From: chitoor@nori.cis.udel.edu (Srikrishnan R. Chitoor)
Subject: Re: Periyar's movement (was Re: Kuram Narayana on Periyar)
Followup-To: soc.culture.tamil
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:26:32 GMT

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.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.tamil:4713 soc.culture.indian:42252