THE MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS BEHIND PERIYAR’S CRITIQUE OF BRAHMINICAL HINDUISM
CHAPTER 14
THE MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS BEHIND
PERIYAR’S CRITIQUE OF BRAHMINICAL HINDUISM
The factors
that motivated Periyar to rationally evaluate Brahminical Hinduism can be
broadly classified in to two: direct and indirect. Direct factors are those events and incidents
which Periyar himself experienced or directly confronted and had direct bearing
on the development of his religious thinking.
Indirect factors are those persons, tour and ideologies which had
influenced Periyar in the process of his thinking and action in general.
14.1 Direct Factors
In
the words of Visswanathan ‘Periyar’s uncompromising attitude towards the
religious practice of the Hindus, their beliefs in the institutions of religion
and the caste system can only be explained and understood in the light of the environment
in which he grew up.[1]
14.1.1 Family
Background
Periyar
E. V. Ramasami was born on September 17, 1879 in Erode in a family that could
be termed as one belonging to the middle caste-class group.[2] The “middle caste-class” can be understood
only in the context of Tamil Nadu and Periyar’s family background. In Tamil Nadu the entire society is
stratified into three broad sections, namely, Brahmins, non-Brahmins and
untouchables, against the traditional four-fold caste system in the rest of India
14.1.2
Childhood of Periyar
As a child, Periyar
was brought up by his grandmother who was not well-to do.[4] Though Ramasami had not much to eat at home,
he was rough and wild colt in his early days.[5] Ravindranathan remarks that, “there were all
the signs of rebel in him right from his childhood.”[6] The unpleasant life at his grand-mother’s
house and his inherent rebellious nature proved as productive impetus for the
development of his personality and ideology.
14.1.3
Periyar at School
Periyar’s
father, concerned with the education of his son brought him back home from
grand-mother’s house and admitted him in a school when he was six.[7] As Periyar was naughty and playful, he did
not heed much for school education.
Gopalakrishnan says that, “the boy attended school for six years, but
learnt very little.”[8] Of course, it was not the education, but the
dehumanizing experience that he faced in the school which became one of the
most important factors that motivated Periyar to be more critical about the
social system and religious practice around him.
During
Periyar’s school days, his parents instructed him that he should not take
drinking water from anybody’s house except from his teacher’s. When he went to
the teacher’s house to drink water, he had very unpleasant and unforgettable
experience. About this experience
Periyar says:
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 lift 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 in to 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.[9]
Paulraj describes another,
almost similar experience of younger Periyar:
Ramaswami went in to the
teacher’s house and asked his wife to give him a drink. His wife took some water in a vessel and
brought it outside the house and refusing to give the vessel of water to the
boy, asked the boy to cup both his palms and poured water in to his cupped
palms. The boy was shocked by this
incident and found out later that the Teacher’s wife did not give him the
vessel of water because of caste discrimination. The boy made a pledge to himself that he
should eradicate this demeaning and dehumanizing caste discrimination.[10]
This grave
experience had formidable impact upon Periyar and his thinking. [11]
Here
it should be remembered that, even though caste was a social issue, it was
always applied with a tinge of religious sanction. That is why Periyar felt that, religion was
the root of all evils, and therefore should be evaluated rationally.
14.1.4
Orthodoxy at Home
Orthodoxy at
home was another factor that motivated Periyar to rationally evaluate Brahminic
Hinduism. Periyar’s parents were very
pious and religious people. On the
contrary Periyar was very critical about any form of religious practice. He would not observe any ritual or ceremony,
rather he would involve himself in all that were considered irreligious and
unholy by his parents. As a result, he was
treated as an untouchable at home.[12] When he asked his parents, why he should be
treated as an untouchable, the reasons given were, custom, tradition, priest,
sastras etc.[13]
14.1.5 Caste System
Even as a
school pupil, Periyar was able to infer the social inequalities practiced on
the basis of caste system. As he grew
up, he was quite serious about it.[14]
Johnkumar writes, “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…”[15]
Periyar persistently reacted to caste system. According to Rajagopalan, “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...”[16]
Periyar did not
keep quiet by seeing the dreadful evil of caste system. He began to reflect upon it. This reflection helped him to understand
that, religion and god are used by Brahmins to impose the caste system upon
people.
14.1.6 Dalits
As a result of
his unceasing reflection on the caste system, Periyar discerned that a
particular section of the society was deprived of their rights and
privileges. They were not counted as
equals to others. This attitude strongly
affected the mind of Periyar. [17]
Added to the
inequality of the status of a particular section of the people, was “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.”[18] This particular section of the people can be
called as Dalits. Periyar’s reflection
on the social set up of Dalits and their life situation together helped him to
think that, these discriminations were the result of religion. However, he felt that though religion as such
was not directly responsible for this, the way in which Brahmins used it to
exploit others caused discrimination.
14.1.7 Religious Knowledge
Periyar was
introduced to his father’s business, when he was twelve years old. His exposure to the business world enabled
Periyar to accumulate general knowledge concerning things and happenings around
him. During his free time, Periyar used
to have religious discussions with the pundits who visited his home. This helped him to gather more knowledge
about Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas etc.[19]
During the
course of discussions, Periyar often raised difficult questions to the
pundits. Sometimes they had no answer to
his questions. Even if they answered,
each pundit gave a different answer to the same question.[20] When such pundits received benefits from his
parents Periyar was uncomfortable. He
thought the pundits were cheating his parents; and Sastras were lies.[21] 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.”[22]
In this case Periyar, probably, had expected from the pundits, more than what
they could do. That is, Periyar was
unaware of the fact that, no religious question will have one answer. Yet, to a young mind, this kind of religious
knowledge which was inconsistent, was very difficult to accept.
14.1.8 Sanyasi Experience
Sanyasi experience is the most important
motivational factor behind Periyar’s critique of Brahminical Hinduism. When only nineteen, Ramasami married his
cousin, Nagammai.[23] At that time she was only thirteen years of
age.[24] After six years[25]
of family life he became a Sanyasi.[26] He traveled all over India Benares
and being abandoned there by his two Brahmin friends developed in him distrust
for Brahmins.[29]
Being friendless
and foodless, Periyar, the son of a merchant wandered about in the streets of
Benaras.[30] As Periyar was not a Brahmin, he was not
allowed to enter an inn where Brahmin Sanyasis were fed.[31] Once Periyar attempted to enter an inn but
the gatekeeper pushed him out.[32] P. Vanangamudi writes “without food he
starved for days and one day, he even ate the left overs thrown out on a leaf.”[33] Rajagopalan says, “on one occasion he had to
eat the food thrown in dust bin along with dogs.”[34]
Having realized
that because of his long hair and mustache people did not accept him as
Sannyasi, Periyar shaved off his hair and mustache.[35] He began to look for a job. Finally, he found himself in Benares working for a math
by collecting leaves for puja.[36] Since the math
people did not know that Periyar was not a Brahmin, he had to act as a temple
servant.[37] He lost this job when people found that
Periyar was not taking his morning bath, before his daily work.[38] Periyar earlier thought that life in Benares would be pure and perfect. On the contrary, “even among Sannyasis he
found Brahmins are honoured.”[39] In Benares
he even witnessed uncontrolled immorality and prostitution.[40] It was unbearable for Periyar to see that,
his co-beggars, both men and women, including Brahmin women indulged in
drinking, meat eating, and open prostitution.
In the words of Anita Diehl “… he was disappointed with his experience
in the Holy city.”[41]
About Periyar’s
entire North India experience Nambi Arooran says, “he obtained an intimate
knowledge of the evils widely prevalent in Hinduism, particularly in pilgrim
centers like Benares .”[42] In the words of Paulraj, “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.”[43]
Periyar could feel that, it was not human
values but caste was given priority in Benares . Religious centers are place of all kinds of
hooliganism. This experience accelerated
Periyar’s anti-Brahminic attitude.[44]
14.1.9 Periyar and the Congress
Party
Having had a very
unpleasant experience in Benares , Periyar
returned home and continued his business.
Simultaneously, he showed considerable interest in social work,
including protesting against social evils.
In order to materialize his interest and plans, Periyar joined the Congress
party in 1920.[45] To his surprise Periyar found out that, in
the name of nationalism Congress was upholding the caste system. Also it was dominated by Brahmins. While Periyar was with the Congress, three incidents
furthered his anti-Brahminic attitude.
14.1.9.1 Vaikom Satya
Graha
According to
Paulraj, “in those days the people belonging to lower castes called Harijans
were not allowed to enter the temples, especially in a village called Vaikom
which belonged to Travancore state of South India…”[46] More than that they were prohibited from
walking along the streets around the temple.
Because of this maltreatment, the Depressed classes organized a satyagraha at Vaikom. Periyar, as the Congress President of Tamil
Nadu was also invited. His participation
had a remarkable impact on the Satyagraha
and himself. Finally the Government
permitted the Depressed class people to use the streets around the temple. And in 1936 the untouchables were allowed to
enter the temple. The satyagraha thus paved way for the
subsequent Temple
Entry
About Periyar’s
experience at Vaikom, Charles Ryerson writes “it was the Vaikom incident of
1924 that really excited him.”[48] It is true because here Periyar could feel
the gravity of untouchability, at social and religious realms. Periyar got the impression that, Brahmins
would oppose any kind of reform in their customs and practices. Added to this was Gandhi’s stand, as Gandhi
wanted to uphold the caste system, while fighting untouchability.
14.1.9.2 Gurukulam Affair
Gurukulam was a
school in the Brahmin village
of Kallidaikurichi
Periyar got
himself involved in the Gurukulam affairs in 1925.[52] Seeing the dread of caste in the Gurukulam,
Periyar as a treasurer in Tamil Nadu Congress stopped the Congress contribution
to Gurukulam. There was a lot of opposition
to him in this regard from the party.
But Periyar, as a man for others, did not mind them at all. At the same time, he was very much affected
by the caste tyranny in Gurukulam.[53]
14.1.9.3 Communal
Representation
Periyar as a Congress
man had the feeling that, he should work for the betterment of
non-Brahmins. He felt communal
representation is the right way to do it.
This plan included reservation of seats for the non-Brahmin communities
in the legislature and in the services.[54] Periyar insisted on this plan in all the Congress
committee meetings. But from the
beginning it was neglected and finally rejected. The main reason for the rejection was due to
the domination of Brahmins in the Congress.
14.1.10 Inhuman Treatment by
Brahmins
Mangala
Murugesan quotes an incident from Kudi Arasu, 12th July, 1931, to
show the Brahmin arrogance. According to it, “once when E. V. R. went with
Srinivasa Iyengar to a Brahmin’s house for dining, he was supplied food in a
separate place and when he went again for lunch to the same place, the leaves
used for serving morning tiffin were not even removed and in the same place he
was again served meals. The leaves in
which he ate both in the morning and afternoon were there till a night meal was
served.[55]
The social,
religious, political and economic degradations imposed on the people in the
name of gods and religion, through the “structure” called Hinduism, by the
Brahmins, led Periyar to his anti-Brahminical attitude.
14.2 Indirect Factors
Apart from the
above direct factors or personal experiences, there were some indirect factors,
which some authors think, had influenced the thoughts of Periyar. Although indirect factors had some influence
upon Periyar’s political and economic thinking, they did not influence his
religious thinking.
14.2.1 Ingersoll and Bertrand
Russell
Anita Diehl
assumes the influence of Ingersoll an American atheist and Bertrand Russell, on
Periyar. To substantiate her position
she quotes that “at an interview Periyar stated: My disciples read Ingersoll to
me and I accepted many of his ideas and used them in my propaganda.”[56]
Paulraj also is of the opinion that “his religious thinking was influenced by
Robert Ingersoll whose writings he translated in to Tamil.”[57] The reason for the availability of
Ingersoll’s writing in Tamil Nadu is clearly brought out by Charles Ryerson
that, “this is due to his being popularized by the D. K., although Periyar
denied any direct influence.”[58] Further Ryerson quotes his interview with
Periyar that “my disciples read Ingersoll to me, but my ideas are my own.”[59]
No doubt, Ingersoll’s idea has some similarities with that of Periyar. But the fact is that Periyar’s was the result
of direct confrontation with the evils of society which were practiced under
the banner of religion.
For the same
reason Bertrand Russel’s writings were also published, particularly in the
Modern Rationalist. Even Russel’s
thinking was different. He writes “three passions, simple but overwhelmingly
strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge,
and unbearably pity for the suffering of mankind.”[60] It seems thus to be more philosophical,
whereas, Periyar’s program was more realistic and action- oriented.
14.2.2 Christianity
Diehl has suggested
that, Periyar was influenced by Christianity.[61] It is doubtful because he always preferred
Buddhism and Islam, although in some places he praises the monotheistic
character of Christianity. Yet he argues
that since Islam came later than Christianity it can be more relevant than
Christianity. He, however seems to have advocated Buddhism because there is no idea of
God in it.[62] Because of its rationalist character, Periyar
would have preferred Buddhism. Still it
should not be forgotten that, during his later years, he denounced all religions.
