Did Periyar call for a genocide of Brahmins?

In hierarchical societies, reformers challenge the status quo with provocative and uncivil speech. Accusing them of hate speech is ill-intentioned.

A mural of Ambedkar and Periyar, both renowned for their fight against caste discrimination and for true justice in India. | Photo Credit: Marji Lang

The Music Academy’s award of the Sangita Kalanidhi to the vocalist T.M. Krishna has opened up rifts within the Carnatic music community, which have escalated into a war of positions on social media, with prominent artists, writers, celebrities, and political figures stating their sides, along with their reasons for doing the same.

Critics of Krishna, irked as they are with his experimentation with Carnatic music and criticism of the community, were particularly aghast by a recent song he sang in praise of Periyar E.V. Ramasamy. Those shocked included many BJP supporters and leaders. Among other accusations, they said that it was not right for Krishna, a Brahmin himself, to endorse Periyar, who had allegedly called for “a genocide of Brahmins”. The irony of those identifying with the Hindu Right speaking up for the rights of a minority whom they perceive as being persecuted and rallying against speech they deem hateful was not lost on observers.

Supporters of Krishna endorsed his reformist views and welcomed his position on Periyar. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, Member of Parliament Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, and Dravidar Kazhagam leader K. Veeramani are among those who have stood by Krishna. In his statement, Veeramani referred to a quote from Periyar where the rationalist leader said that the goal of his movement was not to remove Brahmins from the country but was aimed at an equal status for all.

WATCH:

Critics of T.M. Krishna were against the musician, who is Brahmin, singing songs in praise of Periyar E.V. Ramasamy who allegedly called for “a genocide of Brahmins”.  | Video Credit: Presented by Saatvika Radhakrishna; Camera by Samson Ronald K.; Video edited by Samson Ronald K.

This is unlikely to find any sympathetic ears among those from the Hindu Right. Indeed, while they usually revile Jawaharlal Nehru vehemently, some of them have discovered, and are widely sharing, a 1957 letter sent by Nehru to Kamaraj that strongly denounces Periyar’s anti-Brahmin campaigning and his alleged incitement to violence against the Tamil Brahmin community.

However, Periyar’s supporters cannot make a counterclaim that Periyar did not make such controversial remarks, because he did. In a few editorials in Viduthalai in December 1957, Periyar himself said that he made these statements. His rationale was that it was meant to raise indignation among the backward and oppressed castes of their lowered position in society. He further said that there was no violent action that followed his words.

Periyar with Rajaji (C. Rajagopalachari), the then Chief Minister of Madras, at a meeting held in Madras on December 12, 1953. Periyar said his radical statements against Brahmins were meant to raise indignation among the backward and oppressed castes about their lowered position in society. | Photo Credit: THE HINDU ARCHIVES

Periyar’s supporters highlight his deep personal friendship with people from the Brahmin community, such as Rajaji, and statements where he says that he is opposed to Brahminism and not Brahmins as such and his emphasis on non-violent forms of protest to show that Periyar never stood for violence against Brahmins.

In their counter, Periyar’s critics point to other statements of Periyar where he launches acerbic attacks against Brahmins in a language that can be considered vulgar and possibly aggressive. How do we place such statements?

Maraimalai Adigal (1876–1950), Saivite thinker, Tamil orator, and founder of the Tanittamil Iyakkam (Independent Tamil Movement). | Photo Credit: WikiCommons

C. Iyothee Thass (1845–1914), Dalit-Buddhist thinker. | Photo Credit: By Special Arrangement

We must note that criticisms of Brahmins featured in modern Tamil politics even before Periyar’s arrival. The Saivite thinker Maraimalai Adigal and the Dalit-Buddhist thinker C. Iyothee Thass both strongly opposed Brahmin claims to ritual-social superiority. Thass went to the extent of denouncing Brahmins as fakes. In the late 19th and early 20th century, Brahmin privilege was challenged by religious and secular thinkers, writers, and political leaders.

Periyar, who started the Self-Respect Movement in 1925, escalated these criticisms by making them a part of a mass movement. Ambedkar said: “The Brahmin is a semi-god and very nearly a demi-god.” Periyar was an atheist who profaned gods without restraint; thus his political atheism had to profane the demi-gods too.

In her condolence message on Periyar’s death, Indira Gandhi called him a “colourful personality who revelled in controversy” and said that he “challenged many accepted notions” (The Times of India, December 25, 1973). One of these notions was civility.

Offensive speech versus hate speech

Civility is one of those terms that has universal value, but no universally accepted definition. Broadly, we can understand civility as inoffensive behaviour. A civil discourse follows generally accepted rules of public language and tries to appeal to common civic virtues, reason, or humanity. Civility is the preferred behaviour in liberal societies. Hate speech and offensive speech are ruptures in civility. But, importantly, both are not the same.

In an important chapter on hate speech in his book Offend, Shock, or Disturb (2018), Gautam Bhatia writes: “Hate speech legislation is constituted upon the understanding that words can have consequences, that words cannot be separated from broader practices of subordination and inequality in divided societies, and that words can actually impede equal enjoyment of rights, and equal access to social and physical infrastructure” (page 164, emphasis added).

For example, statements like “white people are racists” and “Black people have criminal tendencies” both rely on generalisations. Both could be legitimately considered offensive. But in racially hierarchical societies where whites enjoy disproportionate social, political, and economic privileges, the first statement is extremely unlikely to cause actual grievous collective harm, while the latter can actually affect the progress of Black people. The latter can be said to constitute hate speech. The other thing is that movements for social justice that challenge subordination and inequality do not always conform to civil language: offensive speech is often resistance speech.

Malcom X addresses a rally on May 14, 1963, in Harlem. While the language he used was offensive and inflammatory, it posed little or no threat to white lives or property. | Photo Credit: Bettmann Archive

To take a more radical example, Malcolm X referred to whites as devils and crackers. There are occasions where he called on African Americans to resort to violent means of protest. He lampooned the media who portrayed him negatively: “The press calls us racist and people who are ‘violent in reverse’. ... They make you think that if you try to stop the Klan from lynching you, you’re practising violence in reverse” (Malcolm X Speaks, page 165). The language he used was offensive, provocative, and inflammatory. But while it contributed to Black militant assertion, it posed little or no threat to white lives or property.

Dalit Panther leader Namdeo Dhasal’s poetry subverted conventions of Marathi literature and was brutally explicit in its denunciation of caste. In his “Man, You Should Explode”, the poet writes: “One should blow with cannonballs all priests/ And inscribe epigraphs with cloth soaked in their blood” (Velivada, January 15, 2016). Thol. Thirumavalavan, leader of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, was known for his Dalit militancy and his popular use of slogans like “Adanga maru! Atthu meeru! Thiruppi adi!” (Refuse to submit! Transgress! Hit back!) to challenge police repression of Dalit protests in the early 1990s. These are not instigations to violence or hate speech. They are meant to offend the sensibilities of a civil society otherwise blind to such injustices.

Civility has its advantages because often it is the right wing that makes optimal use of the collapse of civility. We can and must insist on civility, but this should not blind one to the difference between uncivil speech from dominant forces and those representing subaltern interests. The former instigates and sustains violence in society; the latter, as provocative as it may be, is a comment on inequalities in society. The use of offensive speech in social justice movements could be hurtful, but it compels a rethinking of society; hate speech, entrenched in dominance, stifles thought, including civil dialogues. Unlike Periyar, Gauri Lankesh and Govind Pansare were quite civil in their criticisms of orthodoxy and casteism. That did not spare them from their assassins’ bullets.

The accusations of propagating genocide laid on Periyar are ludicrous, and to even respond to these is an insult to the tens of thousands who have been and are being killed for belonging to the wrong social group in oppressive states and conflict zones across the world. In the rare unfortunate incidents where Brahmins were physically attacked by those claiming to be Periyarists, the worst that happened was that the sacred threads of a handful of individuals were cut off. The law also reacted promptly against the miscreants.

It is also noteworthy that subaltern caste groups who have actually faced fatal physical violence in Tamil Nadu have not made such accusations. The Devendra Kula Vellalars, who were the victims of the 1968 Kilvenmani massacre, and the Vanniyars, whose agitation for compartmentalised reservation in 1987 was repressed brutally by MGR’s police force leading to 21 deaths, have made legitimate criticisms of Dravidian politics. Neither group, to the best of my knowledge, has accused the Dravidian politics of genocide.

Highlights

• Music Academy’s award of “Sangita Kalanidhi” to vocalist T.M. Krishna has opened up rifts within Carnatic music community. Critics have taken exception to his endorsement of Periyar E.V. Ramasamy, who allegedly called for “a genocide of Brahmins”.
• Periyar might be accused of uncivil and offensive speech against Brahmins, but he himself has said that it was meant to raise indignation among the backward and oppressed castes of their lowered position in society. Also, his words caused no violence.
• The challenge of Periyar’s thoughts to any form of casteism, the fact that progressive Brahmins are aligning with Dravidian politics, are healthy indicators, and such camaraderie should be actively welcomed.

Periyar might be accused of uncivil and offensive speech against Brahmins. To call it hate speech, especially one that had actual severe negative consequences, is a far-fetched and ill-intentioned argument. A consequence of the Dravidian Movement was that Brahmins no longer could enjoy the hegemony they once had in public institutions, which became more diversified.

However, as C.J. Fuller and Haripriya Narasimhan note in their remarkable book Tamil Brahmans (2014), Brahmins continue to have better socio-economic mobility than other groups and, the authors claim, maintain a sense of superiority to others. The challenge of Periyar’s thoughts to any form of casteism, and the fact that progressive Brahmins are aligning with Dravidian politics, is a significant source of distress to those harbouring a sense of supremacy.

In comparison to the impassioned speeches of Malcolm X or the explosive poetry of Namdeo Dhasal, Periyar appears moderate. But where African-American intellectuals and Maharashtra’s Dalits zealously defend the legacy of these leaders, the Dravidian intelligentsia has usually been slow to respond to the hostile criticism of Periyar. The past few years, however, show some winds of change. Likewise, the positive engagement of Periyarists with progressives from the Brahmin community are healthy indicators, and such camaraderie should be actively welcomed. This also has a history that is worth considering.

One of the finest books in Tamil on Periyar’s thoughts is Pagutharivin Sigaram: Periyar E Ve Ra (The Pinnacle of Rationalism: Periyar E.V.R, 1974), where the author argues that Periyar is not just an atheist but an important rationalist and materialist in the Indian tradition. In his foreword, the author is sharply dismissive of those who accuse Periyar of hatred towards Brahmins and calls it out as slander, and argues that it was Periyar’s atheist convictions that led him to oppose Brahminism. The author of this book was A.S. Krishnamachari Iyengar. ASK, as he was known to his comrades, was involved in the communist movement. He was drawn to Periyar’s thoughts in 1937, and, years later, removed the caste title “Iyengar” from his name in keeping with the ideals of the Self-Respect Movement. 

Karthick Ram Manoharan is Assistant Professor of Social Sciences at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. He is the author of Periyar: A Study in Political Atheism (Orient BlackSwan, 2022).