Revision as of 17:35, 26 June 2022

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy- I
From: Periyar continues to influence the political landscape of TN, and there are reasons for it, March 8, 2018: The Times of India

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy- II
From: Periyar continues to influence the political landscape of TN, and there are reasons for it, March 8, 2018: The Times of India

Periyar with wife Maniyammai
From: Periyar continues to influence the political landscape of TN, and there are reasons for it, March 8, 2018: The Times of India

Socialism, tryst with

A.R. Venkatachalapathy, Sep 18, 2017: The Hindu

A.R. Venkatachalapathy is a historian of the Dravidian movement

On December 13, 1931, Periyar set sail on the French ship, Amboise, from Madras on a voyage that would take him to the Soviet Union and other countries in Europe. As the Criminal Investigation Department observed, “Their visit to Russia was not bona fide, and the lieutenants of [Periyar] have been asked to keep this fact as secret as possible.”

What is referred to in Periyar’s biographies as the European tour took him to the Soviet Union via Sri Lanka, the Suez, Cairo, Athens, and Constantinople. Later, he journeyed through Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, and Sri Lanka.

Periyar maintained a tour diary, parts of which were reproduced in his own lifetime. Many photographs too have survived. In 1997, V. Anaimuthu, editor of Periyar’s collected writings, partially unearthed Periyar’s dairy. Though incomplete, this is the single-most important source of the tour.

The Soviet tour

Heralding his Soviet tour, Periyar published a part translation, in Tamil, of The Communist Manifesto. His co-translator, S. Ramanathan, and his young relative, Ramu, accompanied him on this tour.

In Athens they had to wait for two weeks for Soviet permission. It is not clear how contacts were established with the Soviets, but the pass eventually arrived on February 2, 1932. They boarded the S.S. Tchitcherine, and after a seasick crossing of the Black Sea, arrived at Odessa. They took a train at Kiev and reached Moscow on February 14.

Periyar promptly reported to the VOKS, the All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries. No record of what transpired in the first two months of the tour has survived, and we are able to piece together their programme only from fragmentary information.

Soon after his arrival, Periyar made the mandatory visit to the Lenin Mausoleum in Red Square. He visited the Baku oilfields in Azerbaijan, Sukhumi in Abkhazia, and Tbilisi in Georgia. Apart from Leningrad, Periyar also visited Dneprostroi and Zaporizhia — the hydroelectric stations that were symbols of Soviet power.

From April 19, when he returned to Moscow, we have Periyar’s day-to-day record of his subsequent 30 days in the Soviet Union. Here he was hosted by what Periyar refers to as the atheist society, the League of the Militant Godless. Some literature was shared between Periyar and the League, including a letter from the German International Freethinkers’ Association and a bulletin of the Association.

Periyar and his associates received excellent treatment wherever they went, which they contrasted with the privations of the Great Depression in other parts of the Western world. One of the detailed descriptions that Periyar provides of Soviet administration is that of the Moskva Sarkozy Sakiz District People’s Court.

He also visited the Lefortovo prison, the notorious Soviet prison associated with the KGB and the Stalinist purges. Periyar went to the AMO (Avtomobilnoe Moskovskoe Obshchestvo, or Moscow Automotive Enterprise). The kitchen and the massive dining area at the AMO factory impressed him. He was also taken to the Profintern (Red International of Labour Unions) office. This was probably more serious business, as the passage of worker radicals to Moscow was discussed.

It was a coincidence that Periyar was in Moscow on May Day, and he was witness to the joyous celebrations. Dioramas depicting various scenes such as those of the haves and have-nots, which reminded Periyar of the Mariamman temple festivals, were being paraded. Army units marched past the Lenin Mausoleum where Stalin, Mikhail Kalinin, Yemelyan Yaroslavsky and other important leaders stood, waving to the crowds. The Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, was a state guest on the occasion. Some days later, a welcome reception for all foreign delegates who had come for May Day was organised by the Society of Old Bolsheviks at the Great Kremlin Palace, and Periyar too was invited.

Émigrés of various hues were present in Moscow at that time and Periyar met some of them, including Abani Mukherji, a founding member of the Communist Party of India.

By the end of April 1932, for reasons not entirely clear, there was discussion about concluding the trip. This is not surprising, as there is confusing information on what Periyar and his two associates were doing or attempting to do in Moscow. Even though Periyar was in touch with Communist Party of the Soviet Union officials, the logistics of the tour were being managed by the League of the Militant Godless.

