation.[55]

Dravidar Kazhagam (1944–onwards)

[edit]

Formation of the Dravidar Kazhagam

[edit]

At a rally in 1944, Periyar, in his capacity as the leader of the Justice Party, declared that the party would henceforth be known as the Dravidar Kazhagam, or "Dravidian Association". However, a few who disagreed with Periyar started a splinter group, claiming to be the original Justice Party. This party was led by veteran Justice Party leader P. T. Rajan and survived until 1957.

The Dravidar Kazhagam came to be well known among the urban communities and students. Villages were influenced by its message. Hindi, and ceremonies that had become associated with Brahmanical priesthood, were identified as alien symbols that should be eliminated from Tamil culture. Brahmins, who were regarded as the guardians of such symbols, came under verbal attack.[55] From 1949 onwards, the Dravidar Kazhagam intensified social reformist work and put forward the fact that superstitions were the cause for the degeneration of Dravidians. The Dravidar Kazhagam vehemently fought for the abolition of untouchability amongst the Dalits. It also focused its attention on the liberation of women, women's education, willing marriage, widow marriage, orphanages and mercy homes.[57]

Split with Annadurai

[edit]
B. R. Ambedkar with Periyar when they met in connection with a Buddhist conference in Rangoon, Myanmar, in 1954

In 1949, Periyar's chief lieutenant, Conjeevaram Natarajan Annadurai, established a separate association called the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), or Dravidian Progressive Federation.[55] This was due to differences between the two, while Periyar advocated a separate independent Dravidian or Tamil state, Annadurai compromised with the Delhi government, at the same time claiming increased state independence.[58] Periyar was convinced that individuals and movements that undertake the task of eradicating the social evils in the Indian sub-continent have to pursue the goal with devotion and dedication without deviating from the path and with uncompromising zeal. Thus, if they contest elections aiming to assume political power, they would lose vigour and a sense of purpose. But among his followers, there were those who had a different view, wanting to enter into politics and have a share in running the government. Thus, when Periyar married Maniammai on 9 July 1948, they quit the Dravidar Kazhagam, stating that Periyar married Maniammayar who was the daughter of Kanagasabhai when he was 70 and she 32. Those who parted company with Periyar joined the DMK. Though the DMK split from the Dravidar Kazhagam, the organisation made efforts to carry on Periyar's Self-Respect Movement to villagers and urban students. The DMK advocated the thesis that the Tamil language was much richer than Sanskrit and Hindi in content, and thus was a key which opened the door to subjects to be learned.[55] The Dravidar Kazhagam continued to counter Brahminism, Indo-Aryan propaganda, and uphold the Dravidians' right of self-determination.[59]

Later years

[edit]
Periyar Thidal at Vepery, where Periyar's body was buried

In 1956, despite warnings from P. Kakkan, the President of the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee, Periyar organised a procession to the Marina to burn pictures of the Hindu God Rama.[60] Periyar was subsequently arrested and confined to prison.[60]

The activities of Periyar continued when he went to Bangalore in 1958 to participate in the All India Official Language Conference. There he stressed the need to retain English as the Union Official Language instead of Hindi. Five years later, Periyar travelled to North India to advocate the eradication of the caste system. In his last meeting at Thiagaraya Nagar, Chennai on 19 December 1973, Periyar declared a call for action to gain social equality and a dignified way of life. On 24 December 1973, Periyar died at the age of 94.

Principles and legacy

[edit]

Periyar spent over fifty years giving speeches, propagating the realisation that everyone is an equal citizen and the differences on the basis of caste and creed were man-made to keep the innocent and ignorant as underdogs in the society. Although Periyar's speeches were targeted towards the illiterate and more mundane masses, scores of educated people were also swayed.[61] Periyar viewed reasoning as a special tool. According to him, all were blessed with this tool, but very few used it. Thus Periyar used reasoning with respect to subjects of social interest in his presentations to his audiences.[61] Communal differences in Tamil society were considered by many to be deep-rooted features until Periyar came to the scene.[62]

Rationalism

[edit]

The bedrock of Periyar's principles and the movements that he started was rationalism. He thought that an insignificant minority in society was exploiting the majority and trying to keep it in a subordinate position forever. He wanted the exploited to sit up and think about their position, and use their reason to realise that they were being exploited by a handful of people. If they started thinking, they would realise that they were human beings like the rest, that birth did not and should not endow superiority over others and that they must awaken themselves and do everything possible to improve their own lot.[61]

Likewise, Periyar explained that wisdom lies in thinking and that the spear-head of thinking is rationalism. On caste, he stated that no other living being harms or degrades its own class. But man, said to be a rational living being, does these evils. The differences, hatred, enmity, degradation, poverty and wickedness now prevalent in society are due to lack of wisdom and rationalism and not due to God or the cruelty of time. Periyar had written in his books and magazines dozens of times of various occasions that British rule is better than self-rule.[63]

Periyar also blamed the capitalists for their control of machinery, creating difficulties for the workers. According to his philosophy, rationalism, which ought to lead the way to a peaceful life for all, had resulted in causing poverty and anxiety among the people due to dominating forces. He stated that there is no use to simply acquiring titles or amassing wealth if one lacks self-respect or scientific knowledge. An example he gave was the West sending messages to the planets, while the Tamil society in India were sending rice and cereals to their dead forefathers through the Brahmins.[63]

In a message to the Brahmin community, Periyar stated, "in the name of god, religion, and sastras you have duped us. We were the ruling people. Stop this life of cheating us from this year. Give room for rationalism and humanism".[64] He added that "any opposition not based on rationalism, science, or experience will one day or another, reveal the fraud, selfishness, lies and conspiracies".[64]

Self-respect

[edit]

Periyar's philosophy of self-respect was based on his image of an ideal world and a universally accepted one. His philosophy preaches that human actions should be based on rational thinking. Further, the outcome of the natural instinct of human beings is to examine every object and every action and even nature with a spirit of inquiry, and to refuse to submit to anything irrational as equivalent to slavery. Thus, the philosophy of self-respect taught that human actions should be guided by reason, right and wrong should follow from rational thinking and conclusions drawn from reason should be respected under all circumstances. Freedom means respect to thoughts and actions considered 'right' by human beings on the basis of 'reason'. There is not much difference between 'freedom' and 'self-respect'.[65]

Periyar's foremost appeal to people was to develop self-respect. He preached that the Brahmins had monopolised and cheated other communities for decades and deprived them of self-respect. He stated that most Brahmins claimed to belong to a "superior" community with the reserved privilege of being in charge of temples and performing archanas. He felt that they were trying to reassert their control over religion by using their superior caste status to claim the exclusive privilege to touch idols or enter the sanctum sanctorum.[62]

Women's rights

[edit]

As a rationalist and ardent social reformer, Periyar advocated forcefully throughout his life that women should be given their legitimate position in society as the equals of men, that they should be provided good education and have the right to property. He thought that age and social customs were not a bar to marrying women. He was keen that women should realise their rights and be worthy citizens of their country.[66]

Periyar fought against the orthodox traditions of marriage as suppression of women in Tamil Nadu and throughout the Indian sub-continent. Though arranged marriages were meant to enable a couple to live together throughout life, it was manipulated to enslave women.[67] Much worse was the practice of child marriages practised throughout India at the time. It was believed that it would be a sin to marry after puberty.[68] Another practice, which is prevalent today, is the dowry system where the bride's family is supposed to give the husband a huge payment for the bride. The purpose of this was to assist the newly wedded couple financially, but in many instances dowries were misused by bridegrooms. The outcome of this abuse turned to the exploitation of the bride's parents wealth, and in certain circumstances, led to dowry deaths.[69] There have been hundreds of thousands of cases where wives have been murdered, mutilated, and burned alive because the father of the bride was unable to make the dowry payment to the husband. Periyar fiercely stood up against this abuse meted out against women.[70]

Women in India also did not have rights to their families' or husbands' property. Periyar fought fiercely for this and also advocated for women to have the right to separate or divorce their husbands under reasonable circumstances.[70] While birth control remained taboo in society of Periyar's time, he advocated for it not only for the health of women and population control, but for liberation of women.[71]

He criticised the hypocrisy of chastity for women and argued that it should either apply also to men, or not at all for both genders.[72] While fighting against this, Periyar advocated getting rid of the Devadasi system. In his view it was an example of a list of degradations of women, attaching them to temples for the entertainment of others, and as temple prostitutes.[73] Further, for the liberation of women, Periyar pushed for their right to have an education and to join the armed services and the police force.[72][74]

According to biographer M.D. Gopalakrishnan, Periyar and his movement achieved a better status for women in Tamil society. Periyar held that, in matters of education and employment, there should be no difference between men and women. Gopalakrishnan states that Periyar's influence in the State departments and even the Centre made it possible for women to join police departments and the army. Periyar also spoke out against child marriage.[62]

Social reform and eradication of caste

[edit]
Periyar on postal stamp of India, issued in 2009

Periyar wanted thinking people to see their society as far from perfect and in urgent need of reform. He wanted the government, the political parties and social workers to identify the evils in society and boldly adopt measures to remove them.[75] Periyar's philosophy did not differentiate social and political service.[76] According to him, the first duty of a government is to run the social organisation efficiently, and the philosophy of religion was to organise the social system. Periyar stated that while Christian and Islamic religions were fulfilling this role, the Hindu religion remained totally unsuitable for social progress. He argued that the government was not for the people, but, in a "topsy-turvy" manner, the people were for the government. He attributed this situation to the state of the social system contrived for the advantage of a small group of people.[76]

One of the areas of Periyar's focus was on the upliftment of rural communities. In a booklet called Village Uplift, Periyar pleaded for rural reform. At that time rural India still formed the largest part of the Indian subcontinent, in spite of the ongoing process of urbanisation. Thus, the distinction between rural and urban had meant an economic and social degradation for rural inhabitants. Periyar wanted to eradicate the concept of "village" as a discriminatory word among places, similar to the concept of "outcast" among social groups. Periyar advocated for a location where neither the name nor the situation or its conditions imply differences among people.[77] He further advocated for the modernisation of villages by providing public facilities such as schools, libraries, radio stations, roads, bus transport, and police stations.[78]

Periyar felt that a small number of cunning people created caste distinctions to dominate Indian society, so he emphasised that individuals must first develop self-respect and learn to analyse propositions rationally. According to Periyar, a self-respecting rationalist would readily realise that the caste system had been stifling self-respect and therefore he or she would strive to get rid of this menace.[79]

Periyar stated that the caste system in South India is, due to Indo-Aryan influence, linked with the arrival of Brahmins from the north. Ancient Tamil Nadu (part of Tamilakkam) had a different stratification of society in four or five regions (Tinai), determined by natural surroundings and adequate means of living.[80] Periyar also argued that birds, animals, and worms, which are considered to be devoid of rationalism do not create castes, or differences of high and low in their own species. But man, considered to be a rational being, was suffering from these because of religion and discrimination.[81]

The Samathuvapuram (Equality Village) social equality system introduced by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the late 1990s is named after Periyar.[82]

Tamil language and writing

[edit]

Periyar claimed that Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, and Kannada came from the same mother language of Old Tamil. He explained that the Tamil language is called by four different names since it is spoken in four different Dravidian states. Nevertheless, current understanding of Dravidian languages contradicts such claims. For example, the currently known classification of Dravidian languages provides the following distinct classes: Southern (including Tamil–Malayalam, Kannada and Tulu); Central (including Telugu–Kui and Kolami–Parji); and, Northern (including Kurukh–Malto and Brahui).

