The State and administration have become subordinate to Brahmins out of selfishness. The brahmin has also subordinated himself to evil things. He simply concentrated, his being to be recognised as superior by birth. For the sake of it he protects god. Yet, he does not endeavour to rise up above others in any quality He is not worried at all to be superior in the display of virtues in life.
[The writer is the Principal and Head, Research Centre in History, Raju’s College, Rajapalayam, Tamil Nadu]
Bhagat Singh, the rebel mounted the gallows with smile on his face and ‘inquilab lindabad' on his lips on 23d March I931 at 7.00 p.m1 Bhagat Singh's fearlessness and sacrifice electrified the Indian political atmosphere at a time lethargy had set in Thecry of' ‘Long live Revolution' was popularized in this countiy by him. Bhagat Sing raised the slogan in a British Court of Law, and the echoes are heard even today, everyday in every Indian heart.2
Gandhi made the following statement, six days after hanging of Bhagat Sing, “There never has been in living memory, so much romance round any life as had surrounded Bhagat Singh.” The romance continues even today3. Bhagat Singh, who was borne on 28 September 1907 at Lyallpur Banga in West Punjab, is a household name in the country4. He was born in a family which had produced a galaxy of freedom fighters. His uncle Ajit Singh, his father Krishna Singh and his grand father Arjun Singh were also involved in the struggle for freedom5. The patriotic life of Bhagat Singh is well known to the people of India and there is no need of reproduction of the facts, which related to his patriotic life.
Bhagat Singh and his reammates were in Lahore Jail for two years from April 8, 1929 to March 23, 19916. Bhagat Singh was charged for murder of Saunders A.S.P. and throwing bombs in the Central Legislative Assembly on April 8, 1929. Later, the Government of India formed a Special Tribunal for conducting the Lahore Conspiracy Case in the Lahore Jail7.
During his stay there in Lahore Jail, Bhagat Singh wrote four manuscripts. (1) The Idea of Socialism; (2) Autobiography; (3) History of Revolutionary Movement in India; (4) At the Door of Death. Among the four manuscripts of Bhagat Singh, Why am I an atheist?, written by him was a semi-biographical sketch, published after his execution, on 27 September 1931. Bhagat Singh planned to write a full-fledged book on the Science of the State, but he could not complete the same8.
Bhagat Singh wrote a lengthy article entitled, Why am I an atheist?, it was a reply to a question raised by Bhai Randhir Singh, a Ghadarite, who was imprisoned in Lahore jail in 1930-31, and a God fearing religious man seriously discussed with Bhagat Singh on the existence of god in the condemned cell of Lahore Jail. Randhir Singh lost his temper and said tauntingly; “You are giddy with fame and have developed an ego which is standing like a black curtain between you and the god.” Then Bhagat Singh replied to Randhir Singh on the existence of god by writing this article, Why am I an Atheist? The content of article is self-explanatory in nature9. Later, the article of Bhagat Singh was translated into many Indian languages between 1931 and 1934.
The booklet in Tamil Why am I an Atheist? (Nan Nathikar Yen?) was translated by P.Jeevanantham10, Secretary to the Madras Provincial Atheists’ Association, Madras and published by the Pahutharivu Publishing House Limited, which was constituted by E.V.Ramasamy11 at Erode. The book was originally written by Bhagat Singh from the Lahore Jail with the permission of the Lahore Jail authorities, when the Lahore Conspiracy Case was going on. The booklet consists of 46 pages in Tamil, which includes the editorial which appeared in the Kudiarasu, a Tamil weekly edited by E.V.Ramasamy at Erode, in its issue dated 29th March, 1931 in connection with the execution of Bhagat Singh and his fellow men in the Lahore Jail on 23rd March, 193112.
In the preface of the Tamil booklet, the publisher stated that though he did not approve of the political doctrines of Bhagat Singh in toto, their object in publishing this booklet was to apprise the people of Tamil province in general and Congress men in particular of his views regarding god. Bhagat Singh wrote this book to his father intimating his stand on worshiping god. It is very interesting to study the fact that the original version, written by Bhagat Singh in English was not prescribed by the British Raj13. When supporting the deeds of Bhagat Singh, the Kudiarasu published an article on 29th March, 1931. E.V.Ramasamy, the editor exhibited his sympathy over the martyrs14 . He said, “There is none who has not evinced sympathy regarding the execution of the heroic Bhagat Singh this week. There is none again who has not censured the British government for their action in having executed him.” Further the paper stated, “. . . It is our strong conviction that India really wants only Bhagat Singh’s doctrine. For, as far as we know, we think that Socialism and Communism alone constitute his doctrin.15”
By stating the inner content of Bhagat Singh’s doctrine, the editor strongly supported the doctrine of Bhagat Singh, he sayd : “If we should state the trueth as far as we are concerned, we think that the fact Bhagat Singh had to give up his life and disappear instead of living for a long time in a country wherein there are foolish and ignorant people, who have no responsibility or care, as well as selfish persons, who without earing for the consequences, are content with securing honour for themselves somehow or the other, witnessing their activities and experiencing suffering every second labouring under the obstaclesd placed by them, will result in great peace and benefit to Bhagat Singh. We even feel soory that we could not attain this bliss116.
The paper praised the sacrificed of Bhagat Singh and his fellow patriots, and appreciated the real meaning of Bhagat Singh to the Governor of Punjab. The letter clearly clarifies the consciousness of Bhagat Singh’s mission. It reads: “Our war will certainly continue until the Communist party attains power and differencesf in status among the people disappear. The war will not terminate with you killing us. It will certainly be waged both publically and secretly17 .
Further, we are under the only impression that even in regard to god, he had no faith in the saying “All is God’s work” and he had self-confidence. Hence we would say that this doctrine of his cannot constitute an offence under any law and that even if it does no one need to be afraid. Because we are convinced that this will cause no less or hardship whatever to the public. Even if per chance some such thing is likely to result, we are trying to give effect to this doctrine only with a feeling of sacrifice, which agrees to subject us to any amount of suffering, without deliberately entertaining prejudice against any particular individual or any particular class or any particular country and without causing harm to the body of any particular individual. That is why we say we need not care for or fear anything.18”
Bhagat Singh wrote the above letter to the Governor of Pubjab, when he was arrested in June, 1929 after the Central Legislative Assembly Bomb episode. Bhagat Singh was a very confident and fearless person, when he was produced before the Special Court for conducting Lahore Conspiracy Case being held in the Lahore prison from April 1929 to March 193119 .
The editor of Kudiarasu, further clarified his stand of supporting the doctrine of Bhagat Singh by making the following statement. He writes, “we say that if poverty should go, capitalism and labour should certainly go even as we say that, if untouchability should go, the distinction that constitutes Socialism and Communism and nothing else. It is only these doctrines that are the doctrines of fpersons like Mr.Bhagat Singh.20 ”The editor further praised the sacrifice of Bhagat Singh and exhorted that in every province, least four persons like Bhagat Singh should be hanged. The hanging of Bhagat Singh and his fellow patriots gave a new fillip to the national movement more than the Gandhian way of non-violence.21
The paper said: “It so happened that Bhagat Singh, who would otherwise have fallen ill in the ordinary course suffered, died, and been reduced to ashes, lost course, suffered, died, lost his life so as to far helpful in showing to the Indians may even to the people of the world, the path that leads to real equality and peace. We heartily praise Bhagat Singh saying that this is a great achievement which is ordinarily beyond the reach of any other person. At the same time we sincerely request our government to choose such sincere persons even her after and execute them at the rate of atleast four persons for every province22.
