PERIYAR E. V. RAMASAMI’S CRITIQUE OF PRIESTLY HINDUISM AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL REFORMS
Rev. Dr. Selvam Robertson
PERIYAR E. V. RAMASAMI’S[1] CRITIQUE OF PRIESTLY HINDUISM[2] AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL REFORMS
1 Introduction
Protests
against superstitious beliefs and practices associated with religion and the
caste system is exceedingly old in India.
The indigenous, ascetic and pre-Aryan religious movement
called the Sramanas was the first to oppose priestly rituals,
superstitions and caste system. Its two offshoots, Jainism and Buddhism laid
greater emphasis on reason and disapproved irrational practices and
inequalities in the society. The
materialist carvaka system insisted that there is no necessity for faith
in religion, rites, priests and Vedas. The Upanishads are earnest quest for
truth beyond externals of religions.
Bhakthi movement in Hinduism, to some extent, disfavored mechanical
rites and caste system. Siddhars
in the South and Sants in the North India advocated simple life and
negated ritualism. Ramalinga Swami, in
Tamil Nadu condemned caste and superstitious beliefs. Sikkism was still another attempt in this
direction. With the influence of British, people like Ram Mohan Roy, Keshub
Chander Sen and Ranade initiated many social reforms. Mahatma Jotirao Phooley and Ambedkar
radically criticized priestly exploitations.
It was in
this context that Periyar E. V. Ramasami is significant. He was of the opinion
that, all the inequalities and oppressions found in the society were created by
priestly/Bramanic religion. Rather than opting for a new religion, Periyar
thought, religions should be rationally evaluated from the perspective of human
life. Any religion or religious practice
that obstructs human dignity should be abandoned. He stood for self-respect (individual freedom
and dignity).
2 Reasons for Critiquing Priestly Hinduism
Periyar can be understood only from
the point of the environment in which he grew up.[3] His personal encounters with evils of
religion and caste had directly contributed to his rationalist thinking. He was born on September 17, 1879 in Erode
(Tamil Nadu).[4] He belonged to the Naicker caste the upper
stratum of the Sudras.[5] His father was a well-to-do businessman.
At the age of
six his father admitted him in a school.[6] His interest toward education was
insignificant. Yet the dehumanizing experience that he underwent in the school
motivated Periyar to be stoutly critical about the social system and religious
practices around him.
During school days, his parents instructed him that he should
drink water only from his teacher’s house.
When he went to the teacher’s house, he came across a very unpleasant
and unforgettable experience. Periyar
writes:
The teacher was a strict
vegetarian. He belonged to a caste
called ‘Oduvar’. I went to his house
once or twice to drink water. In that house
a small girl used to place a brass tumbler on the ground, and pour water in to
it. I was instructed to life the vessel
and drink without sipping it. After that
she would pour water on the vessel, lift it and wash inside and then take it
into the house. Because I am accustomed to sip water from the vessel, a part of
the water would fall on my body. Only a
little water would go in to the mouth.
Some times water would enter my nose and cause trouble. I had to spit out the water instantly. Sometimes the girl would get angry on seeing
this.[7]
Paulraj
describes another, almost similar experience of younger Periyar and remarks
that “the boy made a pledge to himself
that he should eradicate this demeaning and dehumanizing caste discrimination.”[8]
In the words of C.J. Anantha Krishnan “this incident first sowed the seeds of
revulsion against casteism in the impressionable mind of young Ramansami.”[9] Contrary to Periyar his parents were very
pious and religious people. Because of
his irreligious behavior and their orthodoxy ‘he was treated as untouchable at
home’.[10]
On the basis
of these harsh experiences Periyar declared that caste is a social issue but
enjoys religious sanction; hence religion should be rationally evaluated. Visswanathan writes “… his early experience of the rigidity of
the caste system and the practice that went along with it created in him a
feeling of revulsion against those who strove to uphold it as the core of the
Hindu way of life.”[11]
In the words of Johnkumar, “in spite of the enviable position enjoyed by this family,
Periyar as a young man had encountered humiliating experiences of the caste
discrimination. This was the main
impetus that made him anti Brahministic…”[12]
His hatred to
caste system was gaining ground. Rajagopalan writes, “from his boyhood he was questioning
why his parents prohibited him from drinking water in some houses, why he was
prevented from joining Muslims boys and play, why lot of Brahmins are fed by
his father when lot of poor non-Brahmins are starving...”[13]
Periyar’s continued reflection convinced him that the priests/Brahmins used
religion and god to impose caste system upon people. In other words Periyar was convinced that the
caste discriminations were the result of misuse of religion by a group of
people.
He was
sympathetic to the victims of caste degradations. It is explained as “the question of the
baleful custom of condemning a certain section of the society as unworthy of
equality of the status and freedom of movement was perhaps the one that was
uppermost in his mind.”[14]
Still further “their state of penury and
squalor on the one hand and on the other the disabling social handicap so
deeply moved the tender heart of the young boy.”[15]
At the age of
twelve Periyar was introduced to his father’s business. During his leisure he
discussed religious matters with the pundits who visited his home. This helped him to know more about Ramayana,
Mahabharata Puranas etc. Visswanathan
says, “through their religious discourses and discussions the young Ramasami
learnt the rudiments of the philosophical significance of Hindu Mythology and
Theology.”[16]
Sometimes, the pundits had no answer to Periyar’s demanding questions. Even if they answered “different pundits gave
different answer.”[17] This made him to conclude that Brahmins and
Sastras were lies.[18] In the words of Gopalakrishnan, “even from
his boyhood Periyar had been feeling that the public discourses of Ramayana,
Mahabharata and the Puranas were employed by the pundits and other
religious men only as a means of livelihood for themselves and not in order to
make people really pious.”[19]
When only nineteen, Ramasami married
thirteen-year-old Nagammai, his cousin. After six years of family life he took
to Sanyasi life and traveled all over India as a religious
mendicant. Charles Ryerson writes, “at
twenty five he became a wandering Sanyasi, traveling with two Brahmins
and performing Kalashepams.”[20] It is commonly accepted that Periyar’s
quarrel or disagreement with his father on certain matter resulted in sanyasin
life. On reaching Benares, the two Brahmin friends left Periyar, because they
got free food and did not need any help from Periyar.[21] This made him to think that the Brahmins were
unreliable and untrustworthy.
Periyar was
left alone in a helpless situation.
Friendless and foodless he wandered the streets of Benaras[22]
because all the inns were opened only for the Brahmins. He was not allowed to enter an inn where
Brahmin Sanyasis are fed. Once Periyar was pushed out of an inn because
he was not a Brahmin.[23] According to
P. Vanangamudi, “without food
he starved for days and one day, he even ate the left overs (sic) thrown out on
a leaf.”[24] Rajagopalan says, “on one occasion he had to
eat the food thrown in dust bin along with dogs.”[25] Having realized that his long hair and
mustache prevented others to accept him as a Sannyasi, Periyar shaved them off[26]
and looked for a job. According to
Charles Ryerson “finally he found himself in Benares working for a math by
collecting leaves for puja.”[27] When his real identity was betrayed by his
life style, he became jobless.
Situation in
Benares was contrary to his expectations. Anita Diehl says, “… he was
disappointed with his experience in the Holy city.”[28] Aamong Sannyasis, Brahmins were honored.[29] There was uncontrolled immorality and
prostitution.[30] About Periyar’s Sannyasi experience Nambi
Aroonan says, “he obtained an intimate knowledge of the evils widely prevalent
in Hinduism, particularly in pilgrim centers like Benares.”[31] Paulraj writes “during these visits to
pilgrim centers he came to know of the evils of popular Hinduism and found out
that the Brahmin priest used his priestly role to exploit the masses.”[32]
Periyar
realized that, it was not human value but caste was given priority in Benares. Religious centers are place of all kinds of
hooliganism. This experience accelerated
Periyar’s anti-Brahminic attitude. About
this process Visswanathan states, “Ramasami Naicker’s opposition to Hindu
Orthodoxy and the caste system became more and more out-spoken in his later
life for many incidents and his own personal experience as a Sadhu in the holy
centers of India contributed to the hardening of this attitude.”[33]
After
returning from the sannyasi tour, Periyar continued his business. His interest for social works, including
protesting against social evils motivated him to join congress in 1920.[34] To his surprise he found that, in the name of
nationalism congress was upholding caste system and Brahmins dominated it.
Periyar, as
congress president of Tamil Nadu participated in the Vaikom Satya Graha,
which taught him the gravity of
untouchability. Gurukulam affair is
another one of this kind. Periyar involved in the Gurukulam affairs in 1925.[35]
Gurukulam was a school in the Brahmin village of Kallidaikurichi, Tirnelveli
district, supported by the congress for the training of national heroes. Here
the non-Brahmin students were served food separately and only after the Brahmin
students had taken their meals.[36] Rajagopalan states that the non-Brahmin
students “… were served food outside the dining hall of the Gurukulam, whereas
Brahmin boys were served food neatly inside the hall.”[37] Periyar being treasurer of Tamil Nadu
Congress stopped Congress contribution to Gurukulam. This incident further aggravated his opinion
against orthodox Brahmins.[38]
He also felt that communal representation could help non-Brahmins. It included
reservation of seats to the non-Brahmin communities in the legislature and in
the services. Since Brahmins dominated
the congress, the proposal was rejected.
Mangala
Murugesan quotes an incident from Kudi Arasu, 12th July 1931, to
show the Brahmin arrogance. Once when E. V. R. went with Srinivasa Iyengar to a
Brahmin’s house for dining, he was supplied food in a separate place, leaves
used for serving morning tiffin were not removed during lunch and the leaves in
which he ate both in the morning and afternoon were there till a night meal was
served.[39]
The social,
religious political and economic degradations imposed in the name of gods and
religion, through the “structure” called Hinduism, by the Brahmins, gradually
contributed to the anti-religious and anti-Brahminical attitude of Periyar.
