This is a guest post by JOE MS
The recent ‘jest ‘of film star Jayaram against the Tamil as black skinned , buffalo like and therefore less human has been taken as just a joke in the cultural scene of Kerala. Not only has sympathy been expressed for the poor victim that he is, inadvertently cracking an innocent joke and becoming the target of the ire of ‘violent’ Tamils, even solidarity was expressed with the right to crack such jokes by the ’ordinary folks’. The latent ideological and cultural premises hidden behind this whole controversy needs to be enquired into, to understand the reality. The natural outburst of violence against Jayaram for upholding the dignity of the Tamil has been understood by the ‘superior’ Malayali culture as typical of those who are inferior, passionate, emotional, devoid of political education , filmy so on and so forth.
The height of irony was the sigh of relief heaved by Sebastian Paul, the (retired? ) left liberation theologist, in his newspaper article in Madhayamam (dated 12th February), for the end of the controversy as the fight against Jayaram subsided in Tamilnadu. Here he presumes that Jayaram only made a joke, and therefore absolved him of all sins (because of the kinship of the Malayali fraternity), and holds that the Tamils reacted violently and unnecessarily , which is nothing but parochialism. This is no wonder. At the level of mass culture, cracking of jokes and the ‘wit’ mania , epitomised by ‘mimicry’ as a form of entertainment, which basically insultingly ‘mimics’ a range of people from the physically challenged to the people of subaltern cultures, and internalised by the Malayalee to fill the philosophical void in his competitive life, is simply racist. Popular culture as practiced in Kerala, is naked racism, which would have called forth acts of reprimand even from a capitalist state in the west. And all such jokes have however escaped criticism of the left-oriented Kerala.
For the left, any act of subversion which questions the status-quo of Sanskrit-Brahminical cultural dominance smacks of parochialism and jingoism and is therefore not progressive. This is due to the parroting of historical materialism without understanding its real potential for liberation and its blind application without understanding the Indian context. Yes, it is true that Marxism has the huge potential to help in transforming and liberating a society. But only if applied with ingenuity.
The so-called post revolutionary mainstream culture of Kerala constituted by mainstream leftists too, has always been Brahmanical, pro-Sanskrit, pro-Hindi, patriotic and stands ,against all discourse hostile to the dominanant discourse. Sebastian Paul too, despite being a claimant to the revolutionary status of marginalised section within the Christian community, shares the same outlook in aping the hierarchical configuration of the Siriyan hegemony, especially in its nurturing of the caste system. His stint with parliamentary leftism would have instilled its theoretical approach in him, which abounds in ‘bhadralokism‘. The mainstream Malayalee‘s canonical identity has been cultivated , and ideologically rooted in a kind of anti Dravidiansim, the pioneers of which were naturally leftists. India is a country in which epidermically determined racism is still a reality, despite claims to the contrary from the left. The scientific rigour exhibited by their intelligentsia in disproving the historical accuracy of Aryan-Dravidian divide, only as a colonial construct and discourse, and the scant regard for the efficacy of such a dichotomy at least in the cultural domain, is inspired by ulterior motives.
The need for a secular Dravidian myth, subversive and libertarian, was exemplified by the practice of Periyar. The emotionality of romanticism in the mythicization of Che proved positive and progressive for the world. So there is nothing wrong in the Dravidian myth cultivated by Periyar, celebrated and manifest in the counter cultural practice of Keemayana, extolling the virtues of Ravana, the villain of the brahmanical lore, Ramayana. But all these efforts were sidelined by the left in their nation building enthusiasm and theoretical gratitude , engraved in the unconscious, to the organic link to Brahmanism and to the aestheticised obscuranticism of Gandhian ideology. It has informed their outlook and practice. The result can be seen in the mainstream culture of Kerala, in which the left takes pride in, which is Brahmanical, skin-based; marginalises dalits and adiviasis, and nakedly practices slavery of the people of dark-skin seeking jobs there. Jayaram is only the tip of the iceberg. The radical left, constituted by the self same class forces, despite some originality in introspection and nobility, stops short of owning up a Dravidian spirit. The endless masturbation of the post-modern brigade, with European born anti Euro-centric theory, results in only sharing the crumbs of state benevolence.
