N
Nara
Guest
Dear brother,
I do not want the other thread to get side-tracked into a discussion of EVR, so I am starting this one. I welcome all my brothers and sisters to participate in a reasoned discussion. I am under no illusion that anybody is going to fundamentally change his/her POV, but we may learn something new that we didn't know before. Since this is a very volatile topic with strong negative views, it is particularly important for all of us to be civil to each other, to keep our emotions in check. I request Shri KRS to keep this thread clean so to speak, as he has done everywhere else.
In this post I wish to respond to some of the citations given by Shri KRS, and also express my understanding of EVR's rhetoric. I apoligize for the length of this post. I will keep my future posts short.
"... he seems to have said such things largely to shock. In several places he claimed he hated not individual Brahmins but brhaminism as an institution. In a somewhat similar spirit, in an article for The Hindu, while maintaining that "Aryan" and Dravidian" are two distinct groups, he commented: "My desire is not to perpetuate this difference but to unify the two opposing elements in society.
This gives a more complete picture of EVR than what is widely believed even among many NBs.
The second link again only cites the same claim without any verifiable source. This attribution is like an echo chamber, everybody cites each other as reference, never is there any verifiable text or voice recording.
BTW, the Dalits today are frustrated with the Dravidian movement because their oppression still continues, only now it is at the hands of dominant NB caste. In fact they refer to these perpetrators as neo-brahmins or something to that effect, not very complementary of Brahmins! I am fully in sync with their legitimate frustration, but that does not mean they reject EVR and his thoughts in total.
In this context we must note that when an attempt was made on Rajaji's life by a DK member, EVR strongly condemned this criminal act and urged his followers not to resort to any kind of violence and that their goals must be achieved by peaceful means only.
Let me start with one Manu Dharmashasthra verse:
"4.135. Let him who desires prosperity, indeed, never despise a Kshatriya, a snake, and a learned Brahmana, be they ever so feeble."
EVR is not the first to make this snake comparison! Please note, there is no mention of killing the Brahmin "snake" by EVR. When there is a text available it is devoid of the most incendiary part.
Anyway, I think this kind of rhetoric crosses a line, I certainly do not condone it, but I understand where he is coming from, more about this later.
EVR had such a sway among the masses that he could have made life a lot more difficult to Brahmins if his intent was to eradicate Brahmins, that too in a violent way. But the facts belie such a charge. Today, the Dravidian governments, DMK or ADMK, provide police bandobast to Brahminical matams. Whenever the matam-head travels they provide police escort. They get free pass at all the tolls. Is this the way the Dravidian movement was going to eliminate Brahmins from Tamil Nadu?
Much of the hatred directed towards EVR is due to his harsh rhetoric no doubt, but also due to misinformation and oft repeated exaggerations. Acts of actual physical violence are very isolated. If EVR's heated rhetoric was the cause these isolated instances of mild violence (cutting kudumi is violence, but not like killing or trashing property) then we must have seen widespread violence against Brahmins like what we witnessed in the Balkans some 20 years ago.
Yes, EVR's rhetoric was very heated, and could very well be construed by Brahmins as hateful. I certainly see that. I don't approve of it, I don't admire EVR for this, but I can understand what he was trying to do with such rhetoric.
To understand this, one must think back and see what sort of society we lived in up until the 60s when DMK came to power. There was wide spread officially permitted segregation in public places. I have seen restaurants that openly displayed signs like ப்ராமிணர்கள் சாப்பிடும் இடம். I have seen public eating places where only Brahmins are allowed, Gandhi talks about this in one of the Congress national meetings.
Low caste NB and Dalits were routinely treated like dirt, I have seen these with my own eyes. Brahmins in the most part were idling class supported by the physical labor of NBs and Dalits.
EVR was a product of this environment. He saw all this and his priority was to shake the Tamil population up, wake them up from this stupor and instil some self-respect. People may agree or disagree with EVR's assessment, but this is what he set out to do.
EVR wanted to drill it into each and every NB of all stripes that B's are not gods on this earth, that they were no less a human being than the Brahmins. A calm academic lecture couldn't achieve this. Fierce political speech sprinkled with humor was needed. EVR gave them such speeches and the public ate it up with delight and wanted more. He didn't disappoint them.