3 Periyar’s Critique of Priestly Hinduism
Periyar’s
acquaintance with Priestly/Brahminic Hinduism convinced him that, religion was
responsible for all the evils, particularly caste system, in the society. Thus he began to scorn religion in general
and priestly Hinduism in particular.
3.1 Periyar and Religion
For Periyar,
two major aspects of religions are social and spiritual. Social dimension of
religion accepts religion as a way of life at the exclusion of any divine or
supernatural elements. Spiritual
dimension of religion consists of beliefs and practices. He treated the former
as essential and the latter as nonessential.
Periyar
traces the origin of religion to the uncivilized age. According to him “when human beings were
savages without the ability to think deeply about anything, the ideas that were
propagated by some for the benefit of society came to be known as religion.”[40] It is a set of rules and ideas framed for the
life and conduct of man and help him to achieve his ideal.[41] It is obvious that, the very purpose of
religion is the welfare of humanity. He
states “… any religion however great it may be was founded by one who had at
heart the good of public and not by one who had the grace of God or quality of
God.”[42] This social value of religion is further
explained as “a religion should be for
fostering love. It should induce one to
be helpful to others. It should make
everyone respect truth.”[43]
Periyar
considered religion as a way of life. He
was against attributing supernatural/spiritual elements to religion. He says,
“it is money and propaganda that gives life to religions. There is no divinity or super qualities that
keep the torch or religion bright and burning.”[44] In the words of Anita Diehl “the religion
that Periyar repudiates is the religion which according to him, upholds and
gives sanction to religious, social and economic injustice.”[45]
Unfortunately spiritual dimension of religions finds more
expressions than the social. As all religious activities were devised to
hoodwink the mass, there was no chance for the molding of human character.[46] It also became the place of idleness.[47]
This was the situation that called the attention of Periyar. He said religious activities are generally
contrary to nature.[48]
And religion makes people stupid.[49]
In short it may be said that (1) Periyar accepted religion as
a way of life in this world. It was
founded for the well-being of humanity in this world. (2) There is no divine or supernatural
element in religion. (3) The spiritual
dimension of religion is the work of human mind and (4) there is no divine
element (particle) in humanity. With these presuppositions he critiqued
Hinduism and Priestly Hinduism in particular.
3.2 Hinduism
Periyar says,
“the worst untruth that is in circulation is the claim that there is a religion
called Hinduism.”[50] The term Hindu originally means Indians, and
not a religion.[51] He said, “it is a religion forced on the
people with the primary intention of hood-winking the people.”[52] M. M. Thomas remarks “for him (Periyar),
Hinduism is founded by Brahmins for their own power interests; they built on
ignorance, illiteracy and poverty of the people and exploited them.”[53]
Periyar attributes the degraded situation of the non-Brahmins
in India wholly to their accepting Hinduism.
It considered them as slaves.[54] In the view of S. Manickam, slavery in India,
which is closely related to caste and untouchability, is primarily based on
religion, i.e. Hinduism.[55]
Periyar went to the extent of saying that, sati, child
marriage, polygamy, superstitions, rituals and ceremonies, the obscenity in
Sanskrit literature and on temple walls and towers, the devadasi system,
women’s slavery are the products of the Hindu religion which is stated to be
God-given.[56]
3.3 Priestly Hinduism
Priestly
Hinduism or Brahmanical Hinduism is the expression used here to denote Hinduism
as practiced by the Brahmin priests. Swami Dharma Theertha defines Brahaminical
Hinduism as “it may be defined as a system of socio-religious domination and
exploitation of the Hindus based on caste, priest-craft and false philosophy, -
caste representing the scheme of domination, priest-craft the means of
exploitation, and false philosophy a justification of both caste and
priest-craft.”[57] P. D. Devanandan remarks that Periyar used
the word Brahminism to describe the strategy, which Brahmins had used from the
early days of the Aryan expansion in India in order to bring the entire
religious and social life of Hindu India under their domination.[58] Brahminic Hinduism specifically implies the
ways in which Brahmins used and interpreted Hindu scriptures, religious practices
and caste system to accomplish their own ends.
This is the religion that Periyar critiqued.