Another incident which bears testimony to the Savarna hegemonic oeuvre of intelligentsia in India is the muted response/silence/participation of the urban intelligentsia in the recent perpetration of genocide on the ‘Dravidian’ race , by the powers that be in the subcontinent. Kerala, despite being the bordering state, and which can boast of its intellectuals as a community, and which parrots Immanuel Levinas to Badiou, did not even take notice of such happenings , and shared the mainstream view. This is because the cultural sphere of Kerala , ploughed as it is by Marxism, is organically linked to the right, as the intellectual praxis here is without the radical rupture with in consciousness, and practically amounts to economism. The Malayali identity is largely built and defined as contradictory to , distinct from, and as a counter-point to the Tamil (read black skinned), ridiculed as linguistically chauvinistic . Thus it was genetically integrated in to the Sankritised
terrain. The inherent tribalism, immediately ascribed by the Malayalee, to the angry nationalist outburst of Tamils to Jayaram’s invectives, will be termed as jingoistic parochialism (see Nehru’s invective on Tamil movement as ‘Kattu Mirandi‘).The anti-Brahmanic cultural content in the struggles of Periyar, his anti-casteist , anti-Hindi position etc. were never looked at with respect by the right and left intelligentsia. In fact Periyar’s Dravidian rationality provides avenues for a counterculture , with its Dravidian lore, a libertarian site on which to wage the struggle of subaltern, oppressed culturally, thereby assimilating the multitudinal streams antagonistic to the dominant culture into its fold, and creating a space towards a radical rupture, extremely necessary to break from historic and ideological oppression, and to create a new proletariat, liberated from ideological subjugation of Brahmanism. Like Black bolshevism, propounded by Harry Haywood in the US,
what India need is a Marxism dialectically linked to a Dravidian cultural rationalism with its emancipatory potential.
KAFILA - COLLECTIVE EXPLORATIONS SINCE 2006 
Kick ass. can i say that here?
LikeLike
Liked this;
feel like not discussing many more related things before turning on politics , both in its historical and contemporary aspects. At the same time,
one can’t agree more with JoeMS in his statement:-
“This is because the cultural sphere of Kerala , ploughed as it is by Marxism, is organically linked to the right, as the intellectual praxis here is without the radical rupture with in consciousness, and practically amounts to economism”
In their Bhadralok mindsets, Leftists of Kerala with their Bengali counterparts had set role model for the entire country; unfortunately for them, the entire country has started critically re-examining this, applying more rigor when issues of caste, gender,culture, development etc overlap.
LikeLike
I have no idea about what has been written by Sebastian Paul as I cant read Malayalam.The silly joke by Jayaram had to be condemned.But to use Periyar as an alternative is silly because Periyar was no liberal.He was a bigot and his idea of Tamil homeland was exclusionary.His advocay of proportional representation was an idea that would nullify equality.To know his hatred for Malayalees at one point of time google for a statement ‘மலையாளிகளின் தொல்லையே பெருந்தொல்லை’ or read it in
http://tamizachiyin-periyar.com/index.php?lang=eng&article=1030
That was issues on his birthday in 1954.
It might not be available in English.So someone who knows both Tamil and English can translate that in to English for the benefit of Nivedita Menon and JoEMS
Periyar hated brahmins per se and he was clear in that. I am neither with the official left nor with Periyarists.
LikeLike
“see Nehru’s invective on Tamil movement as ‘Kattu Mirandi
Nehru used that in a spec”.ific context.It was not a general statement. Periyar too had used that term ‘Kattu Mirandi’ and once used that to describe Tamil language.
‘The anti-Brahmanic cultural content in the struggles of Periyar, his anti-casteist , anti-Hindi position etc. were never looked at with respect by the right and left intelligentsia.’
In 1965 when there was anti-Hindi agitation in Tamil Nadu (the then Madras state) Periyar was supporting Congress government and condemned the anti-Hindi agitation.
‘what India need is a Marxism dialectically linked to a Dravidian cultural rationalism with its emancipatory potential’
What rationalism are you talking about, the Periyar’s rationalism that was essntialism and based on bigotry, the rationalism that uncritically accepted the West and modern science, the rationalism that advocated proportional representation (an euphemism for majoritarian control).
LikeLike
JoeMS, i liked everything in your article except what appears to be a reference to ‘the natural violent outburst of the tamils’ against jayaram in order to uphold their dignity. don’t both categories – ‘natural violent outburst’ and “tamil dignity’ amount to oversimplifications? natural violent outburst is a myth – people are socialised into forms of violence, which assume a particular weight and valence at a given historical moment. raj thakaray and his like are always explaining their mob violence as ‘natural outburst’. and tamil dignity – remember what happened with khushboo and tamil dignity. tamil itself is a political category, not a natural one, and while that doesn’t render it any less strong, it must for our politics remain a reflexive category, no? Especially when it gets hitched to dignity, which can go in any direction – patriarchal, upper casteist, ultra-nationalist, and so on.
i am sorry if i misread your sentence; do point out if i did.
LikeLike
Jayaram response
Thanks to K.M.venugopalan for the solidarity. Thanks to Geetha for her informative piece.I don’t know whether Raj thackeray brand of chauvinsim can be attributed to Tamil movemnt , since it was historically pitted against the suppression unleashed by the North-South combination of Brahminical and sanskritised construct called Hindi.I ofcourse have differnces with the later practice of Dravidian political parties and see them as detached from Periyar’s ideology.On the emrgent dalit critique of Dravidianism, I am supsicious of the postmodern agenda of divisiveness since they are making thesubaltern suspicious of rationality as a construct of the west and lure them in to the confines of neo-secualrised brahmin space as re-furbished subordinates.(Charvakas and Lokayatas were great indian ancient materialists who used blasphemy to the hilt to deconstruct brahminism. So the notion Indian’s cannot think rationally is another Euro-centric folly)I am fully aware of the backward caste arrogance on dalits, in the contemporay scenario, again the roots of which are in the idealist philosphy of Brhamanic system, which is internalised even by the subaltern.I don’t know whether we can disown the whole history of HaryHaywood just because of his acknowledgemnt of Stalin. So was PaulRobeson. Regarding Ravi’s response I am not surprised, as he still considers Jayaram’s joke as silly.What should I say? I doubt is there any meaning in exchanges with such politically’neutral’ people. Still let me clarify some points. The ‘joke’ of Jayaram is not trivial. When any human being is insulted as buffalo like and black , does not that amount to racism. Then what else is racism?. I am a Malayalee, and I know how mainstream Malayalee’s teases dark-skinned Tamilian as ‘Karumban pandi’ .Of late, after the recent migration of laboring class from Tamilnadu to kerala on a large scale , I know, how the Kerala state persecutes these hapless people by branding them as robbers. The mainstream parties turn a blind eye to the plight of this unorganized labour. If Jayaram’s statement is not racial insult , then whole black movement against racism in the west will be meaningless.
I am good in Malayalam and ok in Tamil, and have reliable sources in both the states. So I can understand whether periyar’s ideology was parochial or not.