The paper vehemently criticised the wrong doings of the British authorities for executing the real martyrs and condemned boldly Gandhi for not taking care of the execution of Bhagat Singh. E.V.Ramasamy, the once the staunch supporter of non-cooperation movement, came forward to criticize the Gandhian way of non-violent satyagraha during Civil Disobedience movement in 1930s by analyzing very deeply the doctrine of Bhagat Singh in his paper tghe Kudiarasu on 29 March, 1931, just after a week of the execution of Bhagat Singh.23
E.V.Ramasamy, the President sof Madras Provincial Atheists’ Association, Madras requested his fellow atheist P.Jeevanantham, Secretary of the same association to translate the original version of Bhagat Singh’s “Why am I an Atheist?” in to Tamil. The main purpose of translating Bhagat Singh’s doctrine was to circulate the same among the Tamil people in general and the atheists in particular24. The Kudiarasu was one among the pro-justice party journals of Tamil province which came forward to write editorial on the martyrdom of Bhagat Singh and his fellow comrades. P.Jeevanantham, a prolific communist writer paid much attention towards the doctrine of Bhagat Singh and translated the whole book of Bhagat Singh verbatim. The booklet in Tamil was published from Erode in 1934 by E.V.Ramasamy and circulated among the Tamil speaking population25.
Why am I an Atheist? Content Analysis
C.N.Saravana Mudaliar, Tamil translator to the Government of Madras sent his office memorandum No. 504, Public Department dated 16 October 1934 to G.T.H.Bracken, the Chief Secretary to Government of Madras along with the translated objectionable passages found in the booklet entitled Why am I an Atheist? of P.Jeevanantham. He marked the very objectionable passages in red color, and suggested the Government of Madras to take immediate actgion by forfeiting the booklet which contains seditious matter against the government26.
The booklet consisted of 46 pages, out of which the first forty pages are the translatewd version of Bhagat Singh doctrine on god. The remaining six pages are the content of the editorial published in the Kudiarasu on 29 Martch 1931 by E.V.Ramasamy.
In the editorial of Kudiarasu, the editor condemned Lord Irwin and Gandhi for making truce without giving any support to withdraw the execution of Bhagat Singh. It reads: “While these things are taking place on the one hand, when we see what is sbeing done by this same group of persons on the other (we find that they) are applauding the viceroy Lord Irwin, the Head of the Government praising Mr.Gandhi, who concluded a pact with him, and not stopping with being greatly satisfied with the pact, which does not contain (any) provision that Bhagavat Singh should not be executed, indulging in celebrations of victory deeming the pact to be a great victory28.
Further the editor criticized Gandhi for calling Lord Irwin Mahatma. In the fofllowing passage of his editorial he writes Mr.Gandhi called Lord Irwin a Mahatma and directed the people of the country also to call him likewise, while Lord Irwin proclaimed to the Europeans that Mr. Gandhi was a great and eminent person endowed with divine nature29 .
The paper appealed to the common people to raise the cry : “Down with Gandhism”, ‘May Congress perish’ and ‘May Gandhi go’, to show black flags in places where Mr.Gandhi goes and to create disturbances in the meeting which Gandhi addresses. Moreover, the paper criticized Gandhi for misleading the Congress and the people30 . It says: “My Gandhi had deceived the poor people. He is doing these things only to get rid of the socialist doctrines. Mr.Gandhi must go, the Congress should perish.” But our so-called national heroes and patriots danced with dizzy heads and in a blind manner with out minding anything and without realizing the consequences, just like dashing against a rock laying a wage (therefore). As a result of it, they went to prison and came back as heroes wearing the garland of victory31.
P.Jeevanantham while translating the original version of the booklet, made a sincere attempt by bringing the real facts, which are availble in the original context. In the Tamil book and its page No.10, a passage occured in Bhagat Singh’s leltter, he justified the resorting to violence. It reads, “We realized that, it was lawful to resort to violence under unavoidable circumstances and even then if a necessity arose. But non-violenc essential for all public movements for achieving the desired object of getting independence.32” In this context, Bhagat Singh, favoured violence as the only way to achieve freedom under unavoidable circumstances.
Further, Bhagat Singh narrated the goal to attain freedom for the nation and justified his plan of action by dedicating his life to the cause. He said, “Without selfishness or a desire to be rewarded either in this life or in the next and with complete self-denial. I have dedicated my life in order to attain freedom, because I have no other alternative than this. It is the time when heroic men and women come forward with such a desire and without diverting their attention to anything else even in the least and dedicate their lives for serving humanity for carrying on a strugfgle for the liberation of the poor people, who have become victims of hardship, calumny, cruelty and exploitation and are crying aloud distressingly with tears in their eyes that will be the dawn of the era of Independence33.
Bhagat Singh further stated that he was not in the mood of getting reward in this birth or in heaven by doing his recent anti-British deeds, but for sacrificing his life for the cause of the nation. He writes: “Itr is not with the object of becoming kings of kings or ofd gettiong a suitable reward in this birth or inthe next birth or in heaven after death and enjoying happiness and pleasure,that these persons put up a vigorous fight with the oppressors, exploiters and despots with sincerity, enthusiasm and ardour. On the other hand, they are following the path, which is capable of causing danger as far as they are concerned and which viewed deeply in a noble spirit appears to be a very great, unique and righteous path, only with a view to bring down the yoke of slavery from the neck of humanity and to establish peace and liberty.34”
Bhagat Singh formulated his doctrine on god, what forced him to be an atheist. In his leltter to his father, he stated the reasons for his attitude on god. Bhagat Singhsets forth the reasons for his doubting the existence of god and turning an athiest. Further he asserted that he had become an atheist not on account of arrogance or self-conceit but only as a result of deep deliberation. He said that he read some of the books written by persons such as Karlmarx, Lenin and Trotsky and came to the conclusion that the belief in the existence of god was entirely unfounded. He then asked the theists why god created the world, ‘which is full of misery, distress, hardships and cres’ and how they are going to approve the wicked acts, which he is doing every moment and which were causing misery and sorrow35.
Bhagat Singh argued that the god should protect the sufferers from their hardship. In his statement, which is available in the pages 28 and 29 of the booklet36 , he said, “Let him (god) see well with open eyes everything from the very dark, ill-ventilated and cruel prison cells – from the formidable hunger granaries, which tormet cores of human beings sitting and living in hovel and huts, eat, suck and swallow them up and belch from the labourers who keep watching in a spirit of tolerance nay in a manner indicative of a lack of sensibility, the cruel capitalist demons ceaselessly sucking their blood and the human capacity being abused to an inordinate extent in such a manner that even an ordinary person would dread to think of it, and become the victims of exploitation from the mentality which would rather choose to throw kin the sea and destroy the article manufactured excessively than distribute them for satisfying the needs of the people who manufactured them, to the gigantic palaces of the Emperor which have been raised on the foundation of the very bones of human beings and let Him say “all is well”37 .
Further, Bhagat Singh said some doubts on the Hindus and their irrational beliefs by treating their fellow Hindus on the basis sof their previous birth. He stated, “Well! Hindus! You say that all those that are suffering today belong to the group of persons who committed sin in their previous birth. You say that, all those that belong to the class exercising power, who control, oppress, crush and treat under foot the people today, were hightly virtuous and great persons in their previous birth, they are exercising dominatiofn and enjoying ruling powers in this birth, they are exercising domination and enjoying ruling powers in this birth.38”
Bhagat Singh made frequest questions on the existence of god why god is not preventing a man from committing a sin or an offencew even when he commits the same. By stating the above, he writes: “It will indeed be an easy thing for him to do so! Why should he not have averted the incoloable and excessive grief -the unfortunate result – which fell to the lot of the people of the world on account of the recent Great War, either by killing the War Lords or by putting out the fire of revolt which was raging high in their minds? Why has he not created some sort of good feeling in the minds of the British people, urging them to grant independence to India?39”
Further he questioned the god why he does not kindle a philanthropic feeling in the hearts of all the capitalists, make them convert all private properties into the public properties of their own accord and protect the laborers nay humanity itself, by releasing them from the bondage of capitalist. You may like to know whether the programme enunicated by the socialists is a practicable one. If necessary, I am prepared to leave the responsibility for making it practicable to your god alone who is omnipotent. The people generally approve of the nature of socialism and the benefit derived there from. But they oppose it saying that it is “ impossible” and “impracticable”. Hence, cannot the omnipotent god intervene in this matter and organize and set right everything?40 ”
(To be continued in the next issue…)
(The writer is an advocate practising in the Madras High Court, Chennai. She is the Propaganda Secretary of Dravidar Kazhagam. She is an active leader and promoter of Periyar’s ideals.)
In the year 1938 the eminent women in social life of Tamil Nadu, convened a women’s conference at Chennai. Among the resolutions for advancement of the society and improvement in the status of women, the conference lauded the contribution of One Man, who stood and fought against the slavery of women in all sphere of life and conferred on him the title ‘Periyar’. Yes, he opposed the norms, customs, beliefs, faiths, Religion and God by which ever name it is called to subjugate the women and deny her due rights and dignity, he raged a war against that. When those beliefs claimed immunity under the umbrage of Religion, he declared to be the arch enemy of Religion. When the priests placed the God as the shield he gave the clarion call to form a Godless society, against all inequalities. That Man was Periyar E.V.Ramasamy Popularly known as Periyar. The Revolutionary leader was the philosopher and founder of the movement built up to demolish the dilapidated social structure and to treat the minds which were religiously infected against half of the human community. Until his demise in the year 1973 he continued the tireless fight against the inequality of women. The declarations of Periyar form the basis and foundation for feminist ideology in India.
A comparative study of the status of women in Tamil Nadu in the beginning of the 20th century with that of the 21st century will reveal the journey of women from the state of the undignified and the unrecognized. Bravery to the assert empowered and awakened women to claim the right in all walks of life. This change was achieved by Periyar and his contributions towards this achievement are incomparable till date.
The role played by Periyar as a Feminist is not yet recognized by many of the women’s movements and Associations in India because they are led by women who belong to the upper caste and upper class, the supremacy of whom was challenged by Periyar. Periyar was the Pioneer of Feminism in India and no philosopher had reached the heights that Periyar reached in his philosophy and practice to bring in the change in society both in thinking and in action.
The uniqueness of Periyar and his feminist ideology is that his concern for women flows from his innate sense of equality and justice. Periyar was born in the year 1879. He married at the age of 19 and developed comradeship with his wife Nagammai. He insisted his wife to call him comrade. He took her to political meetings. Periyar encouraged his younger sister Kannammal also to take part in public life, taking part in meetings, conferences, pluckettings, protests and facing imprisonment are uncommon in the early decades of 20th century. But the acts of Periyar reveal that his mind was not inhibited by the social and religious bias against women.
The second phase of his approach towards women’s issues could be identified from the incident that he decided to perform remarriage to his niece who became a window after a child marriage. The wrath of parents, close relatives and the community was treated like dust by Periyar. The priority for Periyar was protecting the young girl from falling into dangerous rites of widowhood. This natural instinct to fight for the right of voiceless women formed the pavement for his zealous travel for equality of women.
Periyar was actively leading the National movement and prior to that he was holding public posts including the Chairman of Erode Municipality. During those days it was the responsibilities of the Municipal Chairman and Commissioners to visit the temples and verify the accounts and properties and check whether the procedures were followed as per religious norms. During those visits Periyar had seen women in different age groups staying in the temple as Devatasis appointed and paid by Government fund. The women who crossed the age for dancing were granted pension by Municipality. In practice those women were subjected to sexual exploitation by the wealthy and powerful men and the temple priests. The Devatasi sold her rights for consideration and a young woman entered the temple to her place. Though this practice was associated with Hindu temple and religious faiths, Periyar decided to eliminate this practice to save the women from subjecting to prostitution in the name of God, religion and arts. He abolished the ‘transferable right’ of the Devatasi status and then declined to fill up the post of Devatasi fallen vacant due to the death or retirement of the incumbent Devatasi. This action also faced opposition from religious leaders. But Periyar never gave up his decision and proceeded with his reformative action.
Periyar raised serious questions about the connection between the superstious beliefs, in equal treatment, coerced sacrifices and harassments inflicted on women on the one hand, praising the women for her motherhood, worshipping women as goddesses, attributing superlative qualities of patience and tolerance on the other hand. All queries against the sufferings of a woman received two answers. One was that it is her fate and the other answer was that it was destined by god and religious rules. Therefore she had no option expect to undergo the suffering with endurance. Periyar refused to accept the religious practice and declared that women need not be afraid of those holy rules and none could prevent women from living her life with human dignity.
To march towards his goal Periyar convened meetings, and conferences, and passed resolutions against the unscientific practice and the rule of religion and society.
1. Making education a fundamental right of women.
2. Empowerment with priority in the departmen where women can be preferred.
3. Sharing power in politics and government by reserving 50% seats to women.
4. Training in hard core jobs to eliminate the identification of weaker sex.
5. Imparting Technical education to women and make them capable of handling the modern technology.
Periyar insisted the Governments to implement the above decisions and passed resolutions demanding the reservation and priority in education and employment for women in the conference of Self Respect Movement convened at Chengalpet (near Chennai) in the year 1929. This conference was the pioneer in advocating the social rights of women and this was the triggering point for entry of more women into social reformation movement. The concern and empathy of Periyar on women had resulted in demanding the social rights identically called by the feminist as social Feminism.
The ideological fight against the age old theories of religion was started parallel to the social demands by Periyar. Periyar questioned each and every condition imposed on women. He criticized the life of “A woman who was dependent on her husband for two square meal and a pair of clothes and shelter. In return the women should work at home from morning till night serving the husband with utmost obedience, bearing his tortures and still worshipping him as her god, giving birth to his children and remaining chaste and loyal to him.” Periyar was the only man who questioned this life and asked, “Why should a woman endure this humiliation” Periyar rejected the ‘glory’ attached to the sacrifices of women for the sake of the husband. He rejected the stories portraying women in the light of ‘glory’ for her loyalty to her husband and he called the women to come out of those images and role models. The stories created to stereo type women into those moulding of a proud slave to husband were subjects to enquiry by Periyar.The greatness attached to such women characters were criticized by Periyar as ‘stupidity’
The intellectual area of Periyar’s travel pertaining to the physical and sexual rights of women was comparable only to the analysis of Simon Debourair the renowned feminist. Periyar identified the cause of secondary status of women in family is the hierarchy inbuilt in the social system having the family as its basic unit. Periyar firmly held that unless the family system is demolished the women can never be liberated. In addition to that Periyar analysed the founding factors of Justification for subjecting a woman into slavery by way of family. The family has constructed the kitchen for the women and the hall for the men. The supremacy of man was attached to his birth and the birth of a girl child was considered to be a woe and cumulative loss of money and prestige of the family. The denial of education was due to the fear that once she gets education she will learn to write love letter and will marry out of caste. If she is permitted to move freely she will fall in love with other caste man and thus the social order will be destroyed. This was the predominant ideology of the people who were ruled by Hindu Dharma or sanadana Dharma. To change this inequality and hierarchy of the society the religious rule was challenged by Periyar.
The strong dosage of criticism and condemnation of Periyar about the Manu smiriti, the legal text of Manu who was considered to be a saint and scholar by the Hindu Brahmins and upper caste people, spread shock waves in the society. Periyar questioned the rule of Manu prescribed conditions to women such as “when young a woman is a slave to her father at youth she becomes a slave to her husband in old age she will be a slave to her sons. No woman is entitled to be free at any age.
Periyar quoted this condition of Manu in public meeting and awakened the women folk to come out of the religious clutches. While condemning the Hindu religious rules and portrayals of women, Periyar criticized the condition of women in Christianity and the imposition of pardha in Islam. Periyar questioned the story of Virgin Mary as to why the mother of the god was projected as Virgin. The ideology of Periyar about the family system and questioning the role of women, calling women to come out from the religious clutches are known in the western theory as reformative feminist ideology.
The Radical principles of Periyar and his space in describing the personal rights of women could be found only in Radical Feminism.
The social rights were claimed through the claim for equality. The rejection of family conditions and its confining mechanism led to fight for identification of individual rights of women. The next of the struggle was carried by Periyar to an unimaginable plight in the history. In this sphere Periyar conducted self respect marriages and he travelled extensively into remote villages. He converted the wedding stage as his stage for propaganda. He spoke of the matters of womans individuality, right to marriage and remarriage, refusing to undergo the widowhood, right to sexual desire, having control over the womb, refusing to give birth. They were all addressed in self respect marriages held in hundreds and thousands attended by huge gathering of women and men.
This kind of propaganda to address the women’s rights and feminist ideas were not thought of by any other reformer or revolutionary in any part of the world.
The radical ideas of Periyar on women rights were shocking the people. His call to women to remove the uterus, ‘if it is the cause for her suffering and to have her womb under her control were not easily digestible to the society. The resolution passed in ‘Salem conference’ in the year 1944, declaring that if a married woman falls in love with some one else she should have a right to divorce her husband and marry the man of her choice’ was misrepresented by the upper caste media, attaching stigma to the resolution as though Periyar recommended immorality.
Periyar left no stone unturned in his ideological fight and research for the cause of inequality and gender bias. Periyar questioned the formulation of language as favoring men against women. In English. words like the human and history form the biases of reference. Likewise Periyar questioned the language and literature for its gender biased formation. Great epics were torn into pieces for its inhuman treatment of women. Periyar questioned the importance of chastity and asked why such morals are not imposed on men and how women alone could protect morals when men are licensed to be immoral.
Periyar not only wrote but also addressed the meeting and declared that “morality cannot be one way traffic”.
The series of articles Periyar wrote on the topic “why a woman became a slave?” is a rare collection of feminist principles which contain the ingredients of all schools of Feminism. Thus Periyar Feminism is unique.
Periyar believed that with development of science and technology human being will advance and the bias and prejudices against women will whither away. Though women have moved many steps further the globalization of consumer end marketing economy and renewal of religious identities are once again taking our world back to the 19th century.
The recent increase in killing of new born female children, and the failure of Government efforts to combat the fall of sex ratio of women into 920:1000 are cautioning and reminding us that we need a renaissance promoting Periyar Feminism and propagating among men and women once again as Periyar did. Time alarms the society to start it forthwith.
Dr.K.Veeramani: I have to quote here the definition given by Baba Saheb Dr.B.R.Ambedkar for the word Brahminism.
1. Brahmins uphold the sense of superiority and inferiority among various classes of people.
2. Brahmins totally neglect Sudras and Untouchables.
3. Brahmins totally prevent Sudras and Untouchables from getting education and educational opportunities.
4. Brahmins totally prevent Sudras and Untouchables from occupying any posts or positions of power.
5. Brahmins impose a ban for possession of assets by Sudras and Untouchables.
These are the qualities of Brahmins listed out by Dr.Ambedkar. Brahmins are upholders of these qualities. Therefore, is it possible to oppose Brahminism alone, without opposing Brahmins? Can you fight with a shadow, leaving the figure causing the shadow unopposed? No individual is our enemy.
(From the Interview given to ‘Alive’)
(Thiru S.Rajaratnam, a Tax Consultant, is an expert in matters of Financial Management and Tax Management. He was also nominated before as a member of the Income-tax Appelate Tribunal, for the post of which he did a great justice. He is a voracious reader and prolific writer, who has authorsed many books and contributed valuable articles to various journals. As a great rationalist and humanist, he is closeldy associated with the Self-respect movement and its social welfare activities.)
Your family – native place – background
I am from Virudhunagar, the son of parents, who did not go beyond elementary school, but ensured that myself and my two sisters study up to post-graduate level.
Except for three years in high school at Mumbai, where my father was employed, I studied at the schools at Virudhunagar, American College at Madurai and at Madras Christian College at Tambaram.
What is Rationalism in your opinion?
Rationalism is the exercise of human intelligence, which is the very antithesis of obscurantism and blind faith.
What do you think about it?
It offers solutions for all problems, whether it be of family or business, national or international.
Do you find rationalism a social need?
Rationalism is a need for all thought and action and so it is for those in the society.
What do you think of Periyar’s ideology of rationalism?
Periyar’s ideology of rationalism is not different from what was understood by Socrates or Thiruvalluvar and other great thinkers of the world.
What do you find as unique about Periyar’s rationalism?
Periyar’s message was unique, because it was a clarion call to a society steeped in ignorance and degraded by discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, religion and gender.
Moral and ethical codes are believed to ensure social security. Do you think rationalism is comprehensive enough to ensure social security?
Remedy for lack of social security for the poor and the under-privileged in the society, lies in rational planning and resolute execution.
We are well aware of your prowess and great expertise in financial matters. How far have successive Governments of Independent India incorporated Social Justice in their economic policies?
Social justice is one of the goals enshrined in the Constitution, Preamble, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Accent in our economic policies depend upon their benefits trickling down to the poor. Except in some States like Tamilnadu, there is little job reservation and effective public distribution system. Food security has just been announced by the Central Government. There is still a long way to go.
Has India achieved sufficient economic growth proportionate to her resources? If not, what are the reasons? Which of them would you consider as most critical? Can you also suggest suitable remedies?
Growth has been tardy. Education is still the most critical factor. Superstition has led to abandonment of Sethusamuduram project, while Koodangulam project is having its hiccups, showing how ignorance has stalled the progress in these two programmes, which if completed would have changed the map of South India. Linking of rivers and national water grid are other urgent matters to avoid impending disputes and disasters. Policies are not ambitious and implementation is slow. Widespread corruption shows no signs of abatement. But our high savings rates, the stock of idle gold, hoards of Indian money abroad, availability of skilled work force are some of the positive factors waiting to be channelised for economic development.
Today the whole of India is swept over by the controversial proposal allowing Foreign Direct Investments in the retail trade of India. There is also a proposal to allow foreign universities to take over the University educational scene in India. Is the Government of India justified in this move? Who will be the real and ultimate beneficiaries if this plan comes into force?
Foreign direct investment is necessary, but it cannot be at the cost of local industries. Most countries protect their vital interest as for example in the matter of agriculture. U.S. action against “bleeding Madras” to protect even textile industries in the U.S. cannot be forgotten. While foreign capital for infrastructure development and manufacture of capital goods is welcome, there is no urgency for opening the door for retail trade. There can be free movement of capital, goods and services, when rigid immigration laws keep out man. Free ingress of foreign capital in retail trade will increase unemployment. But then, need for protection of employment oriented lines of activities like retail trade and handlooms are necessary. One has to recall the closure of local industries in aerated waters, washing soaps, printing presses, etc., which has given employment to a large number, have vanished because of competition of large business houses in India itself, so that protection of small and medium scale industries is a national priority.
Periyar is known for his excellent management of money matters. Your comments.
Periyar was known for frugal use of money. Institutions, which he had founded stand as a testimony to his organizing capacity and his wisdom in money matters.
The Drividar Kazhagam is managing a massive education programme with innumerable institutions based on the most cherished ideals of Periyar. What is your assessment of the financial management in all these schemes?
Financial management of Periyar institutions is a model for public institutions. Though limited in resources, bank loans and close monitoring of available funds has helped their significant growth. In view of some familiarity with its finances, I can boldly say that the institutions are best managed.
What constructive suggestions you would like to offer for “Globalisation of Periyar” – a theme taken by Dr.K.Veeramani and his D.K. Movement.
Globalisation of Periyar is meant to create awareness of the need for breathing every action with rationalism showing by example what Periyar could achieve in a country, which was badly in need of reform. Wherever there is suppression of human rights, Periyar’s thought and the yeomen service rendered by the Periyar tribe under the leadership of its mentor Dr. K. Veeramani has been welcomed. Like-minded movements across the world are joining hands to rationalise the population world over.
15. Other than the above points, would you like to say anything else? If so, please state it briefly.
It is my wish and hope that existing media efforts should have better reach in other languages and across the world. Television is a source yet to be exploited.