Since certain
Hindu scriptures aided the interpretations of the Brahmin priests, Periyar
starkly criticized their authenticity and validity. He out rightly condemned
Manu for it upholds Brahmin supremacy on the one hand and social injustice to
the non-Brahmins on the other.[59] Another reason is that it obstructs the
self-respect of people. He disapproved of Mahabharata for it preserves caste
system.[60]
He has obnoxiously caricatured the characters of Ramayana and interpreted it as
the war between Dravidians and Aryans. Paulraj says, “Naicker openly ridiculed
the Puranas (popular Hindu religious literature) and called them imaginary,
irrational and grossly immoral fairy tales.”[61]
Periyar often said that these scriptures should be burnt
because “they are not helpful to us in any manner.”[62]
He also stressed, “it is because of
these Puranas and Ithihasas that we are slaves to the Aryans.”[63] According to Periyar Ramayana and Mahabharata
were written in view of subduing the non-Brahmin kings who opposed the
Brahmins.[64] Nambi Arooran says that they are the result
of Brahminical scheming and they do not recognize the equality of all people.[65] From the moral point of views, he said
“indiscipline, prostitution and things devoid of self respect galore in this
epics.”[66] Anaimuthu remarks, “after long years of deep
study and constant thought he said emphatically that those smritis and epics
contained neither moral maxims nor political ideas.”[67] Periyar says that Brahmin writers had no
regard for woman and therefore they have written such things.[68]
The
credibility of Periyar’s critique of popular Hindu scriptures can be
questioned. Periyar had attempted to
render literal interpretation of these scriptures. He had failed to highlight the moral,
ethical, social and religious contents of these scriptures. At the same time, his claim can be justified
because, firstly, his main aim was to curb Brahminism. Secondly, this was the way in which Brahmins
presented and interpreted the scriptures.
Thirdly, his intension was not to probe into these scriptures and find
out the truth, but just to make the people to disrespect and disregard
them. It is very important to note that,
Periyar has emphatically stressed the human authorship of scriptures. This is very much relevant to a religiously
pluralistic society. It helps people to
be critical of their own religious scriptures.
For Periyar,
there is no meaning in religious rituals, practices and festivals. He found them all as the crafty work of
Brahmins to maintain their standard of life at the cost of non-Brahmins. All
rituals are designed in such a way that, all material benefits would go to the
priests. To obtain the benefits
periodically, they have framed rituals that are to be celebrated from cradle to
grave. As different rituals are
prescribed to different castes, rituals also in a way ignite caste system. Periyar held the view that all religious
ceremonies are the result of superstitious beliefs. “The astrologer, the magician and the temple
priest have always been the prime and the best exploiters of the people’s greed
and superstition. The trade of these
three parasites are interconnected and of mutual benefit.”[69] Periyar went to the extent of ignoring all
religious ceremonies and suggested priestless ceremonies.
He held that,
festivals are nothing, but the mere construct of priest-craft. The Brahmins have given religious flavor to
some incidents that happened in some one’s life. They are good chances to young boys and girls
and prostitutes.[70] During festivals lot of money is simply
wasted while millions of people died without food and other basic
materials. Festivals are season for
spreading cholera because devotees from different places come together, bath
together, and live unhygenically. He
failed to consider the social dimension of the festivals. It is important because festivals help people
come together, share their joy, exchange gifts etc. They can facilitate cordial relations among
people of varied faith and cultural affirmations.
Johnkumar
maintains that, according to Periyar caste system is reinforced by Hindu
religion.[71] Anita Diehl says, “Periyar… became convinced
that casteism and Hinduism were one and the same.”[72] Periyar said, “truly my endeavor is primarily
intended to abolish caste. But this
matter of abolishing castes has made me speak about the abolition of God,
religion, shastras and Brahmins as far as this country is concerned. Castes will go only after these four
disappeared.”[73] Periyar had rightly discerned that, since
religion is the source of caste it should be liquidated. When individuals begin to evaluate their own
religions in the light of reason, many elements of exploitations and disharmony
can be averted from the society and peace can be established. Ambedkar was of the view that, unless it is
realized that, caste has religious sanction, it cannot be eradicated.[74] The same point is dramatically expressed by
Periyar that, “when we meet a Brahmin we must greet him ‘come on you
Bastard!’ If he asks you why you say so,
ask him why he used the term Shudra in the Sastras and Statute books.”[75]
Periyar’s
protest was vehement. During 1927-28, he campaigned, for burning Manu Darma
Sastra and in 1942 for burning Ramayana and Periya Puranam.[76] In 1953 he broke images of Vinayaka
(Ganesha).[77] Periyar and his followers burned parts of
Indian constitution in 1957 because it encourages caste system.[78] The same year there was a great attempt to
remove the title “Brahmin” from the hotel name boards. In 1960 Periyar burned pictures of Rama. In 1971 Periyar organized a superstition
eradication conference in Salem. In this
conference Rama’s image was taken in the procession and was beaten by
sandals. Hindu deities were obscenely
portrayed.[79] The effigy of Rama was burned publicly. Posters revealing the lust of and birth of
Hindu deities were found everywhere. “A
Salem poster portrayed Brahmin priests standing around Siva, looking as though,
they were masturbating him while Parvathi, Siva’s wife, held her hand out.”[80] Many other photos depicted naked idols and
erotic scene from mythology.
He arranged
remarriage to his niece when her husband died at an early age. Periyar also organized self-respect
marriages, which are free from any Brahmin involvement. Without the aid of Brahmins, Periyar gave
name to children. He even tried to cut
the tuft from Brahmin’s heads. He also
effectively protested against Temple prostitution. To propagate his ideas Periyar started
journals. His aim was to show that, human dignity and welfare are more
important than gods and religious affairs.