With relation to writing, Periyar stated that using the Tamil script about the arts, which are useful to the people in their life and foster knowledge, talent and courage, and propagating them among the masses, will enlighten the people. Further, he explained that it will enrich the language, and thus it can be regarded as a zeal for Tamil.[83] Periyar also stated that if words of North Indian origin (Sanskrit) are removed from Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam, only Tamil will be left. On the Brahmin usage of Tamil, he stated that the Tamil spoken by the Andhras and the Malayali people was far better than the Tamil spoken by the Brahmins. Periyar believed that Tamil language will make the Dravidian people unite under the banner of Tamil culture, and that it will make the Kannadigas, Andhras and the Malayalees be vigilant. With regards to a Dravidian alliance under a common umbrella language, Periyar stated that "a time will come for unity. This will go on until there is an end to the North Indian domination. We shall reclaim an independent sovereign state for us".[84]

At the same time, Periyar was also known to have made controversial remarks on the Tamil language and people from time to time. On one occasion, he referred to the Tamil people as "barbarians"[85] and the Tamil language as the "language of barbarians".[86][85][87][88][89] However, Anita Diehl explains that Periyar made these remarks on Tamil because it had no respective feminine verbal forms.[21] But Anita Diehl's explanation doesn't match with Periyar's own explanation. Periyar himself explained the reasons many times in his speeches and writings, for instance, an excerpt from his book Thamizhum, Thamizharum (Tamil and Tamil people) reads, "I say Tamil as barbarian language. Many get angry with me for saying so. But no one ponders over why I say so. They say Tamil is a 3,000 to 4,000 years-old language and they boast about this. Precisely that is what the reason why I call Tamil as barbarian language. People should understand the term primitive and barbarism. What was the status of people living 4,000 years ago and now? We are just blindly sticking to old glories. No one has come forward to reform Tamil language and work for its growth."[90]

Periyar's ideas on Tamil alphabet reforms included those such as the reasons for the vowel 'ஈ' (i) having a cursive and looped representation of the short form 'இ' (I).[clarification needed] In stone inscriptions from 400 or 500 years ago, many Tamil letters are found in other shapes. As a matter of necessity and advantage to cope with printing technology, Periyar thought that it was sensible to change a few letters, reduce the number of letters, and alter a few signs. He further explained that the older and more divine a language and its letters were said to be, the more they needed reform. Because of changes brought about by means of modern transport and international contact, and happenings that have attracted words and products from many countries, foreign words and their pronunciations have been assimilated into Tamil quite easily. Just as a few compound characters have separate signs to indicate their length as in ' கா ', ' கே ' (kA:, kE:), Periyar questioned why other compound characters like ' கி ', ' கீ ', 'கு ', ' கூ ' (kI, ki:, kU, ku:) (indicated integrally as of now), shouldn't also have separate signs. Further, changing the shape of letters, creating new symbols and adding new letters and similarly, dropping those that are redundant, were quite essential according to Periyar. Thus, the glory and excellence of a language and its script depend on how easily they can be understood or learned and on nothing else"[21]

Thoughts on the Thirukkural

[edit]

Periyar hailed the Thirukkural as a valuable scripture which contained many scientific and philosophical truths. He also praised the secular nature of the work. Periyar praised Thiruvalluvar for his description of God as a formless entity with only positive attributes. He also suggested that one who reads the Thirukkural will become a Self-respecter, absorbing knowledge in politics, society, and economics. According to him, though certain items in this ancient book of ethics may not relate to today, it permitted such changes for modern society.[91]

On caste, he believed that the Kural illustrates how Vedic laws of Manu were against the Sudras and other communities of the Dravidian race. On the other hand, Periyar opined that the ethics from the Kural was comparable to the Christian Bible. The Dravidar Kazhagam adopted the Thirukkural and advocated that Thiruvalluvar's Kural alone was enough to educate the people of the country.[91] One of Periyar's quotes on the Thirukkural from Veeramani's Collected Works of Ramasamy was "when Dravida Nadu (Dravidistan) was a victim to Indo-Aryan deceit, Thirukkural was written by a great Dravidian Thiruvalluvar to free the Dravidians".[91]

Periyar also asserted that due to the secular nature of Thirukkural, it has the capacity to be the common book of faith for all humanity and can be kept on par or above the holy books of all religions.

Self-determination of Dravida Nadu

[edit]
Periyar with Muhammad Ali Jinnah and B. R. Ambedkar

The Dravidian-Aryan conflict was believed to be a continuous historical phenomenon that started when the Aryans first set their foot in the Dravidian lands. Even a decade before the idea of separation appeared, Periyar stated that, "as long as Aryan religion, Indo-Aryan domination, propagation of Aryan Vedas and Aryan "Varnashrama" existed, there was need for a "Dravidian Progressive Movement" and a "Self-Respect Movement".[92] Periyar became very concerned about the growing North Indian domination over the south which appeared to him no different from foreign domination. He wanted to secure the fruits of labour of the Dravidians to the Dravidians, and lamented that fields such as political, economic, industrial, social, art, and spiritual were dominated by the north for the benefit of the North Indians. Thus, with the approach of independence from Britain, this fear that North India would take the place of Britain to dominate South India became more and more intense.[93]

Periyar was clear about the concept of a separate nation, comprising Tamil areas, that is part of the then existing Madras Presidency with adjoining areas into a federation guaranteeing protection of minorities, including religious, linguistic, and cultural freedom of the people. A separatist conference was held in June 1940 at Kanchipuram when Periyar released the map of the proposed Dravida Nadu, but failed to get British approval. On the contrary, Periyar received sympathy and support from people such as Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and Muhammad Ali Jinnah for his views on the Congress, and for his opposition to Hindi. They then decided to convene a movement to resist the Congress.[92][94]

The concept of Dravida Nadu was later modified down to Tamil Nadu.[95] This led to a proposal for a union of the Tamil people of not only South India but including those of Ceylon as well.[96] In 1953, Periyar helped to preserve Madras as the capital of Tamil Nadu, which later was the name he substituted for the more general Dravida Nadu.[97] In 1955 Periyar threatened to burn the national flag, but on Chief Minister Kamaraj's pledge that Hindi should not be made compulsory, he postponed the action.[21] In his speech of 1957 called Suthantara Tamil Nadu En? (Why an independent Tamil Nadu?), he criticised the Central Government of India, inducing thousands of Tamilians to burn the constitution of India. The reason for this action was that Periyar held the Government responsible for maintaining the caste system. After stating reasons for separation and turning down opinions against it, he closed his speech with a "war cry" to join and burn the map of India on 5 June. Periyar was sentenced to six months imprisonment for burning the Indian constitution.[98]

Advocacy of such a nation became illegal when separatist demands were banned by law in 1957. Regardless of these measures, a Dravida Nadu Separation Day was observed on 17 September 1960 resulting in numerous arrests.[99] However, Periyar resumed his campaign in 1968. He wrote an editorial on 'Tamil Nadu for Tamilians' in which he stated, that by nationalism only Brahmins had prospered and nationalism had been developed to abolish the rights of Tamils. He advocated that there was need to establish a Tamil Nadu Freedom Organization and that it was necessary to work towards it.[100]

Anti-Brahmanism vs. Anti-Brahmin

[edit]

In 1920, when the Justice Party came to power, Brahmins occupied about 70 per cent[13][101] of the high level posts in the government. After reservation was introduced by the Justice Party, it reversed this trend, allowing non-Brahmins to rise in the government of the Madras Presidency.[101] Periyar, through the Justice Party, advocated against the imbalance of the domination of Brahmins who constituted only 3 per cent[13][102] of the population, over government jobs, judiciary and the Madras University.[102] His Self-Respect Movement espoused rationalism and atheism and the movement had currents of anti-Brahminism.[103] Furthermore, Periyar stated that:

"Our Dravidian movement does not exist against the Brahmins or the Bania. If anyone thinks so, I would only pity him. But we will not tolerate the ways in which Brahminism and Baniaism is degrading Dravidanadu. Whatever support they may have from the government, neither myself nor my movement will be of cowardice".[104][105]

Periyar also criticised Subramanya Bharathi in the journal Ticutar for portraying Mother Tamil as a sister of Sanskrit in his poems:

"They say Bharati is an immortal poet ... Even if a rat dies in an akrakāram, they would declare it to be immortal. ... of Tamilnadu praises him. Why should this be so? Supposedly because he sang fulsome praises of Tamil and Tamilnadu. What else could he sing? His own mother tongue, Sanskrit, has been dead for years. What other language did he know? He cannot sing in Sanskrit. ... He says Tamilnadu is the land of Aryas."[106]

However, Ramaswamy did make incendiary statements towards the encouragement of violence against the Brahmin community: "Pambaium parpanaium partha parpanai adi" (If you see a snake and a Brahmin, beat the Brahmin).[107][108][109] Periyar also claimed, on several occasions, that to eliminate the caste system, driving away the Brahmins was crucial.[110][111]

In October 1957, he supposedly called upon his followers to kill Brahmins and set fire to their houses.[112] On 3 November 1957, Dravidar Kazhagam held a convention in Thanjavur under Periyar's leadership and demanded that the Government of India delete provisions from the Constitution dealing with religious freedom (which, they believed, gave protection to the caste system and particularly to Brahmins), and if they failed to do so the copies of the Constitution would be burnt, and portraits and statues of Mahatma Gandhi would be broken; if it produced no results, the Dravidar Kazhagam members would be asked to kill Brahmins and burn their residential localities.[113] In 1973, he again called to "kill Tamil Brahmins" in a speech in Karaikudi.[114]

Anti-Semitism

[edit]

Periyar believed that south Indians, especially Tamils, were a separate race and the Brahmins who came from the north were intruders and possibly Jews.[115]

In a rally organised on 29 December 1938 (during the Anti-Hindi agitation of 1937—40) an address from Periyar was read out that he had sent from jail. In it he called the Brahmins 'mosquitos', 'bugs' and 'Jews', and said that the abolition of the reign of priests was more urgent than the abolition of zamindari.[116][117]

In an article published in his magazine Kudi Arasu on 20 March 1938, he had written:[118]

"The Jews are only interested in themselves, and nobody else. They somehow contrive to have the rulers in their pocket, participate in governance and conspire to torture and suck the lives out of other citizens in order that they live (in comfort). Are they not comparable to the Brahmins who too have no responsibility but have the rulers in their pocket, have entered the ruling dispensation and been lording over (all of us)?"

Comparisons with Gandhi

[edit]

In the Vaikom Satyagraha of 1924, Periyar and Gandhi both cooperated and confronted each other in socio-political action. Periyar and his followers emphasised the difference in point of view between Gandhi and himself on the social issues, such as fighting the Untouchability Laws and eradication of the caste system.