By May 14, Periyar’s departure for Berlin was confirmed. After some delay, the papers finally arrived on May 17, and Periyar departed from Moscow immediately.

Reactions on the red spectre

What was the import of Periyar’s Soviet tour, and what impact did it have on his political career?

The short statement that Periyar released immediately on return was ominous. It exhorted members of his self-respect movement to desist from using traditional honorifics such as Maha-ganam, Sri, Thiru, and Thirumathi, as prefixes and urged them instead to employ ‘Thozhar’, or ‘Comrade’. It is a custom in Tamil Nadu to ask older and venerated people to name children. Such was his fascination for the Soviet Union that Periyar named the daughter of a leading Dravidian intellectual ‘Russia’ and another child ‘Moscow’.

According to a secret police report, Periyar “lost no time in starting the spread of Communist doctrine”. Within three months of his return he had addressed over 40 public meetings where he “expressed unbound admiration of the Russian regime” and stated “his intention to end the present administration and establish a Socialist form of government.”

Considering that the government was paranoid about the red spectre, reaction was swift. Police action was taken against him and his family. Periyar was soon forced to take a call on the party’s programme and its immediate future. In March 1935, in a public statement, he declared that he was withdrawing his socialist programme in the larger interest of his self-respect movement.

Periyar remained impressed by the achievements of the Soviet Union all through his life. The complete control of society and economy by the state made a deep impact on him. “It is a new world,” he observed. “Such a transformation has never ever taken place in any country.” He believed that only a Soviet-style state could rid India of its poverty. But Periyar either did not follow what happened in the Soviet Union subsequently or did not care for the reality of lived Soviet socialism. He preferred to believe in an idealised version of a socialist society, for he did not comment about the Moscow show trials, the Stalinist purges, etc. His engagement with socialism, intense during 1932-35, never really surfaced in the next 40 years of an eventful political life. The socialist fringe of his movement left him and joined the still, and forever, nascent Communist Party.

However, Periyar made frequent comments about his Soviet tour and favourable statements about the Soviet Union all through his life, while remaining critical of the Indian communist party on the grounds that it was a Brahminical party. How modern Tamil Nadu would have shaped if the brief alliance between Periyar’s movement and socialism had continued remains a most interesting ‘what if’ question.

Life & times

Periyar continues to influence the political landscape of TN, and there are reasons for it, March 8, 2018: The Times of India

1919 Joins Indian National Congress

1879 E V Ramasamy (Periyar) born to a wealthy family in Madras Presidency 1924-25 Role in Vaikom Satyagraha contributes to the triumph a social struggle that paves the way for other egalitarian social measures 1925 Resigns from Congress as he felt it only served the purpose of the upper caste

Starts the self-respect movement aimed at removing social injustice and inequality

Marriages were performed without priests and religious rites

Propagates need for birth control

Rallies for support to abolish Devadasi system, child marriage 1929-1932 Tours British Malaya, Europe and Russia

1939 Becomes head of the Justice Party, one of the main alternatives to the Indian National Congress 1944 Justice Party more or less became Dravidar Kazhagam

Periyar opposed introduction of Hindi as a compulsory language in schools and gave the slogan “Tamil Nadu for Tamilians”

Contribution to Tamil Nadu politics changed the face of political movement in south India with regional parties gaining a stronghold over national parties

Legacy

As in 2020

January 30, 2022: The Times of India

How Periyar came into the spotlight

Dravidar Viduthalai Kazhagam founder Periyar EV Ramasamy may have died in 1973, but he has got embroiled in a fresh political controversy thanks to southern superstar Rajinikanth. On January 14, the actor-politician referred to a rally conducted by Periyar in 1971 at which, he said, idols of Lord Rama and Sita were paraded without clothes and garlanded with sandals. He even showed clippings from magazines and newspapers to corroborate the same. Periyar's outfit demanded an apology from Rajinikanth for his comment. The actor, however, asserted, that he will neither apologise nor express regret since his remarks were based on fact.

Periyar's ideas and beliefs

Periyar believed communism and secular ideas from Tamil poet-philosopher Thiruvalluvar's Thirukkural, a classic in Tamil literature, would guide the world towards prosperity.

He fought for women's rights and self-respect in marriage. He said the concept of marriage was introduced in ancient times to make a woman slave to a man. If marriage had to take place, he called for it to be simple, ideally a registered wedding.

He led agitations against the caste system, He fought for the rights of dalits to enter Hindu temples. In 1970, Tamil Nadu became the first state to have a legislation that people of all castes could become temple priests.

He demanded 50% reservation for non-brahmins in government jobs and educational institutions. Tamil Nadu began reservation of jobs for non-brahmins from 1927-28, and this was extended to 50% of backward classes by the Congress, DMK and AIADMK govts in a phased manner

Periyar’s diatribe against brahmins could have resulted in the movement towards a casteless society going off on a tangent, but he had a creditable record of having fought for women’s rights, including the right to property, widow marriage, self-respect and inter-caste marriages, rights for entry of dalits, Tamil archakas and Tamil mantras in temples, reservation in educational institutions and government jobs. As Periyarists would like to say, let us not throw out the baby with the dish water.

What is surprising, however, is the lack of awareness about Periyar and DK’s acts of burning portraits or effigies of the Hindu gods. The 1971 Salem incident was not the first nor was it the last. While some rationalists, seen as Periyarists, have sounded almost defensive on the issue, Periyar himself had made no bones about it. The act of burning Rama pictures by Periyar was to celebrate Ravana Leela to counter the Ram Leela in Delhi during the Dussehra festival, his argument being that Ramayana sought to perpetuate the Aryan domination over Dravidian ‘sudran’, Ravana of Tamil origin.

Earlier, in 1953, Periyar organised agitations for the desecration of Ganesha idols. He had said in a speech in 1953, “We have to eradicate the gods who are responsible for the institution which portrays us as sudras, people of low birth, and some others as brahmins of high birth... We have to break the idols of these gods. I start with Ganesha because it is he who is worshipped before undertaking any task.” In 1956, Periyar publicly announced an agitation to burn pictures of Rama on the Marina beach. Paula Richman, in ‘The Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia’ (Chapter 9: E V Ramasami’s Reading of the Ramayana) described in detail the events leading up to the burning of Rama’s pictures.


“On the first day of August in 1956, E V Ramasami (henceforth EVR) set out for the Madras Marina to lead his followers in burning pictures of Lord Rama, hero of the Ramayana. This symbolic action would represent a reversal of the culmination of north Indian performances of the Ramayana, in which images of the epic’s villain, Ravana, are put to the flames as spectators watch in delight.” The account goes on to detail how political leaders implored Periyar to cancel the event so as not to offend orthodox Hindu Tamils, but Periyar remained unmoved, noting that “there was bound to be a difference of views regarding any measure aimed at bringing social reform”. On the following day, the deputy commissioner of police arrested Periyar when he was stepped out of his house to head to Marina. Periyar seemed prepared for this eventuality, in addition to the picture of Rama and a box of matches, he was carrying a bedroll to spread on the hard prison floor.

In 1971, Ravana Leela was a fixture at the Salem conference. This was published in detail by the DK daily, ‘Viduthalai’, which was not only unapologetic, but also hailed the burning as a celebration by more than two lakh Tamils assembled there. After his death, Maniyammai, who took over the DK leadership, and her associates, were arrested for burning effigies of Rama, Sita and Lakshmana to re-enact the Ravana Leela at the DK headquarters, Periyar Thidal, in 1974.

In an article on Periyar, Cho Ramaswamy had said, “There was no shade of hypocrisy in him (Periyar) and he never attempted sophistry while propounding his social philosophy.” The former Tughlak editor added that though EVR is still hailed as one of the leaders of the Tamil people, his philosophy is hardly valued. He fought superstitions, but his followers in the AIADMK tonsured their heads for the good health of their former leader J Jayalalithaa; he cursed the caste, now offshoots of his movement — the DMK and the AIADMK — are using caste politics to fight elections, and more caste-based parties have come up in Tamil Nadu; he was the apostle of secession, but his followers swear allegiance to national integration. Cho aptly surmised the idea of the man, saying, “Periyar the singer was admired, his song was ignored. As a man Periyar was the embodiment of civility, which is why he is still loved. The man was greater than his message.” That’s something that is ought to be remembered now.

