-Sakya Mohan-
E.V. Ramasamy, one of the founders of non-brahman movement in Tamilnadu, has been a forgotten icon of Dravidian leadership for too many reasons. But in an exception, he is still an eroded icon of sudras who were in competition with brahmans, expanded casteism and wonder, the sudras surpassed brahmans and wanted to maintain status quo in colonizing the Dalits under expanded untouchability. The so-called non-brahmans successfully destroyed the Buddhist Movement started in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As far Dalits in Tamilnadu, no demeaning of Dravidamaaya (the illusion of Dravidaianism) and Aryamaaya (the illusion of Aryanism).
Part – I
The expansion of colonial rule in India not only provided a political coalition among different caste and communal groups, also bestowed a democratic idea for having a separate establishment for administering the goals of each group. The protest culture among the colonial people might be naturally apolitical, but it was extensively a protest for social liberation of the Outcastes of caste India. There were intellectual movements started by the Outcastes in southern part of India. Unlike the other caste and communal movements mobilized against the British rule, in 1880, Tamilnadu Outcastes launched social protest movements against the caste hindus, and for that they wanted to align with the British and started intellectual movements to propagate anti-brahmanism among the Outcastes. Pandit Iyotheedas was the father of such anti-brahman movements in South India. Until the Outcastes started anti-brahman movements, there were no evidences for the non-brahman movement started by and for the so-called sudras in Tamilnadu. The anti-brahman movement of Outcaste intellectuals, according to Iyotheedas, aspired to provide a common platform for every human being in caste India, to pull down any caste feudal or hegemony of a brahman or non-brahman above the head. Iyotheedas meant the equality and fraternity of all human beings. Accordingly, in 1882, Outcastes under the leadership of Rev. Fr. John Ratnam and Iyotheedas established “Dravidar Kazhagam”.
Unluckily, the sudras of Tamilnadu did not found any such platform for a common cause where the Outcastes as well as the brahmans might have had their share. Until 1915, no sign of a separate identity of sudras as “non-brahman” was characterized; only a few saivites like C.V. Damodarampillai and Arumuga Navalar were loitering to mobilize caste forces to consolidate tamil saivism to sideline brahman domination in religious matters. In 1916, on account of the larger colonial demarcation of boundary of Madras Presidency which covered the areas of Tamils, Telugus, Malayalis and Kanarese, many leaders who camped in Madras had to have a united political organization to work for the “all sudra empowerment” on par with the brahmans’ supremacy. As a consequence, Thiyagaraayar, T.M. Nayar, Natesan and other sudra leaders formed South Indian Liberal Federation and declared “non-brahman manifesto”. The sudra leaders gradually appropriated ideography of anti-brahmanism as a complex of values and aspirations, envisaged and cherished by the Outcastes to annihilate untouchability and other caste discriminations based on birth. The lurking sudras imitated socio-cultural and religious forms of Buddhist movement launched by the Outcastes in Tamilnadu and there by the sudra uprising gained its political trajectory that they had named as ‘Dravidar’ movement, which was a duplication of the Outcastes’ Dravidar Kazhagam of 1882.
There were caste brokers among sudraic leadership to imitate the socio-cultural engineering of the Buddhist movement. Literally, the sudra leaders were hanging about to find a new name for their casteist gang that they could borrow from the Outcastes by promising a united movement against ‘brahmanique’ forces. The sudra leaders also promised a complete annihilation of untouchabilty in so-called Dravidian or Tamil society. The Buddhist movement and intellectuals of Outcaste avenues believed that they could work with the new sudra ‘rationales’. The Buddhist movement contributed much to the new sudra-dravida ‘intelligentsia’, particularly in four distinct traits for uprising: ideological framework, operational program, unity factor and mass mobility. These important traits were conceived, developed and contributed by Pandit Iyotheedas to the world of Dravidas and Tamils. These traits consisted all rationalism, anti-brahmanism, anti-caste colonialism, anti-superstition, anti-discriminations in terms of birth, gender, race and religion that the sudra-dravida ‘intelligentsia’ later appropriated and duplicated for their “exclusive sudra uprising”. The precedence of Sakyan ideologue, Pandit Iyotheedas positioned himself as the first on the emancipatory panorama where the intrinsic, systematic, radical, equanimitic, and holistic nature of his traits helped the people of Madras Presidency largely to organize towards social emancipation. Pandit’s Sakyan ideology crystallized for the liberation of Outcastes was borrowed by sudras for constructing Dravidianism, which developed the exclusive sudraic prejudice, and it led to the formation of non-brahman psychology against brahmans of what sudra leaders called “three percent Aryans”. But this new non-brahman movement did not want to include the questions of Outcastes, because of their fear that the Outcastes might have had equal sharing in socio-cultural and political power sectors.
The sudra leaders did not come out of their slave mentality when they carried on their uprising against brahmans, because, their uprising was not against so-called brahmanism, which they had imbibed and saved as non-brahmanhood in their mind set. The non-brahmanhood had developed more caste phlebitis in sudra veins to mobilize its caste force in an idea that there should not be any brahman above sudra’s head. The brahman authorities were perhaps, shocked, but they were compromised with what the non-brahman leaders called, the priesthood in temple and other familial and cultural ceremonies would be of the brahman primacy; for this, the sudras needed the brokerage of “up gradation” of social status and share in temple titles and properties. The majoritarian approach the sudras exercised was, “97 percent of people are ruled by the 3 percent of aryans.” Two contradictory questions to non-brahmin compradors: (i) first, are not the sudras the embodiment of chaturvarnyam? and (ii) are the Dalits included in this majoritarian 97 percent? These questions raise multiple questions to question the hypocrisy of non-brahmin movement. If sudras were/are not part of chaturvarna dharma, why did/do they follow hinduism and caste order? If the Dalits were/are the part of non-brahminhood, why were/are they treated as Untouchables? Thus, (i) the Truth is that the sudras are caste hindus and they are essential part of hinduism; the sudras are at all encounters with the Dalits; (ii) the Truth is that the Dalits are Outcastes, casteless Sakyans and Buddhists in particular and no way the Dalits can align with the non-brahmans who are predominantly caste hindus, posing always atrocities and caste discriminations on them.
Part – II
The late colonial period witnessed two important developments in every sudra in the non-brahman camp in Tamilnadu: (i) becoming anti-brahmans; (ii) patronizing and subjugating the Outcastes under micro-untouchability projects. E.V. Ramasamy, one of the leaders of sudras of Tamilnadu and a disciple of Pandit Iyotheedas, began his socio-political line of business as a member of Indian National Congress until 1925 and was known to all as the one who raised slogans, “Brahman should be destroyed; god should be destroyed; Hindi should be destroyed; Hindi-speaking north-Indians should be destroyed; Congress should be destroyed; Mohandas (Gandhi) should be destroyed.” Ramasamy gained the identity of ‘rational’ and the guardian of sudras as he asserted in his Tamil magazine, Kudiyarasu (April 25, 1926) as follows:
“dravidane, alladu thamizhane, adaavatu paarpaanallada, muslim allaada, christuvan allaada, aadhi-dravidan (Dalit) allaada dravidane sutthiran,”
“திராவிடனே, அல்லாது தமிழனே, அதாவது பார்பானல்லாத, முஸ்லிம் அல்லாத, கிறிஸ்துவன் அல்லாத, ஆதி-திராவிடன் (தலித்) அல்லாத திராவிடனே சூத்திரன்,”
(Sudra means Dravidian or Tamilian that one who is neither a Brahman, nor a Muslim, nor a Christian, and nor an Adi-Dravida).
