… The time has now come to devote yourselves more and more to the constructive programme. I ask you to spend your vacations in attending to constructive work, like the spread of literacy, social uplift, economic betterment and greater political consciousness and discipline among our people. We want to establish Muslim States in the North-West and the North-East of India, so that the peaceful and neighbourly relations may be maintained between Hindus and Muslims. This is the only way to restore lasting peace and happiness to the country. I have learnt from reliable sources that in responsible circles in England and even in Congress circles this scheme is being seriously considered. Let us, therefore, march on to our goal. The time comes, and when you are ready, I will tell you what to do. (Prolonged cheers.)
* * *
Chapter Eleven
The Radical Reformer
E.V. Ramaswami
In the Tamil country, as in Maharashtra, it was Brahmins who took early advantage of British rule, learning English in order to serve the new rulers as teachers, lawyers, doctors, clerks and civil servants. When the Congress sought members in south India, once more it was Brahmins who came to the fore. Some joined the new organization out of a spirit of patriotism and national service; others, in the hope that it would help deliver jobs at higher levels of the administration.
Before colonialism, the Brahmin already enjoyed an exalted social status. Whether by accident or design, the policies of the Raj made them dominant in an economic and political sense as well. It was the danger of Brahmin hegemony in all spheres of life that lay behind the activism of Jotirao Phule and B.R. Ambedkar. Their analogue in south India was an equally remarkable thinker-organizer named E.V. Ramaswami.
Ramaswami was born in the town of Erode in 1879. He was a Kannada-speaking Naiker, from a caste that lay in the upper stratum of Sudras. His father was a moderately successful businessman.
We know little about Ramaswami’s early life. It is said that he travelled to Banaras as a young man, where he was less than impressed with the city and its religiosity. In particular, he was appalled by the dirt in the streets and by the sight of half-burnt bodies in the river Ganges. On his return home, he joined the family business and also briefly served as chairman of the Erode municipality. In about 1920 Ramaswami became active in the Congress Party. He energetically adopted the Gandhian credo, promoting homespun cloth, temple entry for the Untouchables and the like. In 1925 he left the Congress because he found that its leadership was overwhelmingly Brahmin and, with only the rare exception, was insensitive to the claims of the lower castes. A catalytic incident related to a Congress-run hostel whose management insisted, despite Ramaswami’s protests, on serving food separately to Brahmin and non-Brahmin students.
Ramaswami now turned to promoting what he called ‘Self Respect’. He believed that ancient history and current politics had consolidated the domination of south India by north India and of non-Brahmins by Brahmins. Oppressed castes and regions needed thus to regain, or reassert, their self-respect and create conditions where they could be in control of their own affairs. A brilliant orator in Tamil, he also ran a series of widely read political magazines where he promoted his ideas.
(Apart from what he saw around him in the India of the 1920s, Ramaswami seems also to have been influenced by the then very popular American rationalist thinker and propagandist, Robert G. Ingersoll. A visit to the Soviet Union in 1931 reinforced his belief in materialism.)
From the 1930s, Ramaswami was increasingly known as ‘Periyar’, or the great one. In his speeches and essays, he took radical stands in favour of atheism, women’s rights and contraception. He ran a militant (and eventually successful) campaign against the imposition of Hindi in south India. He wrote critically of the Ramayana and other Hindu epics and texts which, in his view, promoted the message of Brahmin superiority and endorsed distinctions of caste and gender. Brahmin priests were a particular target of his polemics—they were, he claimed, corrupt and cunning, as well as sexual predators.
In 1944 Ramaswami formed his own party, the Dravida Kazhagam, which asked for the establishment of a separate, sovereign nation-state in south India to be called Dravida Nadu. When India became independent on 15 August 1947, and when it enacted a democratic constitution and celebrated its first Republic Day on 26 January 1950, Ramaswami observed both events as days of mourning. In his view, they merely formalized the rule of the northern Aryans over the southern Dravidians.
In 1949 a group of Ramaswami’s followers broke away to form the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). In 1967 the DMK became the first professedly regional party to come to power in a major provincial election in India. The Congress, once dominant in Tamil Nadu, has never since regained power in that state. Without the ideological and organizational groundwork laid down by Ramaswami, it is hard to see how this could have happened. To be sure, he may have himself seen this as somewhat less than ideal—for he wanted a separate country for the Tamils, not merely greater autonomy within the existing nation-state of India.
Ramaswami’s message is nicely captured in a statue of his in Tiruchirapalli which carries this inscription: ‘God does not exist at all. The inventor of God is a fool. The propagator of God is a scoundrel. The worshipper of God is a barbarian’.
E.V. Ramaswami died in December 1973.
The Fraud of Religion
We present excerpts from two speeches of Ramaswami, satirizing the pretensions of orthodox Hindus and Hinduism. The first is from a talk at Courtallam, Tirunelveli district, in August 1927.1
The skulduggery that the priestly class or Brahmins indulge in in the name of religion to weaken our unity and expropriate our hard-earned wealth, and ruin our society and country and make us into people without self-respect and living corpses, is nothing less than the damage done to us in the name of politics by politicians and so-called nationalists as I have repeatedly stated.
Without realizing this we ourselves are aiding these treacherous acts to continue forever, and creating the foundation for making us and our posterity their permanent slaves. As I go about explaining this you might feel greatly agitated. But if you give me a patient hearing and apply reason without prejudice the truth of this, whether I am right or wrong, will surely become clear to you.
Further, like the vedas, puranas and shastras, I am not saying, ‘Believe whatever I say! My word is the word of god! If you do not believe me you’ll perish in hell! Or you’ll become atheists!’ Rather, I say, ‘Brush aside what I say if it does not conform to your reason, knowledge, learning and experience. If it does fit in with these please put them into practice at least to some extent. Redeem your brethren by explaining these to them.’ Please realize that I have nothing selfish to gain from this.
I am no agent of any religion. Nor am I a slave to any religion. I am bound only by the concepts of love and knowledge. I therefore speak to you whatever strikes me as my duty, my desire, my happiness. Otherwise I leave things to your duty, to your free will, to your reason.
What is the purpose of the existence of religion for a country or a society or an individual? Is it meant for disciplining and uniting a society or country or to divide it? Is it bound by the conscience of an individual or is it meant to bind the individual’s conscience? Is religion for the sake of man or is it man for the sake of religion? Please ponder over this.
Please think over the nature of religion in this manner. Firstly, how many of those here know anything about what is our, the Hindu, religion? How many of the so-called Hindus understand its philosophy? How many even accept that there is such a religion as Hinduism?
Firstly, to which language does the word ‘Hindu’ belong? Can anybody say that ‘Hindu’ occurs in any of the world’s languages? If we look into when this word came into our country—does this term occur in the literature and grammar of our Tamil, or for that matter, in the old Tamil writings of the Sangam, or in the Aryan language or in the vedas, shastras, agamas, sruti, smriti, purana, history, story or any such repository of Ary
an civilization or tradition? Or is this term to be encountered in the songs or stories of the venerated Alwars and Nayanmars?2 Or can we find that at least the Sitthars or sages or rishis have either uttered or employed this term?
When we look at what we mean by matham, religion, scholars say that ‘religion is a doctrine’. Even if we accept that what then is Hindu matham?
If we concede there is a Hindu doctrine, what does ‘Hindu’ mean? All religions, apart from the Hindu religion, prefix the name of an individual to themselves, such as the ‘Christian religion’, ‘Mohammedan religion’, ‘Buddhist religion’, ‘Ramanuja religion’, ‘Sankaracharya religion’, etc. In this manner which fellow does ‘Hindu’ refer to? Whose doctrine is it? Please ponder whether we have not adopted as the name of our religion a term which has no meaning but only a phonic sound.
Secondly, who is the author of the Hindu religion? How old is it? What is its doctrine? What is the authority for all these? Ponder over all these issues.
Some say that ‘the Hindu religion is the religion of the vedas. The vedas were spoken by God.’ Look at the vulgarity of this proposition. If the vedas were spoken by god then they’d have to be common for all; how is it that the vedas are accepted by some and rejected by some, revealed to some and not revealed to others, and circumscribed by some boundary? If it has been spoken by god, why has it been revealed only in one language? If it was a veda meant for us would it not have been spoken in our language [i.e., Tamil]. What do we have to do with the vedic language [i.e., Sanskrit]? Further if it had been meant for us how is it that it is not for us to hear, see, read or understand? … Like ‘being a wife to everybody’ why is it being amenable to every wishful exegesis, and with a faction to back every such exegesis? If we think of all such questions we have to ask ‘Is there such a thing as a veda? If yes, is it true? If true, can it bind us?’ Please think.
How many gods in this world! … How many gods! How many symbols representing these gods! How many temples for these gods! How much food offerings for each god! How many marriages! How many children! How many such horrors! Look at all these! How many differences among the devotees! How many castes! How much of hierarchical ranking! Is it just that one section of these, who can be counted on the fingers, should be considered superior and high and entitled?
If our religion accepts the theory that god is common to all and is omnipresent, how is it that such cruelties as we should not go near the deity, enter the temples, while some others can touch the deity, wash it, clothe it, can be instituted?
Now please think what is the use of our having accepted such a religion, accepted its gods, built temples for them, endowed our properties, and worshipping them daily …
The next excerpt is from a talk at Pachaiyappa’s Hall, Madras, in October 1927.3
… Our religious policies and practices are the reason for our country not attaining freedom and wallowing in a state without self-respect. Some of those listening to me may be offended by what I say. This is so because selfish persons have inculcated the superstition of religious belief in people to such an extent … It is so ingrained that it is not easy to convince people … However, if I do not speak out I will be either a selfish person or a coward. If you analyse this in a detached manner employing reason, there’d be no need to find fault with what I say. When one talks of religion it becomes imperative as well to talk about the failure of politics as a result. Many here know that I worked extensively in the field of politics. After this experience, realizing that this was not the path to freedom, I left the Congress and not because I was either expelled or out of minor difference of opinion. I did not come from a modest background. I quit at a time when I was in a position of responsibility and power. I quit as I believed that nothing good will come out for the country from this political movement. It was at the Kanchipuram conference [of November 1925] that this feeling got strengthened. I was for many years the President and Secretary of the Tamilnadu Congress Committee. It was then [that I realized] my service was wasted and that I was only serving our enemies in the task of ruining our country and society, and I quit politics.
If you want to know my stand regarding religion, between 1904 and June 1927 … I was the secretary and chairman of the Erode Circle Devasthanam [temple board]. The Board of the Hindu Religious Endowments had always written in praise of me. The newly constituted Board, in creating a new Devasthanam committee for four taluks, has again nominated me a member … Many complaints were sent to them by Brahmins urging against my nomination. One of the first complaints stated that I am a criminal and that I have been jailed twice. That complaint was forwarded to me. I replied that the charges were all correct and the only error was that I had been jailed thrice and not twice.
Next, signatures were collected from many non-Brahmins and Brahmins that ‘This fellow abuses religion; he abuses only Brahmins. Engage a CID inspector to report on him’ and a petition was sent to the government. The government again asked for a reply. I stated, ‘I do not abuse any one class of people. I abuse everybody. I cannot but abuse any class of people whose ideas come in the way of my work. I am striving only to see that there are equal rights for all.’ I was re-nominated. As I keep travelling to Chennai and other places I have delegated my chairmanship to another responsible person and now remain its vice chairman. Some people who have heard me speak say that ‘I am an atheist, an abuser of religion’, ‘an enemy of swaraj’ and ‘a stooge of the government’. I am yet to see any sign that I am a favourite of the government. The government treats me in the same manner that it has always treated me. Even today I am being shadowed by policemen as before …
The issue on which I am to speak to you today is the reform of religion. I am not out to defraud you, like the Brahmins, by saying that you have to accept all that I say and if you don’t then sin will befall you. I set out to speak on the matter of religious reform only after stating, ‘Please give me a patient hearing and then do as you wish.’
… When did the need for religion originate? Why does one need religion? We need to ponder this. To my mind it seems that religion might have originated when humans began to live as groups and wanted to have some order for their day-to-day life and prevent one from harming others. And when this order began to be established the principles might have been devised in keeping with the knowledge, capabilities, situations, climate, etc. of the people of the times. With the passage of time this order must have grown in tune with the desires and greed and politics of individuals and finally taken the shape of what is called religion today. In our country when religion originated it had little to do with politics. In those days our people did not have a sense of politics. There was little need for it in any case. Why? Analyse the history of thousands of years ago. In those days, agriculture flourished. There was enough and more for the needs of everybody.
The one who had paddy gave it to the one who had cotton and got cotton or cloth in exchange. This was so for other needs as well. This is what is called barter. During their free time our people indulged in contemplation and created some laws and religious stipulations. However the Brahmins who came to our land later, fooled our carefree people, manipulated them to their benefit, enslaved everyone and became their creators and lords … If this state continues how will we ever progress? How can we escape a life of thraldom and live with self-respect? Therefore we should destroy all those who are hurdles to a life of self-respect of a nation or country. We should forsake obstinacy and act according to the state of the people and our reason, remove the obstacles in the path and become free by attaining self-respect.
Some call themselves ‘Hindus’. But if you ask them ‘What does it mean to be a Hindu?’, ninety out of a hundred would have no answer. Yet, their love for religion based on superstition is beyond description. Of Muslims, ninety out of a hundred are well aware of their religion. Unlike other religionists we do not have an understanding of our religion. If you ask our people such questions as ‘What is your religion? Who founded it? Whe
n did it originate?’ there is no one to answer them. But if you ask Muslims or Christians or Buddhists or others they are ready with an answer. The antiquity attributed to the Hindu religion by these people is not simple. If you buy all the paper available, put the number one and fill it with egg-shaped zeroes all over, yet the age attributed to it would be higher and not lower. Nobody is able to answer who is its head. Some say it was created by god. If we ask for evidence they cite the veda. If we ask them what it says, they reply, ‘You cannot see it; hear it; read it!’ Is it possible that god could have composed it? No. Because if it was god who created it everyone in this world should accept it. Anyone should be able to see it. So how can we believe in the veda? How can we follow it? People of other religions have translated their scriptures into various languages, printed them and have ensured that it is available even to people of other religions.
It was because Muslims and Christians made such efforts that they could spread their religion and their scriptures, and there are seven and a half crores of Muslims and a crore of Christians in our country. Can anybody say that these seven and a half crores came from countries such as Arabia or Turkey? … Every week four thousand of the so-called Hindus convert to other religions. The reason is that [Muslims and Christians] propagate their religion. To the people who have so converted they teach their religion and also give them education. Then they provide a vocation for leading a good life and this creates a feeling that their religion should rule the world. For this they spend very little money for the sake of religion. They do not spend even one per cent of what we spend for our religion. No other religion spends as much as we do. Within a short time of their coming Christians have rallied our people, given them education, and have made themselves our masters …