14.2.3 European Tour
In 1931[63]
Periyar went on a long European tour.
During his tour he was very much influenced by Russian Communism. Because, soon after his return from tour,
Periyar was very eager to propagate communist ideas in Tamil Nadu. He also advocated materialism as the means to
solve India
14.2.4 Siddhars
Charles Ryerson
compares the work of Periyar with that of Siddhars, saying that Siddhars and
Periyar were iconoclasts. Siddhars date
mainly from the tenth to the fifteenth centuries. Theirs was a protest movement against the
Brahminic ritualistic religion. They
opposed temple worship, casteism and Brahmin priesthood. They practiced asceticism and were
distrustful of women.[64]
Whether Periyar was an atheist is a debatable
question. However, Periyar always had a very negative attitude toward religion,
particularly towards Brahminic Hinduism.
At the same time, the Siddhars were worshippers of Shiva and were
a very religious people. Therefore, how
far Siddhars influenced Periyar is questionable. All the more Periyar never mentioned them in
any of his talks or writings.
Periyar was
convinced that, the Hindu religion and Brahmins were the cause of all
oppression and bondage.[65] This anti-Brahminic attitude is very
essential in India
[1] E. Sa.
Visswanathan, The Political career of E. V. Ramasami Naicker (Madras
Publishers, 1983), p.17.
[2]
JohnKumar, S.J., “A Secular Response:Periyar E. V. Ramasamy Naicker”, Emerging
Dalit
Theology, ed. By
Xavier Irudayaraj, S.J. (Madras: Jesuit Theological Secretariat, 1990), p.70.
[3] Anita
Diehl, Periyar E. V. Ramasami: A Study of the Influence of a Personality in
Contemporary
South India (New
Delhi
[4] An
Admirer, Periyar E. V. Ramasami: A Pen Portrait, 3rd Revised
ed., (Madras
Respect Propaganda
Institution, 50. E.V.K. Sampath Salai, 1992), p.1.
[5] M.D.
Gopalakrishnan, Periyar Father of Tamil Race, (Madras
Annasalai, 1991), p.1.
[6] Dr.
Rvanindranathan, “The Significant Role of Periyar EVR In the Social Justice
Movement”,
The Modern Rationalist, Vol.XVII,
No.10, (September 1991), p.22.
[7]M.D.
Gopalakrishnan, Periyar Father of Tamil Race, p.1.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Collected
Works of Periyar EVR., 2nd revised ed., Vol.1( Madras
Propaganda Institution,
“Periyar Thidal”, 50, EVK Sampath Salai), pp, 2-3. Hence forth this book will be cited as Collected
Works, Vol.1.
[10] R.
Paulraj, Salvation and Secular Humanists in India
(Madras
Post Box – 501, Park Town
[11] C.J.
Anantha Krishnan, “The early years of Periyar”, The Rationalist, Vol.XVIII,
No.9,
(September 1992): p.24.
[12] A.
Arivoli, Periyar Sethathum Seiya Thavariyathum, (Sikkal: Anbarasi Veliyeetaham, North
Street Porulvai, 1979), p.13.
[13] Ibid.
[14] E. Sa.
Visswanathan, The Political career of E. V. Ramasami Naicker, p.17.
[15]
JohnKumar, S.J., “A Secular Response:Periyar E. V. Ramasamy Naicker”, Emerging
Dalit
Theology, ed. By
Xavier Irudayaraj, S.J., p.71.
[16] E.M.
Rajagopalan, My Memories About thanthai Periyar Prior to 1930,(Madras
G-6, Lloyds Estate, 1985),
p.28.
[17] An
Admirer, Periyar E. V. Ramasami: A Pen Portrait, 3rd Revised
ed., p.1
[18] Ibid.
[19] E. Sa.
Visswanathan, The Political career of E. V. Ramasami Naicker, p.20.
[20] Collected
works, Vol. 1, p.5.
[21] A.
Arivoli, Periyar Sethathum Seiya Thavariyathum, p.16.
[22] M.D.
Gopalakrishnan, Periyar Father of Tamil Race, p. 43.
[23] An
Admirer, Periyar E. V. Ramasami: A Pen Portrait, 3rd Revised
ed., p.5.
[24] Ibid.
[25] R.