According to the booklet "Gandhi and Periyar", Periyar wrote in his paper Kudi Arasu in 1925, reporting on the fact that Gandhi opposed resolutions for the maintaining of caste and Untouchability Laws which would spoil his efforts to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity. From this, Gandhi learned the need for pleasing the Brahmins if anything was to be achieved.[119]

Peiryar in his references to Gandhi used opportunities to present Gandhi as, on principle, serving the interests of the Brahmins. In 1927, Periyar and Gandhi met at Bangalore to discuss this matter. The main difference between them came out when Periyar stood for the total eradication of Hinduism to which Gandhi objected saying that Hinduism is not fixed in doctrines but can be changed. In the Kudi Arasu, Periyar explained that:

"With all his good qualities, Gandhi did not bring the people forward from foolish and evil ways. His murderer was an educated man. Therefore nobody can say this is a time of high culture. If you eat poison, you will die. If electricity hits the body, you will die. If you oppose the Brahmin, you will die. Gandhi did not advocate the eradication of Varnasrama Dharma structure, but sees in it a task for the humanisation of society and social change possible within its structure. The consequence of this would be continued high-caste leadership. Gandhi adapted Brahmins to social change without depriving them of their leadership".[119]

Gandhi accepted karma in the sense that "the Untouchables reap the reward of their karma,[119] but was against discrimination against them using the revaluing term Harijans. As shown in the negotiations at Vaikom his methods for abolishing discrimination were: to stress on the orthodox, inhumane treatment of Untouchables; to secure voluntary lifting of the ban by changing the hearts of caste Hindus; and to work within a Hindu framework of ideas.[119]

On the Temple Entry issue, pro-Periyar sources claim that Gandhi never advocated the opening of Garbha Griha to Harijans in consequence of his Hindu belief. These pro-Periyar sources, with the exception of M. Mahar and D.S. Sharma, clearly show that Periyar and his followers emphasised that Periyar was the real fighter for the removal of Untouchability and the true upliftment of Hairjans, whereas Gandhi was not. This did not prevent Periyar from having faith in Gandhi on certain matters.[119]

Religion and atheism

[edit]

Periyar was generally regarded[by whom?] as a pragmatic propagandist who attacked the evils of religious influence on society, mainly what he regarded as Brahmin domination. He offered criticism of both Dharmic and Abrahamic religions.

At a young age, he felt that some people used religion only as a mask to deceive innocent people and regarded it as his life's mission to warn people against superstitions and priests.[20] Anita Diehl explains that Periyar cannot be called an atheist philosopher. Periyar , however, qualified what the term "atheist" implies in his address on philosophy. He repudiated the term as without real sense: "... the talk of the atheist should be considered thoughtless and erroneous. The thing I call god ... that makes all people equal and free, the god that does not stop free thinking and research, the god that does not ask for money, flattery and temples can certainly be an object of worship. For saying this much I have been called an atheist, a term that has no meaning".

Anita Diehl explains that Periyar saw faith as compatible with social equality and did not oppose religion itself.[120] In a book on revolution published in 1961, Periyar stated: "be of help to people. Do not use treachery or deceit. Speak the truth and do not cheat. That indeed is service to God."[121]

On Hinduism, Periyar believed that it was a religion with no distinctive sacred book (Bhagawad Gita) or origins, but an imaginary faith preaching the "superiority" of the Brahmins, the inferiority of the Shudras, and the untouchability of the Dalits (Panchamas).[52] Maria Misra, a lecturer at Oxford University, compares him to the philosophes, stating: "his contemptuous attitude to the baleful influence of Hinduism in Indian public life is strikingly akin to the anti-Catholic diatribes of the enlightenment philosophes".[122] In 1955 Periyar was arrested for his public action of burning pictures of Rama in public places as a symbolic protest against the Indo-Aryan domination and degradation of the Dravidian leadership according to the Ramayana epic.[123] Periyar also shoed images of Krishna and Rama, stating that they were Aryan gods that considered the Dravidian Shudras to be "sons of prostitutes".[124]

Periyar was also critical of Christianity and Islam. He said "It will be more difficult to abolish Islam and Christianity from society", and "What was said 2000 years ago can not be relevant today". He added that "Heaven in all religion is a way of collecting money. Can you accept Christ according to reason?".[125]

However, Periyar also praised Islam and the prophet Muhammad. At the rally in Tiruchi, Periyar said:

"Muslims are following the ancient philosophies of the Dravidians. The Arabic word for Dravidian religion is Islam. When Brahmanism was imposed in this country, it was Muhammad Nabi who opposed it, by instilling the Dravidian religion's policies as Islam in the minds of the people"[126]

Periyar viewed Christianity as similar to the monotheistic faith of Islam. He explained that the Christian faith says that there can be only one God which has no name or shape. Periyar took an interest in Martin Luther - both he and his followers wanted to liken him and his role to that of the European reformer. Thus Christian views, as expressed for example in The Precepts of Jesus (1820) by Ram Mohan Roy, had at least an indirect influence on Periyar.[127]

Periyar also found Buddhism a basis for his philosophy, though he did not accept that religion. It was again an alternative in the search for self-respect and the object was to get liberation from the discrimination of Hinduism.[128] The fact that Buddha denied the classical Hindu concepts of Brahman, "god" and Atman soul, appealed to Periyar and so also the fact that Buddha-Bodhi could be interpreted as wisdom, sense and that early Buddhism thus advocated reason or enlightenment. Periyar linked this interpretation with his rationalist concepts.[129] The search for basis began in the course of the movement and was intensified soon after independence. It was again an experiment in the search for self-respect and the object was to get liberation from the shudrahood of Hinduism. Periyar stated that what he was propagating could be found in the teachings of Buddha given 2000 years ago and wanted to revive them as an independent movement. Periyar claimed that Buddha Vihars at Srirangam, Kanchi, Palani and Tirupati were converted into Hindu temples.[128]

Through Periyar's movement, Temple Entry Acts of 1924, 1931, and up to 1950 were created for non-Brahmins. Another accomplishment took place during the 1970s when Tamil replaced Sanskrit as the temple language in Tamil Nadu, while Dalits finally became eligible for priesthood.[21]

Controversies

[edit]

Factionism in the Justice Party

[edit]

When B. Munuswamy Naidu became the Chief Minister of Madras Presidency in 1930, he endorsed the inclusion of Brahmins in the Justice Party, saying:

So long as we exclude one community, we cannot as a political party speak on behalf of, or claim to represent all the people of our presidency. If, as we hope, provincial autonomy is given to the provinces as a result of the reforms that may be granted, it should be essential that our Federation should be in a position to claim to be a truly representative body of all communities. What objection can there be to admit such Brahmins as are willing to subscribe to the aims and objects of our Federation? It may be that the Brahmins may not join even if the ban is removed. But surely our Federation will not thereafter be open to objection on the ground that it is an exclusive organisation.[130]

Though certain members supported the resolution, a faction in the Justice Party known as the "Ginger Group" opposed the resolution and eventually voted it down. Periyar, who was then an observer in the Justice Party, criticised Munuswamy Naidu, saying:

At a time when non-Brahmins in other parties were gradually coming over to the Justice Party, being fed up with the Brahmin's methods and ways of dealing with political questions, it was nothing short of folly to think of admitting him into the ranks of the Justice Party.[131]

This factionism continued until 1932 when Munuswamy Naidu stepped down as the Chief Minister of Madras and the Raja of Bobbili became the chief minister.[131]

False claim of award

[edit]

In 2021, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the state government to remove a false information from school and college syllabus that claimed that the UNESCO had conferred the title "Socrates of South-East Asia" on Periyar.[132][133]

Jawaharlal Nehru's comments about Periyar

[edit]

In his letter to K. Kamaraj dated 5 November 1957, Jawaharlal Nehru expressed his displeasure against Periyar for his anti-Brahmin campaign, which called upon people to stab and kill Brahmins.[134] He remarked Periyar as being a criminal and a lunatic and insisted that Periyar be put in a lunatic asylum and "his perverted mind treated there."[134]

Views on Tamil Language and Culture

[edit]

Periyar's views on Tamil language and culture have been a source of controversy and debate. While he advocated for the Tamil script to be simplified and promoted rationalist ideals through the Tamil language, he often criticised traditional Tamil literature, especially Sangam-era texts, for reinforcing caste hierarchies and glorifying kingship.[135]

He was particularly critical of what he saw as the deification of Tamil language ("Tamil̲a Teyvamākki koṇṭatu") and promoted the use of English as a tool for scientific and modern development. Some of his speeches reportedly described Tamil as a "barbaric" or "undeveloped" language when compared to English, which drew backlash from Tamil cultural nationalists.[136]

Periyar also advocated for replacing classical Tamil names with modern or rational alternatives and supported simplified script reforms. Critics argue that this stance undermined the linguistic pride central to Tamil identity movements.[137]

Allegations of Caste Bias

[edit]

Periyar was born into a Telugu-speaking Naidu (Balija) family, and although he fiercely criticised Brahmin hegemony, some critics from within the Tamil nationalist and Dravidianist factions have accused him of harbouring implicit biases in favour of his own caste and linguistic community. Notably, his critiques were often directed disproportionately at Tamil Brahmins, while relatively sparing Telugu Brahmins and other Telugu-speaking dominant castes.[138]

Tamil nationalist ideologues have occasionally accused Periyar of promoting anti-Tamil rhetoric under the guise of rationalism and modernism, suggesting that his Telugu background may have influenced his critical stance on Tamil culture.[139] However, many scholars argue that Periyar’s positions were rooted in his rationalist and anti-caste ideology, rather than ethnic or linguistic favouritism.[140]

Marriage to Maniammai

[edit]

In 1949, Periyar married Maniammai (also known as Annai E.V.R. Maniammai), a woman several decades younger than him.[141][142] The marriage took place when Periyar was 70 years old and Maniammai was in her early 30s. This union was met with considerable criticism both inside and outside the Dravidian movement.

Critics argued that the marriage contradicted Periyar’s earlier positions on social reform and celibacy, accusing him of moral hypocrisy. The most notable dissent came from C.N. Annadurai, Periyar’s protégé and the founder of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), who distanced himself from Periyar following the marriage. Annadurai remarked, “We respected Periyar as a father figure, but how can a father marry his own daughter?”[141] This controversy contributed to a split within the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK), leading to the establishment of the DMK in 1949.

Supporters of Periyar defended the marriage as a practical decision aimed at ensuring the continuity of the Self-Respect Movement after his death. Periyar himself explained that the marriage was necessary to appoint a legal heir for the movement and to secure his property.[143] After Periyar’s death in 1973, Maniammai took over the leadership of the Dravidar Kazhagam.[142]

Some Tamil biographical sources and essays interpret the marriage as symbolic and strategic rather than romantic, reflecting the need for a loyal and trustworthy successor.[144]

Legacy

[edit]
Periyar on postal stamp of India, issued in 1978

After the death of Periyar in 1973, conferences were held throughout Tamil Nadu for a week in January 1974. The same year Periyar's wife, Maniyammai, the new head of the Dravidar Kazhagam, set fire to the effigies of 'Rama', 'Sita' and 'Lakshmana' at Periyar Thidal, Madras. This was in retaliation to the Ramaleela celebrations where effigies of 'Ravana', 'Kumbakarna' and 'Indrajit' were burnt in New Delhi. For this act she was imprisoned. During the 1974 May Day meetings held at different places in Tamil Nadu, a resolution urging the Government to preserve 80 per cent[13] of jobs for Tamils was passed. Soon after this, a camp was held at Periyar Mansion in Tiruchirapalli to train young men and women to spread the ideals of the Dravidar Kazhagam in rural areas.[13]

On Periyar's birthday on 17 September 1974, Periyar's Rationalist Library and Research Library and Research Institute was opened by the then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi. This library contained Periyar's rationalist works, the manuscripts of Periyar and his recorded speeches.[79] Also during the same year Periyar's ancestral home in Erode, was dedicated as a commemoration building. On 20 February 1977, the opening function of Ramasamy Building in Madras was held. At the meeting which the Managing Committee of the Dravidar Kazhagam held, there on that day, it was decided to support the candidates belonging to the Janata Party, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and the Marxist Party during the General Elections.[13]

On 16 March 1978, Maniyammai died. The Managing Committee of the Dravidar Kazhagam elected K. Veeramani as General Secretary of the Dravidar Kazhagam on 17 March 1978. From then on, the Periyar-Maniyammai Educational and Charitable Society started the Periyar Centenary Women's Polytechnic at Thanjavur on 21 September 1980. On 8 May 1982, the College for Correspondence Education was started under the auspices of the Periyar Rationalist Propaganda Organization.[13]

Over the years, Periyar influenced Tamil Nadu's political party head,[55][145][50][41][146][147] s such as C. N. Annadurai and M. Karunanidhi[148] of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam' (DMK), V. Gopalswamy[149][150] founder of the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK), S. Ramadoss[151] founder of the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), Thol. Thirumavalavan, founder of the Dalit Panthers of India (DPI), and Dravidar Kazhagam's K. Veeramani.[152] Nationally, Periyar is an ideological icon for India's third largest voted party, Bahujan Samaj Party[153][154] and its founder Kanshi Ram.[155] Other political figures influenced by Periyar include former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Mayawati.[156] Periyar's life and teachings have also influenced writers and poets such as Kavignar Inkulab, and Bharathidasan[157] and actors such as Kamal Haasan[158], Vijay and Sathyaraj.[159] Noted Tamil Comedian N. S. Krishnan was a close friend and follower of Periyar.[160][161] W. P. A. Soundarapandian Nadar was a close confidant of Periyar and encouraged Nadars to be a part of the Self-Respect Movement.[162][163] A writer from Uttar Pradesh, Lalai Singh Yadav translated Periyar's notable works into Hindi.[164][165][166]

[edit]

Sathyaraj and Khushboo Sundar starred in a government-sponsored film Periyar released in 2007. Directed by Gnana Rajasekaran, the film was screened in Malaysia on 1 May 2007 and was screened at the Goa International Film Festival in November that year.[167][168] Sathyaraj reprised his role as Periyar in the film Kalavadiya Pozhudugal directed by Thangar Bachan which released in 2017.[169]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Cited sources

[edit]
  • Diehl, Anita (1977). E. V. Ramaswami Naicker-Periar: A study of the influence of a personality in contemporary South India. Sweden: Scandinavian University Books. ISBN 978-91-24-27645-4.
  • Gopalakrishnan, G.P. (1991). Periyar: Father of the Tamil race. Chennai: Emerald Publishers.
  • Ralhan, O. P. (2002). Encyclopaedia of Political Parties. Anmol Publications PVT. LTD. ISBN 81-7488-865-9.
  • Saraswathi, S. (2004). Towards Self-Respect. Madras: Institute of South Indian Studies.
  • Veeramani, K. (1992). Periyar on Women's Rights. Chennai: Emerald Publishers.
  • Veeramani, K. (2005). Collected Works of Periyar E.V.R. Chennai: The Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy (17 September 1879 – 24 December 1973), commonly known as Periyar, was an Indian social activist, rationalist, politician, and avowed atheist who campaigned against caste-based oppression, Brahminical privilege, and religious dogma in South India.[1][2] Born into a wealthy Balija family in Erode, Tamil Nadu, he initially engaged in business and philanthropy before turning to social reform, participating in the Vaikom Satyagraha against untouchability in 1924 and resigning from the Indian National Congress in 1925 over its inadequate opposition to caste discrimination.[3] That year, Periyar founded the Self-Respect Movement to instill rationalism, self-dignity, gender equality, and resistance to superstitious practices among non-Brahmin communities, introducing innovations like self-respect marriages that bypassed religious rituals.[4][5] His later establishment of the Dravidar Kazhagam in 1944 advanced Dravidian separatism and systematic critiques of Hinduism as a tool of social control, influencing Tamil Nadu's political landscape while provoking backlash for iconoclastic acts, such as breaking Ganesha idols, and inflammatory rhetoric against gods, priests, and scriptures.[6][7] Periyar's emphasis on empirical skepticism and causal analysis of social ills over traditional authority marked him as a radical thinker, though his unyielding atheism and ethnic essentialism remain divisive, with admirers crediting him for empowering marginalized groups and detractors highlighting divisive communalism.[8]

Early Life

Birth and Family Background

Erode Venkata Ramasamy, later known as Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, was born on 17 September 1879 in Erode, a town then within the Coimbatore district of the Madras Presidency under British India.[2][9][3] He came from a prosperous merchant family of the Balija caste, a Kannada-speaking trading community classified as intermediate in the social hierarchy of the time.[9][10][11] His father, Venkatappa Naicker (also spelled Venkata Naicker), operated a successful business dealing in goods such as brass vessels, hardware, and agricultural products, amassing considerable wealth that positioned the family prominently in local commerce.[12][13][3] Venkatappa was known as a popular figure in Erode and an ardent devotee of Hindu religious practices, reflecting the family's orthodox inclinations.[12] Ramasamy's mother, Chinna Thayammal, managed the household amid this affluent yet traditionally observant environment.[14] The family's mercantile success provided Ramasamy with early exposure to business operations, as he assisted in his father's trade from a young age, though formal schooling was limited.[3][14] This background of relative privilege within a caste-based economy contrasted with the social inequalities Ramasamy later critiqued, shaping his initial worldview through practical engagement rather than abstract theory.[3]

Early Career and Initial Influences

Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy joined his father's wholesale trading business in Erode in 1892, at approximately age 13, after limited formal schooling of five years.[15][2] He quickly learned operational methods, excelling in auctions and managing the enterprise's expansion into broader commodity trade, which included agricultural goods.[15][16] Ramasamy's commercial acumen earned him respect among local merchants, where he mediated disputes impartially and built influence in the bazaar economy.[17] These early ventures provided practical exposure to regional trade networks and socioeconomic hierarchies, shaping his understanding of economic dependencies in pre-independence South India. In his youth, Ramasamy exhibited strong Hindu piety, regularly hosting Tamil Vaishnavite gurus at home for discourses under his father's patronage, indicative of prevailing devotional influences within his affluent Balija Naidu family.[2] This religious milieu, combined with familial expectations, oriented his initial worldview toward orthodox practices before broader disillusionments emerged.[17] He married Nagammaiyar in 1898 at age 19, aligning with traditional social norms.[2]

Kashi Pilgrimage and Turning Point

In 1904, at the age of 25, E. V. Ramasamy embarked on a pilgrimage to Kashi (Varanasi), a city regarded as one of Hinduism's holiest sites, primarily to worship at the Kashi Vishwanath Shiva temple and perform rituals along the Ganges.[18][19] Motivated by orthodox devotion as a Vaishnavite, he sought spiritual merit through traditional observances, including alms-giving and temple visits, reflecting his initial adherence to Hindu customs despite his family's business background. Upon arrival, Ramasamy encountered systemic caste-based exclusion at pilgrim choultries (rest houses funded by donations for travelers). As a non-Brahmin, he was denied entry to facilities reserved for Brahmins, who monopolized services and meals; he was forced to eat scraps alongside stray dogs while Brahmin attendants prioritized their own caste.[19] He observed temple priests exploiting devotees through inflated fees for rituals, deceptive practices like selling impure Ganges water as holy, and overt discrimination where non-Brahmins faced humiliation even in this purportedly egalitarian sacred space.[20][19] These experiences shattered Ramasamy's faith in Hinduism's sanctity, exposing what he perceived as institutionalized hypocrisy and priestly opportunism that contradicted scriptural ideals of purity and devotion.[20] Returning disillusioned, he began rejecting ritualism and blind adherence, marking a pivot toward rationalism, anti-caste activism, and eventual atheism; this incident, recounted in his later writings, catalyzed his critique of religious authority as a tool for social control rather than moral elevation.[18]

Political Beginnings

Entry into Indian National Congress

E.V. Ramasamy joined the Indian National Congress in 1919, shortly after resigning from his positions in the Erode municipality and ceasing his business operations to dedicate himself to political activism.[21][1] His decision aligned with the rising momentum of the independence movement, particularly as the Congress prepared for the Non-Cooperation Movement announced by Mahatma Gandhi in 1920.[3] Ramasamy's prior experiences with caste-based exclusions, including during his 1904 pilgrimage to Kashi, had already inclined him toward reformist causes, which he channeled into Congress platforms advocating for social equality alongside swaraj.[22] Upon joining, Ramasamy quickly engaged in organizational roles within the Tamil regional units of the Congress, leveraging his local influence from Erode to mobilize support for non-Brahmin participation.[9] By 1922, he had been elected president of the Madras Presidency Congress Committee, a position he held until 1925, during which he focused on expanding the party's base among non-Brahmin communities in South India.[23] In this capacity, he promoted resolutions challenging caste hierarchies within party events, such as advocating for integrated dining at Congress gatherings to counter Brahmin-dominated customs.[24] His efforts highlighted early tensions over caste representation, as he pressed for proportional inclusion of backward classes in leadership and decision-making, foreshadowing his later critiques of the party's elite capture.[25] Ramasamy's initial Congress tenure emphasized grassroots mobilization, including fund collection and propaganda against British rule, while he simultaneously addressed intra-party discrimination through public speeches and committee interventions.[3] These activities positioned him as a key figure in bridging nationalist goals with regional social justice demands, though sources indicate his commitment was tempered by ongoing observations of Brahmin overrepresentation in Congress hierarchies.[22]

Role in Vaikom Satyagraha

E.V. Ramasamy, later known as Periyar, joined the Vaikom Satyagraha in April 1924 as a supporter of the Indian National Congress, responding to a telegram invitation from freedom fighter Kurur Neelakandan Namboodiripad on April 4 to bolster the non-violent protest against restrictions barring lower castes from using roads surrounding the Vaikom Mahadeva Temple in Travancore.[26] His participation emphasized challenging untouchability practices enforced by upper-caste Nambudiri Brahmins, drawing volunteers from Tamil Nadu to sustain the agitation amid arrests and police resistance.[27] Periyar actively courted arrest on May 21, 1924, near Arookutty while attempting to enter restricted areas, leading to his detention without engaging the court process, a stance that underscored his commitment to direct confrontation over legal appeals.[28] After release, he resumed involvement and faced a second arrest in July 1924, receiving a four-month sentence of rigorous imprisonment—the longest imposed on any satyagrahi and marking him as the sole participant jailed twice during the movement.[29][26] Over 141 days of engagement, including 74 in prison, Periyar's efforts mobilized regional support from Madras Presidency, pressuring authorities and contributing to the satyagraha's partial success in November 1925 by opening three of four prohibited roads to all castes.[30] His experiences highlighted tensions between reformist nationalism and entrenched caste hierarchies, shaping his evolving critique of orthodox Hinduism and Congress compromises on social justice.[31]

Break from Congress and Shift to Regionalism

In 1925, E. V. Ramasamy, known as Periyar, resigned from the Indian National Congress, citing the party's dominance by Brahmins and its failure to prioritize the eradication of caste discrimination or adequately represent non-Brahmin interests.[22][32] Despite his elevation to president of the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee in 1924, Periyar's push for proportional representation in party structures—to counter Brahmin overrepresentation—was defeated, highlighting the entrenched hierarchies he sought to dismantle.[3][33] Following his exit, Periyar pivoted to initiatives centered on Dravidian regional identity, launching the Self-Respect Movement in 1925 to cultivate dignity and equality among non-Brahmin communities while rejecting Brahmanical dominance in social, cultural, and religious spheres.[34][35] The movement emphasized rationalism, self-reliance, and opposition to caste-based rituals, positioning Tamil and Dravidian cultural autonomy against perceived northern Aryan influences embedded in Congress-led nationalism.[5] By 1926, Periyar engaged in non-Brahmin conferences across Tamil regions, amplifying calls for regional self-assertion and laying foundations for Dravidian political mobilization that prioritized local linguistic and social reforms over pan-Indian unity.[12] This regional focus critiqued Congress's indifference to South Indian grievances, including linguistic impositions, and fostered a distinct Dravidian ideology that influenced subsequent parties like the Justice Party, with which Periyar later aligned.[9]

Social and Political Movements

Launch of Self-Respect Movement

E.V. Ramasamy, known as Periyar, launched the Self-Respect Movement in 1925 following his resignation from the Indian National Congress, driven by frustration over the party's inadequate response to caste-based oppression and Brahmin dominance in social and political spheres.[36][5] Co-founded with S. Ramanathan, the movement emerged as a non-Brahmin initiative aimed at fostering self-respect among lower castes and Dravidians by challenging hierarchical traditions and promoting rationalism over superstition.[37][38] From its inception, the Self-Respect Movement sought to eradicate the caste system, oppose religious orthodoxy, and encourage inter-caste marriages and widow remarriage to dismantle social barriers, gaining early support from the Justice Party's leadership.[39][9] Initial activities included public conferences and propaganda efforts to instill pride in non-Brahmin heritage, positioning the movement as a tool for social emancipation rather than electoral politics.[3][40]

International Travels and Global Observations

In late 1929 and early 1930, Periyar toured British Malaya (present-day Malaysia) and Singapore, where he addressed Tamil communities on self-respect and social reform, marking his initial foray into international propagation of Dravidian ideals.[41] These visits exposed him to overseas Tamil diaspora dynamics and reinforced his critique of caste hierarchies persisting among expatriates.[42] Periyar's most extensive travels occurred from December 1931 to 1932, commencing with a voyage from Madras (now Chennai) aboard the French ship Amboise, covering Europe and the Soviet Union.[43] He visited Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Germany, England, Spain, France, Portugal, and spent three months in the Soviet Union, where he documented observations in a tour diary later partially published.[44] During this period, he encountered émigré revolutionaries, free thinkers, atheists, and nudist groups, which aligned with his rationalist leanings and prompted reflections on alternative social models free from religious and caste constraints.[45] In the Soviet Union, Periyar observed rapid industrialization, state-enforced gender equality, suppression of religious institutions, and absence of visible caste-like divisions, describing it as "a new world" with unprecedented transformation that could serve as a model for eradicating Brahminical dominance and superstition in India.[44] [3] He praised the emphasis on rational education, workers' rights, and communal living without priestly interference, though his accounts predated widespread awareness of internal repressions under Stalin's regime.[46] These experiences shifted his political orientation toward socialism, influencing subsequent advocacy for state-led reforms over Gandhian non-violence.[47] A later trip in 1954 took Periyar to Malaysia and Burma (Myanmar), coinciding with the International Buddhist Conference in Rangoon, where he continued promoting self-respect principles amid diaspora audiences but noted limited ideological penetration due to entrenched traditions.[42] Overall, these travels underscored Periyar's conviction that Western and Soviet models demonstrated the feasibility of secular, egalitarian societies, contrasting sharply with India's ritual-bound structures and fueling his lifelong campaign against Hinduism's hierarchical elements.[9]

Campaign Against Hindi Imposition

In 1937, following the Indian National Congress's electoral victory in the Madras Presidency, Chief Minister C. Rajagopalachari introduced a government order mandating Hindi instruction in primary schools starting from the third standard, framing it as a voluntary scheme with incentives but effectively compelling adoption across 125 schools by April 1938.[48] E.V. Ramasamy, then leading the Self-Respect Movement, condemned the policy as a deliberate strategy to erode Tamil linguistic identity and impose North Indian cultural hegemony, equating Hindi—viewed by him as an Aryan language tied to Brahminical dominance—with a tool for subjugating Dravidian peoples.[49] He argued that prioritizing Hindi over English or Tamil would disadvantage non-Brahmin students economically and culturally, as proficiency in Hindi offered no practical benefits in trade or administration dominated by English. Ramasamy mobilized opposition through the Justice Party and Self-Respect committees, initiating protests in mid-1938 that included black-flag demonstrations, boycott of Hindi classes, and symbolic acts such as burning Hindi primers and effigies of Rajagopalachari in cities like Madras, Trichy, and Salem.[50] On August 20, 1938, he led a procession in Erode where participants carried placards decrying "Hindi slavery," escalating into statewide agitations that drew thousands, including students and laborers, and prompted retaliatory measures like school closures and police lathi charges.[51] Ramasamy's rhetoric intensified, with speeches portraying the imposition as akin to colonial linguistic erasure, coining slogans like "Down with Hindi" and linking it to broader anti-Brahmin struggles, though he clarified opposition targeted forced adoption, not Hindi learning per se.[52] The campaign peaked in November 1938 when Ramasamy was arrested on November 11 during a Madras rally for defying bans, alongside over 1,200 others detained amid clashes that resulted in at least one protester's death from police action.[52] He suspended the agitation on October 31, 1938, appealing to the Governor to revoke the order, but resumed sporadic actions through 1939–1940, including pamphlet distributions and public meetings that sustained pressure.[53] Facing electoral backlash, the Congress government withdrew the compulsory Hindi provision in February 1940, reverting to optional status, a concession attributed directly to the protests' disruption of over 1,000 schools and widespread non-cooperation.[51] Ramasamy's efforts solidified anti-Hindi sentiment as a cornerstone of Dravidian regionalism, influencing subsequent movements and positioning linguistic autonomy as inseparable from caste and cultural resistance, though critics later noted the campaign's selective outrage ignored Hindi's elective promotion in other regions.[50] The Justice Party capitalized politically, absorbing Self-Respect activists and using the issue to challenge Congress's pan-Indian nationalism.[49]

Presidency of Justice Party

E. V. Ramasamy, known as Periyar, was elected president of the South Indian Liberal Federation—commonly referred to as the Justice Party—on 29 December 1938, while incarcerated in Bellary Jail for organizing protests against Hindi imposition in schools.[12][54] The party, established in 1916 to advance non-Brahmin representation in administration and education, had lost decisively to the Indian National Congress in the 1937 Madras provincial elections, reducing its legislative seats from 38 to 18 and eroding its influence among elite non-Brahmin landowners.[55] Periyar's ascension marked a shift from the party's earlier communal focus on legislative reservations to a broader integration with his Self-Respect Movement, prioritizing mass mobilization against caste discrimination, religious superstition, and Brahmin dominance in cultural institutions.[3] Under Periyar's leadership from 1938 to 1944, the Justice Party adopted more radical positions, including advocacy for Dravidian separatism through the creation of a sovereign Dravidistan encompassing South Indian linguistic regions. This demand gained prominence at the party's 14th annual conference shortly after his election, reflecting Periyar's view that non-Brahmin emancipation required autonomy from North Indian political control.[3] The party organized joint anti-Hindi agitations in 1938 alongside Tamil nationalists, resulting in hundreds of arrests, including Periyar's, and heightened public awareness of linguistic imposition as a threat to Dravidian identity.[9] However, electoral prospects remained dim; the Justice Party boycotted the 1946 provincial elections, citing British manipulation and the futility of competing against Congress's nationalist appeal, which Periyar critiqued as concealing Brahminical hegemony.[56] Periyar's tenure emphasized non-electoral strategies, such as propagating self-respect marriages to challenge orthodox Hindu customs and promoting rationalist critiques of religious texts, which alienated conservative party members but expanded grassroots support among lower castes and women. Internal tensions arose over his uncompromising atheism and alliances with figures like Muhammad Ali Jinnah on federalism, though these did not yield formal pacts during this period. By 1944, disillusioned with the party's inability to counter Congress dominance—evident in the latter's retention of power post-1937—the Justice Party held its Salem conference, where Periyar dissolved its electoral framework and reconstituted it as Dravidar Kazhagam, a socio-political organization dedicated to cultural reform over parliamentary contests.[56][13] This transformation underscored Periyar's causal assessment that systemic caste and religious barriers persisted despite limited political gains, prioritizing long-term ideological struggle.[3]

Formation of Dravidar Kazhagam

In 1938, E. V. Ramasamy, commonly known as Periyar, assumed leadership of the Justice Party following its merger with the Self-Respect Movement, aiming to advance Dravidian interests against perceived North Indian and Brahminical dominance.[57] By the early 1940s, amid the suspension of elections due to World War II, Periyar grew disillusioned with electoral politics, viewing it as ineffective for achieving radical social change and susceptible to compromise with caste hierarchies.[3] On August 27, 1944, at a public rally in Madras, he formally announced the dissolution of the Justice Party's political structure and its reorganization as Dravidar Kazhagam (DK), a non-electoral social organization dedicated to ideological propagation rather than power-seeking through votes.[58][9] The formation emphasized Periyar's core principles of rationalism, self-respect, and eradication of caste-based inequalities, positioning DK as a vehicle for cultural and social revolution independent of constitutional frameworks.[3] Unlike the Justice Party's earlier focus on non-Brahmin representation in governance, DK explicitly rejected participation in elections to avoid dilution of its radical agenda, prioritizing mass education against superstition, Brahmin hegemony, and religious orthodoxy.[59] Periyar articulated that the organization's oath-bound members would commit to upholding atheism, gender equality through self-respect marriages, and Dravidian cultural assertion, framing DK as a perpetual movement unbound by periodic electoral cycles.[9] This restructuring marked a shift toward uncompromising social activism, influencing subsequent Dravidian politics while establishing DK's enduring role in Tamil Nadu's rationalist discourse, though it later faced internal divisions over strategies for political engagement.[3][58]

