'Denationalising' the Past: 'Nation' in E V Ramasamy's Political Discourse

Author(s): M. S. S. Pandian
Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 28, No. 42 (Oct. 16, 1993), pp. 2282-2287
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4400290 .
Accessed: 10/11/2014 23:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 206.246.22.65 on Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:05:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 'Denationalising'
the Past
'Nation' in E V Ramasamy'sPolitical Discourse
MIS S P'andian

Departingfromntile conceptionwhichclaimsthe 'nationalisation' oftle past as a uiniversalgiven of nations, this article

argues that it hiasbeenpossible at least in certain cases to imaginenationsas disengagedJfrom the past. To illustratesuch
a possibility thleconceptof 'nation'as propagatedby E VRamiiasamly, who denied its origin in classical Indian/ITamilpast
and envisaged itfully in the fitture,is analysed.

Thusthedaysof magiciansandfetisheswill I nation andhis resolve to figlhtthe Congress,

end;you will have to fight... Gandhi. and brahminical Hinduism were
Citizenship, Colonialism and Nation
-Jean-Paul Sartre strengtlhened byQandhi'sutterancesin Tamil
in prefaceto Fanon(1985:26). E V Ramasamy's sojourn in the Indian Nadu during 1927. In the highly charged
NationialCon",resswas brief, a mere five Tamil political environment, Gandhi not
BY now it is partof the academic common years in an active political career spaniniig only said, "VarnashramaDharmais not ani
sense that nations, in their searchlfor le- over half a century.Joiningthe organisation unmitigatedevil but it is one of the founda-
gitimacy, reinterpret and usurp remote in 1920 duringthe non-cooperationmove- tions on which Hinduism is built [and] de-
past(s) as their own. As Benedict Ander- ment, he not only spent considerabletime, fines man's mission on earth" [Irschick
son (1983: 19, 47) puts it in his book on energyandmoneyforsuclinationalistcauses 1969: 337-38], but also described the
nationalism, "If nation-states are widely as 'khadder'and prolhibition,but also en- brahminsas the "finest flower of Hinduism
conceded to be 'new' and 'historical', the gaged himself spiritedlyin takingupa series andhumanity".He added:"I willdonothing
nations to which they give political ex- of issues wlhichhad adirect bearingon the to witherit. I know thatit is well able to take
pression always loom out of an immemo- questionof citizenshipin the nation-in-the- careof itself. It has weatheredmany a storm
rial past...," and "that image of antiquity" making:he obduratelystaged 'satyagrahas' before now. Only let it not be said of non-
is "central to the subjective idea of the in firontof theMahadevartemplein Vaikkom, brahmans that they attempted to rob the
nation." wlhichearned him two jail terms and the flower of its fragrance and lustre..."
hionorific 'Vaikkom Veerar' ('Iero of [Sundararajan1989: 457].3
Departingfrom such a conception whiich
Vaikkoom'),seeking rights for the lower
claims thie'nationalisation'of the past as a Importantly,theidentitytthatEVRamasamy
castes to enter the temple streets; opposed established between god, religion, Gandhi,
universalgiven of nations, thepresentpaper
bitterlythe practiceof havingseparatedin- theCongressandthe brahminswas basedon
argues that it has been possible at least in
certain cases to imagine nations as disen- ing alTangementsfor brahmin and non- his understandingthat all of them stood in
gaged from the past. Towards illustrating brahminstudentsin Slhermadevi Gurukularn, thewayof differentsubordinatesocial groups
a traditionalsclhool funded partly by the such as the sudras, the dalits and women,
suchanalternatepossibility,thepaperanaly-
TamilNaduCongresscommitteeandrunby attaining free and equal citizenslhipin the
ses the conceptof the 'nation' as propagated
a former'revolutionaryterTorist'V V S Iyer
by E V Ramasamy,a man wlhoperennially nation-in-the-making.His political career
with the objective to impart"high ideals of thenonwardswasmoreorless anunwavering
carriedthe appellationof an 'anti-national'.
nationaleducation";andrepeatedlyargued journey through the Self Respect Move-
Freed from thiemainstream nationalist bi-
for 'communalrepresentation'(or whathias ment (founded in 1926) and the Dravidar
naryof nationalismvs colonialism,anclhorcd
come to be called today as 'reservations')
in history and rationalism as progress, Kazhagam (founded in 1944) in search of
for the non-brahminsin public services and
troubledall the time aboutcitizenship, E V substantive, as opposed to formal, citizen-
representativebodies such as the legisla- ship for thesubordinategroups.The central-
Ramasamy's concept of the nation denied
ture-a demand whichi was marginalised ity that he assigniedto citizenship as consti-
its origin in the classical Indian/Tamilpast
anddismissed by thiemainstreamnationial- tutive of the nation is more than evident
and enivisagedit fully in the anticipatory.
ists as "detrimentalto nationaluniity".E V from the way he assessed and combated the
Further,it constantly violated the certitude
aboutbounidaries, Ramasamy'sconceptioniof free and equal nationalistconcept of 'swaraj' andthe man-
identities,agentsof change
and went beyond the territorialityof thle citizenslhipas the key constitutive element nerin whicl lie respondedto the Britishraj.
of the nation did not evoke the kinldof
nation.
resfpoise he had hoped for from the Tamil 'SWARAJ'
In tracingthecontoursot E V Ramasamy's NaduConigress,theleadershipof which was
'nation', my attempt is not only to explore (loniinatedby bralhminelite. After a series At one level, he viewed the nationalist
the relationislip between the nation antdthe of experimentswitlhinthe Congress, which demand for swaraj or self-rule as a con-
past, but also to recover one of the may be termedas experimentson the ques- spiracyby the local elite (who, for him, were
marginaliseddiscourseson thenation.wlhich tion of citizenship in the nation,lhefinally as variedas the brahminsas opposed to the
has beenlfossilised in the Indlianinationalist broke ranks wvithi the organisation in No- sudras, the Marwaris as opposed to the
historiograply as belongingto9 the 'other'of vember 1925. wlhentwo of hiisresolutionis Tamils, men as opposed to women... de-
the national, i e, 'anlti-nlationial'. Such at- favouring 'communalrepresentation'were pcnding on dlifferinlgrelationalcontexts) to
tempts at recoverinigalternateconcepts of disallowed in the Kancheepuramconfer- heeinotnise the subordinateclasses, and as
the niatioInseem pertinient andl urtget as the eniceof theTamil NaduCongress.' Thcr-eaf- a process whiclh would eventually affirm
official 'nation' has become one of the mnost ter hiedeclared hiispolitical agenda to be: ra(cr tlhanierase their unequal status. At
important source ot legitlimiacy for the state I'n god; nioreligion; no Gandhi;no Con- anotlherlevel, he viewed it as an impossible
in India as well as for a range of political gress;anldl niobralhmins''. project given the innumerablecriss-cross-
formations varying front the l-lindu commu- 13V Ramasamy'sdoubts about the placc ing of hierarchiiesandrelationsof authority
nalists to the leftists. of thesubordinateclasses in the Congressite anidsubordination.Writing in 1928 about

2282 Economic and Political Weekly October 16, 1993

This content downloaded from 206.246.22.65 on Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:05:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the condition of untouchables and wo-)men, Following hiisdisenchantmentwith theCon- [Parthasarathy 1979: 116; Sundararajan
iie noted: ggress,he re-evaluatedhlisstaniceon the raj 1983: 54-55 and 136; and Ananidhi1991:
and(lfoundseveral tl)inosof therajwortlhyof 37-38]. E V Ramasamy reminded the na-
[We] have been telling th'atunless the atbove tionialiststhat it was due to the efforts of
tvo oppressions [i e. of untouchtables snd support. He argued. "'Tie 'Hindu Inidia'
women] are dlestroyed, asking for.freedoni which believed that people slhould abide "'sarkardasas' and 'traitorsof the nation'
to India, orclaiming thai in(lians themi1selves by the autlhorityof the king and the king is and the [Britishl government'' that these
will take care of India's administration and the god was taught only by the 'Englislh acts were passed." The otherevent wlhichhe
security, or telling that India dtoesnot need India', that the king should abide by the used as anlillustrationof native elite oppo-
even a little association with outsiders... is people and the king is the servant of the sition to the efforts of the raj to establish a
utterly foolish or dishonesty involving self- people."'" According to him, "TIlhoughi we riuleof equality was that of 1857. He argued
ish conispiracy... lhavelost muclhfrom being the slaves of thiat "...thee [was] no scope to treat the
...we are keeping sectionis of our people the British, we hiave profited at least a events of 1857 as the first event of national
enslaved, oppressed and1degraded-with- little and untderstoodourselves as human frecdonmstruggle. [It was] an attempt to
out thinking that they are of our society, our beings. It we had remaitnedthe slaves of p)rotcctVcdic ideas, obscurantismand reli-
brothers; withiout any compassion; without n(orthiIndianis, we would have rcmainied gion",l2 and congratulated the British for
giving them the freedoin we so desire; with- 'sudian','rakslhaslhan','clhatndalani',
'asuIrdi', suppressingit.'3 Heviewed the sepoyg who
out thinking that they are humianbeings. So 'kundakan', 'kolakani', 'pratilokan', participatedin the events of 1857 as being
handing over the welfare aindi freedomnof 'narlakan'..."' lIe, time and again, claimed used by the conservative Indian elites to
these oppressed people t(ous is nothlingother
tlhlat
substitutingthe Britishirule with swaraj regaini power.
than handing over shee) to a butcher...
would be eqluivalenit to the "suicide of the Whlile the first set of reasons offered by
[Periyar 1984: 71 1.
commonpeople" -unless one could be coni- E V Ramasamyfor thieBritish reluctanceto
In 1948, hiisdrean of a separate Dravida fident of a new rule based nioton Mlanu establishiManithiaDlharmain India placed
Nadu already in sham-bles,he queried, "Is Dlharma,VarntstiramaDharm& andbrahmin the blame squarely on thc indigenous elite,
tthebralhmin's rule swara"yafor the Parayan hegemony. i e, institutions whiclh,accord- his other set of reasons implicated both the
[untouchiable]? Is the cat' s rule swarajya for ing to him. legitimised inequality across British andthe local elite. Here, he claimed,
the rat? [Is" landlord's rule [swarajya]for castes. genderanidformsof labour,andthus tlheBritish reluctance was a result of their
the peasanit? Is owner's riuleswarajya for the invalidatedlthe possibility of overarclhinig need to lhavelocal collaborators so as "to
worker?..."4 He arguedthiatIndia wds not a ecluality."' cariry ot thieirrule in this country [India] for
nation but a mere museum of castes, reli- However, E V Rainasamy's approvalof ever and to generously loot and tranisferthe
gions, languages and gods.5 the iaj was not unqualified anldwas often wealtlhof this country to their own."" In
In short, with citizensilip being invested only a grudging approval. Hlewas disap- identifying such collaborators as the indig-
with singular primacy in E V Ramasamy's pointed that the British, unilike in their enous elite, lie implicated both colonialism
discourse on the nation, it was, for lhlin,the own natiotn,did niotattemptsufficiently to and the indigenous elite as uphioldersof
moment of equality of the subordinateso- establish a fuli-fledged iule of Manitlha Manu Dharma instead of full-fledged
cial groups witlhthe rest of the nationialone [Humani]Dharma in Indiat but also fol- Manitha Dlharma.
