Questioning Periyar’s legacy

Are these actions of the Dravidian parties to be viewed as merely a result of opportunistic politics? Or is there an inherent tendency in Dravidian politics towards religious majoritarianism? B.R. Ambedkar, as draftsman of the Constitution was deeply suspicious of actions emanating from a sense of Hindu majority. He elaborated this idea with reference to the Central Assembly that was functional then, in which he said Hindus should have at best a relative majority in representation but never an absolute one. Towards this end, he stressed the need for some protective measures in the Constitution. But how did Periyar view the question of minorities and the rights to due to them?

Periyar’s article under the head ‘Minority Community’, in ‘Periyar EVR Sinthanaigal’ Volumes 1, 2, 3; edited by Anaimuthu says, “Under any definition of nationality, in any nation, if people who are a minority in terms of population, in terms of religion or culture, control power and wield authority, it will be disastrous for the well-being and development of that nation. The brahmins and their womenfolk who constitute 3 per cent of our population, without contributing one bit for common societal good, and by commanding us ‘Stay away, don’t come in contact with me’, are leading a luxurious life. The Muslims, who comprise 6 per cent of the population, without doing any coolie work or labour that involves the flexing of bodies, do not let our gaze fall on their women even if these women belong to families that beg for a living, are also enjoying the good life.” In fact, in 1954 he referred to Tamil Nadu’s Christians and Muslims as ‘non-Tamils’.

Periyarists will point out that Periyar had advocated conversion to Islam. But he also said, “I have no greater love, friendship, trust or cooperation with or for Muslims than I have for you.” In another instance, he asked: “If Sahibs (meaning Muslims) get proportionate representation, and the Scheduled Castes get representation in jobs and education, and if the rest of the slots are monopolised by Brahmins, O Sudra, what will be your fate and future?” As a counter-shock, Periyar had suggested conversion to Islam.

Tamil Nadu’s Untouchable leaders traditionally paid special attention to Dalit education and fought for jobs in the government. Periyar ridiculed this. “Asking the government for jobs, education, duties, huts and housing; and seeking from the Mirasdars two extra measures of paddy will not help in anyway,” Periyar wrote. He often spoke of the Dalits as people without a history, political movement or leaders. He asked Dalits, “Of what use are you to us?” Mayawati’s championship of Periyar should thus be subject to review.

Periyar was not the leader of all Tamils. He worked solely for the cause of the non-Brahmin upper castes. He deployed the concept of ‘majority’ for this purpose. There’s only one difference between the majoritarianism of the BJP and that of Periyar’s, that is the exclusion of Brahmins from this majority.

(The writer is a Chennai-based historian of the Dalit movement)