Paulraj, Salvation and Secular Humanists in India
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Charles
Ryerson, Regionalism and Religion: The Tamil Renaissance and Popular
Hinuism,
(Madras: The Christian Literature Society, Post Box-501, Park
Town, 1988), p.86.
[29] A.
Arivoli, Periyar Sethathum Seiya Thavariyathum, p.17.
[30] K.M.
Balasubramaniam, Periyar E.V. Ramasami, (Trichy: Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda
Institution Publications,
1973), p.17.
[31] E.M.
Rajagopalan, My Memories About thanthai Periyar Prior to 1930, p.28.
[32] Sami
Chitambaranar, Tamil Talivar Periyar E.V.K. Valkkai Varalaru, 7th
ed. , p. 44.
[33] 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.
[34] E.M.
Rajagopalan, My Memories About thanthai Periyar Prior to 1930, p.28.
[35] Sami
Chitambaranar, Tamil Talivar Periyar E.V.K. Valkkai Varalaru, 7th
ed. ,p.45.
[36] Charles
Ryerson, Regionalism and Religion: The Tamil Renaissance and Popular
Hinuism,p.45.
[37]E.M.
Rajagopalan, My Memories About thanthai Periyar Prior to 1930, p.28.
[38] Charles
Ryerson, Regionalism and Religion: The Tamil Renaissance and Popular
Hinuism,p.86.
[39] E.M.
Rajagopalan, My Memories About thanthai Periyar Prior to 1930, p.28.
[40] Sami
Chitambaranar, Tamil Talivar Periyar E.V.K. Valkkai Varalaru, 7th
ed. ,p.46.
[41] Anita
Diehl, Periyar E. V. Ramasami: A Study of the Influence of a Personality in
Contemporary
[42] K.
Nambi Aroonan, Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism 1905 – 1944, (Madurai
Koodal Publishers, 1980), p.
153.
[43] R.
Paulraj, Salvation and Secular Humanists in India
[44] E. Sa.
Visswanathan, The Political career of E. V. Ramasami Naicker,p.7
[45] M.D.
Gopalakrishnan, Periyar Father of Tamil Race, p.7.
[46] R.
Paulraj, Salvation and Secular Humanists in India
[47] Anita
Diehl, Periyar E. V. Ramasami: A Study of the Influence of a Personality in
Contemporary
[48] Charles
Ryerson, Regionalism and Religion: The Tamil Renaissance and Popular
Hinuism,
p. 95.
[49] Anita
Diehl, Periyar E. V. Ramasami: A Study of the Influence of a Personality in
Contemporary
[50]
Choudhary Brahm Perkash, ‘Periyar’s Relevance Today’, The Modern
Rationalist, Vol. XVII,
No.10 (September 1991), p. 4.
[51] E.M.
Rajagopalan, My Memories About thanthai Periyar Prior to 1930, p.30.
[52]Charles
Ryerson, Regionalism and Religion: The Tamil Renaissance and Popular
Hinuism,,
p.87.
[53] M.K.
Mangala Murugesan, Self-Respect Movement in Tamil Nadu 1920 – 1940, (Madurai
Koodal Publishers, 121. West Masi Street
[54] An
Admirer, Periyar E. V. Ramasami: A Pen Portrait, 3rd Revised
ed., p.30.
[55] M.K.
Mangala Murugesan, Self-Respect Movement in Tamil Nadu 1920 – 1940, p.53.
[56] Anita
Diehl, Periyar E. V. Ramasami: A Study of the Influence of a Personality in
Contemporary
[57] R.
Paulraj, Salvation and Secular Humanists in India
[58] Charles
Ryerson, Regionalism and Religion: The Tamil Renaissance and Popular
Hinuism,,
p. 92.
[59] Ibid.
[60]
Bertrand Russel, ‘What I have Lived for’, The Modern Rationalist, Vol.
XVIII, No.1, (January
1992), p.4.
[61] Anita
Diehl, Periyar E. V. Ramasami: A Study of the Influence of a Personality in
Contemporary
[62] Charles
Ryerson, Regionalism and Religion: The Tamil Renaissance and Popular
Hinuism,,
p.71.
[63] Ibid., p.87.
[64] Ibid., pp.39-42.
[65]
JohnKumar, S.J., “A Secular Response:Periyar E. V. Ramasamy Naicker”, Emerging
Dalit
Theology,
ed. By Xavier Irudayaraj, S.J., p.71.
Comments
Post a Comment