Split with Annadurai and Dravidian Party Dynamics

Tensions within Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) escalated in the late 1940s over fundamental strategic differences between Periyar E. V. Ramasamy and his protégé C. N. Annadurai. Periyar maintained that DK should function strictly as a non-electoral organization dedicated to social agitation, rationalist propaganda, and cultural reform, rejecting participation in periodic elections as a dilution of its revolutionary principles.[60] Annadurai, however, argued for engaging in electoral politics to translate Dravidian ideals into governance, viewing ballot-box victories as essential for countering perceived North Indian dominance and advancing regional autonomy.[3] These divergences, rooted in Periyar's aversion to compromise with established power structures and Annadurai's pragmatic populism, had simmered since DK's reorganization in 1944 but crystallized amid post-independence disillusionment with centralized Indian policies.[61] The immediate catalyst for the rupture occurred in July 1949, when Periyar, then aged 70, married his 32-year-old associate Maniammai, who was involved in DK operations. This union, conducted as a self-respect marriage without religious rites, provoked widespread backlash among adherents for appearing to contradict Periyar's campaigns against exploitative personal ties and caste-endorsed hierarchies, while signaling a potential shift in organizational succession toward Maniammai over Annadurai.[62] [63] Annadurai publicly condemned the marriage as an affront to the movement's ethos and issued an ultimatum demanding Periyar's reconsideration, framing it as a breach of collective discipline.[64] Periyar defended the decision as a personal assertion of rational autonomy, but the episode eroded trust, accelerating the ideological fracture.[65] On September 17, 1949, Annadurai formally resigned from DK along with key supporters, including future DMK stalwarts like M. Karunanidhi, and established the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) as a breakaway entity.[66] The new formation retained core Dravidian tenets—anti-Brahminism, linguistic federalism, and self-respect—but pivoted toward political mobilization, contesting elections from 1952 onward and critiquing Congress rule in Madras State.[60] DK, under Periyar's continued leadership, persisted as a cadre-based pressure group employing confrontational tactics, such as black-shirt volunteer brigades for agitations against Hindi imposition and religious festivals, eschewing formal power-seeking.[3] The schism reshaped Dravidian dynamics, fragmenting the movement into a radical, apolitical wing (DK) and an electoral one (DMK), with Periyar wielding moral authority over both but increasingly at odds with DMK's accommodations, such as softening separatist rhetoric for broader alliances. DK's influence waned in mass politics, relying on intellectual provocation and alliances with splinter groups, while DMK's parliamentary successes—culminating in Annadurai's 1967 chief ministership—demonstrated the viability of Periyar's ideas through institutional channels, though Periyar lambasted such shifts as betrayals of purist anti-Hinduism and Dravidian sovereignty.[61] This duality endured, fostering periodic reconciliations and rivalries that defined Tamil Nadu's regionalist landscape into the 1970s and beyond.[65]

Core Ideologies

Rationalism and Critique of Superstition

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy positioned rationalism as a foundational principle for social emancipation, contending that superstition and religious myths perpetuated exploitation by fostering irrational deference to deities and priests. He argued that blind adherence to such beliefs caused intellectual stagnation and reinforced caste-based hierarchies, advocating instead for empirical reasoning and skepticism toward unverified claims.[67] [3] From an early age, Periyar questioned contradictions in Hindu fables propagated by Brahmins, viewing them as fabricated illusions to dominate lower castes and women. Central to his rationalist efforts was the Self-Respect Movement, launched on February 17, 1925, which explicitly promoted atheism and critical inquiry to dismantle superstitious practices embedded in rituals and idol worship.[68] Through speeches, writings, and public demonstrations, Periyar urged followers to reject god-centric narratives as tools of subjugation, emphasizing that rational thought based on observable evidence would liberate marginalized groups from priestly control. [69] Periyar orchestrated targeted campaigns against superstition, including the 1953 agitations where participants desecrated Ganesha idols to expose the folly of divine reverence, declaring in speeches that such acts were essential to uproot god-propagated myths.[70] A more notorious event occurred on January 23, 1971, during a superstition eradication conference in Salem, Tamil Nadu, where effigies and images of deities like Rama were paraded, garlanded with slippers, beaten with chappals, and ritually humiliated amid anti-god slogans and resolutions denouncing religion as a Brahmin-invented scam for exploitation.[71] [72] [73] These provocations, while condemned by opponents as blasphemous, were framed by Periyar as necessary spectacles to provoke rational reflection over unquestioned faith.[74] His critiques extended to broader denunciations of religious fanaticism and irrational customs, such as untouchability and widowhood, which he attributed to superstitious doctrines rather than inherent truths, consistently linking them to verifiable social harms like economic vassalage of laborers.[75] [69] Periyar's approach prioritized causal analysis of how superstitions causally enabled elite dominance, urging empirical scrutiny over doctrinal acceptance.

Anti-Caste Stance and Eradication Efforts

E.V. Ramasamy, known as Periyar, viewed the caste system as a hierarchical structure perpetuated by Hindu religious texts and Brahminical dominance, which he argued subordinated lower castes and stifled social equality. He contended that caste discrimination originated from scriptural sanction, such as in the Manusmriti, designed to uphold upper-caste privileges, and called for its complete annihilation through rational inquiry and rejection of religious dogma.[67] Periyar's approach emphasized self-respect (swabhimaani) as a counter to caste-induced inferiority, advocating that individuals discard caste identities to foster egalitarian relations.[35] A pivotal early effort was Periyar's involvement in the Vaikom Satyagraha of 1924, a nonviolent protest against restrictions barring lower-caste individuals from using roads surrounding the Vaikom Temple in Travancore (present-day Kerala). Arriving in April 1924 after the agitation had weakened, Periyar revitalized it by leading volunteers and courting arrest on May 1, 1924, enduring over a year in prison—the longest sentence among participants—which drew widespread attention to untouchability practices.[26] This experience radicalized his anti-caste activism, highlighting the intersection of temple entry rights and broader caste oppression, and influenced his departure from gradualist Congress approaches toward direct confrontation.[76] In 1925, Periyar co-founded the Self-Respect Movement with S. Ramanathan, explicitly targeting caste eradication by promoting inter-caste marriages, widow remarriage, and rejection of Brahmin-dominated rituals to dismantle social hierarchies. The movement's manifesto rejected caste distinctions, religious superstitions, and priestly authority, urging participants to prioritize rational self-assertion over hereditary status.[35] Annual Self-Respect Conferences, starting prominently in 1929, passed resolutions condemning caste-based property inheritance disparities and advocating equal rights, while Periyar organized propagation campaigns across Tamil Nadu to educate rural populations on caste's economic and psychological harms.[11] Periyar's writings and speeches reinforced these efforts, as seen in his collected works where he systematically critiqued Vedic texts and epics for embedding caste norms, arguing that blind adherence to such scriptures causally sustained discrimination. He proposed "annihilating caste from within" by infiltrating caste associations to subvert their exclusivity, a tactic aimed at internal dissolution rather than mere protest. Through periodicals like Kudi Arasu, founded in 1925, he disseminated anti-caste propaganda, reaching thousands and inspiring grassroots defiance against practices like untouchability and endogamy.[3] These initiatives, while yielding measurable shifts in social attitudes—such as increased inter-caste unions—faced resistance from entrenched orthodoxies, underscoring Periyar's causal realism that caste persisted due to ideological inertia rather than inevitable tradition.[77]

Women's Rights and Self-Respect Marriages

E.V. Ramasamy, known as Periyar, advocated for women's emancipation from traditional Hindu patriarchal structures, emphasizing equality in education, employment, and property ownership as essential to dismantling caste and gender oppression.[11] He argued that women lacked self-determination in these areas under prevailing customs, which he viewed as mechanisms of subjugation rather than mutual partnership.[78] Periyar condemned child marriages and pushed for widow remarriage, seeing them as barriers to women's autonomy and societal progress.[79] Central to his reforms were Self-Respect Marriages, introduced within the Self-Respect Movement launched in 1925 to promote rational, egalitarian unions free from religious rituals, priests, and caste restrictions.[80] The first such marriage occurred on December 16, 1928, in Cheranmadevi, Tamil Nadu, officiated by Periyar himself without Vedic chants or dowry demands, instead featuring pledges of mutual respect and equality.[80] These marriages operated as secular contracts emphasizing companionship, with provisions for dissolution if compatibility failed, challenging the notion of eternal bonds enforced by tradition.[11] Periyar promoted inter-caste and love-based pairings to erode hierarchical divisions, arguing that arranged unions perpetuated inequality and denied individual agency.[81] Through speeches and writings, Periyar linked women's rights to broader rationalism, urging education for girls to foster independence and critiquing chastity ideals as tools of male control.[82] He supported contraception and family planning to prevent overburdening women, viewing unrestricted childbearing as exploitative.[79] These efforts influenced subsequent Dravidian politics, contributing to legal reforms like the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, though Periyar critiqued incomplete implementations for retaining vestiges of orthodoxy.[11] His stance prioritized empirical equality over ritualistic sanctity, positing that true self-respect required rejecting customs lacking rational basis.[81]

Dravidian Nationalism and Nadu Concept

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy articulated Dravidian nationalism as a framework for unifying non-Brahmin populations in South India against perceived Aryan-Brahmin cultural and political hegemony, positing Dravidians as an indigenous ethnic group with distinct linguistic, racial, and civilizational roots predating northern influences.[83] This ideology emerged prominently in the 1920s through his leadership in the Self-Respect Movement and Justice Party, framing Dravidian identity as rooted in Tamil and other southern languages, opposing Sanskritized Hinduism and Hindi promotion as tools of northern assimilation.[3] Periyar argued that historical Brahmin dominance had subordinated Dravidian society, necessitating a reclamation of pre-Aryan cultural purity through rationalist reforms and anti-caste mobilization.[84] Central to this nationalism was the concept of Dravida Nadu, a proposed sovereign federation encompassing the Dravidian-speaking regions of Madras Presidency (modern Tamil Nadu, parts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Kerala), envisioned as a secular, egalitarian state free from central Indian control.[85] Periyar first advanced the idea in the late 1930s, launching the slogan "Tamil Nadu for Tamils" in 1938 amid opposition to Hindi imposition, which he interpreted as linguistic imperialism threatening Dravidian autonomy.[85] By 1939, he organized the inaugural Dravida Nadu Conference in Tamil Nadu to advocate for this separate republic, emphasizing federalism to preserve regional languages and eradicate caste hierarchies imposed by Vedic traditions.[86] The demand intensified post-independence, with Periyar observing "Dravida Nadu Separation Day" annually, including on September 17, 1960, which prompted widespread arrests but underscored his commitment to territorial self-determination as a bulwark against unitary nationalism.[9] Periyar's vision of Dravida Nadu critiqued the Indian nation-state as a "dominated space" perpetuating Brahminical norms, proposing instead an "appropriated space" where Dravidian rationality could flourish without religious or caste-based interference.[83] He allied temporarily with figures like Muhammad Ali Jinnah to highlight minority self-rule precedents, though his separatism prioritized cultural-linguistic preservation over religious partition.[87] While the concept influenced Dravidian parties like the DMK, which initially endorsed it before renouncing separatism in 1963 under electoral pressures, Periyar maintained it as essential for genuine federalism until his death in 1973.[88] Critics, including integrationist nationalists, dismissed it as divisive, yet Periyar substantiated it through empirical observations of linguistic disparities and historical texts reinterpreted to favor Dravidian primacy.[89]