One indisputable legacy of EVR is, today, no B can demand separate eating area in any restaurant anywhere in Tamil Nadu. No B can force an NB to take off muNdasu and wrap it around his waist with folded hands. The old practice of even a B child using the language of வாடா, போடா even to elderly NBs will be tolerated today. EVR's sometimes over the top rhetoric shook the psyche of the Tamil people, in the case of B's to accept changes, and in the case of NBs to assert these changes. EVR is the one who taught self respect is a basic human right. This is what admire about the man. In this process, a few of his overzealous followers surely went too far, and such acts are condemnable, were condemned, I condemn them as well.
There are a lot of things that bother me. It bothers me that even now we have cheris outside villages where Dalits are restricted. It bothers me that Dalit students are made to clean toilets. It bothers me that Adivasees are robbed blind by international corporations with government protection. Yes, it bothers me that the kudumi of some Brahmins are cut. In the grand scheme of suffering that is visited on powerless humansbeings, Brahmin victims of DK violence are way down the list.
To me, EVR's over the top rhetoric was just that, rhetoric, it was never a call to action. If it was a call to action our history would be very different. Personally, I wish he had not used such rhetoric, but I understand that he may not have been successful in instilling self-respect otherwise.
EVR surely is a much reviled individual in this forum where Brahmins congregate. I undersatand that. But EVR's thoughts were not only about Brahmins. I am going to post some of EVR's thoughts in this thread. This may not change your views of EVR, but at least you may learn a thing or two about what the man try to teach his people.
Cheers!
I do not want the other thread to get side-tracked into a discussion of EVR, so I am starting this one. I welcome all my brothers and sisters to participate in a reasoned discussion. I am under no illusion that anybody is going to fundamentally change his/her POV, but we may learn something new that we didn't know before. Since this is a very volatile topic with strong negative views, it is particularly important for all of us to be civil to each other, to keep our emotions in check. I request Shri KRS to keep this thread clean so to speak, as he has done everywhere else.
In this post I wish to respond to some of the citations given by Shri KRS, and also express my understanding of EVR's rhetoric. I apoligize for the length of this post. I will keep my future posts short.
Yes, I do admire EVR for what he stood for and achieved. Let me give some more names of people whom I admire, MLK, Babasaheb Ambedkar, Mahakavi Bharathi, Arundati Roy, to name just a few. While I admire these individuals for various reasons, I do not necessarily agree with all their view. For example, I strongly disagree with MLK's religiosity.
I know this statement is attributed to him. I have looked long and hard, but I have never seen a verifiable source for it. Even the links you have cited only say this is attributed to him. In fact, the first link you provided also says this:
"... he seems to have said such things largely to shock. In several places he claimed he hated not individual Brahmins but brhaminism as an institution. In a somewhat similar spirit, in an article for The Hindu, while maintaining that "Aryan" and Dravidian" are two distinct groups, he commented: "My desire is not to perpetuate this difference but to unify the two opposing elements in society.
The second link again only cites the same claim without any verifiable source. This attribution is like an echo chamber, everybody cites each other as reference, never is there any verifiable text or voice recording.
BTW, the Dalits today are frustrated with the Dravidian movement because their oppression still continues, only now it is at the hands of dominant NB caste. In fact they refer to these perpetrators as neo-brahmins or something to that effect, not very complementary of Brahmins! I am fully in sync with their legitimate frustration, but that does not mean they reject EVR and his thoughts in total.
This is a problem, but not mine. If EVR is supposed to have repeated this very frequently, surely there is some written text or recording. Absence of such evidence calls into question the authenticity of this attribution. In any case, at the very least, one must admit it is attributed to EVR, but no verifiable evidence exists.
In this context we must note that when an attempt was made on Rajaji's life by a DK member, EVR strongly condemned this criminal act and urged his followers not to resort to any kind of violence and that their goals must be achieved by peaceful means only.
This is what a good citation is, exact words (in translation), specific date, and publication. This kind of citation will carry lot of weight.
Let me start with one Manu Dharmashasthra verse:
"4.135. Let him who desires prosperity, indeed, never despise a Kshatriya, a snake, and a learned Brahmana, be they ever so feeble."
Anyway, I think this kind of rhetoric crosses a line, I certainly do not condone it, but I understand where he is coming from, more about this later.
These kinds of acts must be condemned, and of course I do condemn them. But, these are isolated incidences by overzealous youngsters. For all the anti-Brahmin rhetoric of EVR, Brahmins in fact flourished in Tamil Nadu. I grew up in Erode district, the very epicenter of DK movement. In school there were many DK teachers, my own class master was a DK member. My experience is, for what it is worth, I never felt isolated. My friends used to make fun of me, but they were my friends, we played together, studied together got into trouble together, got whupped by the teacher together. The DK teachers never treated me differently.
