Self respect movement

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

There is more than a little bit of obfuscation going on here.

Nobody condones cutting of poonal or kudumi. These are isolated incidences, perpetrated by over-zealous youngsters carried away by the emotion of the moment. As I stated earlier I condemn it, I condemn those who perpetrated such acts, and those who may have instigated such acts.

There are a couple of important points to note, (i) such acts are not condoned, and (ii) these kinds of behavior are not codified as part of the manifesto of their movement.

Now, let us examine the creed of those who love to hate EVR, and the behavior of not just the foot soldiers of their ism, but the entire leadership structure.

In Brahminism, hate, in the extreme forms -- such as pouring molten lead and cutting off tongue --, and in less extreme forms yet equal in effect albeit a mental one -- such as untouchability, permanent teettu, exclusion, robbing even the last drop of self-respect and dignity, etc. -- is enshrined as truth eternal in their religious scripture. The intellectual elites stand by these hateful principles. They practice them every day, even in this 21st century to the extent socially tolerated. They urge their followers to practice it and chide them for not following it.

Please take a look at what Paramacharya -- one who is much revered -- says in their kamakoti.org:

Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva, the founders of our religio-philosophical systems, proclaim that our dharmasastras are in accord with the Vedas.

[...]

To discriminate between Sruti and Smrti is not correct.

It is not proper to think that the Smrtis are inferior to the Vedas ....

The sages had intuitive knowledge of the Vedas. As mentioned so often they did not compose them - they saw them.
​

Those who accuse EVR of encouraging violence refuse to consider the possibility that (a) EVR's rhetoric was for shock value, (b) it was seen as such by the Tamil population, and (c) is being interpreted that way by academics. At the same time, they see no problem to assert these acharyas are not haters, their ideology is just their Brahmin community values, their day-to-day practices are part of their culture. I am at a loss to understand what makes them so completely oblivious to the colossal internal contradiction and all pervading irony?

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear brother Nara Ji,

I saw this and I had to respond immediately. I will respond to your earlier post later.

Let me educate you about the situation. Do you really think, a person of the stature and adoration by almost all communities in TN would approve of such inhumane treatment of any person? More importantly, would He have supported something unfair and cruel? He most definitely would not have. He was a source of utmost love and compassion about the whole humanity. I know, because of many, many first hand accounts.

There are 2400 and odd sayings in the Manu Shastra which is, they say is about 2000 years old. The effects and purposes of dharma shastras on the erstwhile Hindu society as well as the authenticity of half of the slokas are under question. Contrary rules are present and there are quite a bit of stylistic differences. Even Ambedkar questioned them. Seems to me that people like EVR and you who want to destroy Hinduism essentially using some adulterated rule book from the past to ridicule the whole religion.

By the way, here is what Maha Periaval said:

There is a wrong impression about the dharmasastras even among those who treat them with respect. They think that the rules and duties of the Smrtis were formulated by their authors on their own. They call these authors "lawgivers" who, in their opinion, laid down "laws" that reflect their own views. Further they think that the dharmasastras were composed in the same way as our Constitution. Such a view give rise to another idea. We keep amending the Constitution whenever we find that it stands in the way of certain measures being introduced. It is asked, on the same logic, why the dharmasastras too should not be changed according to the beliefs and ideas of the present times.

People ask me :"Why should not the sastras be changed to suit the times? The government changes its laws, does it not? " They sing my praises and tell me: "You are like the sages, the authors of the Smrtis. If only you make up your mind you can change the Smrtis to suit our times. " In effect what they respectfully suggest is this: "Please change the sastras as we would like them to be changed. "If the Smrtis really represent the views of the authors there is nothing wrong in what these people think about them and about what they want me to do about them. But those who want the dharmasastras changed do not see to know that they (the Smrtis) do not reflect the view of the sages who composed them. What the authors of the Smrtis have done is to present us in an orderly fashion what is already contained in the Vedas. The Vedic word cannot and must not be changed at any time and on any account. The same applies to the rules and laws laid down in the Smrtis.I may not be capable enough, or worthy enough, to persuade you to live according to the sastras. But changing them is certainly not my function. I have been installed here (in the Matha) to make people perform their duties and rites. That is according to the command of the Acarya. I do not possess the authority to revise the sastras according to what is felt to be convenient to the present times or what is in keeping with the new beliefs.If the sages had created the Smrtis on their own, to represent their own views, there would be no compulsion to accept them. If the Smrtis are not needed we could reject them outright. If their contents are not based on the Vedas and include rules and directions that reflect the views of the authors, then we can do without them. In this way so many people have written down so much about so many things. We too may write down whatever comes to our mind. The Smrtis must be looked upon as an authority for today and tomorrow and for all time because they are founded on the Vedas. But what is the proof for this claim?
Smritis - not Independent Works from the Chapter "Dharmasastra", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:

He goes on to quote Mahakavi Kalidasa's poem to show proof that the dharma shastras had the vedic origin. And clearly He was referring to the 'dharma' (duties) that were laid out in the shastras, mainly for the Brahmins, which is quite evident from above.

You may not like his support of the castes. But He firmly believed that Brahmins should go back to their original dharma and if they did others would also go back to their dharmas. He believed that this is the only way to preserve Hindu unity.

Whereas, EVR did incite and there is no proof that his followers took his words as merely bombastic. If so, please post his words that tell his followers otherwise. Dismissing any violence, including the attempted assassination can not be dismissed as just youthful pranks.

In fact, there is nothing to prove that any molten lead was poured in to anyone's ears, let alone other atrocities. Yes, 'theettu' led to some practices, which in my opinion were not vedic, as the Hindu society disintegrated. Which eventually the theistic Hindu society will fix, by integrating more and more.

Your comparisons are way off the mark. So, please desist making this ludicrous comparison.

Regards,
KRS

There is more than a little bit of obfuscation going on here.

Nobody condones cutting of poonal or kudumi. These are isolated incidences, perpetrated by over-zealous youngsters carried away by the emotion of the moment. As I stated earlier I condemn it, I condemn those who perpetrated such acts, and those who may have instigated such acts.

There are a couple of important points to note, (i) such acts are not condoned, and (ii) these kinds of behavior are not codified as part of the manifesto of their movement.

Now, let us examine the creed of those who love to hate EVR, and the behavior of not just the foot soldiers of their ism, but the entire leadership structure.

In Brahminism, hate, in the extreme forms -- such as pouring molten lead and cutting off tongue --, and in less extreme forms yet equal in effect albeit a mental one -- such as untouchability, permanent teettu, exclusion, robbing even the last drop of self-respect and dignity, etc. -- is enshrined as truth eternal in their religious scripture. The intellectual elites stand by these hateful principles. They practice them every day, even in this 21st century to the extent socially tolerated. They urge their followers to practice it and chide them for not following it.

Please take a look at what Paramacharya -- one who is much revered -- says in their kamakoti.org:

Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva, the founders of our religio-philosophical systems, proclaim that our dharmasastras are in accord with the Vedas.

[...]

To discriminate between Sruti and Smrti is not correct.

It is not proper to think that the Smrtis are inferior to the Vedas ....

The sages had intuitive knowledge of the Vedas. As mentioned so often they did not compose them - they saw them.
​

Those who accuse EVR of encouraging violence refuse to consider the possibility that (a) EVR's rhetoric was for shock value, (b) it was seen as such by the Tamil population, and (c) is being interpreted that way by academics. At the same time, they see no problem to assert these acharyas are not haters, their ideology is just their Brahmin community values, their day-to-day practices are part of their culture. I am at a loss to understand what makes them so completely oblivious to the colossal internal contradiction and all pervading irony?

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Next, I would like to present a debate between Rajaji and EVR. Rajaji had written a long article critical of EVR and his movement in the magazine Navasakti. EVR condensed Rajaji's arguments into 10 salient points and answered them in a short rebuttal that appeared in Kudiarasu in 1925.

What possible relevance this could have more than 85 years later?

Well, that is what I also though initially, but when I read the article I realized these are still open questions, Brahmins have not come to terms with them yet. Hopefully, another 85 years hence, these questions are no longer prescient and are of interest only to historians.

Point #1:

Rajai's argument as presented by EVR:

"பல காரணங்களால் உயர் பதவியடைந்த ஒரு ஜாதியாரைக்கண்டு பொறாமை கொண்டு மற்ற ஜாதியாரைச்சேர்ந்த பெரியோர்கள் அவர்களைத் தூஷித்து அவர்களை ஒடுக்குவதாக கிளர்ச்சி செய்தால் .... நன்மை விளைவதாக தோற்றம் காட்டலாம்; விரைவில் அப்பொய்த் தோற்றம் மறைந்துபோய் பழைய கதையாய் முடியும்."


​

EVR's response:

பல காரணங்களால் உயர் பதவியடைந்த பிராமணர்களிடம் பொறாமை கொண்டு அவர்களை ஒடுக்குவதற்கு தீண்டாமை விலக்கு பிரசாரத்தின் பேரால் கிளர்ச்சி செய்வதாகவும், அது பலன் கொடுக்காது என்றும் பந்தயம் கூறுகிறார்.

இவருடைய தத்துவப்படிப் பார்த்தால் பல காரணங்களால் இந்தியாவை ஜெயித்து தங்களது வாழ்க்கைக்கு ஆஸ்பதமான நாடாக்கி ஆண்டு வருவதைப் பார்த்து, பொறாமைப்பட்டுத் தான் "இங்கிலீஷ்காரர் வாயில் மண்விழும் படியான" கதர் வேலையில் இவர் ஈடுபட்டிருக்கிறார் போலும். சீமைக்குப் போகும் பணத்தை நிறுத்துவது பொறாமைதான் போலும்.

