namaste shrI Sangom and others.
You have already posted the extracts whose image(s) you have given in your post #8, here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-36.html#post72841
I am not surprised that Nara too 'likes' your posts both here and in the other thread.
• It's really puzzling that being brahmins yourselve, both of you have not even had a cursory check about the incident using google.
• I am sorry to say that the very first link using the search text "VVS aiyar" "gurukulam" in the google, gives an
entirely different account of the story and here it is.
Although it is rather long, I am giving the extract from the pdf file, so the readers can know and be facilitated to look at both sides of the story.
EARLY TAMIL REVOLUTIONARY OF V.V.S. AIYAR: A HISTORICAL VIEW
by Dr. K. Vetrivel, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics,
Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli – 620 023.
and D. Senthil Kumar Assistant Professor, Department of History,
Government Arts College, Tiruchirappalli – 620 022.
http://www.aygrt.net/August/2011/August/V.VETRIVAL__History.pdf
Gurukulam and V.V.S. Aiyar
V.V.S. Aiyar on his return to India from England, set up a Gurukula at Cheranmahadevi in Tirunelveli District, designed to prepare our young men in the spirit of hoary ancient culture of India, to become true servants of their motherland. This entirely honourable and worthy effort
encountered opposition from politically motivated, narrow- minded, anti-Brahmin communalists. The opposition contended that the Gurukulam idea of V.V.S. Aiyar would perpetuate caste division and backwardness of the Non-Brahmin classes of society. This was clean contrary to the magnificent idealism of V.V.S. Aiyar. He believed that there was a very noble and valuable ideal in the institution of the Gurukula, which deserved to be cherished and revived with modification required for its efficient functioning in modern times.
A perusal of the facts of the Gurukulam venture at Cheranmahadevi (Seranmadevi) will prove the highly prejudiced nature of the opinion of the reviewer. Following the decision to launch non-cooperation movement in 1920, the Indian National Congress called on the students to leave the educational institutions maintained by the British Government, and encouraged opening of 'national schools'. A few teachers at Kallidaikurichi in Tirunelveli district resigned their jobs in the schools run by the Taluk Board and started a school known as Tilakar Vidyalaya, named after B.G. Tilak. But they could not continue the same. So they requested V.V.S. Aiyar, a Brahmin scholar and previously a militant rebel, to undertake the responsibility of running the institution. Aiyar who was already having the idea of establishing a Gurukulam on a grand scale on traditional lines agreed to the request, hoping to expand the Vidyalaya in course of time.
In pursuance of this aim, appeals were made through patriotic journals for liberal financial contribution "Nava Sakthi", a magazine edited by Thiru. V.Kalyanasundaram, published the appeal on 17-11-1922. "Tamil Nadu" another one edited by Dr. P.Varatharajulu Naidu also supported the plan of Gurukulam. Rich philanthropists interested in national liberation and social reformation came forward to help financially. Through Mahadeva Aiyar, a close associate of V.V.S. Aiyar, the Nagarathars of Malaysia, a business community from Tamil Nadu, assured to give Rs.20,000. Tamil Nadu Congress Committee assured Rs.10,000 and gave Rs.5,000 as first installment. Periyar E.V. Ramasamy was the T.N.C.C. President for two years 1923 and 1924. In 1925, he became its secretary while P.Varatharajulu Naidu became its President.
Vai.Su. Shanmugam Chettiar of Kanadukathan bought a thirty acre land for Rs.3000 at Seranmadevi, a few kilometres to the south of the river Thamiraparani, and donated it to the Gurukulam which was eventually shifted to that land form Kallidaikkurichi.
He established Tamil Gurukulam to give occasional training along with education. As a mark of respect his memorial was opened to the public on 05.05.1999. His life history and photographs are displayed and also a library is functioning here regularly. It is situated at Varaganeri Agaharam, Tiruchirappalli.
But, it is often alleged that the great revolutionary and selfless freedom fighter V.V.S. Aiyar ran a Gurukulam, which segregated its Brahmin and non-Brahmin students. It is alleged that they were served food separately. Some of the notoriously false versions would claim that while the Brahmins were served superior food inside, the non-Brahmins were served inferior food outside. It is claimed that E.V.R. quit the Congress party because of this caste-based segregation, and the support Gandhiji gave it.
Just like the myth of trade between the Tamils and Hebrews in 1000 B.C., this myth also has got transformed into "fact" by mere repetition and intense propaganda.
In January 1925, in the TNCC meeting, E.V.Ramasamy (EVR) charged that the Gurukulam practiced caste segregation. He alleged that the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins were forced to dine separately, and that inferior food was served to non-Brahmins, who were forced to eat outside the building. He claimed that the son of Chief Minister O.P. Ramasami Reddiar, who also studied there, had complained to him.
In the meantime, EVR and his coterie also started a vicious campaign in the separatist Tamil newspaper "Tamil Nadu". They also indulged in disruptive tactics and stalled every proceeding.
But, V.V.S. Aiyar explained the scenario.
The Hindu dated 15th, April 1925 reports that Aiyar explained that there was 'no' caste based segregation in the Gurukula. He explained that 'only' two Brahmin students were granted the 'exemption' to dine separately, as their parents insisted on it, and threatened to pull out the students if their demand wasn't conceded. Aiyar explained that inter-caste dining is yet unknown in Tamil Nadu, and more importantly, this was not made known to the parents when the students were admitted to the Gurukula. So, he reasoned, that the two students were granted exemption from inter-dining. He denied that separate food was served or anyone was made to eat outside the building, and invited the disruptive elements to visit the Gurukula to ascertain them.
He pointed out that all the other Brahmin and non-Brahmin students dined together, barring these two students. He further said that
after he raised funds from the public, that is in 1922-23, he had made it very clear that all students should inter-dine, and 'no exemptions' will be granted in the future. He also clarified that everybody was taught the same set of lessons religious and nationalistic. He was quite pained at this campaign of lies by EVR.
The explanation given by V.V.S. Aiyar should have made it clear that there was no caste based segregation in the Shermadevi Gurukula, nor was there any plan to introduce one in the future. The controversy should have died, but that was not to be.
EVR and his coterie were actually interested in making political mileage through false allegations. They not only continued disruptive tactics, but also a vicious campaign in their newspapers. Varadarajulu Naidu, a supporter of EVR, had earlier (before the controversy became public) written to Gandhiji. In his letter dated 10th, March 1925, addressed to Varadarajulu Naidu, Gandhiji replied:
It seems to me that insofar as the present (2) Brahmacharis are concerned, if the parents of the Brahmin boys insist on their boys being allowed to dine separately, their scruples should be respected (as they were not told about this inter-dining before admitting the students). But for the future, it may be announced that no Brahmacharis would be accepted whose parents would not let their boys dine in the same row with the others. I understand from you(r letter) that the cook at the gurukulam (is and) would be always a Brahmin. What you object to (in your two letters) is the separating of the non-Brahmin boys from the Brahmins. I do think that all the boys should sit in the same row whilst they are taking their meals.
In TNCC meeting on 29, April 1925, Varadarajulu Naidu raised the issue of gurukul. Rajaji made three pertinent remarks, as reported by The Hindu 30, April 1925.
1. He made it clear that he was against all commensally restrictions, whether the Gurukulam practiced it or not.
1. He said that inter-dining was not practiced by 'any' section of the Tamil society, so any reform on that front should be gradual and happening without causing friction.
2. He felt that no political capital should be made out of the supposed activities of a private institution–-the Gurukulam here.
Further, The Hindu 1st, May 1925 reports that in the same resolution, tabled by S.Ramanathan and supported by Rajaji (who differed on point two mentioned above),
it was recommended that gradations based on birth should 'not' be observed by 'any' organization participating in the national movement-–private or otherwise. A committee comprising of V. Thiagaraja Chettiar, S.Ramanathan and EVR was constituted (by Rajaji) to look into the gurukulam matter as well as all such related issues and report the facts.
Hence, one can understood that,
• V.V.S. Aiyar didn't practice segregation in his gurukulam.
• He allowed exemption for two Brahmin boys to dine separately, only because their parents insisted, and he allowed it because inter-dining wasn't clause when those students were admitted. Aiyar himself was opposed to segregation.
• Gandhiji never supported segregation. In fact, he insisted on common dining. He only allowed those 2 exempted students to continue as it is, because a promise had already been made.
• Rajaji never supported segregation. He was also for common dining and asserted that all nationalistic institutions should never allow such practices. His only contention was that the Congress party shouldn't interfere in the affairs of private institutions for entirely politicized reasons. He also felt that changes, at individual level, should be gradual.
• EVR didn't quit the Congress party because of the alleged segregation. He quit because of
his hatred for Brahmins, and because he had been sidelined after all his attempts to communalize and indulge in autocratic and hateful politics.
• EVR never again fought for either independence or for removing untouchability, after quitting the Congress. So, that could have never been his reason for quitting.
Conclusion
Hence, it is obvious that V.V.S. Aiyar had been the most selfless revolutionary and a freedom fighter. He was a man of great moral scruples. Even before the Congress party gave any money, on his own volition he had raised funds to impart Vedic as well as nationalistic education to the Brahmins and non-Brahmins alike. Finally, V.V.S. Aiyar drowned in the Papanasam falls in June 1925 in circumstances, which remain controversial.
*****
So, readers, what account would you choose to believe in this case?
The book titled "Politics and Social Conflict in South India (The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929)": Sponsored by the Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
because it is a Western Publication, so must automatically have a halo of authenticity and malign the memory of a great freedom fighter, or
the above native publication highlighted in a research paper by two Asistant Professors (whose names do not sound as those of a brahmin) of a University in TamizhnADu,
and refuse to believe the pack of lies some brahmin fans of EVR choose to spread here knowingly, unknowingly or delibrately?
Although I knew something about the Gurukulam controversy, I did not know the full facts until I read the above account. The point is that it is easier to find the truth than believe in the lies.