whiicih could signify the arrivalof theinationi. lowed Manu Dhlarmain large measure. fle For E V Ramasamy, both these sets of
For instanice, r-eferringto ttheposition of offered two sets of reasons for such differ- reasons were interlocked. Discussing the
Indian women-an issue wihich engaged ential politics practised by the British- opposition to the Devadasi Abolition Act,
hiim all through his political career6-lie oCne in theirown nation and the other in the he characteriscdthe symbiotic relationship
interpreted theilrfrecdomiand equality as colony. between the indigenouselite and the British
real swaraj: thus: "'...itbecame necessary for thieBritish
The concept of husband-wiferelationship INDIGENOUS ELITE to be helpful to the bralhminsas the selfish
has been one of master-slave relationshil. brahnmins were helpful and acted as spies [in
The essential philosophy of miiarriagehas Accordingto him, the first set of reasons facilitating] the Britislhrule to arrive and
been to insist on w%lomen's slavery... Until which disabledtheBritishirajfromgoing all establish itself in our India" and in turn "it
such marriages
wotmienare liberated f'romii the way in affirminigManithaDhiarmain the became necessary for the Britislhto follow
and frotmmen, our nation cannot attainfree- colotly could be located in the resistance to whiateverthe brabminsaid so as to get thieir
doni.7 suchldharmna by the Inidiannational elites [own] thingsdone."
I-1et-cated this lack of equality for wvontcnin themselves. I-Her-epeatedlycited inistances
the inLdigenoussocietY as the piroof of Inidi- of sustainedIndianopposition to such ini-
alls not havini the "spir-it of f-eedom' and ti.ativesas the DevadiasiAbolition Act, the
'D)enationalising' the Past
they bein,' "children of slaves" [Petiyar ChlildMarriageRestraintAct anidthieIHinidu
1984: 73]. 'rThus,1947 did not signal tihe Religious Endowment Act, which were Suclhforegrounding of substantive citi-
niation for hiim and he declared August 15 as rep.resentedas the excesses of the British zenship of the subordinatesocial groups as
a day of mourninig. rule. We may bear in mind here that such the principle co(nstitutive elemient of the
nationalist opposition to 'social legisla- natioti p)lacedE V Ramasamy outside the
BRvnstt RAx- tions' was rather intense in the Tamil- nmainistrearnIndian nationalicsmas well as
speakkingareas. For instance, the Congress the incomplete modernity of the Britislhin
Let us now tuur-nto his attitudJctowards the leader S Sathyamurthythreatened"to per- tlhecolonial context. In otlherwords, hlewas
Britishi Itra. He, as a Conursc..sn-sinin "fa-ti form his littie daughter'smarriagein defi- lee fiom the nieed to set the nation in
to
cafliy eOMrnMiuedGtandhj i. ,ondeimned lthc ance of the Sarada Act"; condemned the opposition to tihecoloniser. From this rela-
raj unequivocally: ''Tie Britishvers l'ove to I-linduReligious EndowmentAct as British tively 'unenlcumbered' pclitical location,hie
rcpcat that weYIndians arc brut.es. 'Maybe interferencein religious affairs; portrayed coulcdview thienational past as an unmiti-
voU ar-e anid I ramtoo. Andclit is tip to Us to devadasisas retainersof nationalartandcul- gated narrativeof victimhodclwhich prefig-
demonstrate to t-iteti thlut we aire btrutish tureandsaidthateachof themshoulddedicate ured and resulted in cunrenthiierarchiies of
enioUTh tIo fdtive 11 t-;ut lw resrcstour nai at least one girlto be a futuredevadasi; and powecrand powerlessness withlinthe indig-
ti-rnl. vfrcd3 m'' Vi' sna;ibinA i ' 3: -38j OPP{)scl templel entry by thle [)a i ts eno(Us Society. Thlroughl
suchla narrativeof-

Eco,n.znic a-Rd -'Jiticca Cv)k -c Ober 16, 1993 2283

This content downloaded from 206.246.22.65 on Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:05:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
victimliood, at one level, he markedout hiis and crafty instrumentsinvented by thc up- which evolved over time inttoa demand for
discourse onithe nation as distinct from the pei castes to per-petuatetheir hegemony. a separateDravidaNadu. Till the enidof his
discourse of the elite mainstreamnational- If such a hiistoryof oppression and ineq- life, he, more or less steadfastly, denied
ism which searched for the authentic na- uity could have an uninterruptedcareer legitimnacyto India as one nation and kept
tional self in a classical Indian past. At for over thousa.ndsof years, it was because hiisdemand alive.
anotherlevel, hiisnarrativerefused to be a the superordinatesocial groups violently In this context, he did differentiate the
mere appropriationof the colonialist con- put down anly clhallenge to their hege- Tamil past as more equitous compared to
struction of the Indian past as uncivilised nmony,and wlhenviolence failed, thicyco- the pan-Indianpast. Basing his arguments
since he, in his searchfor citizenship, impli- opted tlhciropponents. lie illustrated hiis on ancient Tamil literarytexts, he claimed
cated theBritish as unwillingmodernists.In claim with the example of Buddhism and that both the caste system which degraded
this context, his etngagementwith the past arguedthatthe Buddhists, because of their the non-brahmlninsand the current mar-
may be characterised as a pr-oject of opposition to the lhierarchieslegitimised riage customs whlichemphasised women's
'denationalising'the past in the nameof the by Ilinduism,were "beaten up, kicked and sub-ordinationwere alien to the Tamil past.
nation. torturedon stakes" by uppercaste Hindu What is important here is that lheused this
In analysing how E V Ramasamy zealots; and wlhensuch violence failed to difference primnarilyas a lheuristicdevice
'denationalised' the past, we shall first erase the influence and fame of BIuddha, to deny legitimacy to the Hindu north
take a look at his constructioniof the pan- they incorporated Buddha witlhinHindu- India to exercise hegemony over other
Indian past and-then move on to his en- ism as the "tenth incarnation of Malha regions andpeople who had a betterrecord
gagement with the Tamil past. Thc nieedto Vishnu" and Buddhiism as a sect, similar otn matters relating to equality. Beyond
anialyse his engagement witlh the Tamil to Saivism and Vaislhnavism."1 Likewise, that,his position on the Tamil past was not
past acquires certain urgency given the he pointed out, the brahminicalHinduism different from that on the Indian past, i e,
widespread academic and popular belief co-opted those lower caste opponents who lhe 'denationalised' the Tamil past too.
thathe uncritically privileged a Tamil past used violence by conferring kslhatriyasta- Interestingly, even in contexts where he
and placed it in opposition to the Indian tus on them.20 favourably referred to the equitous Tamil
past[Visswanathan 1983: 75; andLakshmi This diachronicnarrativeof the past con- past, he simultaneously discounted it and
1990].16 tinuouslyestablisheditslinkswiththepresent claimed that one would not benefit by
and arguedthatthe continuationof the past harpingback to the past.22
PASTIN THE PRESENT into the present was the source of the con- In 1943, when separateDravidaNaduwas
tinuing subjugationof the subordinateso- very muchon the agendaof E V Ramasamy,
E V Ramasamy was fully aware of the cial groups. Tracing the link letween his he wrote: "The unnecessary ancient prin-
mainstreamnationalists'use of theso-called version of the past and the currentdevalua- ciples of the Iamils... lhavebecome useful
classical Indian past in their public dis- tion of plhysical labour, for instance, he [onlyl for dcceiving outsiders and plunging
coursea.'7For him, this classical Indianpast, argued: "...you should realise thatif all of [oneselfl into foolishness. It has become a
wlhich was privileged by the mainstream you are workers,it is because you were all duty of the rationalist that such talk [about
nationalists, was a conitinuousand uniniter- madeinto sudrasaccordingto Varnaslhrama ancient Tamil ideas] should not be evoked
ruptedstory of the hegemony exercised by Dharmaof Hindureligion. Let that pass. If for any reform from now on."23 He pro-
the iniquitous brahminical Hinduism and workersare thoughtof as lowly people, it is ceeded further:"If several of our 'Pandits'
VarnashramaDharma. As a recent study because they [sudras] were thouglhtof as do notlhaverationaltlhinking,it is becauseof
sums up, though reductively: lowly people in Hindureligiousdharma."21 the obscurantismof the ancientTamil prin-
According to [Ramasamy] Naicker the Similarly, referringto the currentstatus of ciples. Th7ereis nothing at present to be
brahmanswerethedescendantsof theAry- women, lhenoted: achieivedbythetalkofancient Tamils.There-
ans who were the first to introduce the What Hindu religion tells about women is
fore it is an importantduty of the people not
status-basedcaste system. 'rhisgave themi that god created women at birth itself as to give any place for [such] fraudulent
high ritual status and the power to prostitutes;so they should not be allowed to speech..." (emplhasismine). A strikingillus-
monopoliseall secularandreligiousknowl- be free at any time; they shouldbe controlled trationof E V Ramasamy'scontemptfor the
edge, thereby degradinig the native by the fatherat childhood [and] by theirsons 'ramil past could be hiis reaction to the
Dravidians to an inferior lposition. 'he during oldiage... glorificationof ancientTarhilwomen-i by the
study of the Vedas, the observance of There is more such evidence in religious women leadlersof the anti-Hindi agitationl.
Vedic rites andthe practiceof Vedic ritu- shastrws. Their intention is nothing other
als were the prerogatives of brahmiians. than mak-ingwomen slaves of men [Periyar I-leintervenedto tell them: "It will be worth-
Naickerpointedout to the non-brahnmans 1984: 84-851 wlhile if you discuss the presenitstatus of
that Manu,the chief brahmlanlaw-giver, women andwhat can be done about :chiev-
degradedthe bulk of the populationto a Thus the past was not at a remove: it was ing women's liberation, instead of glorify-
position of sudras. preventedthem from here and now, feeding into the present, ing our'grandmotherslike Alliranii,Kannagi
accumulating wealthandadvocatedthat their legitimising hierarchies aniddenying free andMadhavi."24
vocationshouldbe to servethe brahmans. In andequal statusto all. It hiadto be combated His overarching denouncement of the
additiontosuchprejudicialcodes,newrules if substantivecitizenship was to constitute Tamilpastsparedneithertheclassical Tamil
and regulationswere incorporatedas anti the nation. literaturenor the ancient Tamil rulers: the
when brahmansfoundit necessaryto pre- Cheras, the Cholas and the Panidyas.
vent other caste groups from challenging QUALIFIED APPROVAL Thlirtukuraland Silapathikaraml, whiclh
theirstatus and privileges. As a result of such
sectarian laws, a large segmnent of non-
aloingwitlhPiuranlanuttriiconstitute the thiree
Let us now turn to E V Ramasamy's so-called glorious texts of the T amils,
to
brahmansociety wAs d(egriaded an infer-ior
engagenmentwith the Tamil past. During the came itnfor barbed criticism in the hands
position... [Visswanat han 1 984j.18
course of the anti-Ilindi agitationi wlhiclh of E V Ramasanmy-for they, in hiisopinlion,
GiVen thlisreading of thieInzdiatn past as a contested tlec compulsoiy intr(oductionof degradedwomeni and denied them equality
narrative of victimhooxd, he treated religious Hind.liin sclhoolisby the Congress govern- withimen. Hieclaracterised Silap7athikarani
texts suchM1 as 4 n u smr ii. Pitraitrs, ment in 1937, 1EV Rairasan4y began airing as a text "which began in prostitution, grew
Mahabha/ltrata andtRamavana.,l as fanltastic hlis denoanldfor a separate 'lamil Nadu, in 'chlas<tity' up inlfooli.shnlessand
alndendtedt

2284 EConomic and Political Weekly October 16, 1993

This content downloaded from 206.246.22.65 on Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:05:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 superstition" [Periyar 1983: 28]. We may
note here that chastity, for hiim, signified
women's unfreedom. He wrote:
The manner in which women are oppressed in
Kovalan Kathai [Silapathiikarain]is extremely
bad...
On the mamage dais itself Kovalan desired a
dasi and goes with her. Till Kovalan returns,
Kannagi didn't decorate herself... didn't eat
any good food, ate only food without salt and
remainedworried.Why should one do all these?
Imagine a man in that place [of Kannagi]. What
would happen? If the wife had left with another
man, would the husband eat food without salt?
Would he remain worried without why physi-
cal comfort till god bm-ughtthe wife back? In
it [Silapathikaram], a separate moral is given
for woman and [a separate one] for men... [it
was] written so badly as to (legrade women
[Periyar 1986: 13-14].
Similarly, despite his qualified approval
of Thirukural, he subjected it to severe
criticism foremphasising the subordination
of women by glorifying chastity. Referring
to the couplet, which claims that a woman
who does not worship god but her husband
can make rain to shower at her instant
command, he wrote: "Would Thiruvalluvar
have written these... if he were a woman
instead of a man?" [Periyar 1984: 15; see
also,Aanaimuthu 1974:11, 1039,1229,1257,
1259-66]. He viewed Kamba Ramayanam
as a text which degraded the Dravidians, and
posed to those who defended it oni its literary
merits: "They say [Kamba] Ramayanam is
a rare literature. What is the use? However
stairvedone is, would onie pick up food from
shit... How can anyone who desires self-
respectreadRamayaniam?..."25
As much as the Tamil literature of the
past, Tamil historical personages such as the
Chera, the Chola and the Pandya kings too
were scrutinised from the point of whether
they upheld or denied equality to their sub-
jects. According to him, the Tamiil kinigs
lacked intelligence and self-respect, and,
but for tlhem, the T'mils would not lhave
remained the lowest of the castes and as
degraded people for the past 2000 to 3000
years. They were unworthy of emulation as
they impaled the Buddhists and the Jains,
who tried to inculcate better sense among
the people, on stakes; patronised and pro-
moted temple culture which helped the
idle and foolish to cheat the people; and
kept the common people illiterate. He
referred to their rules as "inalevolent and
barbaric' .26
E V Ramasamy reserved the most scath-
ing of his criticisms for the Tamil punidits
who conistructed and propagated a glorious
version of the Tamil past tlhoughl their
readings of classical Tamil literature. He
derisively clharacterised tlheir skills as the
mere ability to "memorise 'literature', give
sever al meanings to one word, conifuse the
people and collect money..." The Tamil
Economic and Political Weekly October 16, 1993
This content downloaded from 206.246.22.65 on Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:05:29 PM
pundits, for him, were liars, propagandists
of obscurantism, and laacking in reasoning
powers.2"
Tfle past, thus, was bereft of anything
wortlh appropriating for the nationial
agenda. The nation could arrive only as a
break from it. In short, the past stood
'denationalised' in E V Ramasamy's dis-
course on the nation.
111
Meta-Narratives of the 'Modern'
Apoliticallyunusableand'denationalised'
past andan iniquitouspresentdid not lead E
V Ramasamy into a politics of despair.
Itnstead,he located the ntotioni
of equal anid
free citizenship in the anticipatory.What
needs to be underscoredlhereis thiatthis
futurewas denied, as we lhavejust seen, the
facility of beinga recover-edpast.Hieframed
thejourneyto thisfuturein whatmaybroadly
be termed as the meta-nafratives of the
'modern'28:rationalityandscience, faith in
humanemancipationand progressthrougl
struggle, and history.
Thouglhhe thoughtof the past as a con-
tinuous story of inequalityand unfreedlom,
he insisted that "chanigeis inevitable: no-
body can stop it" [Aanaimutliu 1974: II,
1120]:
Aryan-Dravidianconflict is a conflict which
had been going on since the Puranic age.
Though we do not know enough about the
Puranic age, [we know that] thteBuddhists
had stryggled to destroy the Aryan culture.
Mughals, who had the Islamic culture which
was opposed to the Hindu, i e, Aryan, cul-
ture, also tried to destroy Aryanism.But they
didn't succeed.
That is why the brahmins ridicule us,
'When they [the Buddhists and the Mughals]
could not succeed, how can the Dravidar
Kazhaganmsucceed!' Let theni ridicule [us]!
We are not bothered!
I strongly believe that our effoits will
succeed... Two hundredyears of British rule
and 25 years of our rationalist propagandla
have reduced the hegemony of Aryan cul-
ture.29
Similarly, he, in one of his innumerable
public speeches, illustrated his faitlh in his-
tory through the changes witnessed by the
institution of kingship in India: "Our kings
were venerated as gods; [they were] thought
of as the incatnation of gods; [people] did to
the king whatever they did to god. But wlhat
lhaslhappenedto all those kings? rhey were
tUrlned in)to king,s whio [nowl receive tlheir
salary firom thiegovernment.' "30
RECOVERY
OFSELF-WORTrH
But such change tlhr-ouglhhiistory would
not take place on its owIn; it neecdecdcon-
certed lhuman intervention, anid therefore
the victims of the past should become
a3ctive subjects. H-ere, E V Ramasamy
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ela borated anid enier^getically propagated
the concept of 'Suyamatiiathli' or self-
respect-tlhe foremost thing an active po-
litical subject required was the realisation
of lhis/her self-worth. He privileged the
concept of Suyamariathai over everything
else. 1-leclaimed: "If we attain self-re-
spect, swaraj wil l arr-ive within a bat of the
eyelid..." HIesimilarly asserted: "Self-
respect is the only means to attain true
swaraj [anid]thiatis man's birth right..."
[Periyar 1978: 13].
Extending this concept of self-worth to
the sphere of political intervention, he ar-
gued thatit was the victims of inequity and
unfreedomalonie,who, tlhrouglh thei' active
intervention in history, could ensure self-
emancipation.In contrastto the mainstream
nationalistthought, he believed thatno one
could speak for andrepresentthe victims of
the past, but themselves. For instance, he
discountedmen's participationin themove-
ment for women's freedom and arguedthat
only women, by appropriating political
agency to themtselves,could attainindepen-
dence andequality: "Can ratsever get free-
dom because of cats? [Can] sheep and fowl
ever get freedom because of foxes? [Can]
Indiais' wealthever increase becauseof the
white men? [Can] non-brahminsever get
equality because of brahmins?..." [Periyar
1984: 83-84]. He repeatedthe same line of
argument to different subordinate social
gr-oups such as the sudras, the dalits, work-
ers, and villagers, whom he continually
addressedthroughouthis life as a political
propagandist. Thus, his discourse on the
nation proliferated with innumerable op-
pressors and oppressed, each changing into
the other contextually and relationally: a
sudramale was the oppressed in relation to
the brahmin,but simultaneously he was an
oppressorin relationto women. The follow-
ing quotefromAnnapurna,one of thewomen
activists of the movement led by him, may
capturethis well: "Generallyourcountryis
colonised by the British; the north Indians
have colonised our economy; the brahmins
have lhegemonisedour society; but the most
importantof all these, men have colonised
andoppressedwomen."31If Annapumaprivi-
leged women's oppression over the rest in
her political agenda, it is because of her
genderlocation;and in otlherrelationalcon-
texts,otheroppressionsmightlave gotprivi-
leged. In short, the struggle for the nation
throughhistory was multiple, witl porous
boundaries,shifting idenititiesand numer-
ous agents of clhange. Its resolution lay
beyond the simple binary of national vs
colonial.
As we hlaveseenabove,in E V Ramasamy's
discourse onithienationi,self-respect or the
recovery of sel f- wor-t h was the only means
to arrive at the nation. What was the mo-
dality fr the subordinate social groups to
recover their self-worth? He thloughtthat
2285
it was reason/rationality/scienicealone that 261. He argued: "If Tamil hlasto progress I aml} notattachedto it for [the reason]that
could restore their self-wvorthandtin turn andjoin the ranks of the world languages, it is a selparatelanguage,ancientlanguage,
their political agency: "MaIn olday does Tamil andreligion shiouldbe separated.'" language spoken by Shiva [or] language
not lave self-confidence. Ile doesn't tlhink He often expressed in public that Eniglishi createdby Agastiyar.I do not have attach-
that [it is] he [who] conducts himself. [He] was better tlhaniTamil. H4ceven neeced a ment for anything in itself. That will be
doesn't believe that he is responsible for different Tamil for his Tamil Nadu! foolish attachmnent,foolish adulation. I
what he does. Hiehas made a contusion of may have attachmenrt [for somrething]for
Equally important is his view that the its qualitiesand the benefits suchqualities
god, god's commands, god's philosophy, teleology of rationality was interminable, will result in. I don't praise something
all of wlhich were invented by man him- continuously invalidatingthe past, ainddis- because it is my language, my zation, my
self." Explicating further,he noted: "God closing newer avenues of frcedom all religion...
and fate are the direct ciemics of reason. thlougl. He toldhis followers thatthemarch If I think my nlatiotn is unihelpful for my
Because, the person wlho is enslaved by of rationality would invalidate his own ideal and cannot [also] be made helpful, I
god and fate has nothing for himself. I-leis leg;acy: wxillabandon[it] inmmediately. Likewise,
a [mere] piece of wood, floating on wa- Whatis knownasrationality it I thinkmy language will not benefit my
willkeel)chang,- ideals or [will not help] my people to
ter.}3 ing. What we think today as fit for reason,
may be rejected tomorrow as superstition.
progress[and] live in honour,I will aban-
REASON/R,AxOnNALrTY/SCIENCE We ourselves will reject several things- don it... [Chidaamparanar 1983:214] (en-
even the sayings of those who are praised as phasis mine).
He applied his positivist rationality to great men. Similarly, the future generation In short, E V Ramasamy's nation, freed
religious mythologies, read them literally m,ayat a timie say about me, "There was a fromthe past, located in thieanticipatoryand
to show how they were impossible tales of [man] of irrational thinking called framed by notions of 'modernity from be-
fantasy and craft meanit to degrade the Ramiasaniy". Thatis natural;a sign of change; lowJ was a metaplhor, a metaplhor which
sudras, the dalits, women anidso on. In a sign of the times [Aanaimuthui 1974: II,
stood for ever-fluid, free and equal citizen-
1924 he described the idol at thleVaikkom th 20].
ship. Its success can never be assessed in
temple as "a mere stone fit only to wash Thus the course of rationality, for E V terms of its airival, but perhaps only in
dirty linen with", and such criticism coIn- Ramasamy,is suclhthat it does not offer a terms of its continuing ability to inspire
tinued all tlhrouglhhis career: 'IHad it not fixed goal, a fixed utopia-tthe search for diverse subordinate social groups in the
been for the rationalist urge of the modern freedom can only be an ever-continuing present-day Tamil Nadu to question the
days, the milestones on th-ehiighways would endless search. Indian nation-state for its failings, and to
have becn conver'tedinto gods. It does not imagine nationsof equity andfreedomlying
take much time for a HinduLto stand a IV in future
mortar stone in the lhouse and convert it
into a great god by smearing red andc History and Rationality
Notes
yellow powders on it..." [Aatnaimutlhu Let us now tuin to thieimplication of
1974: I, xxix] (Englislh tranislationiin the E V Ramasamy's concepts of hiistoryancd [An earlier version of this paper was presented
original). For him self-espect and ratio- rationality'for the career of the nation, for at a workshop on 'Nationalising the Past', held
nality could only go together: "I have... these were the concepts wlhichframed the in Goa on May 21-23, 1993. The workshop was
broken the idols ot Pillayar or Viniayakar nation'scourse.The initerminableteleology sponsored by the Social Science Research
and burntpictures of Rama. If in spite of of rationalitywhich constantly invalidated Council, New York. The paper draWs liber-
thiesewqrds and acts of mine, tlhousandsof cultural certitudes and progress through ally from the ongoing joint work on the
people tlhrong to my meetinigs, it only struggle as a process with volatile bound- history of the Dravidian Movement by A R
indicates thatself-respect andwisdom have aries, identities and agents, rendered hiis Venkatachalapathy, Anandhi S and myself. I
dawned on the people" [Ibid: xxviii]. nation a nation witlhouta 'moment of ar- am grateful to Padmini Swaminathan and J
E V Ramasamy's rational critique, in rival'. It was ever-fluid,remorselessly strug- Jeyaranjan for their extremely useful com-
thie very name of the nation, repeatedly gling for citizenshfip,informed by ever- ments on an earlier version.]
violated the cultural certitudes of the na- chanigingcontoursof rationlalism,anidcoII- I For details of E V Ramasamy's role in the
tion. The best example heIe would be hiis tinuously violating boundaries-both in thle Indian National Congress, see Irschick
attitude towards language. In hiis opinion. sense of territoryand othelwise. I-lecould (1969:268-74); Arooran (1980:152-59);
for a language to be acceptable to the thus, while talking about Dravida Nadu. and Visswanathan (1983: 38-65).
nation, it should be accessible to rational ;accommo(latethe whoeleof the sudrasof thec 2 KuidiArasui,May 2, 1925; see alsoP?ratchi,
thought, and slhould enunciate equality nortlhInclia in his niation: "... [Iecople] who December 24, 1933.
and freedom. His attack on Ilintdi was suffer from this [Aryan] degradation airCnot 3 On how Gandhi tried to solve the question
premised on the argument that it would only thlosewho speak Tamil... [They are] of varna on a moral plane-by idealising
lhelp people onily to read suclh irrationial also there in other states, i e, states like Iiierarchies as differences-rather than
texts as T'ulsiRamayana and pur-anas,and Bengal, Bihar,Bombay,Malaraslhtrawhere on a political plane, see Parekh (1989:
contained nothing rational, "Hindi can thley speak different languages. Thle de- 207-46).
help only in reachillg the lheaven; but graded comrades there are calling tlhem- 4 Viduthalai, January 19, 1948, in
lheaven itself will disappear soonI.'33 On selves Dravidians; In fact, they are Aanaimuthu (1974:11, 673).
the same count, he thought Tamil was Dravidians."35 A^nd,similarly, hle could 5 KudiArasu, June 1, 1930, in Aanaimuthu
better; yet it was greatly lacking. lIe deniounceTamil, while opposing the im- (1974: 11, 649).
criticised it for, among other tlhitlgs.being position of Ilindi in schlools: in 1939, 6 An obituary of E V Ramasamy published in
derogatory to women, nlot having worids whecnI-lindliwalsa buntlingtissue in Tamil the Ecoizonoicand Political Weekly(Janu-
for the male counterpart of adultress anid Nadu, hle said in the cour se of a public ary 12, 1974) summed up his engagement
widow. Anid he inve'ntecdthe neolopism add ress: with women's issues thus: "He champi-
'vidavan' for widower ancd'vibacharan' oned the cause of widow remarriage, of
1 d(1 not have any attachmenn tOthe Tamil marriagebased on consent, and of women's
for those menlwho went to prostitutes. andl
languag,efor [the rea.son] that it is mly right to divorce and abortion. Pointing out
Lsoughttheir popular use [ASnandhli1.991: mlothertongueor thetongueof the Jlatio,,. that there was no Tamil word for the coun-

2286 Economic and Political Weekly October 16, 1993

This content downloaded from 206.246.22.65 on Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:05:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 terpart of an adulteress, he fumed, ...the
word adultress implies man's conception
of woman as a slave, a commodity to be
sold and hired'. Petiyar's demand at a
conference two years ago that no odium
should be attached to a woman who de-
sired a man other than her husband (which
the press so avidly vulgarised), as well as
Periyar's advocacy of the abolition of
marriage as the only way of freeing woman
from enslavement, were about as radical
as the views of any women liberationist."
For a detailed account of E V Ramasamy's
position on women's issues, see Anandhi
(1991)
7 Viduthalai, October 11, 1948.
8 Speech in Kollampalayam on September
19, 1937, in Aanaimuthu (1974: II, 682).
9 Kutdi Arasti, November 25, 1944, in
AAinaimuthu(1974: 11, 703).
10 KudiArast,May 17,1931, inAanaimuthu
(1974: 11, 777).
11 KudiArasu, May 17,.1931, in Aanaimutlhu
(1974: II, 777).
12 Viduithalai, August 15, 1957, in Aanai-
muthu (1974: 11, 691):
13 Vidutdtalai, October 16, 1966, in Aanai-
muthu (1974: 11, 846).
14 KudiArasu, May 17, 1931, in Aanaimuthu
(1974: 11, 777).
15 KuidiArasit, March 23, 1930, in Aanai-
muthu (1974: I, 173).
16 For a critique of Lakshrni (1990), see
Pandian et al (1991).
17 For instance, see KudiArast, March 19,
1933, in Aanaimuthu (1974:1, 376).
18 Visswanathan (1983:75) charact-erises E
V Ramasamy's reading ot the Indian past
as based on 'race theory', But E V
Ramasamy used the words 'Aryan' and
'Dravidian' as denoting differing cul-
tural complexes, the relationslhip between
.them being mediated by power and pow-
erlessness. In the words of Ramasamy
himself, "The Dravidians have a distinct
origin in society, their languages are in-
dependentand belong to separate classes.
The terms 'Aryan' and 'Dravidian' are
not my inventions. They are historical
realities. They can be found in any school
boy's textbook. That the Ramnayana is an
allegoric representation of the invading
Aryans and the domiciled Dravidians has
been accepted by all historians including
Pandit Nehru and all reformers including
Swami Vivekananda. My desire is not to
perpetuate this difference, but to unite the
two opposing elements in society. I am
not a believer in the race theory pro-
pounded by the late Nazi leader of Ger-
many. None can divide the south Indian
people into two races by 'means of any
blood test. It is not only suicidal but most
reactionary. But the fundamental differ-
encebetween twodifferentcultures, Aryan
and Dravidian, cannot be refuted by any-
one who has closely studied the daily life,
habits and customs and literature of these
two distinct elements in south India" The
hIindu,January 26, 1950).
Economic and Political Weekly October 16, 1993
This content downloaded from 206.246.22.65 on Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:05:29 PM
The tendency to attribute 'race theory' to
E V Ramasamy lies at feast partly in
translating the Tamil word 'inam' into
English as race. 'Inam' is a dexterous
Tamil word which can signify different
forms of community.
19 Speech in 1954, in Aanaimuthu (1974: I,
312).
20 KutdiArasu, August 15, 1926, in Aanai-
muthu (1974: I, 11).
21 Viduthalai, January 20, 1948, in Aanai-
muthu (1974:11, 786).
22 For instance, see Aanaimuthu(1974:1, 23,
215).
23 Kudi Arasu, January 10, 1943, in Aanai-
muthu (1974:11, 12-51-52).
24 KtidiArasiu, November 27, 1938.
25 Kudi Arasu, January 26, 1936, in Aanai-
niuthu (1974: II, 977).
26 Viduthalai,August 15,1957, in Aanaimuthi
(1974: 11, 692).
27 Viduthalai, March 16,1967. in Aanaimuthu
(1974:11, 984).
28 As the paper proceeds, we shall see that E
V Ramasamy's engagement with moder-
nity was rather opposed to the main-
stream nationalists' engagement with the
same. While the mainstream nationalists,
through a discourse of modernity, turned
the state into the sole spokesperson for
the nation [Chatterjee 1986: Chapter 5],
Ramasamy's modernity perennially re-
mained contestatory. One may differenti-
ate his version of modernity as 'moder-
nity from below' as opposed to 'moder-
nity from above'. Such distinction seems
imnportantas scholars ranging from Ashis
Nandy to Dipesh Chakrabarty to
Ramachandra Guha, in the Indian con-
text, represent modernity only as an elite
agenda, and arrive at conclusions like
'caste is eco-friendly' [Gadgil and Guha
1992]. In fact, the need for such distinc-
tions about modernity is repeatedly
emphasised in the feminist criticism of
the current wave of post-modernism [for
instance, see Lovibond 1989; and Jaggar
1990].
29 Vidtithalai, January 27, 1950, in Aanai-
muthu (1974: 11, 683). See also, Periyar
(1984: 73).
3(0 Vidithalai, December23, 1954, in Aanai-
muthu (1974:1, 337).
31 KutdiArasut, November 29, 1947.
32 KuidiArasi, May 25, 1935, in Aanaimuthu
(1974: 11, 1117).
33 Speech on September 19, 1937, in Aanai-
imuthu(1974: II, 655).
34 KildiArasu, January 26, 1936, in Aanai-
niuthiu(1974: 11, 976).
35 Viduthalai, January 27, 1950, in Aanai-
iutlhu (1974: 11, 683).
References
Aanalimuthu. V (1974): P)erivar Ee Ve Ra
Sinilanlaikal, Vols I and 11, liruchirapalli.
Anandlhi. S (1991): 'Wonien's Question in
the Dravidian Movemtiii, 1925-48, So-
ciml ,Sc(ie,i.s. Ma<y!-Julne.
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Anderson, Benedict (1983): Imaginted Coini-
muniJilities:iejlections oni the Origin and
Spread of Nationalism, London.
Arooran, Nambi (1980): TamnilRenaissanice
aitd Dravidian Nationzalistmt, 1905-44,
Madurai.
Chatterjee, Partla (1986): Nationalist T7hought
anid the Colonial World-A Derivative
Discou(rse, London.
Chidamparanar, Sami (1983): Tamilar
Talaivar: Periyar Ee Ve Ra Vazhkai
Varalaruii,Madras (first published in 1939).
Fanon, Frantz (1985): ThzeWretched of the
Earth, Middlessex.
Gadgil, Madhav, and Ramachandra Guha
(1992): This Fissuired Land: An-Ecologi-
cal IIistory of In1dia,Delhi.
Irschick, Eugene F (1969): Politics and So-
cial Con.flict in South India: The Non-
Brrahmni'iAMoveciietntantd TamitilSeparat-
ismt, 1916-1926, Berkeley and Los Ange-
les.
Jaggar, Alison M (1 990): 'Sexual Difference
an(1Sexual Equality' in Deborah L Rhode
(ed), Thteoretical Perspectives otnSexual
DifJerenice, New Haven ancdl ondon.
Lakshmi. C S (1990): 'Mother, Mother Com-
munity, Mother-Politics in TIaMil Nadu',
Ecolnolic an,d Political Weekly,October
20-27.
Lovibond, Sabina (1989): 'Feminisnm and
Postmodernism', New Left Review, No-
vemrer-December.
Pandian. M S S, S Anandhi and A R
Venkatachalapathy (1991): 'Of Mloltova
MoQters and Other Stories', Econiomic
and Political VVeekly,April 20.
Parekh, Bhikhu (1 989): Colonialisml, Tradi-
tion and Reform: A Anialysis of Ganidhi's
Political Discourse, New Delhi.
Parthasarathy,R (1979): S Satyanuurthi,Delhi.
Periyar, E V Ramasamy (1 984): Penn12 Yean
Adimaiyaanaal, Madras.
- (1978): Thatthai I'eiyva- Arivu(rai-100,
Madras.
- (1 986): Suivaiariathaali irunmanainYeatn,
Madras.
Sundararajan, Saroja (1983): .S'Satllyanurthy:
A P[olitical Biograpl,hy, New Delhi.
- (I 989): Mar-chl to Freedomii in Madr-as
P'residencY, 1916-1947. Madras.
Visswanathan, E Sa (I 983): P'olitical Carecer
of
VE V Ramizasamly Naickcr, Madras.
Economic and Political Iy
Available from
Sainath Book Centte
G-1l, Mahendra Chatben
V T Masazine Market
Dr D N Road
Bombay - 400 001
Churchgate Book Stall
Churchgate Station
Opp Indian Merchant Chambers
Churchgate, Bombay 400 020
2287