Atheism and Attacks on Hinduism

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy developed staunch atheism after early disillusionment with religious practices, viewing god-belief as a fabricated tool perpetuating caste hierarchies and Brahmin dominance rather than a benign spiritual framework.[7] [6] He argued that rationality and religion were inherently opposed, famously stating that "he who created god is a fool," and contended that even the best religion fostered oppression, making irreligion preferable.[90] [7] This stance informed his broader critique of Hinduism as a system engineered for subjugation, where deities and scriptures reinforced social divisions by deeming non-Brahmins as inherently inferior or "sudras."[91] [92] Through the Self-Respect Movement, launched on February 17, 1925, Periyar integrated atheism with rationalism to challenge superstitious rituals and promote empirical skepticism over faith-based customs.[7] [93] The movement explicitly linked religious eradication to caste abolition, asserting that god, religion, scriptures, and Brahmin authority must be dismantled to achieve equality, as these elements causally sustained hierarchical exploitation.[7] [94] Periyar ridiculed Hindu deities routinely in speeches and publications, portraying them as inventions by elites to enforce subservience, and organized public demonstrations to expose rituals as mechanical failures devoid of divine intervention, such as breaking coconuts in temples to demonstrate randomness over miracles.[94] [93] Periyar's attacks escalated into direct actions against Hindu symbols, including a 1953 campaign to smash idols and desecrate Ganesha images, aimed at shattering superstitious dependence on physical representations of gods.[93] [92] In speeches that year, he declared the need to "eradicate the gods who are responsible for the institution which portrays us as sudras," framing such deities as causal agents of discriminatory norms embedded in texts like the Ramayana.[92] He led processions burning effigies and images of Rama, whom he depicted as a tyrannical figure embodying Aryan conquest and caste enforcement, and called for similar treatment of scriptures to prevent their perpetuation of inequality.[94] [92] These efforts, while drawing support from anti-caste reformers, provoked backlash for inciting irreverence toward longstanding traditions, yet Periyar maintained they were essential empirical challenges to unverified beliefs sustaining social control.[7] [6]

Linguistic and Cultural Advocacy

Periyar E.V. Ramasamy emphasized the Tamil language as a cornerstone of Dravidian identity, viewing it as a tool for cultural self-determination and resistance against perceived Aryan linguistic dominance. He advocated purifying Tamil by excising Sanskrit-derived elements, which he associated with caste hierarchy, to make it more accessible and reflective of vernacular Dravidian speech patterns.[95] This linguistic purification aligned with his broader rationalist agenda, promoting Tamil as a medium for empowering non-Brahmin communities and fostering social equality.[95] In response to the 1937 introduction of compulsory Hindi in Madras Presidency schools under Chief Minister C. Rajagopalachari, Periyar mobilized widespread protests from 1937 to 1940, framing Hindi imposition not as mere language policy but as an extension of North Indian cultural hegemony over Dravidian traditions.[96] He organized book-burning demonstrations, satyagrahas, and public campaigns, explicitly stating opposition to Hindi's enforced role rather than the language itself, which he distinguished from its association with Sanskrit and inequality.[97] In 1938, Periyar specifically encouraged women to lead school protests and participated in the Tamil Women's Conference on November 13, where he received the title "Periyar," contributing to the policy's eventual reversal.[96] Periyar proposed reforms to the Tamil script and grammar to simplify learning, reduce printing complexities, and minimize costs, implementing these in his journal Kudi Arasu starting in May 1925.[98] His suggestions included rationalizing characters for easier typesetting and adapting diphthongs like 'ai' and 'au' without violating classical grammar, aiming to modernize Tamil for broader literacy among the masses.[99] These efforts positioned language reform as epistemic resistance, challenging elite control over Tamil's evolution.[95] Culturally, Periyar's linguistic advocacy intertwined with self-respect initiatives, using Tamil publications and speeches to dismantle Brahminical norms and promote Dravidian folklore, inter-caste practices, and rational discourse over religious texts.[95] He supported Tamil as a unifying force for Dravidian peoples, extending beyond Tamils to include Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam speakers, while critiquing Sanskrit-influenced literature as tools of oppression.[97] This approach influenced subsequent Dravidian policies prioritizing regional languages in education and administration.[96]

Major Controversies

Anti-Brahmin Rhetoric and Incitement Claims

E.V. Ramasamy, known as Periyar, frequently employed vehement rhetoric against Brahmins, portraying them as historical oppressors who, through religious and caste institutions, subjugated non-Brahmin Dravidians. He argued that Brahmin dominance in administration, education, and priesthood perpetuated inequality, urging the dismantling of "Brahminism" as essential to social reform.[100][94] Notable statements included equating Brahmins with venomous threats, such as the attributed remark: "If you see a Brahmin and a snake at the same time, kill the Brahmin first, for he is more venomous." This quote appears in biographical accounts and speeches criticizing Brahmin influence as more insidious than natural dangers.[101][102] Periyar also described Brahmins as parasites exploiting non-Brahmin labor and likened their role in society to that of Jews in Europe, advocating their cultural and ideological marginalization.[103] Critics, including Jawaharlal Nehru, accused Periyar of inciting violence through sustained campaigns, with Nehru expressing disturbance over speeches fostering communal hatred in the 1940s and 1950s. In October 1957, Periyar reportedly declared in a public address that Brahmins, comprising only 3% of the population, should be targeted, as covered by contemporary press reports. He faced imprisonment for speeches in locations like Pasupathipalayam, Kulitalai, and Tiruchirapalli, where he urged physical confrontation against Brahmins to challenge their authority.[100][104][17] Supporters of Periyar engaged in acts of harassment and violence against Brahmin communities during agitations, including property damage and intimidation in the mid-20th century, which eyewitness accounts link to the movement's anti-Brahmin fervor. While Periyar occasionally emphasized non-violent methods in writings, such as stating that violent movements fail to achieve goals, detractors contend his rhetoric directly contributed to these incidents by dehumanizing Brahmins and framing them as existential threats.[105][94][106]

Anti-Semitic Statements and Influences

Periyar E.V. Ramasamy expressed anti-Semitic views in writings from the late 1930s, aligning with Nazi propaganda narratives about Jewish influence. On March 20, 1938, amid rising Nazi power in Germany, he wrote: "When the Jews spread all over Germany, they spoiled the entire German economy... other citizens in order that they live (in comfort)," portraying Jews as economic parasites responsible for societal ills.[107] Periyar drew parallels between Jews and Brahmins in India, advocating for measures against Brahmins akin to Nazi policies toward Jews. In speeches and writings, he likened Brahmins to Jews, stating that Germans had rightly addressed the "Jewish problem" by curtailing their dominance, and implied similar eradication was needed for Brahmin influence to liberate non-Brahmin communities.[108][109] These statements reflected influences from European anti-Semitic literature, including references to Der Stürmer, the Nazi regime's notorious tabloid that propagated hatred against Jews through caricatures and conspiracy theories. Periyar incorporated such tropes into his critique of perceived elite exploitation, adapting them to his anti-Brahmin ideology without direct endorsement of Hitler post-Holocaust events, though no public recantation of the earlier rhetoric is documented in primary sources.[110]

Personal Relationships and Succession Disputes

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy's first marriage was to Nagammai in 1898, when he was 19 years old; she actively supported his early social reform efforts, including accompanying him on travels and participating in the Vaikom Satyagraha, until her death on May 11, 1933.[111] The couple had no surviving children, as their infant daughter died at five months old.[112] In 1949, at age 70, Periyar married 32-year-old Maniammai, a dedicated follower who had joined his movement in the 1940s and assisted in organizing self-respect marriages and social campaigns.[63] [111] The union, solemnized on July 9 without religious rituals in line with self-respect principles, sparked widespread controversy due to the 38-year age gap and perceptions that it contradicted Periyar's advocacy for egalitarian partnerships free from patriarchal dominance.[63] [62] Critics within the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK), including C. N. Annadurai, viewed it as a personal indulgence undermining the movement's ideals, leading to resignations and the formation of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) on September 17, 1949.[62] [113] Sources close to Periyar indicated the marriage served a strategic purpose: as a legal mechanism to designate Maniammai as his successor for leadership and property management, circumventing inheritance laws that might favor male relatives or complicate transfer to the DK, given the absence of direct heirs and restrictions on naming a woman as heir outright.[62] [112] Periyar had amassed assets through publications, donations, and movement funds, which he intended for public welfare and ideological continuity rather than private inheritance; the marriage ensured Maniammai's authority to execute his will, which bequeathed properties to the Tamil people via the DK.[114] Following Periyar's death on December 24, 1973, Maniammai assumed DK leadership without immediate contest, steering the organization through public meetings and publications while adhering to his rationalist and anti-caste agenda until her death on March 16, 1978.[111] [113] Post-1978 succession passed to K. Veeramani, who consolidated control over key assets like Periyar Thidal, though minor factional tensions emerged over ideological purity and resource allocation, reflecting ongoing internal debates rather than outright property seizures.[113] These dynamics underscored Periyar's foresight in using personal ties to safeguard institutional continuity amid a movement prone to ideological rifts.

Factionalism and Internal Conflicts

In 1944, Periyar reorganized the Justice Party, which he had assumed leadership of in 1938, into the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK), explicitly withdrawing it from electoral politics to prioritize social reform over power-seeking compromises.[115][116] This shift alienated members favoring continued political participation, sowing early seeds of discord within the movement.[117] The most significant internal rupture occurred in 1949, when C. N. Annadurai, Periyar's longtime protégé and editor of the movement's Kudi Arasu journal, led a breakaway faction to form the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) on September 17.[65] The immediate catalyst was Periyar's marriage to his 29-year-old secretary, Maniammai, on July 14, 1949, when he was 70; this union, viewed by critics as a breach of the Self-Respect Movement's emphasis on rational unions free from traditional norms, prompted mass resignations and expulsions from DK.[118] However, underlying tensions centered on strategic divergence: Annadurai advocated entering electoral arenas to translate Dravidian ideals into policy, while Periyar insisted DK remain a non-partisan pressure group, arguing that political office would dilute radical reforms against caste and religion.[119][120] Post-split, DK's membership plummeted, with Annadurai drawing away key intellectuals and youth, weakening Periyar's organizational base but allowing him to preserve the group's uncompromising stance on atheism, anti-Brahminism, and separatism.[94] Periyar responded by intensifying propaganda against the DMK, labeling it a betrayal of core principles, though both entities retained overlapping Dravidian rhetoric.[118] No major further schisms fractured DK under Periyar's lifetime leadership (until 1973), as he consolidated control through loyalists like E. V. K. Sampath, who briefly attempted reconciliation before aligning with DMK factions.[121] These conflicts underscored a causal tension between ideological purity and pragmatic mobilization, with Periyar's intransigence prioritizing long-term cultural transformation over immediate political gains.[3]

Fabricated Claims and Awards

One prominent fabricated claim regarding E.V. Ramasamy, known as Periyar, is that he received the title "Socrates of South East Asia" or "Socrates of South Asia" from UNESCO, purportedly recognizing him as a prophet of rationalism and social reform.[122][123] This assertion, often accompanied by a fabricated citation stating "Periyar, the prophet of the new age, has performed the Herculean task of making people of the South India realise the value of rationalism and self-respect," lacks any official documentation from UNESCO archives.[124][125] The myth originated from propaganda efforts by Dravida Kazhagam (DK) and other Dravidian outfits following Periyar's death on January 24, 1973, with no evidence of the award during his lifetime.[123][126] UNESCO's New Delhi office has explicitly denied conferring such an honor, confirming the absence of records in response to inquiries as recently as 2025.[127] Persistent promotion of this claim appears in Tamil Nadu school textbooks, prompting a public interest litigation in the Madras High Court in 2021 seeking its removal for disseminating false information.[124] No verifiable international awards from bodies like UNESCO were bestowed upon Periyar; honors such as Indian postage stamps issued in 1978 and 2009 commemorate his legacy domestically but do not substantiate global accolades.[125] Such fabrications have been critiqued as tools to elevate Periyar's status amid ideological promotion by Dravidian political groups, despite the lack of empirical backing.[122][123]