வெள்ளைக்காரரில் அயோக்கியனாயிருந்தாலும் பல காரணங்களல் ஜெயித்து விட்ட ஜாதியானதால் அவனைக்கண்டால் நாம் சலாம் போடவேண்டுமென்பதும், அவன் 1000, 500 ரூ. சம்பளத்துக்கு அருகன் என்பதும், நாம் எவ்வளவு யோக்கியனானாலும் நம் கூலி என்பதும் 10, 20 ரூ. சம்பளத்துக்குத்தான் லாயக்கு என்பதும் மாறவேண்டும் என்று கிளர்ச்சி செய்தால் அது பொறாமை போலும்.

நீயும் நானும் மனிதன் தானே, தென்ஆப்பிர்க்கா வீதியில் நீ மாத்திரம் நடக்கலாம், நான் மாத்திரம் ஏன் நடக்கக் கூடாது என்பது பொறாமை போலும்.

இதெல்லாம் வெள்ளைக்காரரைத் தூஷித்து அவர்களை ஒடுக்கத்தான் ஸ்ரீமான்கள். ராஜகோபாலசாரியார், ச்த்தியமூர்த்தி போன்றோர்கள் கிளர்ச்சி செய்கிறார்கள் போலும். அப்படியானால் அது கண்டிப்பாய் ஜெயம் பெறாது போலும்.
​

 

[Nara]

...By the way, here is what Maha Periaval said:

He goes on to quote Mahakavi Kalidasa's poem to show proof that the dharma shastras had the vedic origin.

Your comparisons are way off the mark.

Dear brother, so, in your opinion, Mahaperiyaval's stand must be viewed in context, but EVR's stand must be viewed only from the most extreme prism. Why should I not see this as self-serving?

So, please desist making this ludicrous comparison.

Now I am scared, are you giving me a warning as a moderator, or is this just a flamboyant expression of your utter disapproval of my opinion? Since this comes in black, not the dreaded red, I assume it is the later. Please clarify.

For every instance of love you cite of Paramacharya, there are equal, if not more instances of love that ordinary common folks feel, and vice versa. In my view, any comparison between EVR and Mahaperiyaval -- one who sees the odious Smritis as nothing short of the essence of what in his opinion is the immutable truth -- is indeed ludicrous, and, therefore, I shall desist from comparing EVR with Mahaperiyava.

Please be assured, I have no disrespect towards Mahaperiyaval, he is just a product of the circumstances. He, as the head of the most dominant Brahminical institution, and due to the life long association with Brahminical way of thinking, couldn't say anything differently. All I was arguing for is for people to show a modicum of respect for the man who is widely respected and loved by a majority of Tamils, like not equating him with Hitler, that is all. If that is too much for you guys, I understand.

Cheers!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

I wonder who is indulging in obfuscation here.

The attacks on brahmins in TN are perpetrated now. We are not merely talking about attacks that happened during EVR's time. Vandalism of mutts, prayer halls, kudumi cut, poonul cut happen to this day. During the EVR statue fiasco, petrol bombs and acid bombs were thrown in mambalam. Innocent brahmins in various places of TN, who were not in any way related to the desecration were attacked. This resulted in serious injuries and there was loss of limb. TN police orchestrated a drama- arrested a few DK youths, who were able to come out the same day with the connivance of the then DMK govt.

These attacks were/are real. They happen today. Nara's riposte to these charges is suggested punishment to a Shudra that either happened several centuries ago or might have never happened.

Who is obfuscating?

Nobody condones cutting of poonal or kudumi. These are isolated incidences, perpetrated by over-zealous youngsters carried away by the emotion of the moment. As I stated earlier I condemn it, I condemn those who perpetrated such acts, and those who may have instigated such acts.

Au contraire, we see repeated attempts to justify such attacks. If anything, we only see laments and disappointments that such attacks were isolated!

There are a couple of important points to note, (i) such acts are not condoned, and (ii) these kinds of behavior are not codified as part of the manifesto of their movement.

The above statements are simply not true.
1. Such attacks are encouraged by DK leaders, EVR admirers and loyalists. DMK govt actively shielded the attackers from law.
2. Eliminating aryans/brahmins from TN or Dravida nadu was/is the stated goal of DK movement.

 

[KRS]

Dear brother Nara Ji,

You said in post # 79 above:

Now I am scared, are you giving me a warning as a moderator, or is this just a flamboyant expression of your utter disapproval of my opinion? Since this comes in black, not the dreaded red, I assume it is the later. Please clarify.

Yes, you are correct.

You are also right to say that EVR and Maha Periaval can not be compared; not though for the reason you said.

There are two reasons why I termed the comparison ludicrous.

1. Unsound analogy: One does not compare two things with totally different attributes (like apples and oranges). It is like comparing President Obama with the Pope - even though they may share some peripheral aspect, like they are both Heads of States, like apples and oranges fall under the category of fruits. The only such connection between Maha Periaval and EVR was that they were involved for and against Hinduism. Of course you know this rule of logic.

2. Trying to uphold a wrong by pointing fingers at some perceived wrong by someone else: Actually this is the real obfuscation. One has to examine the actions of the person in question - in this case EVR - on their own merits and not in the light of someone else's perceived wrong action. And of course you know this too; hence the rush to label my listing of EVR's hate sayings as obfuscation.

Brother, since this thread is about EVR, why don't we confine our focus on him and his sayings and actions alone? Thank you.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

....2. Trying to uphold a wrong by pointing fingers at some perceived wrong by someone else:

Dear brother, This is probably the source of all the obfuscation, I am not justifying any wrong at all, from either side, from any side. All I was talking about was the outrageous and insulting treatment meted out to a public and much beloved leader. That is all, I am not even asking them not to do that, let them do it, to their heart's content, if that would give them some peace of mind, let it be. But, please, don't tell me if I point this out, then I am making some ludicrous comparison, if it is a ludicrous comparison, then, surely, it is for the reasons I state.

Peace!!

 

[Nara]

One side says EVR's ideology was a hateful one, he encouraged violence through his rhetoric, and his followers engaged in violence against Brahmins.

I have been presenting EVR's own words and that of other academics and researchers to show his ideology was certainly not a hateful one. I will continue to do this a little longer.

His rhetoric was meant to awaken the basic self-respect and dignity of common people who have been kept under the iron heel for far too long. From time to time, when his followers engaged in disruptions he condemned such actions and urged restraint. Let me cite a couple short exhortations EVR issued to his followers in Kudiarasu urging them to behave in peaceful manner:

இம்மாதிரியான காரியங்களை நாம் மனப்பூர்த்தியாய் வெறுக்கிறோம். ப்ரசாரகர்கள் என்ன கருத்தோடு வந்த போதிலும் அவர்கள் சொல்லுவது முழுமையும் பொருமையாய் கேட்டுவிட்டு மறுப்பு ஏதாவது இருந்தால் பேசுவதற்கு அவகாசம் கேட்க வேண்டியது. அக்கூட்டத்தார் அதை மறுப்பார்களானால் பேசாமல் இருந்துவிட்டு அடுத்த நாள் ஒரு கூட்டத்தை கூட்டி நமது அபிப்பிராயத்தை சொல்ல வேண்டும் ... (Feb 14, 1926)

அய்யங்காரின் பிரசாரத் தன்மை எப்படியிருந்தாலும் ... கூட்டங்களில் கலவரம் நடந்ததாக ஏற்படுவதாவது அதற்கு காரணமாக இருக்கிறவர்களின் இழிதகைமை என்றே சொல்லுவோம். ... யாரானாலும் ..பிரசாரம் செய்ய உரிமை உடையவர்கள் (அதை) எதிர்க்கிறவர்கள், வேறு ஒருவர் கூட்டிய கூட்டத்தில் போய் ... ஆண்மையுள்ளவர்கள் கலவரம் செய்யமாட்டார்கள்.... குழப்பம் நடந்ததாக பார்க்க மிகவும் வருத்தம் அடைகிறோம்... இது ஒரு கோழையின் செய்கையே ...(June 26, 1927)


​

To say EVR encouraged violence is a myth that lives only in the imagination of Brahmins.

Lastly, several people have mentioned that when a statue of EVR was desecrated Brahmins were accosted in even far away places. This is to be condemned with all our might, and I do condemn it as well. But this is not a blot on EVR. Look what happened after Indira Gandhi was assassinated, Sikhs all over North India became fair target, women, children and the old.

Any desecration of statue of any political leader, any perceived slight against any of their leaders, there will be a group of people who will go on a vandalism spree and innocent people will suffer. This is a cultural problem. Brahmins don't do this because they are not only numerically small, but for historical reasons are generally socially, economically, and culturally from the upper crust.

This is a a law and order problem to be dealt with by the police. To denounce EVR and his ideology is opportunistic, unprincipled and dishonest.

Cheers!

 

[BostonSankara]

Dear Prof. Nara,

You say "To say EVR encouraged violence is a myth that lives only in the imagination of Brahmins." You say EVR was a leader, a visionary, and a man committed to restoring the self-respect of the majority of his people. But you also put forth an idea that he is not responsible for the actions his rhetoric incited. There is a fallacy here. Either the man was nothing more than a voice of hopeful propaganda, a hollow speaker disconnected from and not responsible for the repercussions of his actions OR he was actually a LEADER. A leader of a people or group is ALWAYS responsible for the actions of its members. This responsibility can never be shrugged off. The reason for this is that if a man acts as a catalyst for a reaction (carefully note the use of the word catalyst - one who brings about change but is not used up in the process) he is ultimately responsible for all results of that reaction. This is not to say he indirectly cut the kudumi/poonal (sickening!) but that once it happened it was his responsibility to OPENLY DENOUCE THE ACTION AND OSTRACIZE THE OFFENDERS. He is resonsible for maintaining his membership. He is the leader. If his membership gets out of hand and his rhetoric never changes then one of two things are clear the actions are his tacit intention or he is not really a leader at all.

Here is the similarity between Mahaperiaval and EVR. In my opinion neither one of them was willing to step up to the plate and take responsibility for the actions of their membership.

EVR sounds like a fantastically charismatic visionary and a man driven to achieve his goals. I respect that. But he in NO WAY sounds like a man dedicated to EQUALITY but rather a man dedicated to settling an old and painful score. He seems like a man who suffered social abuse throughout his life and used his charisma to settle that score and in the meantime rise what he considered "his people" up with him. Unfortunately he missed the mark in demonizing the Brahminical population and not just its leaders. You see it is the leaders who must always stand trial or the actions of their people. We see this during war crime tribunals. We see this during corporate trials of CEO's standing responsible for the actions of their accountants (think Enron).

The man was no puppet that is for sure and for god sakes the man is no martin Luther King Junior. By the way if your biggest gripe with MLK Jr. was the fact that he was a minister and not that he was notorious for cheating on his wife then whatever that is your crusade.

I mean no harm when I say this (and I feel you may like the connection actually) but I see similarities in EVR's crusade as I understand it and your own. There comes a time when someone has been decided that they are fed up with X, y, or z and choose to step things up a notch. I feel that you have done that here on the forum to some extent (a natural response to defend oneself from perceived attack).

-
Sankara

 

[ShivKC]

Dear Prof. Nara,

You say "To say EVR encouraged violence is a myth that lives only in the imagination of Brahmins." You say EVR was a leader, a visionary, and a man committed to restoring the self-respect of the majority of his people. But you also put forth an idea that he is not responsible for the actions his rhetoric incited. There is a fallacy here. Either the man was nothing more than a voice of hopeful propaganda, a hollow speaker disconnected from and not responsible for the repercussions of his actions OR he was actually a LEADER. A leader of a people or group is ALWAYS responsible for the actions of its members. This responsibility can never be shrugged off.

actually, the logical fallacy is right out here!

you may be surprised, the other side would bounce back and make Lord Shiva accountable for Mumbai's shiv sena /RSS/bajrang dal etc. are you ready for it? how about asking jesus christ to accept the accountability of all those 1500 innocent souls, burnt on stake , in Europe?

given a chance, these atheist would take advantage of my post, and would provoke the victims of mahabaratha war, and make the same god accountable!


a topsy turvy perspective here!

 

[Nara]

... I feel that you have done that here on the forum to some extent (a natural response to defend oneself from perceived attack).

Dear Sankara, thank you for your post addressed to me. I have some more excerpts to share and then I will be done.

BTW, I get a feeling you can't read or understand Tamil. If so, I think you are at a disadvantage to really understand the man and come to a considered judgement about him.

Cheers!

 

[BostonSankara]

Prof. Nara, you are of course correct but I would actually argue that the disconnection of my understanding has much more to do with proximity than language. There are many American born Tamil speaking individuals who would be just in the dark as I in regards to the political and social climate being discussed here. The shame is that while I can READ tamil script my understanding is just now hitting an very basic elementary level akin to a child studying Tamil as a Second language in a youth cultural program at an american temple. While my understanding is limited I feel my points on leadership and responsibility still stand true.

Dear Sankara, thank you for your post addressed to me. I have some more excerpts to share and then I will be done.

BTW, I get a feeling you can't read or understand Tamil. If so, I think you are at a disadvantage to really understand the man and come to a considered judgement about him.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear brother Nara Ji,

These are my thoughts on your post #78 (Rajaji conversation) and #83 (About non violence).

1. I think, in my humble opinion, Rajaji was wrong. He should not have used the word 'Poramai', even though that correctly described the situation from the NB pov in general. But then Rajaji should have thought a bit about why that was so. Many of my fellow Brahmins, who take pride and rightfully so, on the many accomplishments in modern times in all intellectual spheres of human activity since the collapse of the Hindu society (since the English administration), forget that their assigned role in the religious sphere gave them an immense advantage in the modern world. They had a leg up on their NB brethren, who were at a disadvantage in the intellectual spheres, because of their customary Jathi roles. So, obviously when you are disadvantaged and you see a class of your brothers are more successful in the new world, Poramai is the result. I wish, folks like Rajaji had thought through this and advocated for more enlightened policies to help their disadvantaged brothers. Instead, they blundered. This is what EVR was able to exploit.

2. Yes, Periyar in his early days of politics, admired Gandhi Ji and supported non violence, during the 1920s. But after his rejection of Gandhi ji, he became much more strident and vituperative against the Brahmins. I often wondered why the Tamil public in general did not listen to his mad exhortations. I think it is because they knew that the Brahmins were non violent and truthfully Gandhi Ji's teachings had an impact. It has always been a very cultured civic society in general and combined with their admiration and working together with the Brahmins till the English came was the reason for their non violence. In my opinion, EVR can not take credit for that. He was lucky to have such a civilized audience in general. Otherwise, he would have had much blood on his hands.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Dear brother KRS, thank you for your response. Needless to say I disagree, but I do agree a little bit.

As you observe, Rajaji was way off base talking about jealousy. However, your explanation that there was indeed jealousy, albeit a reasonable one, is unsustainable.

Those who were virulently opposing Brahminism at that time, the likes of EVR, were already rich and influential, they did not have anything to feel jealous about towards Brahmins. They certainly resented the outsized influence they wielded unjustly, and that was to be expected.

The vast majority of other NB, at that time, were so beaten down by centuries of propaganda laced with religion and divinity, they meekly accepted their station, they were made to think they deserved every exploitation they were subjected to. The Brahmins believed in this nonsense just as naively as the NBs.

EVR was indeed a Gandhian congressman. He was a big advocate of Kathar. He threw away all the official positions he held on principle and fidelity to Mother India. He wrote countless columns in support of Congress and the independence struggle. His change, and later resignation from Congress to join the Justice Party, and later to lead it, was forced upon him by the Brahmins of his time. He left Congress out of frustration.

Time and again the Brahmins in Congress blocked any of EVR's efforts to bring about social reform. If the Congress establishment of the time had worked sincerely with EVR on these issues we may now have a very different Tamil Nadu. It was a monumental lost opportunity for Brahmins to reform themselves. That was the time when there were many strong and influential secular Brahmin leaders. If they had acted more out of solidarity among humans than among Brahmins, things would have been much different.

All I can continue to cajole is, read the man, look at what he wrote with an open mind. Remove the blinders.

Cheers!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

This is a a law and order problem to be dealt with by the police. To denounce EVR and his ideology is opportunistic, unprincipled and dishonest.

But the police did not deal with the issue, not in time anyway. That is the crux. They did not do so, because the political party in power is wedded to EVR ideology (if it can be termed one), which had in its core hatemongering against brahmins based on the premise that the brahmins belong to a different race.

DK movement was/is for the benefit of "upper" caste NBs, who, on one hand blamed the brahmins for casteism, shielding themselves from any criticism, while on other hand benefitted immensely by exploiting the "lower" caste masses.

Denouncing EVR, his hatemongering, his racist ideology is neither opportunistic nor unprincipled or dishonest.

On the other hand, defending such hatemongering and racism against a community under the guise of freedom of speech is opportunistic and unprincipled. Doing so with pretensions of caring for the very same community is dishonest.

 

[KRS]

Dear brother Nara Ji,

My response in 'blue':

Dear brother KRS, thank you for your response. Needless to say I disagree, but I do agree a little bit.

As you observe, Rajaji was way off base talking about jealousy. However, your explanation that there was indeed jealousy, albeit a reasonable one, is unsustainable.

Those who were virulently opposing Brahminism at that time, the likes of EVR, were already rich and influential, they did not have anything to feel jealous about towards Brahmins. They certainly resented the outsized influence they wielded unjustly, and that was to be expected.

The vast majority of other NB, at that time, were so beaten down by centuries of propaganda laced with religion and divinity, they meekly accepted their station, they were made to think they deserved every exploitation they were subjected to. The Brahmins believed in this nonsense just as naively as the NBs.
Dear brother, with due respect, your analysis is quite faulty. The whole Jathi system broke down only after our forefathers abandoned their traditional dharmas and went after the secular jobs in the new world of the British. There is no evidence that the NBs were 'beaten down' etc. by anything before that. The village life was functioning quite well and for all those times self sufficient. I do not think there is any evidence out there to point out that NBs thought that Bs were controlling and evil.

All the anti Brahmin stuff you cited are from self interested party who knew, as I said that to destroy Hinduism one needed to 'kill' the Brahmins first, because they were the religious and cultural custodians of the Hindu way of life.

No one got 'brain washed'. This is a modern concept, denoting that there was an alternative. There was no alternative to the Hindu Dharmic life all these years in the villages. All these concepts of 'liberation', 'human rights', 'personal freedom and choice' etc. did not exist even as concepts then. This is the mistake that folks like you who judge history from today's pov always make. And I reject this way of judging the past.

For a very long time, such a society seemed to have worked really well. The only problem was the lack of unity among the clans, which allowed for foreign invasions.

Just because you think that religions are stupid does not make them invalid. This is a very emotional laden view of the past, again measuring them on the standards of today's standards of humanism.

I keep on saying this, yet without any proper analysis, you keep on repeating what you are saying.

So, based on this, my analysis of why 'Poramai' came about, seems to me to be a better argument than yours.

And on EVR being rich, I have already said that he exploited the cause of this Poramai to his polemical advantage.

EVR was indeed a Gandhian congressman. He was a big advocate of Kathar. He threw away all the official positions he held on principle and fidelity to Mother India. He wrote countless columns in support of Congress and the independence struggle. His change, and later resignation from Congress to join the Justice Party, and later to lead it, was forced upon him by the Brahmins of his time. He left Congress out of frustration.

Time and again the Brahmins in Congress blocked any of EVR's efforts to bring about social reform. If the Congress establishment of the time had worked sincerely with EVR on these issues we may now have a very different Tamil Nadu. It was a monumental lost opportunity for Brahmins to reform themselves. That was the time when there were many strong and influential secular Brahmin leaders. If they had acted more out of solidarity among humans than among Brahmins, things would have been much different.
I have already stated this, saying that our political leaders should have recognized and accommodated the NB aspirations. But again, not because EVR demanded it, but seeing it as the proper way to uplift our bothers, because as I said, our community benefited enormously in the new world, while others did not.

All I can continue to cajole is, read the man, look at what he wrote with an open mind. Remove the blinders.
Believe it or not, I can actually admire the man, if only he was inclusive of all Tamils including B's and not grabbed this Aryan/Dravidian concept to create the divide. As I have said, that ruined it for me. He brought his personal vendetta against a few Brahmins he came across his life and created a whole policy of disenfranchising them. As I have said, his methods were wrong. I don't believe in the end justifying the means. So, sorry, forever, my mind would be closed on him as a person.

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

I keep on saying this, yet without any proper analysis, you keep on repeating what you are saying.

Well, well, what can I say, in such a case is it self evident that you are right and I am wrong????

 

[KRS]

Dear brother,

This is not fair.

As you know, I would never say something is so when there is evidence against saying so. If I don't know about something that would necessitate changing my mind, I have always done it.

At the least, we need to flesh out our opinions, so at the end we can agree to disagree. But in thi case of applying today's mores to yesterday's, I have not seen any defense of my postulate from you.

So, why don't you tell me why your position, which goes against this is more logical? What am I missing?

Regards,
KRS

Well, well, what can I say, in such a case is it self evident that you are right and I am wrong????

 

[Nara]

This is not fair.

Dear brother KRS, Why is it any less fair than what you say, 'I keep on saying this, yet without any proper analysis, you keep on repeating what you are saying. "

Please note, I did not start this EVR topic. In the last two or three years EVR's name has come up many times. Every time he is mocked and derided as though he was pure distilled evil. Myself, and a couple of others like Kunjuppu, used to present brief counter narrative, nothing elaborate, and go on.

This is the first time I embarked on a separate thread to provide a broader prescriptive of the man. As in the past, I faced stiff resistance, mostly angry opinion, devoid of any reliable references or citations. You have also done just that, your opinion about the man. I am doing actual research, reading up, and writing with solid references, often typing up the exact words. The response so far has been opinions. All this is fine because Brahmins are mired in a pit of visceral hatred towards the man. I understand this.

I am not asking anybody to change their view overnight. Just read what EVR wrote, and the times in which he wrote what he wrote. If you still think he was a hateful thug, so be it. It is telling that even mentioning a widely used, but over the top term, could be seen as mocking, but on the other foot, even the most insulting words used against EVR are kosher.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

In continuation of the debate between Rajaji and EVR....

Point #2:

Rajaji's argument as presented by EVR:

"நாட்டிலுள்ள மற்ற சமூகங்களின் வெறுப்புக்கும் துவேஷத்திற்கும் பார்ப்பனர் ஆளாகும்படி தீவிர ப்ரசாரம் ஸிலர் செய்து வருகிறார்கள். இக்கிளர்ச்சியும், இதனால் உண்டாகும் துவேஷமும், நாட்டிற்கு கேடு விளைவிக்குமென்பதில் ஐயமில்லை."


​

EVR's response:

நாட்டிலுள்ளவர்களின் வெறுப்புக்கும் துவேஷத்திற்கும் பிராமணர் ஆளாகும்படி சிலர் பிரசாரம் செய்கிறார்கள், இது நாட்டிற்குத்தான் கேடு என்பது, பஞ்சாபிற்கு சர்க்கார் செய்த அக்கிரமத்திற்கு மகாத்மா கிளர்ச்சி செய்து ஒத்துழையாமை ஏற்படுத்தினது வெள்ளைக்கார மேல் நாட்டருக்கு துவேஷம் ஏற்படத்தான் செய்தது போலும். இக்கிளர்ச்சியால்தான் இந்தியாவுக்கு கேடு விளைந்தது போலும்.
​

 

[கால பைரவன்]

This is the first time I embarked on a separate thread to provide a broader prescriptive of the man. As in the past, I faced stiff resistance, mostly angry opinion, devoid of any reliable references or citations. You have also done just that, your opinion about the man. I am doing actual research, reading up, and writing with solid references, often typing up the exact words. The response so far has been opinions.

This characterization cannot be accepted.
"பார்ப்பனர்கள் அயோக்கியர்கள்", "பார்ப்பனர் ஆரிய வந்தேரிகள்", "பாம்பையும் பார்ப்பானையும் கண்டால் முதலில் பார்ப்பானை அடி" - These are all EVR's quotes.

Stating so is stating a fact. On the other hand, saying that such quotes are only rhetorics and are not hatemongering is expressing one's opinion. Therefore, it is Nara's posts here which are opinions.