3.4 Religious Concepts
Periyar was
of the opinion that, the concepts of God, Soul, Sin, Heaven and Hell are
unreal. These are fashioned after the interests of human beings. In his view “it is nothing but the existence
of desires and unfulfilled wants that is responsible for the faith in God.”[81] Man created God.[82] He argued against the existence of god. For instance,
“if it is true, God cannot be seen or touched, is there any meaning in offering
food for him and that too six times a day”.[83] Why do people kill each other if god creates
them all? His famous anti-God slogan is:
There is no god, no god at all
He who invented god was fool
He who propagated god was a scoundrel
He who worships god is a barbarian.[84]
In fact
Periyar’s main aim was to reform the religion of its caste elements. Thus he said, “if the idol would get polluted
by touch of the people, such a god is not required and the idol has to be
broken to pieces and used for constructing good roads. Otherwise it may be put near the river banks
to be used for washing clothes.”[85] Such gods are used to encourage
discrimination in the society.[86]
Periyar said,
“I can say that soul is a piece of protective false imagination to protect
another false imaginary religion.”[87] The idea of soul is developed to maintain the
doctrine of rebirth. The idea of rebirth is the best means to preserve
caste. Periyar asked, if the same souls
are born again, how is it possible that the population increases. If some souls are saved, the population
should dwindle. The idea that god will
forgive sins persuade man to continue sinning.
Heaven and Hell are imaginary worlds of Brahmins to swindle money.
4 Implications for Social
Reform
Following Periyar’s rationalist interpretation of priestly religion it
can be said that he did not reject religion as such. He accepted religion as a way of life. He was fully against superstitious elements
and supernatural dimension of religion. He felt that, religion is the cause of
all evils, particularly caste, in the society and source of exploitation. He stressed that doctrines and dogmas are
mere human constructs. On the basis of these views, certain implications for
social reform can be drawn.
The first implication is self-respect. It includes human dignity and freedom. Periyar
maintained that religions should contribute to the self-respect of humanity.
Religions and practices that ransom self-respect of humanity should be
discarded. Once Periyar said any
religion that operates against human dignity or ill-treats human beings should
be destroyed.[88] He emphatically said “even if I were to lead
to life in hell, I would deem it better than the earthly one, if I were
regarded there as a human being.”[89] Another lucid expression is that “even if I
were to live in a place where I would have to experience much worse sufferings
than those of a hellish life, I would consider it a pleasanter life than this
mean, caste-ridden existence, if only I were respected as a man there.”[90] He was concerned with all that affected any
human effort or human progress.[91] He puts his mission, as “my work is the
emancipation of the society. I am for
the eradication of the high and the low.
I want to restore dignity and respect for all men. I want equal justice and equal treatment and
equal opportunities of all. Redemption
of self-respect and restoration of dignity to mankind is the dedicated task of
mine.”[92] Since priestly Hinduism perpetuated
exploitation of human beings and caste discrimination he condemned it to the
extent, nobody had ever dared. He would accept religions if they are subject to
reason and committed to human liberation from any oppressive structure, mainly
caste.
Second implication is right perception of religion and issues.
Periyar said “the two things that render people irrational are god and
religion.”[93] He also maintained “God and religion are
confusing the Society.”[94] Current Indian situation particularly
political, religious and social warrants right perception about religion and
the issues that are rocking the fundamental fabric of Indian society. People
should know, how and when politics, religions and social issues are mixed
together to confuse people and ascend into power. In the words of Periyar “Human
knowledge alone can remove the pain caused by human ignorance.”[95]
Third implication is serving humanity. According to Periyar service is not in the
hands of god, but in the hands of people. He says, “belief in God is not in any
way useful to help others.”[96] Further, “if we are to share the food and
work equally there is no necessity for god.”[97] He also said, “complete in doing service to
others and thus seek your glory and joy.”[98]
Although religions can inspire serving others, they can also become stumbling
block to broader concept of service. Periyar suggests that service should
transcend all religious differences because human welfare takes precedence over
religious periphery.
The fourth implication is accepting religion as a way of life.
Periyar said that, he had no problem with people who accepted religion as a way
of life in this world.[99]
His understanding of the way of life is distinct:
People cannot
live without religion. I do not mean
relationship between man and god or salvation, fate, pardon, reward in the
heaven. What I mean is that there must
be regard between man and man through love, devotion, peace, brotherhood,
honesty and unity. To say the same in
understandable language, I would say religion is a way of life, a human
movement. If you want to call it
religion I have no objection: without even a religion of this type it would be
difficult for man to live in this earth.[100]
Periyar’s interpretation of religion as a way of life is based upon the
present requirements of human life here on the earth. It is enlightening and
appropriate to the Indian context where religions are turning out to be weapons
of large-scale violence and avaricious power politics.
The fifth implication is human progress. Periyar’s concern was not limited to
individual alone but to society as a whole.
According to him real progress of a society can take place only when the
leaders of the society stop infusing of blind faith in fate, destiny, religion
and god in the minds of people.[101] He also said, “my only goal is the welfare of
the people.”[102] Periyar did not reject faith as such but
blind faith or superstitious beliefs. He knew that under the disastrous caste
hierarchy, non-Brahmins couldn’t find hope of development. The harsh caste
rules barred them from all progressive efforts. His expectation was that
religions would contribute to the development of entire society but not to a
group of people. This attitude is
essential in a multi religious context.
Sixth implication is high regard for morality. Since Periyar has accepted religion as a way
of life, he demands morality in religious exercises. For him morality is more
important because it is concerned with this world and life in this world. He says, “religious devotion is for the
individual. Character is for all. There is no loss if there is no
devotion. Everything is lost if there is
no character.”[103] Again “God religion, salvation, etc are an individual’s
and not a society’s concern. Character
and honesty are social in the sense that they involve a man’s relationship with
others.”[104]
It is also crucial to recognize that Periyar realized the need of sound
morality for societal life.
Seventh implication is harmonious
life. Periyar was eager to accept
religion if it offered morality and harmony of life. He says, “I want a religion in which there is
true brotherhood, unity and discipline.”[105] He was of the opinion that the first obstacle
for harmonious life in this world is religion.[106] Periyar’s expectation has come as a prophetic
realization in the present Indian context. Religions have been used to divide
communities in an immoral way. He also suggested “people all over the world
should untie. They should have an
existence that does no harm to other beings.
Means must be found for a peaceful life, free from envy, care, deceit,
hatred and sorrow.”[107] Further “we should not think that life is
only for the sake of the individual. It
is also for the welfare of others.”[108] People should aim for a life, which is
joyful, helpful to others and not causing difficulty to others.[109] Periyar’s expectations look simple but that
is what the whole world is longing for. Corrupt and communalized power centers,
looking for progress, can find appealing corrective measures from the
harmonious vision of Periyar.
6
Conclusions
Periyar used “rationalist
interpretation” as a hermeneutical principle to critique priestly Hinduism. His
supreme aim was to eradicate caste discrimination from the society, which he
suffered from his school days. Since religion was the cementing force behind
the evil of caste, which is a social issue, he critiqued it from the point of
life here in society. His entire contention was that religion as such is not
abominable but the way in which it is interpreted to manipulate, subjugate, and
enslave sections of the society. He was pained to witness the influence of
caste even in the so-called national political party.
Since
Brahmanic Hinduism perpetuated caste system with the aid of Hindu religious
scriptures he condemned them and caricatured the scriptural characters to
ventilate his unquenchable revulsion against the gruesome religious
practices. His portrayal of religious
doctrines further vindicates his utter unfaith and disappointment over the
validity and utility of religions.
Periyar was unacceptable to many because his stark critique of priestly
Hinduism unacknowledged the positive aspects of religions. Acceptance of the social dimension of religions
alone does not suffice to the fuller realization of the positive potentials of
religions.
Nevertheless, the implications from the critique of priestly Hinduism
for social reforms stand stall. Periyar’s persistent demand for self-respect
for the people, earnest appeal for a right perception of religions and social
issues, incessant plea for serving others, unremitting persuasion to the
consideration of religion as a way of life, relentless urging for human
progress, unwavering appreciation for morality and profuse summon for
harmonious life are essential for any society aspiring for reforms. Although
his approach was quite rugged, his contributions will always remain as beacon
to many reforms.
Dr.
S.Robertson, D.Th. Religions
Serampore
College.
Religion and Dialogue
Religion and Dialogue
[1]
Periyar E. V. Ramasami, is the founder of a Dravidian Movement in Tamilnadu,
called ‘Dravida Kazhagam’(DK) in 1944. He is dearly called Periyar. He
advocated social reforms prior to political.
[2]
The expression ‘priestly Hinduism’ is used as synonym to ‘Brahmanic Hinduism’.
[3] E.
Sa. Visswanathan, The Political career of E. V. Ramasami Naicker, Ravi
& Vasanth Publishers, Madras, 1983, p.17.
[4]
Cf, JohnKumar, S.J., “A Secular Response:Periyar E. V. Ramasamy Naicker”, Emerging
Dalit Theology, ed. By Xavier Irudayaraj, S.J., Jesuit Theological
Secretariat, Madras, 1990, p.70.
[5]
Anita Diehl, Periyar E. V. Ramasami: A Study of the Influence of a
Personality in Contemporary South India, B. J. Publications, 54. Janpath,
New Delhi, 1978, p.19.
[6]
M.D. Gopalakrishnan, Periyar Father of Tamil Race, Emerald Publishers,
Annasalai, Madras, 1991, p.1.
[7] Collected
works of Periyar EVR., 2nd revised ed., Vol.1, The Periyar
Self-Respect propaganda Institution, “Periyar Thidal”, 50, EVK Sampath Salai,
Madras, pp, 2-3. Hence forth this book
will be cited as collected works, Vol.1.
[8] R.
Paulraj, Salvation and Secular Humanists in India, The Christian
Literature Society, Post Box – 501, Park Town, Madras – 3, 1988, p.111.
[9]
C.J. Anantha Krishnan, “The early years of Periyar”, The Rationalist, Vol.XVIII,
No.9, (September 1992), p.24.
[10]
Cf. A. Arivoli, Periyar Sethathum Seiya Thavariyathum, Anbarasi
Veliyeetaham, North Street Porulvai, Sikkal, 1979, p.13.
[11]
E. Sa. Visswanathan, Op. Cit., p.17.
[12]
JohnKumar, S.J., Op. Cit., p.71.
[13] E.M.
Rajagopalan, My Memories About thanthai Periyar Prior to 1930, “Periyarism”,
G-6, Lloyds Estate, Madras – 14, 1985, p.28.
[14]
An Admirer, Periyar E. V. Ramasami: A Pen Portrait, 3rd
Revised ed., The Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, 50. E.V.K.
Sampath Salai, Madras, 1992, p.1.
[15]
Ibid.
[16]
E. Sa. Visswanathan, Op. Cit., p.20.
[17] Collected
works, Vol. 1, p.5.
[18]
Cf. Arivoli, Op. Cit., p.16.
[19]
M. D. Gopalakrishnan, Op. Cit., p. 43.
[20]
Charles Ryerson, Regionalism and Religion: The Tamil Renaissance and Popular
Hinuism, The Christian Literature Society, Post Box-501, Park Town, Madras
– 3, 1988, p.86.
[21]
Cf. Sami Chitambaranar, Tamil Talivar Periyar E.V.K. Valkkai Varalaru, 7th
ed. Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution Publication, Trichy, 1975, p.44.
[22]
Cf. K.M. Balasubramaniam, Periyar E.V. Ramasami, Periyar Self-Respect
Propaganda Institution Publications, Trichy-17, 1973, p.17.
[23]
Cf. Sami Chitambaranar, Op. Cit., p. 44.
[24]
P. Vanangamudi, Periyar E.V. Ramasamy’s Approach to Modernization, Thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor
of Philosophy in History, Department of History, Annamalai University,
Annamalai Nagar, 1986, p.67.
[25]
E.M. Rajagopalan, Op. Cit., p.28.
[26]
Cf. Sami Chitambaranar, Op. Cit., p.45.
[27]
Charles Ryerson, Op. Cit., p.45.
[28]
Anita Diehl, Op. Cit., p.8.
[29]
Cf. E.M. Rajagopalan, Op. Cit., p.28.
[30]
Cf. Sami Chitambaranar, Op. Cit., p.46.
[31]
K. Nambi Aroonan, Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism 1905 – 1944, Koodal
Publishers, Madurai – 625001, 1980, p. 153.
[32]
R. Paulraj, Op. Cit., p.91.
[33]
E. Sa. Visswanathan, Op. Cit., p.7
[34]
Cf. M.D. Gopalakrishnan, Op. Cit., p.7.
[35]
Cf. Charles Ryerson, Op. Cit., p.87.
[36]
Choudhary Brahm Perkash, ‘Periyar’s Relevance Today’, The Modern
Rationalist, Vol. XVII, No.10 (September 1991), p. 4.
[37]
E.M. Rajagopalan, Op. Cit., p.30.
[38]
M.K. Mangala Murugesan, Self-Respect Movement in Tamil Nadu 1920 – 1940, Koodal
Publishers, 121. West Masi Street, Madurai – 625001, p.38. (year of publication
is not given.)
[39]
M.K. Mangala Murugesan, Op. Cit., p.53.
[40]
Periyar, Man and Religion, trans. By R. Sundaraju, Rationalist
publication, Madras, 1993, p. 3. Hence
forth this book will be cited as Man and Religion.
[41]
Ibid.
[42]
Periyar E. V. R., Philosophy, trans. By A. Sundaramurthy, Karnataka
Dravidian Association Publications, Bangalore, 1959, p. 7.
[43] Collected
works Vol. 1, p.332.
[44] Ibid.,
p.328.
[45]
Anita Diehl, Op. Cit., p.49.
[46]
Cf. Periyar Kalangiyam, Vol. 3, complied by K. Veeramani, Periyar
Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, Madras. 1979, p. 76.
[47]
Cf. Thanthai Periyar Materialism or Prakritivatham, 5th ed.
Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, Madras, 1984, p. 18.
[48]
Periyar, Man and Religion, Op. Cit., p.4.
[49] Ibid.,
p.8.
[50] Ibid.,
p.17.
[51]
Cf. Periyar Kalangiyam, Vol. 3, p. 39.
[52] Collected
works Vol. 1, p. 13.
[53]
M. M. Thomas, The Secular Ideologies of India and the Secular Meanings of
Christ, C.L.S., Madras, 1976, p. 128.
[54]
Cf. Periyar Kalangiyam, Vol.3, p.4.
[55]
S. Manickam, Slavery In the Tamil Country A Historical Over-view, 2nd
enlarged and revised ed. C.L.S., Madras, 1993, p.3.
[56]
Cf. K. Veeramani “Builder of Astheism in Tamil Nadu: Periyar E. V. Ramasami”, Periyar
An Anthology, Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institute, Madras, 1992.
pp.117-118.
[57]
Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu Imperialism, 5th ed.
Babasaheb Ambedkar Foundation, Kerala, 1992, pp. 6-7.
[58]
P. D. Devanandan, The Dravida Kazhagam A Revolt Against Brahminism, CISRS,
Bangalore, 1959, pp.6-7.
[59] Collected
works Vol. 1, p.43.
[60]
Cf. Periyar E.V. Ramasami, Rationalist Thinking, Op. Cit., p.17.
[61]
Paulraj, Op. Cit., p92.
[62] Collected
works Vol. 1, p.84.
[63]
Ibid., p.91.
[64]
Cf. Thanthai Periyar, Purattu – Imalaya Purattu, 4th ed.
Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, Madras. 1983, p.57.
[65]
Cf. Nambi Arooran, Op. Cit., p.164.
[66]
Ibid., p.85.
[67]
V. Anaimuthu, Contribution of Periyar E.V.R. To the Progress of Atheism, Periyar
Nul Veliyittakam, Madras, 1980, p.6.
[68]
Cf. Periyar E.V. Ramasami, Declaration of war on Brahminism, trans. By
A. S. Venu, The Dravidar Kazhagam Publication, Madras, 1987,p.27.
[69] Collected
works Vol. 1, p.231.
[70]
Cf. Periyar E.V. Ramasami, Rationalist Thinking, Op. Cit., pp. 42-43.
[71]
Cf. Johnkumar, S.J., Op. Cit., p.72.
[72]
Anita Diehl, Op. Cit., p.13.
[73]
An Admirer, Op. Cit., p.103.
[74]
Cf. A.M. Raja Sekhariah, B.R. Ambedkar, The Quest for Social Justice, Uppal
Publishing House, New Delhi, 1989, p. 240.
[75]
Periyar E.V. Ramasami, Declaration of war on Bhraminism, Op. Cit.,p.30.
[76]
Cf. Nambi Arooran, Op. Cit., p.165.
[77]
Cf. Charles Reyerson, Op. Cit., p.89.
[78]
Cf. Periyar An Anthology, Op. Cit., p.119.
[79]
Cf. Charles Reyerson, Op. Cit., p.91.
[80]
Ibid., p.178.
[81] Collected
works, Vol.1, p.11.
[82]
Periyar E.V. Ramasami, Kataul, Kudi Arasu Pathipakkam Erode, 1960, pp.
4-5.
[83]
Periyar E.V. Ramasami, Rationalist Thinking, Op. Cit., p.25.
[84]
An Admirer, Op. Cit., p.70.
[85] Collected
works, Vol. 1, p. 65.
[86]
Cf. Viduthali 9-1-50.
[87]
Periyar E.V.R., Philosophy, Op. Cit., p. 24.
[88]
Cf. Kudi Arasu, 18-12-27.
[89] The
Revolutionary Sayings of Periyar, Op. Cit., p.4.
[90]
Ibid.
[91]
Cf. Periyar Kalagiyam, Vol.3, p.152.
[92] Collected
works, Vol.1., p.161.
[93] Collected
works, Vol. 1, p.100.
[94]
Ibid., p.18.
[95] The
Revolutionary sayings of Periyar, trans. By Dr. R. Ganapathy, A Periyar
Cenetenary Publication, Department of Information and Public Relations,
Government of Tamil Nadu, 1985, p.111.
[96] Collected
works, Vol.1., p.111
[97]
Ibid., P.102.
[98] The
Revolutionary Sayings of Periyar, Op. Cit., p.108.
[99]
Cf. Kudi Arasu, 1-7-28.
[100]
Periyar E. V. Ramasami, The Salvation to Shudra Slavery, Dalit Sahitya
Akademy, Bangalore, 1986, p.23.
[101]
Periyar, Man and Religion, Op. Cit., p.2.
[102]
The Revolutionary Sayings of Periyar, Op. Cit., p.7.
[103]
The Revolutionary Sayings of Periyar, Op. Cit., p.107.
[104]
Periyar, Man and Religion, Op. Cit., p.9.
[105]
Periyar E.V. Ramasami, The Salvation to Shudra Slavery, Op. Cit., p.24.
[106]
Cf. Periyar Kalagiyam, Vol.3, p.133.
[107]
The Revolutionary Savings of Periyar, Op. Cit., p.5.
[108]
The Revolutionary Savings of Periyar, Op. Cit., p.107.
[109]
Cf. Kudi Arasu 15-4-28.
Comments
Post a Comment