Questions can be raised either to put forward one’s own preconceived answers or problematize existing paradigms. The author of the article “Questioning Periyar’s legacy”(12.03.03) Mr. Ravikumar M.L.A has done it the former way and it has to be questioned in the latter manner.
- Periyar
The author has been raising the same ‘questions’ ‘rigorously’ for the past six or some months in Tamil little magazines and has been refuted even by Ambedkarites (Dalit Murusu -March 2003). Now he has shifted his arena to the English readership.
The first question I would like to raise concerns about Periyar’s legacy. Can we take for granted the DMK and its offshoots as Periyar’s only legacy, if not at the minimal level – one of his legacies?
It’s an historical fact that Periyar vehemently negated the DMK from its inception and was criticizing the party, its leaders and their slogans to the end of his life. Even the famous ‘reconciliation’ with the ex-chief-ministers Messrs. C. N. Anna Durai and M. Karunanidhi was never without reservations and Periyar never hesitated to criticize them even in their own platforms.
Periyar’s legacy cannot be circumscribed to the DK of Mr. K. Veeramani or DMK and its offshoots. There have always been internal struggles within DK after Periyar’s demise and one of the first persons to pursue a different line was the veteran Periyarist Mr. Anaimuthu. In the early 80′s a considerable number of rigorous youth formed themselves in a loosely knit readers’ circle called “Periyar Maiyam” and tried to grapple with the contemporary issues in the light of Periyar’s teachings.
By the early 90′s the Tamil theoretical journal “Nirapirihai” initiated a radical rethinking of Periyar, of which the author himself was a part and about which he is now silent. Of late we see the “Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam” upholding Periyar with its own reinterpretations. This is a minimal history of Periyar’s legacy.
The second question is regarding the misinterpretation of Periyar’s view on minorities. The author, if not deliberately, is (mis) interpreting Periyar’s view of majority/minority from within the academic nomenclature-majority Hindus and minority Muslims. But for Periyar, who fortunately was not an academic and was not brought up in the breed of ‘historiography’ which the author promotes, the minorities were ever brahmins. He often referred to them sarcastically as 3 1/8 percent populace.
As for his criticism of Muslims, even quoting from the same article the author quotes, his attack was on their not “doing any coolie work or labor that involves the flexing of bodies, do not let our gaze fall on their women…” In other words, it was targeted on their elitism and patriarchal relations within the community. And it was not as a ‘counter-shock’ that Periyar suggested conversion to Islam. His statements are categorical regarding this problem: “Conversion to Islam is liberation from caste system.”(Periyar EVR Sinthanaigal,Vol I Izhivu Neenga Oru Marundhu, pgs:27-34.)
Periyar’s approach towards Dalits was never antagonistic or casteist. He was the only leader in the history of Tamil Nadu politics who consistently stood by them and the first to mass-mobilize them. His whole approach towards them is summed up in his declaration, “Only if the socially stigmatizing appellation of pariah is dissolved, can you people free yourselves the shackle of sudra appellation.” Again, it is an irrefutable historical fact that Periyar’s split from “Justice Party” precipitated on the issue of Dalits and Dr. Ambedkar stood by his side.
Finally, if one can charge Periyar for everything the ‘legacy’ the author fixes, would it not be equally absurd like blaming Dr. Ambedkar for the alliance Ms. Mayawathi forged with the BJP at the height of Gujarat massacres?
Note: This article was written in response to the center page article referred above in “The New Indian Express”.
Filed under: Politics, durai, english readership, little magazines, m karunanidhi, problematize, theoretical journal
