From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Subject: Re: Periyar's movement (was Re: Kuram Narayana on Periyar)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 22:41:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.213339.3688@udel.edu> chitoor@nori.cis.udel.edu (Srikrishnan R. Chitoor) writes:
>In article <BzFCqt.5Jy@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>>     I gather from what you say that it is okay to oppose such an 
>>     establishemnt but the approach should have been different. 
>>     I too wish the approach could have been different. It appears
>>     in such deep rooted things as caste hierarchy, widespread bribe
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>     etc. the eradication is NOT that simple and in my honest opinion
>>     what EVR achieved is truly remarkable ( with so little violence).
>
>You may attribute this to periyar, but I think he has done nothing
>to curb these two. His goals may be noble, but he ended up making
>people hate a particular group of people and that's it. I would like
>to see justifications for you including the above. Please do not quote
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>periyar (as I said, his goals may be noble). I want some `actions' as proofs.
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

         Well, the fact that many are arguing with the upper caste
         persons in a free and fearless manner ( not tied to the puLiya maram
         to be whipped for being preposterous..) in all parts of the
         world is a SURE sign of proof of Periyaar's movement. Periyaar's
         movement is about social reform. Your contention that Periyaar's
         goals might be noble but it ended up one group of people being
         hated is quite incorrect. I am opposed as much as you are
         to hating any community but it is not wrong to correct the
         practices and fight for ones rights. I understand that most
         people who dislike the Periyaar's movement often think of
         a few 'despicable' acts of 1) cutting sacred threads 2) cutting
         kudumis 3) breaking idols. I do understand how humiliating
         and mentally hurtful these could be to those who endured.
         Did you pause to think how many people had to undergo this
         experience and compare these with the number of victims
         of caste attrocities and over millenia ? For how many people
         the basic rights had been denied including basic education ?
         The 'hurts' experienced by a few upper caste people is in my
         opinion insignificant compared to hurts experienced my millions
         of people for millenia and the nature of hurts of the oppressed
         are far more serious. Think ! 
      
       
>
 
>>     I am sure you would not agree with this observation but if you 
>>     carefully reflect more you might agree. First you have to understand
>>     that the masses were NOT literate, second they all DEPENDED for their
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>     livelihood on these upper caste people, third their THINKING
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I agree with the first and the third assumptions. I would agree
>with the second one (that is underlined) if you could provide justifications.

         What justification you want ?! The upper caste people had the
         money and local political power and were EMPLOYERS of these
         'lower caste' people. 

> Actually, the illiterate factor was the one which worked for
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Periyar. He lead them to believe that no repercussions for breaking the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>idols implied proof of non-existence of god.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

       I would say inspite of illiteracy the Periyaar's movement  met
       with considerable success !  
       Yes, I think he did use the breaking of the idols to shatter the fear
       complex associated with religion and God. This has nothing to do
       with the illiteracy. This was a bold move which helped to delink
       the supposed connection of God with the idol. 
       
>
>>     capacity was seriously debilitated due to centuries of lack of
>>     formal education and serious mispropaganda of 
>>     all sorts ( various karma and other theories), atleast due to these
>>     reasons it PROBABLY  neccessary to tell them in plain language
>>     ( not couched in sophisticated language) his thoughts and to
>>     add conviction show symbolic demolition of myths ( like breaking
>>     idols purchased with their own money etc. ) and the fear complex.
>
>I do not follow this. I do not understand why periyar had to attempt to prove
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>non-existence of god for getting equality. Just explaining the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>contradictions in the establishment would have been enough (I understand
>that this is the major difference in our opinions).
>
   
    The power wielded by priestly class is well known in many societies.
    God is supreme > I know Him > Rest of you obey me. This basic
    thought-line can be expanded in so many diffeerent ways..
    "Just explaining contradictions in the establishment" is mostly
    what he did thru his talks and writings although on occasions he
    resorted to some symbolic actions to aid in the conviction. 

>>     Your advice that the laws could have been enacted etc. are of
>>     little use.. there are many laws such as on Dowry etc. these 
>>     social evils don't go away easily by enacting laws ( ofcourse we got to
>>     enact and strictly enforce - and I believe these might have worked
>>     in the long run but not much guarantee though; )  All the same I agree
>>     other paths as you say could have been tried.
>
>This is my major objection. I am of the opinion that unless you could
>prove something, you have no right to attack people who do not
>believe in your opinion. Periyar was an atheist and he attacked people
>who worshipped gods. Did he give any concrete proof that god did not
>exist ? He mixed the social and religious
>problems. 

      I don't think upper caste people gave proof of the existence of
      God and proof that they are superior etc. before suppressing the
      people. I think Periyaar realized that some groups of people
      ( the upper caste) claimed superior status primarily stemming
      from the belief in God and so he attacked the concept of God
      to gain equality. As I said before the line of thinking is:
      "God is Supreme - We know Him and we can talk to him - All the
      rest of you were created to serve us".. 
      I think Periyaar thought rightly that exploitation starts with
      the belief in God. [ Please note I am an ardent theist and I
      have complete faith in God but this has nothing to do with my
      observation that serious exploitation took place and still takes
      place in the name of God and religion; Ayodhya and various
      religious exploitations of Christianity, Islam  etc. are quite
      evident to the unbiased]
       
>
>>
>>>   for a different goal of attacking the ideology of people belonging
>>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>   to group X (which you have no reason to attak because you HAVE no 
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>   right to attack one's personal beliefs) instead of the atrocities.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>  
>>        I don't understand why ideologies can not be crticized or
>>        "attacked". I consider Manu's ideology of social structure
>>        a monumental shame and I oppose it, if possible campaign
>>        against etc. Is this wrong in your view ? If my personal
>>        belief is that my tribe is superior to all others and 
>
>You can criticize ideologies, but without giving any proof for your
>point of view I think it would be wrong to `attack' people who 
>follow it. 

       Periyaar gave hundreds of examples of sheer nonsense, 
       irrationality, and plain corruption propagated in the
      name of God and religion. Read his arguments and then
      say whether they are correct or incorrect. Do you believe
      that the theists gave proof that Lord Ayyappaa was born to
      Siva and Vishnu ? Did the theists gave proof of how
      Karthikeya ( Murugan) was born ( If you read this description
      from vedic sources you might not be able to eat food for
      several days- such disgusting !). 
      Was the 'ayuL' ( life-span) of Brahma given with any 'proof' 
      by the theists ? Was the Purusha Suktha given with proof ?
      Some lecherous guy writes in Sanskrit that Siva and Arjuna
      once fight and Parvathi likes the beauty of Arjuna's back and
      requests Siva to fight such a way that Parvathi can enjoy
      seeing the beauty of Arjuna's back.. did you ask for the proof
      of this. Please try to understand and not do kutharka vaadha
      ( tharka vaadha means debate based on logic but for gaining
       a truer understanding; kutharka vaadha means arguing just
       for the sake of arguing and yet using logic but the aim is not
      gaining understanding but just playing 'logical' gimmicks) 
      
      
>I am not sure about the Manu's ideology, but am willing
>to discuss it if you could explain it to me (I might even agree 
>with you that it is wrong and something to be ashamed of, but would
>not go about `attacking' people who follow it).

    If you don't know what Manu's ideology is then PLEASE stop
    saying anything about Periyaar because you are NOT qualified
    to discuss this issue. Any library will have Manu's work,
    please read it carefully, read several books on caste practices
    and our social history etc. then we can discuss. If some ism
    propagates nazism would you not 'attack' its ideologies ?
    Manuism is not very different from nazism.
>
>>        that other tribes are created to subserve my tribe,
>>        are you saying that 'my belief' should not be 'attacked' 
>>         and that that no one has a right to 'attack' this belief ?
>>       As long as I hold beliefs that do NOT interfere with others
>>       directly or thru environmental or other means and that I don't
>>       thrust this view on others then, it is fine
>>       and no one should 'attack' such beliefs.
>
>This is subjective. What exactly do you consider as not interfering with
>others ? When you criticze someone's ideology, are you not guilty of the
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>same crime ? My contention is that even if you are attacking *wrong*
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>ideologies, you would be much better off preaching the people against
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the wrongs in the ideology rather that attacking people who
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>follow that ideology.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

         If a person criticize someone's ideology s/he is guilty of crime ??
         You must be kidding !

         What do you mean by attacking people who follow *wrong* ideologies ?
         If a guy happen to touch another or happen to fall in the 
         view ( in the retina) of another, he can be lynched or cut up
         or otherwise seriously punished for violating a 'dharma' 
         but opposing this practice is a crime ?!

>
>>       Please read my comments above. Today DK exists ( Periyaar
>>       does not) why haven't they banned ? Personally, i think
>>       the DK movement has essentially fizzled out leaving some
>>       good and some bad memories and more lasting effects..
>
>DK today is as passive as any organization can be. I meant that
>DK would have been banned if periyar had tried anything like breaking
>idols (of any religion). 

>
>>> 
>>>>      If you oppose those who discriminate, you too then practice
>>>>      discrimination ! This is the category Periyaar belongs, I think.
>>>>      Honesty is more important than intellectual virtuosity in these
>>>>      matters IF we want to UNDERSTAND. I believe that only when all these
>>>>      communal feelings die or become unimportant will we really 
>>>>      walk with giant steps.
>>>
>>>I beg to differ with you. One could follow the approach I described
>>>in the second argument and still 
>>>   (i) oppose those who discrimintae.
>>>   (ii) and not discriminate.
>>>One perfect example of such a leader is Nelson Mandela.
>>>He wants the whites and blacks to co-exist in SA.
>>
>>      I think the ANC's struggle was and is far more violent
>
>First of all, I am not comparing ANC's struggle to periyar's movement.
>I just gave an example to the fact that some one can oppose discrimination
>and not discriminate. It would be clear if you re-read the above paragraph.

>>      than EVR's. I don't know of any upper caste person
>>      ( esp. brahmin) killed by periyar's men or movement
>>      ( MR Radha tried to kill MGR but didn't succeed). 
>>       The Salem procession was really obscene I believe BUT
>>       NOBODY IS ADMITTING THAT THE SCENES DEPICTED WERE FROM
>>       actually from PURANAS!!! 
>>       We have to admit that a lot of nonsense was tolerated 
>>       in the name of religion !
>>       
>
>`Killing' is not the only criteria for violence. If you still insist
>on that, I can only say that we should be a bit more sensitive.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      Had people been 'a bit more sensitive' before Periyaar started
      his movement ?  

>I agree to the fact that there was oppression in the past, but 
>it is the oppression facet of the society that should be criticized.

     Please elaborate what is your understanding of oppression and
     'oppression facet of the society'.

>Does it matter if someone goes to the temple 20 times a day and spend 100 bucks
>on `abhishekhams' as long as he/she does not force you to do the same and does 
                                                                       ^^^^^^^^
>not use it to discriminate ? Can you logically prove that he/she is doing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the wrong thing ?

      Can you 'prove' that the religious factor was not used to descriminate ?
      The Purusha Suktha shows the discrimination; various Smrithis which
      claim authority from 'Vedas' depict discrimination; the power wielded
      by priestly class is well know in many societies, and there is no
      point in denying. 
      If some people go to a public temple and PREVENT others entering
      it it would be discrimination.  

>    I am not sure about the procession and scenes you are talking about.
>Can you elaborate ?

     There was a procession by DK in Salem, Tamil Naadu sometime in the late
     sixties or early seventies ( I'm not sure of the date) involving
     tableaux depicting many events described in the religious literature
     and they were very obscene but factual based on the literature !!
     In my opinion that procession was in a very bad taste but apparently
     the DK was interested in conveying to the masses the 'quality' of
     religious literature. 
>
>-Krishna
>Opinions are mine.


      - Selva

Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil