From: chitoor@nori.cis.udel.edu (Srikrishnan R. Chitoor)
Subject: Periyar's movement (was Re: Kuram Narayana on Periyar)
Followup-To: soc.culture.tamil
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 21:33:39 GMT

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 Please do not quote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.

>     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.
 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.

>     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).

>     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. 

>
>>   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. 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).

>        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.

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

-Krishna
Opinions are mine.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil