. . . Continuation from this post here.
[I give extracts from the book. “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. Page numbers furnished refer to this publication.In order to shorten the posts, I am condensing some portions; these condensed portions are in italics. My own comments are given in blue.]
An unwillingness to face the realities of the situation and a desire to put off the evil day when non-Brahmans in Congress politics would demand an equal if not a disproportionately large share of power was a characteristic of proceedings within the Tamil Congress organization for the next five years. On a number of occasions, resolutions dealing with the social policy, particularly proportional representation, were brought before provisional and district Congress conferences in the Tamil area, and on each occasion the rebuff which the non-Brahmans felt they had received provoked them to deeper hostility.113
. . .
Still another affair in which Ramaswami Naicker became involved was the issue of separate dining which was enforced for Brahman and non-Brahman students at a traditional school or Gurukulam in the famous Brahman village of Kallidaikurchi in Tinnevelly district. As a center of Brahman culture and learning Kallidaikurchi had a tradition of conflict with non-Brahmas of the area dating back at least to 1917, when the Justice Party took exception to Taluq Board funds being spent on the Sanskrit College at Kallidaikurchi. Only a few non-Brahmans were permitted to enter the school, and they were not allowed to study the
Vedas.116 The Gurukulam, which was actually at Shermadevi, a little to the south of Kallidaikurchi, was established in December, 1922, by V.V.S. Aiyer,
[more popularly known as va. ve. cu. aiyar] a former terrorist and editor (1920-1922) of the Tamil newspaper
Desabhaktan. Most of its financial support came from private individuals as the Nattukottai Chettis in India and Burma, and from a number of organizations. The Tamil Nad Congress Committee gave Rs.5,000 to the Gurukulam at the time of its establishment.
In January, 1925, reports that non-Brahmans at the Gurukulam were forced to eat apart from the Brahmans came to the attention of Ramaswami Naicker and P. Varadarajulu Naidu (both Balija Naidus). A committee from the T.N.C.C. was thereupon appointed to look into the matter,117 and in April Varadarajulu Naidu began an all-out campaign not only against the Gurukulam but also against what he considered to be Brahman domination within the Congress.118 He told a public audience at Salem that before the Tamils sought equality with foreigners they should “establish complete equality with the Brahmins in the matter of inter-dining and save the Non-Brahmins from the age-long social injustice that had been meted out to them by the Brahmins . . . V.V.S. Aiyer’s action in not allowing Non-Brahmin boys to eat with the Brahmins [was] a direct challenge to the Non-Brahmins, and
. . . this was the time for the Tamilians to vindicate their honour.”119
@
Two weeks later Varadarajulu Naidu indirectly caused a minor riot when he spoke at a meeting in Mayavaram, in Tanjore district. While the meeting was in progress a rumor was circulated that a Brahman
# who had been heckling Varadarajulu Naidu during his speech had been forcibly ejected by some non-Brahmans. The ensuing melee was so wild that the meeting broke up in confusion.120 When the T.N.C.C. met at Trichinopoly, Varadarajulu Naidu used his influence as president to limit the agenda almost exclusively to a discussion of the Brahman—non-Brahman question. In the event, a compromise resolution was agreed on by which the Committee recommended that all organizations partaking in the national movement should follow a principle shunning gradations of merit based on birth.121 Ramaswami Naicker agreed with the resolution, adding that if the country was not yet prepared to accept this state of things, it was the duty of the non-Brahmans to create public opinion which was receptive to their rights.
Almost simultaneously, as a direct result of non-Brahman pressure, V.V.S. Aiyer resigned as head of the Gurukulam.123 Even with this victory, Varadarajulu Naidu thought seriously of leaving Congress as a protest against Brahmans in the Tamil Nad organization.
. . .
Ramaswami Naicker’s attitudes were hardened by a number of public utterances made by Gandhi on his visit to Tamil Nad in late 1927, shortly after the Justice Party had granted its members permission to enter Congress. Much of what Gandhi said was a repetition of his remarks on previous visits — which at the time had provoked considerable resentment among Tamilians. In April, 1921, Gandhi told a meeting in Madras that “In Madras I have not a shadow of doubt that Hinduism owes its all to the great traditions that the Brahmans have left for Hinduism . . . The Brahmins have declared themselves and they ought to remain the custodians of the purity of our life.”60 Four years later, in March, 1925, Gandhi said in Madras, “If you but follow Varnashrama Dharma in its spirit, we shall cease to be puny individuals and we shall walk in the fear of God.”61 Gandhi’s enunciation of his belief in the sacred duty of
varnashrama dharma alarmed Ramaswami Naicker and S. Ramanathan; they tried to persuade him to modify his position, but without success, and Ramaswami Naicker then broke with Gandhi. ON August 28, 1927, he published an editorial in
Kudi Arasu in which he called for the destruction of Congress, Hinduism, and Brahmanism.62
After a number of representations from non-Brahmans, Gandhi realized that his commitment to
varnashrama dharma had created difficulties in the Tamil districts, and he sought to amplify his position. He admitted to one audience in September, 1927, that “as you are aware, though a non-Brahmin myself, I have lived more of my life with them and in their midst, than amidst non-Brahmins and on that account pardonably some of my non-Brahmin friends suspect me of having taken all my colourings from Brahmin friends.”63 But at the end of October he reaffirmed his “belief that Varnashrama Dharma is not an unmitigated evil but it is one of the foundations on which Hinduism is built,” and that “Varnashrama Dharma defines man’s mission on earth.”64
The damage had been done. To many non-Brahmans in the Tamil country,
varnashrama dharma could mean only one thing : the superiority of orthodox Brahmans over the rest of the population in the area. They refused to consider what Gandhi really meant when he spoke of
varnashrama dharma.
to be continued . . .
60
Hindu, Apr. 11, 1921.
61
Ibid., Mar. 23, 1925.
62 Sitamparaṉār,
Tamiḷar talaivar, pp. 102-103.
63
Hindu (weekly ed.), Sept. 15, 1927.
64
Ibid., Oct. 27, 1927.
113 The
Hindu (Nov.7, 1922) described, for example, the quarrel that developed at a Congress meeting in Tiruppur on November 5, 1922, over a resolution to allow Nadars entry into the temples. At a T.N.C.C. meeting in April of the same year it was proposed that a committee be appointd “to investigate and recommend ways
for the better understanding and relationship between Brahmins and non-Brahmins,” but owing to the controversial nature of the proposal it was thought “inexpedient” to pass it and it was duly withdrawn. (Hindu, Apr. 10, 1922). Another quarrel between non-Brahmans and Brahmans arose when a resolution was introduced by a Brahman at the T.N.C.C. meeting at Tenkasi in Tinnevelly district on July 6, 1922, recommending that the A.I.C.C. should help to found and support a Tamil university at Kallidaikurchi. Two Vellalas opposed this resolution as likely to exacerbate the “ill-feeling between Brahmin and non-Brahmins in this district.” At that point a delegate cried, “Mahatma Gandhiki jai.” A. Masilamani Pillai, a Vellala, replied, “Brahmana-kurumbu [Brahman mischief],” following which “there were many angry demonstrations.”
Ibid., July 8, 1922.
116 See T. Varadarajulu Naidu,
Justice Movement, 1917, pp. 114-115, and the
Madras Mail, Mar. 30, 1918, which gives the full text of the resolution passed by the non-Brahmans. Specifically, the resolution protested the diversion by the Taluq Board of Shermadevi of the Tirucarankudi Chatram funds toward the maintenance of the Sanskrit College at Kallidaikurchi on the grounds that this introduced an invidious distinction of caste.
117
Hindu (weekly ed.), Jan. 22, 1925.
118See Varadarajulu Naidu’s editorial in
Tamil Nadu for Mar. 29, 1925, which attacks the Brahmans on the Gurukulam issue.
Madras NNR, 1925.
119
Hindu, Apr. 8, 1925.
@ I notice two aspects here. One is that even prior to EVR’s forming DK, the anti-Brahman sentiment had reached its crescendo but both the Tamil Brahman community and the T.N.C.C. with a predominantly Brahman orientation were intransigent and did not even countenance resolutions etc., which sought to pave the way for a level playing field for non-Brahmans and Brahmans.
The second one is of surprise in finding V.V.S Aiyar, a much eulogized figure, an anti-British, who had traveled incognito through France, Rome, Egypt, Mecca & Medina, Colombo, and Pondicherry, did not possess the broad-mindedness toallow the non-Brahmans, whose funds were maintaining the Gurukulam, equality in the dining hall or, in case the orthodox Brahmans were against it, he could have dissociated himself from the Gurukulam itself. It seems to me that casteism, like the proverbial leopard’s spots, would not leave the minds of even a person like him.
The instance of V.V.S. Aiyar also seems to point to a possible thinking among even the Brahman revolutionaries and freedom fighters of the time, that the caste superiority of Brahmans would continue even after jettisoning the British from India and the then existing Brahman hold on government jobs as also in the T.N.C.C. led the Brahmans to a false sense of complacency.
It is also interesting to observe that Gandhi "In a later speech in Madras in 1927, Gandhi upheld the fourfold classification of caste and the duties appropriate to each stage of life (varnashramadharma), though he firmly rejected the notion that caste had anything to do with
high or low status. Further he maintained that a ban on
intermarriage or interdining was essential to the ideal
system [9]. EVR responded to Gandhi by arguing that
support for the principle of varna. in effect relegated all
caste Hindus to the position of Sudras, which implied for
him that they were "sons of prostitutes" [10]".
Change in Gandhi's varna view
—sangom
120
Ibid., Apr. 22, 1925.
#So, the Brahmans were not as innocent as is now attempted to paint them. They had enough of intransigence not to allow their monopoly in certain matters to be diluted, and, besides, ill-will towards the non-Brahmans once they started questioning the Brahman hegemony; but as is perhaps their nature, they could never unite and take any concerted action directly against the non-Brahmans, but indulged in such cowardly tactics like heckling the non-Brahman speakers, etc. This should convince impartial readers about the Brahmans’ unique capacity for making himself unpopular and unwanted; all the energy that is now wasted to show the Brahmans as meek and modest on the face of attacks against them, can better be utilized to justify the Brahmans’ actions during those periods.— sangom
121
Ibid., (weekly ed.), Apr. 23, 1925.
122
Ibid. A little more than a month later, on June 3, he was drowned;
ibid., June 5, 1925.
[ va. ve. cu. aiyar was drowned while trying to rescue his daughter in the Papanasam falls; both died.
The question that arises in my mind is, “why should a freedom fighter, who completed his Barrister course successfully and who had roamed around the world in disguise and seen the way different people lived, etc., still cling to the orthodox Brahman views on inter-dining, and more particularly why was he after sticking on to the Gurukulam at all costs?]