Ramasamy was clear about hinduhood of sudras that always consciously used; he never excluded hindus from becoming sudras, but the Christians, Muslims and Outcastes. His hindu state of mind was also quite expressive in his ‘discourses’ on hinduism. It was Ramasamy who spread every story of puranas and itihasas to the Dalits who were least worried of hinduism. All his derogative stories about hinduism, provided a sound knowledge about hinduism to the Dalits. Sakyan intellect, Sakthidasan, a contemporary of Ramasamy, based in Madras, narrates that Ramasamy betrayed the Dalits either by enterprising more hindu cultural stories to them or by keeping them away from the caste hindus who were according to him, the protectors of hinduism and caste order. Sakthidasan also unveils the Truth behind the bulk sale of publications of Thamizhan, a popular magazine started by Pandit Iyotheedas in 1907; Ramasamy, known by sudras as “Periyar,” used to go to Kolar Gold Field (KGF) met Buddhist intellectuals like G. Appaduraiyar and whenever "Thamizhan" was published he or his aides would buy most of the copies of "Thamizhan" and other publications and brought them to Madras; subsequently he duplicated and reproduced all those in Kudiyarasu, the magazine started in 1925 for Dravida Kazhagam. Obviously, there was always bankruptcy among sudra intelligentsia, where as the Sakyans were in full form in mobilizing the intellectual movement. Iyotheedas was the indomitable learned person of his age and presiding deity of Dravidian movement.
Ramasamy had three phases of association coincided with the leadership of Dalits. First, imitation of ideology of Buddhist movement headed by Pandit Iyotheedas; second, the post-Iyotheedas alliance with the leadership of G. Appaduraiyar, second generation of Buddhist emancipatory works; and third, the post-Appaduraiyar phase – the decline of Buddhism as a religious movement in Tamilnadu. The last phase that Ramasamy had with the Dalits was to gain the caste brokerage for what he had mobilized the Sakyan mass into Dravidian movement as cadres in the promise that the Dravidian movement was the Paraiah movement; that was during Dr.Ambedkar’s times. In reality, Ramasamy had no idea of having an equal accommodation to the Outcastes in socio-cultural and political empowerment. In contrary, Ramasamy was keen to transform the Buddhist movement into political-Dravidian movement. After G.Appaduraiyar’s illness, Ramasamy mustered the gradual transformation of social forces of Buddhism into the new base of the Dravidian movement. In fact, 1930s marked the decline of Buddhism and rise of Dravidian movement. Ramasamy exploited the Outcastes for his sudraic aspirations. The Outcastes were losing their Buddhist identity as those of self-respect and budding Dravidian movements penetrated their Buddhist meetings. There were no fundamental ideas in Ramasamy and he was not a philosopher as well. His was what he barrowed from the Sakyan intellectuals, Iyotheedas and Appaduraiyar. The fundamental humanist elements that the Dravidianism claimed, “anti-religious superstition, annihilation of caste discrimination, collective self-respect, anti-brahmanism, non-ritual religiosity, egalitarian society (samadharmam)” were imitated and barrowed from the core of Buddhist message that Pandit Iyotheedas propounded between A.D.1880 and 1914. In 1928, General Conference of South Indian Buddhist Association was held in Madras under the leadership of Lakshmi Narasu and the sudra leader Ramasamy was introduced as one of the speakers. Even the first self-respect general conference was arranged by the Buddhists in KGF in 1932 and Appaduraiyar introduced Ramasamy as namma aalu (our man) and the members of self-respect movement in rural and urban centres of Arcot, Chingleput and Madras district. The Dravidian movement had appropriated not only Buddhist intellectual but also cultural sources of Dalits. What Ramasamy called rational or anti-religious and anti-god propagations, were all ended in catastrophic disaster of Buddhist religion, Buddha vihar, Buddha monastery and Buddha in Tamilnadu. Even his rationality was not useful for what he called annihilation of brahmans and hinduism, and its mythical deities. The reason for this negative results is that Ramasamy was a caste hindu. When Dr. Ambedkar implored him to give up hinduism and invited him to come out of it to fight its evil system and anti-social engineering, he refused to throw his religion (hinduism) in his life, which he supposedly wanted to destroy. It established a Truth that caste hindus are in bifocal mobility to see their caste goals achieved in theistic and atheistic operations. ‘Periyarism’ is indeed, an outdated prophecy of anaryanism for Dravidians and pan-Indian Tamilists whose kinship and cultural ceremonies are intertwined with the so-called brahmanical or casteism. Thus, non-brahmanical means non-brahman casteism (sudraism), which is worse than brahmanism of brahmans, because no brahman is imposing human excreta and urinating into the mouth of Dalits, butchering the Dalits at their sleep, molesting and raping the Dalit women in front of their husbands and fathers and appropriating the properties of the Dalits; all these atrocious operations are done by the sudras who breathe in pan-hindu banners, i.e. Dravidian, Tamilian, non-brahman and rationalist.