EVR had such a sway among the masses that he could have made life a lot more difficult to Brahmins if his intent was to eradicate Brahmins, that too in a violent way. But the facts belie such a charge. Today, the Dravidian governments, DMK or ADMK, provide police bandobast to Brahminical matams. Whenever the matam-head travels they provide police escort. They get free pass at all the tolls. Is this the way the Dravidian movement was going to eliminate Brahmins from Tamil Nadu?
This is completely false. The heated rhetoric of EVR may be convenient to make it appear this charge of encouragement is valid, but if we take real events on the grounds into account we will see this is not true at all. There was only one recorded instance of serious violence when a DK member attempted to assasinate Rajaji and EVR roundly condemned it and acts of violence in general. Other acts such a cutting poonal/kudumi were (a) though condemnable, relatively mild and (b) isolated. In other words, the rhetoric was meant to shock, not to carry out violent acts, and were understood in that way only.
Much of the hatred directed towards EVR is due to his harsh rhetoric no doubt, but also due to misinformation and oft repeated exaggerations. Acts of actual physical violence are very isolated. If EVR's heated rhetoric was the cause these isolated instances of mild violence (cutting kudumi is violence, but not like killing or trashing property) then we must have seen widespread violence against Brahmins like what we witnessed in the Balkans some 20 years ago.
Yes, EVR's rhetoric was very heated, and could very well be construed by Brahmins as hateful. I certainly see that. I don't approve of it, I don't admire EVR for this, but I can understand what he was trying to do with such rhetoric.
To understand this, one must think back and see what sort of society we lived in up until the 60s when DMK came to power. There was wide spread officially permitted segregation in public places. I have seen restaurants that openly displayed signs like ப்ராமிணர்கள் சாப்பிடும் இடம். I have seen public eating places where only Brahmins are allowed, Gandhi talks about this in one of the Congress national meetings.
Low caste NB and Dalits were routinely treated like dirt, I have seen these with my own eyes. Brahmins in the most part were idling class supported by the physical labor of NBs and Dalits.
EVR was a product of this environment. He saw all this and his priority was to shake the Tamil population up, wake them up from this stupor and instil some self-respect. People may agree or disagree with EVR's assessment, but this is what he set out to do.
EVR wanted to drill it into each and every NB of all stripes that B's are not gods on this earth, that they were no less a human being than the Brahmins. A calm academic lecture couldn't achieve this. Fierce political speech sprinkled with humor was needed. EVR gave them such speeches and the public ate it up with delight and wanted more. He didn't disappoint them.
One indisputable legacy of EVR is, today, no B can demand separate eating area in any restaurant anywhere in Tamil Nadu. No B can force an NB to take off muNdasu and wrap it around his waist with folded hands. The old practice of even a B child using the language of வாடா, போடா even to elderly NBs will be tolerated today. EVR's sometimes over the top rhetoric shook the psyche of the Tamil people, in the case of B's to accept changes, and in the case of NBs to assert these changes. EVR is the one who taught self respect is a basic human right. This is what admire about the man. In this process, a few of his overzealous followers surely went too far, and such acts are condemnable, were condemned, I condemn them as well.
Even if I think I am an universal humanist I will be one on paper only. I have not put my life on the line like so many others have done for a higher ideal.
There are a lot of things that bother me. It bothers me that even now we have cheris outside villages where Dalits are restricted. It bothers me that Dalit students are made to clean toilets. It bothers me that Adivasees are robbed blind by international corporations with government protection. Yes, it bothers me that the kudumi of some Brahmins are cut. In the grand scheme of suffering that is visited on powerless humansbeings, Brahmin victims of DK violence are way down the list.
To me, EVR's over the top rhetoric was just that, rhetoric, it was never a call to action. If it was a call to action our history would be very different. Personally, I wish he had not used such rhetoric, but I understand that he may not have been successful in instilling self-respect otherwise.
EVR surely is a much reviled individual in this forum where Brahmins congregate. I undersatand that. But EVR's thoughts were not only about Brahmins. I am going to post some of EVR's thoughts in this thread. This may not change your views of EVR, but at least you may learn a thing or two about what the man try to teach his people.
Cheers!
just kidding, I welcome your comments and of others as well with whom a civil and reasoned discussion is possible.