(The writer is a veteran journalist)

As in 2021

R Rangaraj, August 24, 2021: The Times of India

It is more than 46 years since the passing of Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy, later known as EVR and Periyar, yet he continues to dominate Tamil Nadu’s political space.

The controversy stoked by actor Rajinikanth’s recent reference to the 1971 anti-superstition conference in Salem by the Periyar-led Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) has not died even after a fortnight. Now, some AIADMK ministers have entered the fray asking Rajinikanth to tender an apology for trying to discredit Periyar.

How Periyar came into the spotlight

Dravidar Viduthalai Kazhagam founder Periyar EV Ramasamy may have died in 1973, but he has got embroiled in a fresh political controversy thanks to southern superstar Rajinikanth. On January 14, the actor-politician referred to a rally conducted by Periyar in 1971 at which, he said, idols of Lord Rama and Sita were paraded without clothes and garlanded with sandals. He even showed clippings from magazines and newspapers to corroborate the same. Periyar's outfit demanded an apology from Rajinikanth for his comment. The actor, however, asserted, that he will neither apologise nor express regret since his remarks were based on fact.

Such has been the extent of Periyar’s dominance that any party that claims to have a Dravidian tag has to defend him, even while distancing itself from an indefensible act like the burning of Rama’s portrait. While Dravidian parties concede that it was morally wrong to burn images or portraits of Rama, Sita and Lakshmana as Periyar and his supporters sought to do right from the 1950s, they want to be politically correct to be seen as Periyar supporters, since he founded the Dravidian, social reform movement and enabled the DMK and the AIADMK to come to power. Periyar’s diatribe against brahmins could have resulted in the movement towards a casteless society going off on a tangent, but he had a creditable record of having fought for women’s rights, including the right to property, widow marriage, self-respect and inter-caste marriages, rights for entry of dalits, Tamil archakas and Tamil mantras in temples, reservation in educational institutions and government jobs. As Periyarists would like to say, let us not throw out the baby with the dish water.

What is surprising, however, is the lack of awareness about Periyar and DK’s acts of burning portraits or effigies of the Hindu gods. The 1971 Salem incident was not the first nor was it the last. While some rationalists, seen as Periyarists, have sounded almost defensive on the issue, Periyar himself had made no bones about it. The act of burning Rama pictures by Periyar was to celebrate Ravana Leela to counter the Ram Leela in Delhi during the Dussehra festival, his argument being that Ramayana sought to perpetuate the Aryan domination over Dravidian ‘sudran’, Ravana of Tamil origin.

Earlier, in 1953, Periyar organised agitations for the desecration of Ganesha idols. He had said in a speech in 1953, “We have to eradicate the gods who are responsible for the institution which portrays us as sudras, people of low birth, and some others as brahmins of high birth... We have to break the idols of these gods. I start with Ganesha because it is he who is worshipped before undertaking any task.” In 1956, Periyar publicly announced an agitation to burn pictures of Rama on the Marina beach. Paula Richman, in ‘The Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia’ (Chapter 9: E V Ramasami’s Reading of the Ramayana) described in detail the events leading up to the burning of Rama’s pictures.

“On the first day of August in 1956, E V Ramasami (henceforth EVR) set out for the Madras Marina to lead his followers in burning pictures of Lord Rama, hero of the Ramayana. This symbolic action would represent a reversal of the culmination of north Indian performances of the Ramayana, in which images of the epic’s villain, Ravana, are put to the flames as spectators watch in delight.” The account goes on to detail how political leaders implored Periyar to cancel the event so as not to offend orthodox Hindu Tamils, but Periyar remained unmoved, noting that “there was bound to be a difference of views regarding any measure aimed at bringing social reform”. On the following day, the deputy commissioner of police arrested Periyar when he was stepped out of his house to head to Marina. Periyar seemed prepared for this eventuality, in addition to the picture of Rama and a box of matches, he was carrying a bedroll to spread on the hard prison floor.

In 1971, Ravana Leela was a fixture at the Salem conference. This was published in detail by the DK daily, ‘Viduthalai’, which was not only unapologetic, but also hailed the burning as a celebration by more than two lakh Tamils assembled there. After his death, Maniyammai, who took over the DK leadership, and her associates, were arrested for burning effigies of Rama, Sita and Lakshmana to re-enact the Ravana Leela at the DK headquarters, Periyar Thidal, in 1974.

