From: sankar@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Mahalingam Sankararaman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
Subject: EVR
Keywords: EVR
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:49:34 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


Saying that EVR was not against brahmins, but only
against braminisms and that he did not preach violence is total 
nonsense. In any public
meetings, he normally would spend about 60% of the time just
name calling and blaming brahmins for every problems in
Tamil Nadu (TN). His slogans, such as if you see a
brahmin and a snake kill the brahmin first, were clearly 
violent preaching. He was not a good orator, in fact he is far 
from it.  The main attraction in his speech was just these slogans
and people generally came to listen to them.  DK was always been 
violent towards brahmins and, in fact, has beaten up brahmins in 
the past. So let us not glorify the man for what he was not. 

Saying that EVR was not interested in politics is nonsensical. He was
very much into TN politics. It is well known, in 1967
he campaigned for the congress party against the DMK
and after the election, he joined hands with DMK. He knew he 
had a political base and he also knew (after the DMK split) 
that it was not enough to win elections. I have gone to his 
meetings in Tanjore and South Arcot districts, I can tell you 
the crowd was not much.  Yes, DK did not contest elections, 
but was very much active politically. He always supported (politically)
the TN ruling party so that the ruling party will be lenient 
with him, especially with his violent preachings against brahmins. 

During the sixties, it was clear that separate Dravidian Country 
(DC) was out of the question. Tamil Nadu was the closest thing to an
independent DC. How come he did not participate in the
democratic process and try to change things within the
system?  Well, that is how much vision he had. 

His excuse (later) for having asked to observe the independence 
day as a day of mourning was something like, if you have to prefer
between the British and the brahmins, he would rather
prefer the British, because he said that the independent
India would be controlled by brahmins. Again, his clear short 
sighted view was very obvious. He should have known that
the brahmins did not ever have any political power in TN in its
entire history. (If you want to call a brahmin 
(Rajaji) was a CM in TN, that is fine with me).
If he did not foresee DMK winning the majority in TN soon,
and if he truly believed that a small minority could
really control a democratic process - well thats 
how intelligent he was. 

What did he achieve in his rather long life? Are the
untouchables and the other backward hindus any better today
because of him?  Probably not. What did he do to uplift
the backward hindus and the untouchables? Did he have a
systematic plan or an agenda and constantly worked for
the benefit of these people within or outside the
democratic system? Did he have any plans to educate
(formally) these people and worked towards it. 
The answer to all these question is a no. 
But he did create a brahmin hatred
in TN and successfully blamed every problems in TN on
brahmins. This was later exploited to the fullest to get
the DMK into power in TN and the DMK amply returned the
favor by glorifying him to the max. This systematic propaganda is
very analogous to the Nazi propaganda and thank god 
there is no dravidian country today. If it were created, brahmins
there would have been systematically eliminated, very similar
to the holocaust.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil