From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
Subject: Re: Periyar's movement (was Re: Kuram Narayana on Periyar)
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:49:12 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Dec28.222632.10919@udel.edu> chitoor@nori.cis.udel.edu (Srikrishnan R. Chitoor) writes:
>In article <BzxwCz.3C0@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>>         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
>
>Nope. That's not proof enough. In general, literacy in India (and in TN)
>has gone up and people appreciate the virtue of equality. This might
>be a factor for people arguing in a fearless manner. Now do not start
>saying that literacy rate went up because of periyar because :
>1] Literacy rates in other states have also gone up.
>2] TN literacy rate is not among the top (If periyar's movement
>   had any effect, I would expect it to be the case). In fact, if
>   you note the literacy growth rate, you will find that it has started
>   growing rapidly only in after 1984-85.
>
>>         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 ! 
>
>Thinking..... :-) This is what I find :
>We are going in an infinite loop in here. 
>   My stand : There was oppression and it does needs to be
>              removed. I do not agree with your claim that periyar's
>              movement had an effect on removing casteism/oppression. 
>              In fact, my view is that periyar chose the wrong method and
>              thus could not achieve the desired result. I have given
>              you lots of arguments for that. Also, I think that
>              two wrongs can never make a right. Note that I am not saying
>              `Two wrongs might not make a right'. (1)
>                  
>   Your stand (tell me if I am mistaken) : Oppression existed. So
>              it is quite okay to oppress the oppressors (sp?).  (2)
>              So, periyar's movement was successful.
>   Looks like you will never agree to (1) and I will never agree to (2).
>So let us not continue.
>
>>      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
>
>You miss my arguments completely. I think periyar mixed the religious
>and social problems. 
>
>>      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]
>>
>>       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) 
>
>You are completely off track.
>I do not support any of the logical inconsistencies
>in the texts you quoted. I oppose someone degrading the 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.
>
>I feel that I don't need to read Manu's ideologies or any other thing
>to evaluate periyar. My arguments never made use of periyar
>opposing Manu's ideology.
>
>>>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 !
>
>I am sorry it must have been `attacked'(not criticized). As I said, you can 
>criticize anything under the sun. Attacking people who follow the ideology 
>without any proof is what I oppose.
>
>>         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 ?!
>
>Aiyooooh :-). Let me state it again. Opposing the practice is not a crime.
>Punishing such a person under the rule of law (I hope we agree that the
>current law does not allow this) is what should be done. I strongly
>oppose any individual taking the law into his hands and degrading the
>offender. 
>
>>      Had people been `a bit more sensitive' before Periyaar started
>>      his movement ?  
>
>Yes, I agree that people should have been a `lot more sensitive'
>in the past. What I am saying is that being insensitive now cannot
>be jusified by the oppressors being insensitive in the past.
>
>>     Please elaborate what is your understanding of oppression and
>>     'oppression facet of the society'.
>
>I am sorry, but it is not going to help. We differ in (1) and (2) and
>we will essentially be going around in circles, but I do know about
>the segregation of the lower castes, widespread exploitation in the
>name of religion etc.
>
>>      Can you 'prove' that the religious factor was not used to descriminate ?
>
>Again, you have not answered my question. Assuming that (s)he does
>not use it to discriminate (where does the concept of proof
>come in when I am asking you a question after assuming something ?), do
>you have any problems with it ? This question was just to show
>that periyar mixed religious and social problems.
>
>>      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.  
>>
>>      - Selva
>
>As I pointed out before, we differ in a very basic point. I wish to 
>stop the discussion at this point. I did like discussing with you.
>
>-Krishna.
>Opinions are mine.

Selva