From: akn8257@ultb.isc.rit.edu (A.K. Natesan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Kuram Narayana on Periyar
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:19:44 GMT
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Originator: akn8257@ultb

In article <1992Dec16.181406.10224@udel.edu> chitoor@dori.cis.udel.edu (Srikrishnan R. Chitoor) writes:
>In article <BzBr2n.33q@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>>      Please answer me honestly these: If a community preaches hatred 
>>      towards other communities and follow it up with discriminatory
>>      practices, would it be wrong to preach against this community?
>>      If a community and some collaborators have an establishment
>>      which oppresses the vast majority of fellow citizens, would it be
>>      wrong to oppose this establishment ? 
>
>Glad to know that someone wants to argue this matter out instead of throwing
>accusations just like Kathiravan Krishnamurthi did. I personally
>believe that he has a very set mind and would oppose any arguments
>(rational or otherwise) that even seem to contradict his beliefs (ofcourse
>I have good reasons to believe this).
>       Anyway, here is my point. There are moderates and fundamentalists
>in every caste, religion and even among atheists. By fundamentalist I mean
>(may not be the dictionary definition), anyone who is rigid on his beliefs
>and wants others to follow his beliefs too. A moderate is the one
>who sticks to his beliefs but has tolerance for other beliefs. I can give
>you an example of a fundamentalist groups :
>    Hindu : VHP, Muslim : ISS, Atheist : DK.
>    I hope we all agree that it is *this* kind of fundamentalism
>we all opppopse (if you don't agree, don't proceed). We want
>tolerance for each other's beliefs.
>    Note that all the above three confine to my definition of 
>fundamentalism. I do not know a lot about history of TN (ofcourse I
>am familiar with the very ancient history and history after 1900, but I am
>not sure about the medieval times), and consequently I cannot prove
>or disprove your accusations. But for the present let me assume you
>are speaking the truth and continue.
>    I agree that it would be correct to oppose the establishment
>if they committed horrors you accuse them of, but it should not be confused
>with one's personal beliefs. Let us take the specific caste I think you
>are talking about. So as not to offend anybody, let me call the group X.
>    People of group X start taking dominant positions in the society and
>commit atrocities. There are some people in X who are not directly involved
>in this and are not in power (this is especially true in the caste you
>were referring to). Now if you start accusing the people belonging to 
>group X instead of attacking just the people in the establishment most
>likely :
>    (i)  Actual people in the establishment will not be affected by your
>         attack because 
>         (a) they are in power and 
>         (b) secondly because your
>         concentrated effort (originally your goal was to attack the
>         establishment) is now diffused (you goal is now to attack people
>         belonging to group X) and may not carry enough strength to threaten
>         people who commit atrocities.
>    (ii) The innocent people in group X are in no way related to atrocities
>         but due to your diffused goal get affected.
>   So it is very likely that you will very soon end up fighting
>   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.
>   So the atrocities continue and we have one more hate mongering set
>   of people.
> 
>Now tell me ? Does this solve any problems ?
>In the above argument, you can substitute X by any of the victims
>of the above three fundamentalist groups and you can see why we
>are in the situation we are now.
>
>>      Periyaar or his followers were said to have cut the sacred thread of
>>      Brahmins and cut kudumis( tufts) and even smashed idols- these 
>>      are despicable
>>      acts without any doubt. But should we also not consider the 
>>      whiplashes and blood dripping, brutal rapes, denial of basic rights
>>      and education to the masses at that time. Periyaar was a social reformer.
>
>I am not condemning periyar because he revolted against the
>establishment. I am condemning him just because of the ways
>he chose to do that. This way has the very dangerous pitfall
>I described before.
>  Please answer the following question:
>  Why could not periyar have collected enough people (and I assume
>he had wide enough support, because the establishment he opposed
>was supposedly dominated by a minority group) and enacted some
>legislation to see that equality is enforced (say we put the person
>in prison) ? 
>  Ofcourse no sane person is going to refuse such a legislation
>(unless it has some casteist interpretations, like : only if a
>person belongs to group X, he can be arrested for atrocities). 
>  Then, periyar could have made sure that the lagislature was
>enforced, i.e if he came to know of some atrocity, he can make
>sure that the person is put behind bars (so we can discount the
>case of the victim not wanting to revolt against the establishment).
>  This would certainly have made him a great leader. Instead of
>this he chose to follow the path of fundamentalism. I am sure
>that if he had existed today, his organization would have been
>banned (like the VHP or the ISS).
> 
>>      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.
>When we have a lot of leaders like this communal feelings
>will automatically die. The problem is that today, we have no
>leaders like that. The reason that TN is peaceful today is that
>the common guy is like that!
>
>Comments/Discussions welcome.
>-Krishna.
>Opinions are mine.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil