Folks,
This has for reference post #293 in this thread:
.
First, let me restate the parameters within which I am making these presentations.
My parameters: Though I will be recording my counters to what is stated here by this particular member, I will be addressing all my replies to the members in general as I do not want to appear to be addressing my arguments to a stone wall. I believe sincerely that I represent the views of a majority of the members of this forum. At the end of all these we can even conduct a poll to determine whether this is indeed so or not. That will help me decide whether I should continue here in future or not.
I don't agree with every last word EVR has uttered, he himself exhorted his devotees to think for themselves and accept only what made sense to them
This is well understood since this statement comes to our notice for the nth time. It is also understood –even though left unsaid-that whatever is excerpted/ reproduced here are all words of EVR which make excellent sense to the poster and that he agrees with every word of what is said there by EVR. If this is not the case then the poster should clarify and add a tag after those sentences which do not make sense to him. This will only be a reasonable expectation from the ordinary members here.
I didn't broach the topic of EVR, it was brought in by others --in the past I have always ignored them, but this time I wanted to present his own words, in context, on the outrageous charges that are routinely made as though they are facts
While the member has the right to think that EVR’s words are all benign and not hurtful while the charges on this count to the contrary made by other members are all outrageous, the members have a right to think just the opposite. So we reject what is said here by the member as irrelevant.
My admiration for EVR is based on the stands he advocated on caste, women, superstitions, etc.
On the same stands we the members here have a different opinion. We think there was nothing admirable in them. We also think that whatever he advocated was pure hatred: that he deliberately chose a micro minority community to vent his skewed anger and frustration as he was scared of the repercussions if he had spoken the truth against the other majority communities of Hindus as well.
Many if not most here look at EVR only through Brahmin prism and/or theistic prism. I will never be able to move them. To them my posts must be discredited so that their view of balance is restored. But, my posts are themselves in response to a one-sided hyperbole bordering on slander. They are for bringing a small measure of the "other side" if you will.
We dismiss this as the expression of a prejudice: There is no Brahmin prism and we object to the term as derisive and mischievous. The member has a prejudice that Brahmins can never look at themselves critically, that they can never accept reasonable criticism, that any one who do not accept the member’s view has to be on the wrong side, that the counter criticism of EVR is all hyperbole however sensible they may be to a neutral viewer, that what is said against EVR can only be slanderous and that EVR has a “other side” which is all very reasonable, matured, humane, sweet and desirable.
EVR was an ardent congressman for a long time. During this period he campaigned incessantly for communal representation, a sort of "reservation" policy that would provide access to the corridors of power to the "Shudras" and "Panchamas" (yes he fought for ”Panchamas” also). But, for obvious reasons, the Brahmins in Congress, and a few upper caste NB supporters, blocked his effort every time.
There is no proof for this contention in recorded history. So we have to look at the situation with whatever internal evidences are available. The communal representation demand was mainly one for the benefit of dominant middle castes and had nothing to do with pancamans because they were no where near the secretariat or its clerical jobs as they were toiling in the villages in the agricultural fields of dominant middle castes. Tall statements expressing sympathy for pancamans were made no doubt. Ultimately the intentions matter and they are brought out only by the actions over a period of time. If written and spoken words are to be taken as the only proof of intentions every charlatan and demagogue can become the Prime Minister of this country. Pancamans even today do not think EVR did any thing for them. They knew him as the self-appointed chieftain of the middle dominant castes who had his private quarrels with the higher caste. Venkatesan, a dalit, who has written Marupakkam can not be so easily dismissed as the voice of Hindutva groups. More about the Hindutva later. Even today Ambedkar is venerated and respected in Tamilnadu villages and towns more than EVR. If the number of statues can indicate the popularity Ambedkar has more statues than EVR in TN today. EVR was piqued when a Brahmin won a party election fighting against him in Congress party polls. The pressure group within congress which he tried to develop was shown its place by the party and this added to his injured pride. The poster here admits that “and a few upper caste NB supporters” blocked his efforts. These were right thinking people who did not want to join the ginger group headed by EVR. On EVR’s concern for pancamans we need proof from the member for a careful evaluation.
Gandhi sided with the Brahmins. Finally, out of frustration EVR left Congress and joined the Justice Party. Whatever may be one's views on reservation, EVR fought for it for all NBs including "Panchamas". He played no small part in this fight and Dalits today enjoy the fruits of that fight he helped wage.
We will not discuss Gandhi here as it will be a digression. EVR left in frustration and that frustration came because he could not usurp leadership of congress party. Reservation as a social measure owes its origin and fructification to Ambedkar and the other members of the constituent Assembly of India who drafted the Indian Constitution (that this core group included many Brahmins is besides the point here). EVR claimed the credit and his supporters gave that credit to him. But that does not mean EVR had any constructive role in the reservation benefit for the people. If the member can provide proof for his contention that EVR got the reservation we can take a look at that.
EVR was a prolific writer and speaker. In his life time EVR gave over 10,000 speeches. If his speeches are run continuously 24/7 it will run for more than 2 years. His writings are in many volumes. He laced his writings and speeches with salty language, and over the top rhetoric. So, it is not difficult to find some quote or other that will appear nonsensical, contradictory and offensive, when taken in isolation and read out of context. It is not very difficult for people like M. Venkatesan with a Hindutva agenda to paint a picture about EVR that Brahmins can enjoy. I am not saying EVR was a perfect angel, what I am saying is, taken as a whole, his ideas are revolutionary even today, let alone during his life time. Needless to say people are free to see whatever they want to see.
He was a rich man and had wealth left behind by his parents. So he could afford to spend his time on writing (with the quality one can expect of a 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] standard drop out) and hatred mongering in the name of politicking. I know a local thug who punctuates each word he speaks with the cuss word in tamil (o**a). He is about 35 years old. If you type all the cus words uttered by him in his conversations these 35 years and string them together, you can prepare a garland with which you can garland mother India three times around- the garland going through Himalayas to Kanyakumari and back to the Hindukush mountains on the west. Does it mean any thing to us? If a person’s written out put is to stand the test of time it should stand on its own strength and not on borrowed strength of his fans who have to defend it saying it was great though rhetorical, salty etc., If venkatesan says something the member will carefully research into the platform from which he speaks and then dub him, typecast him and brand him as a man with Hindutva agenda because that way it becomes easy for the member to live in his own make believe world. I would like to tell the member this. Don’t look at Venkatesan with your colored glass. If Hindutva gave him the platform and the security from which he could present the facts –which the Dravidian politicians would not have provided-why should you dismiss him contemptuously? I am a Leftist by conviction and I say Venkatesan speaks truth and nothing but truth. Now it is for the members here to decide whose words are more credible.
p.s. As I noted above, I am confident I am not going to move anybody. There will be several people vying to discredit what I am saying here. I have answered all their questions many times in the past. I am tired of repeating them again and again. So, please go ahead and say anything you want, please do not expect a point by point response.
The member may please cut all this rueful chest beating and foregone conclusions all escape hatches useful for escape from the heat of a developing argument and proceed briskly with the business in hand. We are all matured individuals here. We are not babies who will faint when pulled up.
Cheers.
