N
Nara
Guest
Y, EVR was one of the very few true revolutionaries the world has seen. He was an unsurpassed iconoclast. He railed against superstitions -- I like the Tamil word better, மூட நம்பிக்கை -- whatever may be the source. His criticism of Tamil holy cows, like karpu etc., was no less strident and pungent.....Granted, Periyar was an Arch-Enemy of the Upper Caste in India!
The oft repeated charge that EVR didn't dare criticize Islam and Christianity is a canard. He did criticize Islam and Christianity -- I gather he had chapters criticizing Kuran and Bible in his book "Vedangalin Vandavalangal". But, the ranks of these religions were populated predominantly by the already oppressed people whom he wanted to liberate. If these religions afforded some relief from the oppressive Hinduism he wanted them to take advantage of it, or at least use the threat of conversion to extract some concessions from the establishment.
So, it is a lie to charge EVR that he attacked only Hindu gods. Of course he paid special attention to Hinduism as (i) it was the dominant religion, (ii) it was the religion from which he arose, and (iii) at least in theory Islam and Christianity pay lip service to equality, whereas, the pernicious Varna system had a reverential place in Hinduism.
Most of the shrill criticism of EVR comes only from the Brahmins. Even the Dalits, the only ones who may have some legitimate grievances against EVR, have high regard for him but for M. Venkatesan. The criticism from Brahmins is always about the man and not about the ideas he presented. Even those ad hominems are not fully vetted and are almost always vague claims like Snake and Brahmin -- for which there is absolutely no corroborative evidence, or cutting kudimi/poonool which is at best isolated and not advocated by the man.
But, Y, none of this is going to change anybody's mind. Their idea of EVR is set in stone, because EVR was dead against Brahminism, and that is good enough reason for rejecting anything he stood for.
Cheers!