At least, in the commemoration of E.V.Ramasamy’s 125th birth anniversary, the significance of Pandit Iyotheedas’ writings and of his Buddhist movement, to the genesis and growth of the intellectual life of Dravidian and Tamil country has to be brought to the light of history. The exclusion of Dalits in emancipatory politics that they offered to the non-brahman movement is victimization and ‘Periyar’ Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy should be put under reprimand for his betrayal of Dalits. The Dalit political leaders such as Maayavati of BSP, Thirumavalavan of DPI, Ram Vilas of LJS, and those who are protagonists of Periyarism should honestly realize that E.V. Ramasamy did not allow Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s emancipatory works beyond North India and Pandit Iyotheedas’ Buddhist movement beyond Tamilnadu (Ramasamy also destroyed Pandit’s Buddhist movement in Tamilnadu itself). As far Dalits, middle caste hindus (sudras) are the worst evils rather brahmans and thus Ramasamy was a comprador brahman whose life time ambition was the accomplishment of brokerage of socio-economic and political status for sudras in the name of non-brahman or Dravidian or Tamilian. For Ramasamy, Tamil-speaking Christian, Muslim and Dalits are not Tamilians, only being hindus the Tamil-speaking people can be Tamilians as the same case in the linguo-ethnocentric Marahttas of shivdharma. Non-brahmanism has extended caste untouchability even to the dogs; the male dogs of Dalits are said to be attracted by the female dogs of sudras of T.Shanmugapuram in Tamilnadu. Consequently, a few female dogs of sudras have become pregnant and the sudras have encountered Dalits with usual atrocious strokes of raping, beating, killing, excommunicating from fellow Dalit folks, etc. and alas, they have also threatened the Dalits not to domesticate male dogs. Thus, Dalit have no any hesitation to characterize this dog-casteism as the legacy of non-brahmanism cultivated by “Periyar” and his aides.
(continues...)
E.V. Ramasamy, one of the founders of non-brahman movement in Tamilnadu, has been a forgotten icon of Dravidian leadership for too many reasons. But in an exception, he is still an eroded icon of sudras who were in competition with brahmans, expanded casteism and wonder, the sudras surpassed brahmans and wanted to maintain status quo in colonizing the Dalits under expanded untouchability. The so-called non-brahmans successfully destroyed the Buddhist Movement started in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As far Dalits in Tamilnadu, no demeaning of Dravidamaaya (the illusion of Dravidaianism) and Aryamaaya (the illusion of Aryanism).
Part – I
The expansion of colonial rule in India not only provided a political coalition among different caste and communal groups, also bestowed a democratic idea for having a separate establishment for administering the goals of each group. The protest culture among the colonial people might be naturally apolitical, but it was extensively a protest for social liberation of the Outcastes of caste India. There were intellectual movements started by the Outcastes in southern part of India. Unlike the other caste and communal movements mobilized against the British rule, in 1880, Tamilnadu Outcastes launched social protest movements against the caste hindus, and for that they wanted to align with the British and started intellectual movements to propagate anti-brahmanism among the Outcastes. Pandit Iyotheedas was the father of such anti-brahman movements in South India. Until the Outcastes started anti-brahman movements, there were no evidences for the non-brahman movement started by and for the so-called sudras in Tamilnadu. The anti-brahman movement of Outcaste intellectuals, according to Iyotheedas, aspired to provide a common platform for every human being in caste India, to pull down any caste feudal or hegemony of a brahman or non-brahman above the head. Iyotheedas meant the equality and fraternity of all human beings. Accordingly, in 1882, Outcastes under the leadership of Rev. Fr. John Ratnam and Iyotheedas established “Dravidar Kazhagam”.