I think my friend is ignorant of the whole spectrum of literature on nationality, language, the question of Tamil etc, and belongs to the clan of “if you love Hindi, you are Patriotic”. And the statement of Periyar , which he quoted to brand him as parochial is out of context. It has to be read in its historical setting to understand its meaning. In the 1950s, even before the formation of Kerala as a state, there were a bunch of upper caste Malayalee Hindu bureaucrats , who settled in other states. Due to their genetic kinship with the soft Hindutva of Congress, they were pro-Hindi, Sanskrit brigade, enjoying the patronage of powers that be, and trampling down the nationalist and linguistic aspirations of other cultures. Their footprints can be seen in literary accounts of 1950’s as Malayalee samajam crowds in metros, with a pinch of Brahmanical Marxism in their evening debate.The effort by the Nehruvian Congress to steam roll non-Sanskrit , non-Brahmanic culture was opposed vehemently by the likes of Periyar and Sahodaran Ayyappan of kerala. It is with reference to this class of Malayaless that Periyar made the above statement, who were denying job opportunities for the backward castes. Not to any subaltern Malayalee of black skin like tribes and Aidvasis. Thus the Malayalee Nairs, so cornered were not innocent victims, and Periyar was fighting for a non-sankritised Dravidian culture with lot of black comedy and cultivated blasphemy to provke. In face , in the realm of culture, he was speaking from a marginalized position to the power of the indigenous ‘white’ .Above all, Periyar used to speak in the language of common man, without any academic pretensions of neutrality. The deep love Periyar had for Kerala is evidential in the brotherly relation Periyar cultivated in his engagement with Naryan Guru and Sahodran Ayyappan. My own personal experience with rationalist groups in kerala made me realize , how much regards they pay to Periyar and they don’t consider him as parochial at all.
My point is that the further progress of Periyarism into a full-fledged Marxism , was a concrete possibility, as stated by AnandTteltumde.Thus the fraternal exchanges between Periyar and Singaravelu, the great militant communist leader , was a move in that direction,, which , unfortunately, was sabotaged by the bhadrolak –Anusheelan samiti school of Marxists.
And on the accusation that Periyar attacked Brahmins per se; this is cliché which even my leftist friends in Tamilandu used to make. And such ‘Mylapore’ Marxists, as ridiculed by my Dalit friends there, has no shame in wearing and exhibiting their sacred thread, which is a blatant symbol of casteist arrogance and oppression, with the argument that religion should be relegated to the personal domain! As long as a Brahmins, preserves his caste, by the ‘harmless’ practice of endogamy- which is the pivot of the whole edifice of caste system – whatever be his ‘democratic’ personae, it deserves to be condemned. How can a King be spared from criticism, if one has to take on Kingship!. And Periyar made his statements , when Brahmins were nakedly practicing un-touchability as their religious right and usurped the whole government posts, which was proved factually.
One thing which bewilders me is the fact that the people who accuse Periyar of linguistic parochialism does not find any fault with the Hindi fundamentalism of Nehru- Gandhis.
Joe.M.S
LikeLike
Even as I share Joems understanding of “so-called post revolutionary mainstream culture of Kerala constituted by mainstream leftists too, has always been Brahmanical, pro-Sanskrit, pro-Hindi, patriotic and stands ,against all discourse hostile to the dominanant discourse”,
I think the emergent Dalit critique of the Non-brahmnical politics of Dravidian movement cannot be overloked while celebarating the “secular dravidan myth, dravidian lore”.
MSS Pandian in his recent work – Brahmin and Non-Brahmin: Geneologies of Tamil Political Present says:
“Ironically, the language of polar identities, Brahmin and non-brahmin, also by its very presence as the naturalized language of politics in the region, blocks the emrgence of other inferiorized identities.
This is exactly why emergent Dalit critiques of non-Brahmin identity are important and of political urgency.
In a sense, non-Brahmin hegemony today bears a close resemblance to the “Brahmnism” it has replaced, which is why it is important for tis dominance to be the subject of scrunity and critque”
MSS Pandian provides in this work Kamalanathan’s, a Dalit intellectual activist, contributiuon to the crtique of Dravidan movement.
Kamalanathan agenda involves recovering submerged Dalit history, silenced by the Dravidian movement and uncared for sections of the Dalit themselves.
In the emergent Dalit critique, Dravidian no longer signifies all non-Brahmins but only Dalits.
According to this critique, all encompassing clain to inhabit Dravidian space even by OBCs is challenged…
LikeLike
Hi
I am going to come in very quickly to say that Jayaram is not alone in his racism. A long-time doctor in a reputed ayruvedic pharmacy in South Chennai has been known to have looked down in disdain on Tamil black-skins, and commented adversely on how for all that they do, their skin cannot quite glow like those of their compatriots in Kerala!
I was quite amazed when I heard this – but since I am familiar with jokes and prejudices about Malayalis in Tamil Nadu, did not really pay too much attention to the doctor at that time and put him down mentally as a non-healer. Clearly racism is part of it, but it is a racism that several Tamilians would own upto as well…but perhaps not quite so blatantly. Thanks to the Dravidian movement such observations have been pushed to the murmur-zones of our public sphere.
On an other note: with regard to that reference to Periyar and the link to his essay on Malayalis – I don’t think I have the time just now to translate that long article, except to note that both inside and outside Tamil Nadu, it has been amazingly easy and simple to get dismissive about Periyar. Ravi’s remarks are evidence that either he has not read the article in full or he does not wish to do justice to its arguments. Very quickly, written in 1954 and titled, Malayali Trouble is Great Trouble, this has to do with one of Periyar’s sustained concerns: the representation of non-Brahmins in the services, and more generally in state institutions. Prior to 1944, the term non-Brahmin encompassed a range of men and women, from all the four southern states. Post-independence, and with the demand for Dravida Nadu coming to stand in for Periyar’s critique of the free Indian naiton-state, and an anticipation of a caste-free Tamil utopia, non-Brahmins came to be further differentiated, into those that had earned the favour of the new Indian ruling class and those that had not. Remember, we are talking of the Old Madras Province –
And in this article Periyar points out that brahmins have ever sought out allies in their attempts to retain social and political hegemony, and at the time he was writing, he notes that in terms of their presence in the population, non-Brahmin Tamils were woefully under-represented in the services, whereas Malayalis and Christians were over-represented. Periyar then goes on to note that Malayalis cannot be expected to and are not interested in the fate of Tamils, their ascribed low status, the manner they are discriminated, consigned to shudra status nor are they going to be interested in their (Tamils’) social and economic uplift and progress. Malayalis are particularly troublesome, argues Periyar, because on the one hand they look to their own interests and on the other hand are captive to Aryan ways and culture – and varnadharma. This was why they had been taken into the administration, says Periyar, for now the government can claim to have non-brahmins in its ranks, having chosen men that would not question brahmin power. Periyar lists the number of Malayalis, along with their names and the details of the posts they hold and from this listing it is clear that along with the Iyers and Iyengars, who make up the rest of that list are men and women with clearly Malayali surnames! He concludes his appeal with a call for the linguistic reorganisation of states, but not before he calls to account the Travancore and Cochin administrations for their ill-treatment of Tamil rights protesters…
Since the the CPI-M has not really spent time, except for a brief halcyon period in the early 1970s on thinking through the historical significance of Periyar and self-respect and since its ideologues refuse to heed the lessons of history, especially of anti-caste radicalism, both of Periyar and Ambedkar, it is unlikely that we can expect much from a public sphere, captive to its rhetoric – in Kerala or elsewhere.
LikeLike
Culture has a lot to do with history and tradition as it shows in the case of Keralam and Tamil Nadu. Two crude examples:1. In Keralam, woman is considered only as a thing for total exploitation and domination. While in Tamil Nadu she is called ‘Amma’ and is respected in all social spheres irrespective of age (and caste?)2. On crossing over the Walayar Gap to Coimbatore if you hear the blatant honking of air horn it must be a KSRTC bus defying all laws and culture.
Another crude theorization- it must be like this: When you live in a place for a long time and you know all people and you are also known by all, you just cannot do ‘any thing’ firstly and can get easily away , secondly.
Also it seems nostalgia has a role to play, reflecting on the golden past of Sangha tradition before the domination of Brahmins, how much minuscule a part Keralam can claim of, building a fraternity neglecting all negligible issues like Mullapperiyar…
All is well said, Joe, but fixing black bolshevism by Harry Haywood, an ardent associate of Joseph Stalin, a remedy is unbecoming of…
LikeLike
Geetha’s response is a fine example of spin doctoring.Periyar was clear in his objective. He wrote about ending the hegemony of north indians (வட நாட்டான்) and explusion of brahmins from Tamil Nadu in the free Tamil Nadu he envisaged and was working for. This was stated in the first section of the statement itself.
For Periyar if he thought that one was not with him, then one was against him.If Periyar was against north-indians and tamil brahmins why should Malayalees also take the same position.Should they be excluded from top posts or government service just because Periyar considered them to be allies of his opponents. He wrote that the nuisance of Andhraites was over but that of christians,muslims, malayalees and kannadigas was not over. We should take note of the list here:
north indians,brahmins,malayalees,kannadigas,muslims and christians. His vision of caste free utopia/free Tamil Nadu was so ‘inclusive’.
The Malayalees he had talked about so in his statement were holding senior positions and obviously would not have joined service just few years ago i.e. in early 1950s. Should they be denied what they deserved just because Periyar considered all malayalees to be a big nuisance.
What evidence was given by him for over-representation and even if there was ‘over representation’ why should consider them as such a big nuisance.Periyar wanted a Tamil Nadu free of north indians and (tamil) brahmins but that was not possible in post-47 India. The British simply ignored and his call for observing August 1947 as a sad day resulted in Annadurai breaking away and forming a new party. The Constitution of India was another blow to him and he condemned it. He wanted to create such a Tamil Nadu again in 1970s in the context of a Supreme Court judgment that nullified his plans to appoint non-brahmins as priests in all temples. So spoke about free tamil nadu, abolotion of Article 25,26 of Indian constitution and need for uniform civil code .His utopia i.e. Tamil Nadu was not just caste free but also brahmin and north indian free also.That was stated categorically by him in the statement issuesd on his birthday in 1954 (the one I had cited). Is Geetha going to deny that. What right Periyar had to plan for explusion of 4% of the population i.e.brahmins en masse. Why his hatred against north indians and tamil brahmins manifested in so crude and vulgar terms and who was he and what was he for Malayalees, Kannadigas. In which way hislanguage is different from that of Thackrey’s of today.
‘Ravi’s remarks are evidence that either he has not read the article in full or he does not wish to do justice to its arguments’
I challenge this. Let Geetha translate the whole statement into English first and let us have a debate on this. Will Geetha state that in Periyar’s utopia there was no place for those whom he considered to be stooges and allies of his enemies. Let her admit the fact that Periyar’s
notion of Dravidans excluded brahmins and he preferred that over the term Tamils as the later would include Tamil Brahmins who by virtue of Tamil being mother tongue would come under that category. Periyar was like Bush, if you were not with him, you were against him. In early 1960s when some leaders of christian organizations and muslim organizations supported the parties he opposed he issued a statement condemning them. If Periyar supported congress why should minorities also support congress.
There is a saying in Tamil : One cannot fool all people at all times. Spin doctors like Geetha better understand this.
LikeLike
Joems was wonderful in his/her analysis. But here is a second thought: Is ‘twittering’ an adequate response. There are large sections of both malayalees and Tamils who have no access to the net. What prevents us (I am including me too) from writing about the issue and getting it published in a paper. Here is a challenge. Write a full-fledged article in Malayalam and mail it to the Malayalam daily Madyamam. I am sure it will publish the article. The problem is that we twitterers are terribly scared of daylight. We don’t do anything. But we would like to create the impression that we are the cat’s whiskers among a coterie/clique and walk tall in the virtual world. By the way, there is the impotent side of Tamil politics which can beat up Jayaram but cannot even whine when the Sri Lankan government is committing genocide against their Tamil population. Things were not like this, for all the dupicity of Tamil politicians, in 1987. so much so that it is reported that Rajiv Gandhi offered to hand over Tamil Eelam to Prabhakaran on a platter then!
LikeLike
Nagarjuna raises an interesting point.Pandian discusses the ideas of Raj Gowthaman.
Brahmin vs. non-brahmin does not fully represent the reality.But in the name of recovering lost identity of dalits there are attempts to (re)construct histories of glory-fall/defeat-recovery and resurgence.My understanding (may be wrong) is some dalit scholars have problems with views of Iyothee Das and his interpretation of the past.
The ideas of Raj Gowthaman need to be discussed further.Maintaining that brahmin vs non-brahmin category is still relevant and ignoring arguments like ‘In the emergent Dalit critique, Dravidian no longer signifies all non-Brahmins but only Dalits’ or assertions by dalits that they cannot be simply clubbed under the category non-brahmin, is necessary to maintain the mythology built around Periyar. Sooner or later this mythology will be deconstructed and that might happen in the next few decades. Of course a feminist critique of Periyar and Dravidian movement might arise in the coming decades.
LikeLike
JoeMS describes at length about ‘dravidian left’, need for cnovergence of dravidian movement to progressive left, and the present left especially in kerala as brahmanical left etc. Ofcourse there is splinter of truth in that, but one will be at odds in ‘generalising’ the same.
let me ask one or two questions,
The main stream left in Tamilnadu is very weak comparing to kerala, and has a good base of dravidian movement and culture. Do you know my dear JoeMS, the major source of revenue of n’ number of temples, like shabarimala, guruvayoor etc are from this poor,’black’, downtrodden tamils. Can you explain how a culture, which preach and practice atheism under periyar happened to be ‘comical’ devotees. even the brahmanical North or kerala are better in this regard(kerala is now trying to compete with these ‘comical devotess’!!!)
now I fear, these Tamils and Telugus are the calalyst for all these comical irrational right wing beliefs which is slowly and steadily getting upperhand in kerala. I like,love many of the rationalities of speech and practice of Periyar and dravidian movement. JoeMS would have worried more about the off late transformation of that Tamil society of great Periyar to the present(just opposite to what he preach altogether). JoeMs, Do you attribute this ‘transformation’ of Tmil society to hollowness of Periyar’s preach and practice ?
LikeLike
I not all support the Dravdian political parties which degnerated and even supported a BJP later.My point is only about the basic ideology of Periyar.And how can we mix up the women’s liberation for which he stood and the malechauvinismin many Dravidian political parties. The fact that Periyar stood for making non-Brahmins as priests in temples too is listed as one of the evils which make Periyar a Bush according to Ravi.
LikeLike
Thank Geetha for the comments about Periyar. I think the Periyar critique of the Malayalees’ intellectual enslavement to the Brahmanical modes is valid even in these times..
LikeLike
While the discussion above is very thought-provoking, I am always troubled by the assumption that in order to borrow/use any idea from anyone (say Periyar) for politically progressive purposes, the person has to be somehow above blame in all aspects or else must be rejected wholesale. Yes, there might well be space and need for a “feminist critique of Periyar and the Dravidian movement” as Ravi says. There have been strident feminist critiques of many influential male intellectuals/leaders/philosophers, ranging from European enlightenment figures like Kant to leaders of the Black liberation movement in the US, the former for being racist/sexist in both subtle and overt ways, and the latter for ignoring or suppressing gender issues etc. This has not prevented feminists from continuing to use the life-work of these thinkers/leaders and this has been to the benefit of feminism. Parallel to this is perhaps how Frantz Fanon both used and critiqued a (culturally racist) European thinker like Hegel. Likewise, the option to either mythologise or reject Periyar is a false and narrow choice… why can’t there be critical engagements that invigorate politics?
LikeLike
K.M.Venugopalan should understand one thing clearly.Periyar was unhappy with not just Malayalees but with Kannadigas,Christians as well as he considered them to be allies of those he disliked. So he resorted to essentializing them all and lumped them together. There is no third category in his analysis i.e. those who were neither with him nor with his opponents.
This sort of essentializing is justified by Geetha.Periyar wanted to get rid of north indians and brahmins and establish a free tamil nadu.His efforts failed in the 1940s and 1950s. That frustation was reflected in that statement. Unfortunately for Geetha and Venugopalan there is no Periyar now. Dravidar Kazhakam, The organization founded by him had discarded his utopia of a separate tamil nation. S.V.Rajadurai and some others including some tamil nationalists are the ones who are still talking of his utopia although there is no consensus on that. So that project was dead long ago for all practical purposes.
‘This has not prevented feminists from continuing to use the life-work of these thinkers/leaders and this has been to the benefit of feminism.’
Well said but there is a difference. When one uses a framework that uncritically accepts Periyar how can one expect critiques within that or from those who espouse this framework. In other words I dont expect Geetha and Rajadurai to develop a
strident feminist critiques or otherwise strident critiques when they tend to build a mythology around Periyar and Self-Respect movement.
That job is for others to do. Periyar spoke about reservation for women much earlier but did not do anything about it later. He could have campaigned for reservation for women in jobs and in local bodies in 60s and 70s.Periyar never tolerated dissent in his organization and those who disagreed with him had no place there.
LikeLike
@ Ravi and others,
Critiquing Periyar as a person, as to how best he could be a rallying point for the modernist forces in the South against the major pan Indian and phenomenal influence of Brahmanism and its caste-gender concepts is one thing and identifying his contributions among that of the pioneers of anti caste social reformers of South India is another thing.
In the latter aspect, many of his pungent utterances, for example, refusing to see women’s roles essentially as conceiving mothers unjustifiably and unequally burdened with the responsibility of propagating the race is typical of a radical visionary. No wonder that someone saying such odd things as early as in 1930s on the one hand, and challenging the Brahmanic pan Indianism on the other would be politically overrided for certain!
The entire question seems to be less about icon-izing Periyar as an individual than asking for a legitimate place for him in the contemporary discourse of racism vis a vis modernity.
LikeLike
Wel Mr. Joe.M.S. U seem 2 b a fair minded person wit a rationalistic outlook. I’m a tamil from vellore, TN, who’s close circle of friends includes a mallu, a kanadiga & a telugu. None of these display any racist mentality, but they r a precious few like urself.
LikeLike
Periyar is misinterpreted by many since they are neither capable of reading his original Tamil speeches and writings, nor do they understand the socio-political and cultural sub text in which he expresses his ideas. Some wantonly distort Periyar’s ideas because of their hatred for Periyar’s anti-caste and anti-Hindu rationalist atheism. Periyar criticized Malayalis and their culture for their acceptance of Brahminism and Brahmin supremacy, while at the same time extolling Malayalis like Dr.T.M.Nayar as one of the founders of the Dravidian self respect movement which was later led by Periyar. Periyar travelled to North India frequently and addressed conferences of backward castes and scheduled castes there. Periyar’s critique of North Indians must be understood as opposition to the Brahmin – Baniya “twice born” ruling class of castes emanating from North India and not as hatred for backward castes and Dalits living in North India. Periyar preached atheism, destruction of the caste system and riled against every superstition, ritual and belief of Hinduism, and also campaigned against the bigotry of Brahmin supremacy and the Brahmin ruling class and Brahmin intellectual class which spearheads the caste system. Periyar never blindly preached hatred against non-Tamils. He was against any kind of linguistic chauvinism, and has vehemently criticized Tamil linguistic celebration, and he sought the liberation and solidarity of non-Brahmin (and non-twice born) backward castes (Shudras) and Dalits under the common identity of “Dravidian” by annihilating their divisive caste identities. Periyar was no bigot but he was the very nemesis to all forms of caste bigotry. But I do feel Malayalis tend to be irrationally anti-Tamil due to the very reasons for which Periyar criticizes Malayali culture, the fundamental of which is the subservience of Malayalis to Brahminism and Brahmins culturally, religiously and socially.
LikeLike