Interactions and Clashes with National Leaders

Periyar initially aligned with Mahatma Gandhi's non-cooperation movement in the early 1920s, participating in the Vaikom Satyagraha of 1924–1925 to challenge untouchability by demanding access to temple roads in Travancore.[128] However, tensions arose when Gandhi assumed leadership of the satyagraha in 1925, which Periyar viewed as a compromise that preserved Brahmin dominance rather than eradicating caste hierarchies, leading Periyar to resign from the Congress party that year.[129] Their ideological rift deepened over Gandhi's defense of varnashrama dharma and opposition to aggressive anti-caste measures, with Periyar accusing Gandhi of perpetuating Brahminical privileges under the guise of reform.[130] In a notable 1927 meeting in Bangalore, Periyar directly challenged Gandhi, arguing that "Hindu religion should disappear" as it lacked a coherent existence beyond illusion, while Gandhi countered that Hinduism was real and essential.[131] Periyar's critiques extended to Gandhi's vision of a unified India, which he saw as imposing North Indian, Hindi-centric dominance on Dravidian regions; by 1957, Periyar organized the burning of Gandhi's images, claiming Gandhi had "cheated" Tamils by facilitating the absorption of their lands into a centralized Hindi-imposing nation.[129] These clashes reflected Periyar's rejection of Gandhian federalism in favor of Dravidian separatism. Periyar's relations with Jawaharlal Nehru were marked by mutual antagonism, stemming from Periyar's campaigns against Hindi imposition and demands for a separate Dravida Nadu, which Nehru opposed as threats to national integration. In a November 5, 1957, letter to Madras Chief Minister K. Kamaraj, Nehru described Periyar as an "old and senile man" with a "criminal-minded" approach, suggesting he deserved confinement in a lunatic asylum rather than public life and urging action to curb his "perverted" anti-Hindu agitation.[132] Periyar reciprocated by leading protests against Nehru's government, framing it as Brahminical and North Indian hegemony that suppressed Tamil autonomy.[133] Periyar sought alliances with B.R. Ambedkar, viewing him as a kindred spirit in combating caste oppression, with meetings in 1940 in Mumbai to discuss prospects for Dalits and non-Brahmins post-independence, in 1944 for further collaboration, and in 1954 in Rangoon for a Buddhist conference.[134] [135] These interactions fostered intellectual comradeship, though Periyar later protested Ambedkar's support for reservations benefiting Scheduled Castes, prioritizing non-Brahmin consolidation.[136] Periyar also engaged Muhammad Ali Jinnah in 1940 alongside Ambedkar in Bombay, exploring separatist options inspired by the Pakistan demand, and wrote to Jinnah in 1944 requesting support for a Dravidian state akin to Pakistan.[137] Jinnah rejected the proposal on August 17, 1944, expressing sympathy for Dravidian grievances but refusing to endorse secession from India, prioritizing Muslim League goals.[138] This rebuff underscored Periyar's isolation in his federalist challenges to Congress-led unity.

Legacy and Evaluation

Political and Social Impacts in Tamil Nadu

Periyar's founding of the Self-Respect Movement in 1925 initiated a sustained challenge to Brahmin dominance in Tamil Nadu's social and administrative spheres, promoting self-respect marriages, rationalism, and opposition to caste-based rituals as tools for empowering non-Brahmin communities.[139] This movement, which emphasized empirical critique of religious superstitions and hierarchical customs, contributed to broader social reforms including advocacy for widow remarriage and women's education, fostering incremental shifts toward gender autonomy in domestic and public life.[11] By 1930, its propagation through conferences and publications had mobilized thousands, laying groundwork for cultural practices that prioritized individual dignity over traditional orthodoxy.[140] Politically, Periyar's 1944 reorganization of the Justice Party into the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) rejected electoral participation in favor of ideological pressure, yet it directly inspired the 1949 split forming the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which captured power in 1967 and ended Congress rule in the state.[141] Dravidian parties, drawing from his anti-caste framework, expanded reservation quotas for backward classes and Dalits—defended by Periyar as essential for countering historical inequities—culminating in a 69% quota system by 1990 that redistributed opportunities in education and government jobs.[37] This non-Brahmin consolidation marginalized upper-caste influence in politics, with Dravidian governance prioritizing Tamil linguistic identity and welfare schemes that correlated with Tamil Nadu's rise to among India's highest human development indices by the 2000s, though causal attribution remains tied to collective policy implementation rather than Periyar alone.[67] Socially, the movement's emphasis on inter-caste unions and eradication of caste endogamy aimed to dismantle hereditary barriers, influencing policies that encouraged such marriages through legal and cultural incentives post-independence.[142] It also entrenched rationalist skepticism toward Hinduism's priestly authority, reducing ritual expenditures and temple-centric power structures in rural Tamil society, as evidenced by declining Brahmin representation in state services from over 70% pre-1920s to under 3% by the 1970s.[143] However, while empowering marginalized groups politically, these reforms deepened regional identity politics, sustaining Dravidian secularism against national Hindu nationalist currents and enabling Tamil Nadu's resistance to central impositions like Hindi promotion in the 1960s.[144] Periyar's legacy thus manifests in enduring institutional frameworks for social justice, though caste dynamics persist in subtle forms like community-based voting blocs.[145]

Representations in Culture and Media

Periyar is commemorated through numerous statues across Tamil Nadu, which serve as enduring symbols of the Dravidian movement's emphasis on social reform and rationalism.[146] These include prominent installations in cities like Chennai, Thanjavur, and Tiruchi, with at least 27 statues in Chennai alone requiring police protection amid political tensions.[146] A 95-foot statue, announced as Tamil Nadu's tallest, is under construction along the Trichy-Chennai National Highway, incorporating public parks to enhance its role as a community landmark.[147] Incidents of vandalism, such as those reported in Thanjavur and Tiruchi districts on September 24, 2018, underscore the polarized cultural reception of these monuments.[148] The Indian postal service has honored Periyar with commemorative stamps, reflecting official recognition of his contributions to social activism. A 25-paise stamp was issued on September 17, 1978, marking his birth centenary.[149] Additional stamps followed, including a definitive series in 2016 featuring his image to promote awareness of his rationalist legacy.[150] In cinema, Periyar has been depicted in biographical works that emphasize his role as a rationalist reformer. The 2007 Tamil film Periyar, directed by Gnana Rajasekaran, chronicles his life from childhood through key political struggles, with Sathyaraj portraying the titular role; the production received partial funding from the Tamil Nadu government under Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi.[151] Dubbed in Telugu as Periyar Ramaswamy Naicker, the film highlights events like his involvement in independence movements and critiques of caste hierarchies, though it has been critiqued for aligning with Dravidian political narratives.[152] Periyar's ideas have permeated Tamil cinema more broadly, influencing Dravidian-themed films that propagate anti-caste and rationalist motifs. Early examples include Velaikkari (1949) and Parasakthi (1952), which drew from his resistance to Brahminical dominance and Aryan cultural impositions, shaping the genre's ideological framework during the 1930s–1950s. His advocacy for self-respect marriages and atheism inspired screenwriters and actors aligned with the Dravida Kazhagam, embedding his rhetoric into popular narratives that critiqued superstition and social inequality.[153] Media representations often reflect ongoing debates, with Periyar's image invoked in controversies over rationalism versus tradition. For instance, actor Rajinikanth's 2020 reference to a 1971 anti-superstition conference led by Periyar in Salem sparked protests from Dravidian groups, illustrating how his legacy fuels contemporary cultural clashes in Tamil media discourse.[154]

Contemporary Reassessments and Debates

In the 2020s, reassessments of Periyar's legacy have centered on the centenary of the Self-Respect Movement in 2025, marked by international events such as a September 4-5 conference at Oxford University, which highlighted its principles of samathuvam (equality) and jaathi ozhippu (caste annihilation) as relevant to ongoing struggles against caste violence and gender inequality in India.[37] Proponents argue that Tamil Nadu's welfare-oriented governance and resistance to Hindu nationalist policies embody Dravidian ideals inspired by Periyar, influencing global discussions on social justice beyond regional confines.[37] However, critics contend that persistent caste pride and the state's accommodation of capitalist policies undermine the movement's radical vision of eradicating hierarchical structures through rationalism and self-respect marriages.[37] A focal point of debate remains Periyar's anti-Brahmin rhetoric, particularly his 1957 Viduthalai editorials urging the "extermination" of Brahmins who upheld dominance, interpreted by some as incitement to violence against a community comprising less than 3% of Tamil Nadu's population.[155] Periyar defended these as hyperbolic expressions to provoke awareness among non-Brahmin castes, insisting on non-violent opposition to Brahminical ideology rather than personal targeting, and noting his associations with individual Brahmins like C. Rajagopalachari.[155] This controversy reignited in March 2024 at the Madras Music Academy, where Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna's Sangita Kalanidhi award drew protests accusing Periyar—influential in Dravidian circles—of endorsing "genocide" rhetoric, prompting defenses that framed his words as critiques of systemic oppression without historical violence ensuing.[155][155] Periyar's atheism and iconoclasm face scrutiny in the context of resurgent religious orthodoxy, with reassessments portraying his legacy as a disruptive force against pseudoscience and communalism, yet potentially exacerbating divisions in a polarized polity.[156] In Tamil Nadu's 2020s politics, Dravidian parties like DMK leverage his anti-Hindi and federalist stance against perceived cultural imposition, as evidenced by the March 2025 public dispute between Chief Minister MK Stalin and Union Minister Nirmala Sitharaman over replacing the rupee symbol with a Tamil letter in the state budget logo, highlighting tensions on cultural and linguistic policies.[157] Detractors, including Hindu nationalist voices, argue that his early advocacy for a separate Dravida Nadu[158] and anti-Aryan narratives foster enduring regional separatism and ahistorical ethnic framing, complicating national integration efforts.[159] These debates underscore a divide: veneration in progressive and Dravidian spheres for advancing rational inquiry, versus condemnation from conservative perspectives for polarizing social fabrics without fully resolving caste hierarchies.[37][156]

Recent Commemorations and Centenary Events

In December 2023, the 50th death anniversary of E.V. Ramasamy, observed on December 24, prompted tributes across Tamil Nadu, including floral offerings by Chief Minister M.K. Stalin at Periyar's statue in Chennai, alongside ministers Duraimurugan and P.K. Sekar Babu.[160] [161] Dravidar Kazhagam followers and political leaders gathered to honor his role as founder of the organization, with events emphasizing his Dravidian ideology.[162] The 145th birth anniversary on September 17, 2023, was marked statewide as Social Justice Day, featuring political tributes and public programs in Tamil Nadu to recognize Ramasamy's anti-caste campaigns.[163] Chief Minister Stalin led commemorations by garlanding Periyar's statue in Chennai, joined by other leaders who highlighted his contributions to rationalism and social reform.[164] On September 17, 2024, the 146th birth anniversary drew observances in Erode and Salem, with local events including speeches on Dravidian principles, while Stalin reiterated Periyar's foundational influence on Tamil achievements globally.[165] [166] The year 2025 designated the centenary of the Self-Respect Movement, launched by Ramasamy in 1925 to promote non-Brahmin self-esteem and critique religious orthodoxy, featuring a two-day international conference at Oxford University's St. Antony's College on September 4–5, organized to spotlight its global impact.[37] [167] The event included book releases documenting the movement's history and discussions on its role in Dravidian politics.[168] On the 147th birth anniversary, September 17, Chennai youth hosted social justice forums, while Stalin described Ramasamy as a force eradicating caste prejudice.[169] [170]

References

User Avatar
No comments yet.