Unluckily, the sudras of Tamilnadu did not found any such platform for a common cause where the Outcastes as well as the brahmans might have had their share. Until 1915, no sign of a separate identity of sudras as “non-brahman” was characterized; only a few saivites like C.V. Damodarampillai and Arumuga Navalar were loitering to mobilize caste forces to consolidate tamil saivism to sideline brahman domination in religious matters. In 1916, on account of the larger colonial demarcation of boundary of Madras Presidency which covered the areas of Tamils, Telugus, Malayalis and Kanarese, many leaders who camped in Madras had to have a united political organization to work for the “all sudra empowerment” on par with the brahmans’ supremacy. As a consequence, Thiyagaraayar, T.M. Nayar, Natesan and other sudra leaders formed South Indian Liberal Federation and declared “non-brahman manifesto”. The sudra leaders gradually appropriated ideography of anti-brahmanism as a complex of values and aspirations, envisaged and cherished by the Outcastes to annihilate untouchability and other caste discriminations based on birth. The lurking sudras imitated socio-cultural and religious forms of Buddhist movement launched by the Outcastes in Tamilnadu and there by the sudra uprising gained its political trajectory that they had named as ‘Dravidar’ movement, which was a duplication of the Outcastes’ Dravidar Kazhagam of 1882.
There were caste brokers among sudraic leadership to imitate the socio-cultural engineering of the Buddhist movement. Literally, the sudra leaders were hanging about to find a new name for their casteist gang that they could borrow from the Outcastes by promising a united movement against ‘brahmanique’ forces. The sudra leaders also promised a complete annihilation of untouchabilty in so-called Dravidian or Tamil society. The Buddhist movement and intellectuals of Outcaste avenues believed that they could work with the new sudra ‘rationales’. The Buddhist movement contributed much to the new sudra-dravida ‘intelligentsia’, particularly in four distinct traits for uprising: ideological framework, operational program, unity factor and mass mobility. These important traits were conceived, developed and contributed by Pandit Iyotheedas to the world of Dravidas and Tamils. These traits consisted all rationalism, anti-brahmanism, anti-caste colonialism, anti-superstition, anti-discriminations in terms of birth, gender, race and religion that the sudra-dravida ‘intelligentsia’ later appropriated and duplicated for their “exclusive sudra uprising”. The precedence of Sakyan ideologue, Pandit Iyotheedas positioned himself as the first on the emancipatory panorama where the intrinsic, systematic, radical, equanimitic, and holistic nature of his traits helped the people of Madras Presidency largely to organize towards social emancipation. Pandit’s Sakyan ideology crystallized for the liberation of Outcastes was borrowed by sudras for constructing Dravidianism, which developed the exclusive sudraic prejudice, and it led to the formation of non-brahman psychology against brahmans of what sudra leaders called “three percent Aryans”. But this new non-brahman movement did not want to include the questions of Outcastes, because of their fear that the Outcastes might have had equal sharing in socio-cultural and political power sectors.