Nara writes he is quoting from research done by academicians. Which academicians, I wonder? Besides, one has to keep in mind that acces to EVR's writings in viduthalai etc is controlled by DK. For example, you would never see EVR's remarks on temple entry for dalits in Viduthalai in which he commented the shudras should not be degraded to the level of dalits by simultaneoulsy allowing dalits to enter the temple. You would see in "tamil hindu" but Nara dismisses it as hindutva source.

Nara does selective research that suits his agenda. That is all!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

In continuation of the debate between Rajaji and EVR....

Point #2:
EVR's response:

நாட்டிலுள்ளவர்களின் வெறுப்புக்கும் துவேஷத்திற்கும் பிராமணர் ஆளாகும்படி சிலர் பிரசாரம் செய்கிறார்கள், இது நாட்டிற்குத்தான் கேடு என்பது, பஞ்சாபிற்கு சர்க்கார் செய்த அக்கிரமத்திற்கு மகாத்மா கிளர்ச்சி செய்து ஒத்துழையாமை ஏற்படுத்தினது வெள்ளைக்கார மேல் நாட்டருக்கு துவேஷம் ஏற்படத்தான் செய்தது போலும். இக்கிளர்ச்சியால்தான் இந்தியாவுக்கு கேடு விளைந்தது போலும்.
​

What do we understand from EVR's response?T

The man himself does not deny that he spread hatred against brahmins.

He only says such hatemongering is not bad (for India). Clearly Nara finds resonance with his opinion.

 

[Nara]

T..."பார்ப்பனர்கள் அயோக்கியர்கள்", "பார்ப்பனர் ஆரிய வந்தேரிகள்", "பாம்பையும் பார்ப்பானையும் கண்டால் முதலில் பார்ப்பானை அடி" - These are all EVR's quotes.

KB, I am not sure about the first two, but I am reasonably certain you can't cite any reliable and verifiable reference for the third one. Even so, all these claims are old news. EVR was opposed to Brahminism is well known. He gives good reasons why he was against Brahmism, one with which, IMO, any person of reason must agree. Whether one gets persuaded by his arguments is a matter of opinion. It is obvious that you are entitled to yours.

What I am trying to do is to give a counter narrative, one that reveals what a true iconoclast and a revultionary thinker EVR was. I have reams and reams of text running to several thousand pages. I am obviously selecting quotations, ones that still have relevance today and also show the "other side" the true மறுபக்கம் if you will. If you wish to cite his words that reinforces the only narrative you guys wish to see, why don't you do that, instead of simply stating your opinion without any reliable and verifiable reference?

If there are any impartial members in this site, I urge them to separate purely opinion posts and the ones that cite the very words of EVR and other academic researchers as I have cited.

Cheers!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

பார்ப்பனர்கள் அயோக்கியர்கள்", "பார்ப்பனர் ஆரிய வந்தேரிகள்", "பாம்பையும் பார்ப்பானையும் கண்டால் முதலில் பார்ப்பானை அடி"
Even so, all these claims are old news. EVR was opposed to Brahminism is well known. He gives good reasons why he was against Brahmism, one with which, IMO, any person of reason must agree.

These are not statements against brahminism. These are statements against brahmins! To obfuscate this fact is, to use EVR's words, "அயோக்கியத்தனம்"! Ofcourse, this obfuscation ,that Nara is indulging in, would hardly surprise anyone in this forum anymore.

I am obviously selecting quotations, ones that still have relevance today...If you wish to cite his words that reinforces the only narrative you guys wish to see, why don't you do that, instead of simply stating your opinion without any reliable and verifiable reference?

Whether EVR was a hatemonger (against brahmins) and his motivations for such hatemongering are the most relevant questions as far as this forum is concerned. Therefore do not blame me if I am least interested in his views on superstition, faith in God, or even women rights, which ofcourse excluded brahmin women (EVR's DK has used worst epithets against brahmin women some of which I am not sure will be even allowed to be posted in this forum).

More posts will follow on EVR's hatemongering against brahmins!

 

[kannanpadmanabhan]

It is not unusual that due to their specific experiences in life, there are/were many long-term believers turning into atheists and also many long-term atheists turning into believers.
Not just in the previous centuries, even today we come across examples.

Many of us would be knowing a diehard atheist who even called himself PeriyarDasan who "converted" and renamed himself as Abdullah or something like that.

Whichever our belief system is-believer or non-believer, why dont we just keep it to ourselves and those who readily share the same belief?
It is quite normal for a believer to criticise leaders among non-believers and vice-versa.

Why peep uninvited into discussions among believers ( or non-believers for the reverse example) and thrust one's ideas into them? It will never work.

People will convert, yes, but almost certainly due to their own compulsions or revelations and not due to sermonizing from the opposite school

It also needs to be highlighted that such right of free entry from opposite school is not available in many forums. TB is just a rare example.

In summary, let us not worry about converting the world to our beliefs. If possible, first succeed in converting your family and those immediately around you.