Installing my statue, opening my portrait; all these are not done for boasting myself. It is just another means of propagating my ideals. For example, tomorrow, someone will ask whose statue is this and the details about me. He will be told this person is an atheist and propagated that there is no God. So, the purpose of installing my statue is propagating the ideas,” said EV Ramasamy (Periyar) while participating in the unveiling of his statue at Dharmapuri in May 24, 1969.
That was a way of Periyar, who had faced severe criticism and physical assaults even during his lifetime.The recent remarks of BJP national secretary H Raja have revived yet another debate on Periyar’s life which attracted the accolades of many while causing criticisms of another section.
A day after disowning the remarks on his Twitter account about the removal of Periyar statues in Tamil Nadu, Raja launched a fresh controversy by claiming that it was Periyar who coined the term Dravidam to undermine Tamil. He claimed that the Justice Party, in a Government Order of 1926, identified Telugu-speaking Dalits as Adi Telungar and Tamil-speaking Dalits as Adi Dravidar. But the latter were not classified as Adi Tamizhar, he said.
Talking the talk
The concept of Dravidam was imposed on Tamils because Dravida Nadu comprised people living in States where Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam were spoken.
SV Rajadurai, writer, translator and civil rights activist, who had studied Periyar’s works deeply, bursts at the remark of Raja. “In 1920, Dalits were all called ‘Panchamas’ which is a derogatory term to address them. Just to get rid of this term, they wanted themselves to be classified Adi Dravidas. It was not the decision of Periyar. The proposal of Dalit leaders at that time was accepted by the Justice party government then.”
Referring to the remark of Raja that Periyar had described Tamil as a ‘barbarian language’, Rajadurai said Periyar did much to Tamil language.
He initiated Tamil alphabet reform and took active participation in Tamil Isai Movement since early 20th century in big sabhas, which did not allow Tamil songs. After much struggle, Tamil songs started figuring in Sabhas, says Rajadurai.
“Periyar also encouraged Tamil theatre. He supported English because he always thought of English as a ‘tool to power’. English is power even today. Periyar never glorified the past. None of the Tamil kings acted against Varnasrama Dharma. Periyar was of the view that there was nothing redeemable in the past of Tamils’ life and literature for the present generation,” remarks Rajadurai.
Brahmins spoke Queen’s English to bargain with Britishers and their dominance increased because of their fluency in English. Periyar argued that Tamil lagged behind in scientific temper and it is not court language for hundreds of years, Rajadurai says.
Ups and downs
Thozhar Thiyagu of Tamil Desiya Viduthalai Iyakkam sees the entire life and achievements of Periyar in a bird’s eye view. He concludes that “Periyar’s public life expands to around 80 years and as such, contradictions are so natural in such a long course and sometimes unavoidable too.
Periyar’s most important agenda — a thread that runs through his entire life is annihilation of casteism. Starting from 1925, he was consistent on that point and all other ideologies centred around this single issue,” Thiyagu says.
Thiyagu says some of the decisions of Periyar relating to language and political issues were indeed wrong.
“While having an attraction towards English, Periyar had a mistrust towards the Tamil language. In 1965, during the anti-Hindi agitation, he supported Congress and its leader K Kamaraj. That turned out to be a really big shortcoming on the part of Periyar.
“In 1938, Periyar raised the slogan — Tamil Nadu is for Tamils in the presence of great Tamil scholars such as Maraimalai Adigal, Somasundara Bharathiar. Of course, he changed his stand on this issue on a few occasions. He demanded Dravida Nadu and after the reorganisation of States in 1956, Periyar gave up his demand for Dravida Nadu and renewed his slogan Tamil Nadu for Tamils.”
Caste aside
As an activist for Tamil nationalism, Thiyagu proudly recalls that Periyar had never accepted the Constitution of India. The primary reason Periyar put forth for not accepting the Constitution was that it safeguards casteism. He also felt that the Constitution always ignored the interests of Tamil Nadu. But he failed to form a political party to realise that dream because a social, cultural movement cannot achieve the formation of a country, says Thiyagu.
Thiyagu also points that Periyar had changed his political stand time to time. Till 1967, Periyar supported Congress government in Tamil Nadu. But after the DMK came to power, he started supporting CN Annadurai. He was not consistent in his stand. But Periyar had his own explanations for this change of stand.
Periyar contended that the Constituent Assembly of India was not elected by universal suffrage but was constituted based on the 1946 elections. He asked whether the Union government got the approval of each of the ethnic groups in the country to become a constituent partner of the Union and pointed out that the States do not have the right to move out of the Union if they feel some aspects of Constitution are not okay for them.
D Ravikumar, writer and VCK general secretary, says Periyar criticised Tamil language and literature as a response to the propaganda that just devotional literature including those contributed by Azhawarkal and Nayanmars constitute Tamil literature and they strove for the growth of Tamil. Periyar had denied this.
By the word
Periyar had a great concern for Tamil language. Only because of his concern for the language, he initiated alphabet reformation in Tamil.
“How can we say a person who hated Tamil would do this? He wanted to make Tamil as a scientific language. That was his big concern,” said Ravikumar.
Political analyst Tharasu Shyam is of the view that Periyar opposed the politics which emanated from ‘vaidheegam’. “Periyar found that society was drowned in rituals and those who performed rituals are considered as sacred,” Shyam said.
“Periyar was of the strong view that Tamil is a barbarian language because it never grew to the needs of the present day. He felt there is no growth in it and there is no science in it. Mere literary works in Tamil won’t help today.
“Periyar was of the view only because of belief in God one happens to stick to the rituals which give importance to Brahmins who in turn assumed a dominant position. So, he struck at the root cause — God concept — to undo the problem of rituals and thwart the dominance of Brahmins,” said Shyam.
An excerpt from Thamizhum, Thamizharum
I say Tamil as barbarian language. Many get angry with me for saying so. But no one ponders over why I say so. They say Tamil is a 3,000 to 4,000 years-old language and they boast about this. Precisely that is what the reason why I call Tamil as barbarian language. People should understand the term primitive and barbarism. What was the status of people living 4,000 years ago and now? We are just blindly sticking to old glories. No one has come forward to reform Tamil language and work for its growth.
Not just a city-zen
Periyar’s focus also lay on upliftment of rural communities. Since during his era, the distinction between rural and urban meant an economic and social degradation, Periyar wanted to eradicate the concept of “village” as a discriminatory word.