The sudra leaders did not come out of their slave mentality when they carried on their uprising against brahmans, because, their uprising was not against so-called brahmanism, which they had imbibed and saved as non-brahmanhood in their mind set. The non-brahmanhood had developed more caste phlebitis in sudra veins to mobilize its caste force in an idea that there should not be any brahman above sudra’s head. The brahman authorities were perhaps, shocked, but they were compromised with what the non-brahman leaders called, the priesthood in temple and other familial and cultural ceremonies would be of the brahman primacy; for this, the sudras needed the brokerage of “up gradation” of social status and share in temple titles and properties. The majoritarian approach the sudras exercised was, “97 percent of people are ruled by the 3 percent of aryans.” Two contradictory questions to non-brahmin compradors: (i) first, are not the sudras the embodiment of chaturvarnyam? and (ii) are the Dalits included in this majoritarian 97 percent? These questions raise multiple questions to question the hypocrisy of non-brahmin movement. If sudras were/are not part of chaturvarna dharma, why did/do they follow hinduism and caste order? If the Dalits were/are the part of non-brahminhood, why were/are they treated as Untouchables? Thus, (i) the Truth is that the sudras are caste hindus and they are essential part of hinduism; the sudras are at all encounters with the Dalits; (ii) the Truth is that the Dalits are Outcastes, casteless Sakyans and Buddhists in particular and no way the Dalits can align with the non-brahmans who are predominantly caste hindus, posing always atrocities and caste discriminations on them.
Part – II
The late colonial period witnessed two important developments in every sudra in the non-brahman camp in Tamilnadu: (i) becoming anti-brahmans; (ii) patronizing and subjugating the Outcastes under micro-untouchability projects. E.V. Ramasamy, one of the leaders of sudras of Tamilnadu and a disciple of Pandit Iyotheedas, began his socio-political line of business as a member of Indian National Congress until 1925 and was known to all as the one who raised slogans, “Brahman should be destroyed; god should be destroyed; Hindi should be destroyed; Hindi-speaking north-Indians should be destroyed; Congress should be destroyed; Mohandas (Gandhi) should be destroyed.” Ramasamy gained the identity of ‘rational’ and the guardian of sudras as he asserted in his Tamil magazine, Kudiyarasu (April 25, 1926) as follows:
“dravidane, alladu thamizhane, adaavatu paarpaanallada, muslim allaada, christuvan allaada, aadhi-dravidan (Dalit) allaada dravidane sutthiran,”
“திராவிடனே, அல்லாது தமிழனே, அதாவது பார்பானல்லாத, முஸ்லிம் அல்லாத, கிறிஸ்துவன் அல்லாத, ஆதி-திராவிடன் (தலித்) அல்லாத திராவிடனே சூத்திரன்,”
(Sudra means Dravidian or Tamilian that one who is neither a Brahman, nor a Muslim, nor a Christian, and nor an Adi-Dravida).
Ramasamy was clear about hinduhood of sudras that always consciously used; he never excluded hindus from becoming sudras, but the Christians, Muslims and Outcastes. His hindu state of mind was also quite expressive in his ‘discourses’ on hinduism. It was Ramasamy who spread every story of puranas and itihasas to the Dalits who were least worried of hinduism. All his derogative stories about hinduism, provided a sound knowledge about hinduism to the Dalits. Sakyan intellect, Sakthidasan, a contemporary of Ramasamy, based in Madras, narrates that Ramasamy betrayed the Dalits either by enterprising more hindu cultural stories to them or by keeping them away from the caste hindus who were according to him, the protectors of hinduism and caste order. Sakthidasan also unveils the Truth behind the bulk sale of publications of Thamizhan, a popular magazine started by Pandit Iyotheedas in 1907; Ramasamy, known by sudras as “Periyar,” used to go to Kolar Gold Field (KGF) met Buddhist intellectuals like G. Appaduraiyar and whenever "Thamizhan" was published he or his aides would buy most of the copies of "Thamizhan" and other publications and brought them to Madras; subsequently he duplicated and reproduced all those in Kudiyarasu, the magazine started in 1925 for Dravida Kazhagam. Obviously, there was always bankruptcy among sudra intelligentsia, where as the Sakyans were in full form in mobilizing the intellectual movement. Iyotheedas was the indomitable learned person of his age and presiding deity of Dravidian movement.