In an article on Periyar, Cho Ramaswamy had said, “There was no shade of hypocrisy in him (Periyar) and he never attempted sophistry while propounding his social philosophy.” The former Tughlak editor added that though EVR is still hailed as one of the leaders of the Tamil people, his philosophy is hardly valued. He fought superstitions, but his followers in the AIADMK tonsured their heads for the good health of their former leader J Jayalalithaa; he cursed the caste, now offshoots of his movement — the DMK and the AIADMK — are using caste politics to fight elections, and more caste-based parties have come up in Tamil Nadu; he was the apostle of secession, but his followers swear allegiance to national integration. Cho aptly surmised the idea of the man, saying, “Periyar the singer was admired, his song was ignored. As a man Periyar was the embodiment of civility, which is why he is still loved. The man was greater than his message.” That’s something that is ought to be remembered now.

Periyar's ideas and beliefs

Periyar believed communism and secular ideas from Tamil poet-philosopher Thiruvalluvar's Thirukkural, a classic in Tamil literature, would guide the world towards prosperity.

He fought for women's rights and self-respect in marriage. He said the concept of marriage was introduced in ancient times to make a woman slave to a man. If marriage had to take place, he called for it to be simple, ideally a registered wedding.

He led agitations against the caste system, He fought for the rights of dalits to enter Hindu temples. In 1970, Tamil Nadu became the first state to have a legislation that people of all castes could become temple priests.

He demanded 50% reservation for non-brahmins in government jobs and educational institutions. Tamil Nadu began reservation of jobs for non-brahmins from 1927-28, and this was extended to 50% of backward classes by the Congress, DMK and AIADMK govts in a phased manner.

A debated legacy

2019: BJP’s tweet withdrawn

D. Govardhan, Dec 25, 2019: The Times of India

BJP’s state unit kicked up a political row on Tuesday when it chose to post an offensive tweet targeting late Dravidar Kazhagam founder (E V Ramasamy) Periyar’s personal life in the name of observing his death anniversary. As the tweet set off a furore, with political parties condemning and questioning it, BJP was forced to delete the tweet.

The deleted tweet, alluding to Periyar’s marriage to Maniammai, who was 32 when she married the 70-year-old Dravidian reformist, was posted by another handle of the BJP’s IT wing.

After it came under further fire, the party deleted the tweet from that handle too.

Fuelling the issue further, senior BJP leader H Raja joined in by equating Periyarists with terrorists. “Periyarists and terrorists are against peace prevailing in India,” Raja tweeted, accusing Periyar of supporting Pakistan’s stand on certain issues and passing a resolution to rule the Madras Presidency by sitting in London. His tweet has not been deleted though it triggered a volley of protests.

Reacting to the development, DMK president M K Stalin too took to Twitter to question the rationale behind the attack on Periyar. “After recording an offensive tweet to defame Periyar, the Tamil Nadu unit of BJP has deleted it. They should have thought about it before saying such a thing. Let there be fear. Even after his death, Periyar has terrorised some,” Stalin tweeted in Tamil.

The DMK president used the opportunity to hit out at AIADMK, which has been charged with toeing BJP’s line of thinking on various issues. “Will AIADMK question this at least now or crawl into the sand like an earthworm,” Stalin asked.

Lok Sabha member Kanimozhi tweeted, “Periyar is not a mere individual. He is a philosophy that came to rescue Tamils and worked hard to empower women. Such remarks are only expected from those who are uncivilised and don’t understand women’s empowerment. They have to be condemned.”

Meanwhile, AIADMK and its allies flayed BJP for the “derogatory” anti-Periyar tweets. Senior AIADMK minister D Jayakumar, who participated in a function in Chennai, said it was not right for anyone to launch a personal attack on Periyar. “Periyar was somebody who lived for social justice and equality. It is wrong for anyone to launch an offensive on his personal life,” he said.

S Ramadoss, who founded PMK, an AIADMK ally, said such an act by BJP is “disgusting” and needs to be condemned. “It shows their jaundiced vision,” he tweeted.

There were saner voices in BJP too. “I do not know whose idea it (the tweet against Periyar) was. I could not reach out to anyone since I am campaigning in rural villages in Tirupur. But I do not endorse it,” party general secretary Vanathi Srinivasan told TOI.