Ramasamy had three phases of association coincided with the leadership of Dalits. First, imitation of ideology of Buddhist movement headed by Pandit Iyotheedas; second, the post-Iyotheedas alliance with the leadership of G. Appaduraiyar, second generation of Buddhist emancipatory works; and third, the post-Appaduraiyar phase – the decline of Buddhism as a religious movement in Tamilnadu. The last phase that Ramasamy had with the Dalits was to gain the caste brokerage for what he had mobilized the Sakyan mass into Dravidian movement as cadres in the promise that the Dravidian movement was the Paraiah movement; that was during Dr.Ambedkar’s times. In reality, Ramasamy had no idea of having an equal accommodation to the Outcastes in socio-cultural and political empowerment. In contrary, Ramasamy was keen to transform the Buddhist movement into political-Dravidian movement. After G.Appaduraiyar’s illness, Ramasamy mustered the gradual transformation of social forces of Buddhism into the new base of the Dravidian movement. In fact, 1930s marked the decline of Buddhism and rise of Dravidian movement. Ramasamy exploited the Outcastes for his sudraic aspirations. The Outcastes were losing their Buddhist identity as those of self-respect and budding Dravidian movements penetrated their Buddhist meetings. There were no fundamental ideas in Ramasamy and he was not a philosopher as well. His was what he barrowed from the Sakyan intellectuals, Iyotheedas and Appaduraiyar. The fundamental humanist elements that the Dravidianism claimed, “anti-religious superstition, annihilation of caste discrimination, collective self-respect, anti-brahmanism, non-ritual religiosity, egalitarian society (samadharmam)” were imitated and barrowed from the core of Buddhist message that Pandit Iyotheedas propounded between A.D.1880 and 1914. In 1928, General Conference of South Indian Buddhist Association was held in Madras under the leadership of Lakshmi Narasu and the sudra leader Ramasamy was introduced as one of the speakers. Even the first self-respect general conference was arranged by the Buddhists in KGF in 1932 and Appaduraiyar introduced Ramasamy as namma aalu (our man) and the members of self-respect movement in rural and urban centres of Arcot, Chingleput and Madras district. The Dravidian movement had appropriated not only Buddhist intellectual but also cultural sources of Dalits. What Ramasamy called rational or anti-religious and anti-god propagations, were all ended in catastrophic disaster of Buddhist religion, Buddha vihar, Buddha monastery and Buddha in Tamilnadu. Even his rationality was not useful for what he called annihilation of brahmans and hinduism, and its mythical deities. The reason for this negative results is that Ramasamy was a caste hindu. When Dr. Ambedkar implored him to give up hinduism and invited him to come out of it to fight its evil system and anti-social engineering, he refused to throw his religion (hinduism) in his life, which he supposedly wanted to destroy. It established a Truth that caste hindus are in bifocal mobility to see their caste goals achieved in theistic and atheistic operations. ‘Periyarism’ is indeed, an outdated prophecy of anaryanism for Dravidians and pan-Indian Tamilists whose kinship and cultural ceremonies are intertwined with the so-called brahmanical or casteism. Thus, non-brahmanical means non-brahman casteism (sudraism), which is worse than brahmanism of brahmans, because no brahman is imposing human excreta and urinating into the mouth of Dalits, butchering the Dalits at their sleep, molesting and raping the Dalit women in front of their husbands and fathers and appropriating the properties of the Dalits; all these atrocious operations are done by the sudras who breathe in pan-hindu banners, i.e. Dravidian, Tamilian, non-brahman and rationalist.
At least, in the commemoration of E.V.Ramasamy’s 125th birth anniversary, the significance of Pandit Iyotheedas’ writings and of his Buddhist movement, to the genesis and growth of the intellectual life of Dravidian and Tamil country has to be brought to the light of history. The exclusion of Dalits in emancipatory politics that they offered to the non-brahman movement is victimization and ‘Periyar’ Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy should be put under reprimand for his betrayal of Dalits. The Dalit political leaders such as Maayavati of BSP, Thirumavalavan of DPI, Ram Vilas of LJS, and those who are protagonists of Periyarism should honestly realize that E.V. Ramasamy did not allow Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s emancipatory works beyond North India and Pandit Iyotheedas’ Buddhist movement beyond Tamilnadu (Ramasamy also destroyed Pandit’s Buddhist movement in Tamilnadu itself). As far Dalits, middle caste hindus (sudras) are the worst evils rather brahmans and thus Ramasamy was a comprador brahman whose life time ambition was the accomplishment of brokerage of socio-economic and political status for sudras in the name of non-brahman or Dravidian or Tamilian. For Ramasamy, Tamil-speaking Christian, Muslim and Dalits are not Tamilians, only being hindus the Tamil-speaking people can be Tamilians as the same case in the linguo-ethnocentric Marahttas of shivdharma. Non-brahmanism has extended caste untouchability even to the dogs; the male dogs of Dalits are said to be attracted by the female dogs of sudras of T.Shanmugapuram in Tamilnadu. Consequently, a few female dogs of sudras have become pregnant and the sudras have encountered Dalits with usual atrocious strokes of raping, beating, killing, excommunicating from fellow Dalit folks, etc. and alas, they have also threatened the Dalits not to domesticate male dogs. Thus, Dalit have no any hesitation to characterize this dog-casteism as the legacy of non-brahmanism cultivated by “Periyar” and his aides.
(continues...)
I dont know what to call this piece!!
ReplyDeleteEVR becomes an appropriator of Iyotheedas only because he was not a dalit. If he had been dalit, he could well have become a follower or champion of Buddhism in Tamilnadu.
The writer attributes whole casteism of Sudras Tamilnadu to EVR and Dravidian ideology.
EVR attended meetings of Adidravidas or dalits or Buddhists at the same time attended meetings of Sudras like Vanniyars and Chettiyars.
He had the guts to say to them that, "If you think that some adidravida is below you according to caste system, you accept that the Brahmanas are above you".
In every meeting he stressed for the rights of dalits vs Sudras.
The writer comfortably wants to forget the positives of Dravidian movement under EVR, but highlights what it failed to achieve.
EVR felt that atheism is not following any religion including buddhism. painting him a Hindu-Sudra casteist because he did not convert to buddhism with his followers is nothing but hatred against him.
In this article, the author wants to imply that
ReplyDelete1. EVR cunningly appropriated Buddhism
2. EVR did not allow Buddhism to grow in TN.
3. EVR worked for the Sudras and not for dalits.
4. EVR did not have any intellect.
5. EVR utilised dalits for the benefit of Sudras.
Everyone cannot follow Ambedkar and get converted to Buddhism. This shows a cult-worship of Ambedkar among dalit writers who believe the only way for emancipation of dalits is to convert into Buddhism.
Even, after conversion, millions of dalit- Buddhists face casteist atrocities in their lives.
Even, Babasaheb could not win it completely for the dalits.
Its not Buddhism which grew in North India; its Ambedkarism. People just converted into Buddhism because Ambedkar wanted them to.
/The exclusion of Dalits in emancipatory politics that they offered to the non-brahman movement is victimization and ‘Periyar’ Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy should be put under reprimand for his betrayal of Dalits. The Dalit political leaders such as Maayavati of BSP, Thirumavalavan of DPI, Ram Vilas of LJS, and those who are protagonists of Periyarism should honestly realize that E.V. Ramasamy did not allow Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s emancipatory works beyond North India and Pandit Iyotheedas’ Buddhist movement beyond Tamilnadu (Ramasamy also destroyed Pandit’s Buddhist movement in Tamilnadu itself//
These are baseless allegations, and even Ambedkar will laugh these off, had he been alive.
Periyar's anti-Brahmanism was must for those days and is even relevant these days. Without bringing down the supremacy of Brahmins in Indian society, there wont be any emancipation of any section of Indians.