Shudra :A critique of Brahman

If you see a snake and a Brahmin on the road, Kill the Brahmin first.”

Introduction:-

This paper is giving the idea that shudra cast face many difficulties in society particularly in Tamil Nadu. E.V Ramasamy a political leader highlighted the injustice with shudra in society. Caste system is very prominent in Indian society whether in history or modern times. It always discriminate between individuals in society. Ramasamy also belong to non-Brahman Dalit family. However, a particular incident in Kasi had a profound impact on E.V. Ramasamy’s ideology and future work. At the worship site there were free meals offered to guests. To E.V. Ramasamy’s shock, he was refused meals at choultries, which exclusively fed Brahmins. Due to extreme hunger, E.V. Ramasamy felt compelled to enter one of the eateries disguised as a Brahmin with a sacred thread on his bare chest, but was betrayed by his moustache. The gatekeeper at the temple concluded that E.V. Ramasamy was not a Brahmin, as Brahmins were not permitted by the Hindu Shastra’s to have moustaches. He not only prevented Periyar’s entry but also pushed him rudely into the street (Jeyarāman̲).

As his hunger became intolerable, Periyar was forced to feed on leftovers from the streets. Around this time, he realized that the eatery which had refused him entry was built by a wealthy non-Brahmin from South India. This discriminatory attitude dealt a blow to Periyar’s regard for Hinduism, for the events he had witnessed at Kasi were completely different from the picture of Kasi he had in mind.

Since then Rammaswamy made his career by propagating dangers of Brahmin hegemony. He has learnt from colonialists the art and rationale for hating Hinduism. Ramasamy referred to the non-Brahmin castes of South India, who did not belong to the ‘untouchable’ communities, as sudras, the lowest Varna in the Hindu social order. He used the inferiorized identity of ‘sudra’ not in assertion or pride, but as a social critique of Brahmanism. He accept the existence of multiple jatis within the sudra Varna, but he criticized their notions of hierarchy towards each other and especially towards the Dalit’s.

History

In the Ancient Brahminical literature reveals how debilitating disabilities and servitudes were imposed on the shudra community from the earliest of times. Manuscript, a very influential legal text dated between the second century BC and second century AD, stands as the Brahminical tradition that systemically degrades manual labor and the productive process. Shudras the catch all Brahminical categorization for the working masses, including the untouchables were destined to all the productive labor, because of which the ancient civilization survived.

Manu was categorical in denying shudras and women the right to learn Sanskrit: listen to, read or recite the Vedas: bear arms or trade. These were exclusively reserved for men from the Brahmins, Kshatriya and Vaishya Varna’s. It appears that the whole spiritual and intellectual discourse of Brahmanism and its attendant teleology revolves around the singular aim of successfully appropriate the productive labor of the shudra masses by deploying Varna dharma ideology reinforced by religious text based mythology.

The numerous smarties, sutras, Shastra’s and epics such as the Mahabharata and Ramayana, they all can be incriminated as creative myths that uphold the crucial tenets of Varna dharma ideology. The past century of Shudra struggle and emancipation was imagined in terms of education, employment and representation. (Karruppusamy, 22 February 2021)

The shudra category denotes the numerous productive castes which have historically built the material basis of our civilization yet have been marginalized in terms of the power and knowledge sharing arrangement in the Brahminical order. They are currently known by multiple labels such as agrarian dominant cast, backward castes, other backward class, most backward classes or extremely backward castes.

Non Brahman

The emergent non-Brahmins who socially kept aloof and professionally overwhelmed by the Brahmins, sought to liberate from this cultural domination by invoking the pre-Aryan glories of the Dravidians. The Dravidian glory was the other side of non-Brahmanism. This cry was the cultural glue that was intended to to hold the non-Brahmins together so long as it lased. The   Non-Brahmin   political   movement   in Tamil   Nadu   represented essentially   a   strong reaction to the Brahmin dominance of the administrative, cultural, educational, political, and religious spheres.

The domination and power enjoyed by the Brahmins was far out of proportion to their numerical strength. The basic objective of the Non-Brahmin political movement   in   the   initial   stages   was   to   eradicate   the   ‘imbalance’.   In   the   later   stages, particularly when the dynamic E. V. Ramasamy Naicker assumed the leadership of the movement, more radical postures and policies were adopted and the achievement of an independent sovereign federal republic of Dravidanadu consisting of the present Andhra Pradesh,   Kerala,   Tamil   Nadu,   and   Mysore   became   the   principal   objective   of   the movement.

The   Non-Brahmin   political   movement   in Tamil   Nadu   represented essentially   a   strong reaction to the Brahmin dominance of the administrative, cultural, educational, political, and religious spheres. The domination and power enjoyed by the Brahmins was far out of proportion to their numerical strength. The basic objective of the Non-Brahmin political movement   in   the   initial   stages   was   to   eradicate   the   ‘imbalance’.   In   the   later   stages, particularly when the dynamic Ramasamy assumed the leadership of the movement, more radical postures and policies were adopted and the achievement of an independent sovereign federal republic of Dravidanadu consisting of the present Andhra Pradesh, Kerala,   Tamil   Nadu,   and   Mysore   became   the   principal   objective   of   the movement (Karruppusamy, 22 February 2021).

Anti-Hindi Agitation of 1938

Anti-Hindi Agitation issue brought Periyar to the forefront of the Non-Brahmin political movement was  C. Rajagopalachari’s the leader of Madras Congress ministry and a Brahmin is plan to introduce Hindi as a compulsory subject in schools in 1938. Rajagopalachari’s attempts to force Hindi in schools in Madras was interpreted by many Tamils as a calculated affront to Tamil culture and its great literary heritage, and as part of a wider plan by the Aryan North   to   subjugate   the   Tamil   peoples.   There   was   widespread   popular   protest   against compulsory Hindi in schools and Periyar, who played a leading role in this anti-Hindi campaign, was jailed.

The Non-Brahmin Manifesto

In 1916, Sir P. Thiagaraya Chetty, Secretary of the South India People’s Association, issued the famous ‘Non-Brahmin Manifesto’. It represented an important ideological statement of the Non-Brahmin elite. It led to the founding of, and provided the ideological basis for, a political party, the South India Liberal Federation, in August 1917. The manifesto analyzed the problems of the Non-Brahmin community, suggested possible solutions, and emphasized the urgent need for Non-Brahmins to organize themselves to make their voices heard (Irschick, 2021).

• Firstly, it   highlighted   the   over-representation   of   Brahmins   in   educational   institutions, government bureaucracy, and Legislative Councils. In an attempt to redress this imbalance, the manifesto demanded reserved seats for Non-Brahmins in the legislative council as the first step.
• Secondly, it called for the ‘re-discovery of the non-Brahmin’s self-respect’.
• Thirdly, it opposed the Brahmin demand for Home Rule. The Non-Brahmin elite’s thought that,   under   the   prevailing   circumstances,   the   removal   of   British   power   would   mean Brahmin political dominance over them. As a result, the manifesto argued for continued British rule.

Anti-Brahmanism vs. Anti-Brahmin

Periyar was a radical advocate of anti-Brahmanism. Periyar’s ideology of anti-Brahmanism is quite often confused as being anti-Brahmin. Even a non-Brahmin who supports inequality based on caste was seen as a supporter of Brahmanism. Periyar called on both Brahmins and non-Brahmins to shun Brahmanism.

Political and social significance

Periyar wanted thinking people to see their society as far from perfect and in urgent need of reform. He wanted the government, the political parties and social workers to identify the evils in society and boldly adopt measures to remove them.  Periyar’s philosophy did not differentiate social and political service. According to him, the first duty of a government is to run the social organization efficiently, and the philosophy of religion was to organize the social system. Periyar stated that while Christian and Islamic religions were fulfilling this role, the Hindu religion remained totally unsuitable for social progress. He argued that the government was not for the people, but, in a “topsy-turvy” manner, the people were for the government. He attributed this situation to the state of the social system contrived for the advantage of a small group of people (Jeyarāman̲).

Periyar felt that a small number of cunning people created caste distinctions to dominate Indian society, so he emphasised that individuals must first develop self-respect and learn to analyse propositions rationally. He also blamed the capitalists for their control of machineries, creating difficulties for the workers.

According to his philosophy, rationalism, which has to lead the way for peaceful life to all, had resulted in causing poverty and worries to the people because of dominating forces. He stated that there is no use of simply acquiring titles or amassing wealth if one has no self-respect or scientific knowledge.

SELF-RESPECT MOVEMENT

Periyar, a Balija Naidu started the self- respected movement in 1925. It was a social and political movement that emerged in Tamil Nadu. The primary objective of the movement was to promote the self-respect and dignity of the non- Brahmin communities in Tamil Nadu, who were traditionally marginalized and oppressed by the Brahmin caste. The Brahmins were considered the highest caste in the Hindu social hierarchy, and they held a dominant position in the social, cultural, and political spheres of life.

The term “self-respect” derives from a Sanskrit word “suyamariyathai.” It is a combination of the words suya which means “”self” and mariyathai which means “respect.”. The Self-Respect Movement was dedicated to the ideal of giving the Tamils “a sense of pride” based on their glorious past. The Self-Respect Movement aimed to challenge this Brahminical hegemony and   create   a   society   that   was   based   on   social   justice,   equality,   and Rationalism. Apart from it promoting equality for women and underprivileged groups and reviving Dravidian languages like Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, and Malayalam were all part of this egalitarian movement’s demands. Periyar declared   that   the   objectives   of   the   Self-Respect   movement   were   “the establishment of a casteless and classless society with equal rights, free from superstitious beliefs and the eradication of all social evils.

The Self-Respect Movement aimed to challenge this Brahminical hegemony and   create   a   society   that   was   based   on   social   justice,   equality,   and rationalism. Apart from it promoting equality for women and underprivileged groups and reviving Dravidian languages like Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, and Malayalam were all part of this egalitarian movement’s demands. Periyar declared   that   the   objectives   of   the   Self-Respect   movement   were   “the establishment of a casteless and classless society with equal rights, free from superstitious beliefs and the eradication of all social evils.”

Periyar’s philosophy of self-respect was based on his image of an ideal world and a universally accepted one. His philosophy preaches that human actions should be based on rational thinking. Further, the outcome of the natural instinct of human beings is to examine every object and every action and even nature with a spirit of inquiry, and to refuse to submit to anything irrational as equivalent to slavery. Thus, the philosophy of self-respect taught that human actions should be guided by reason, right and wrong should follow from rational thinking and conclusions drawn from reason should be respected under all circumstances. Freedom means respect to thoughts and actions considered ‘right’ by human beings on the basis of ‘reason’. There is not much difference between ‘freedom’ and ‘self-respect (Jeyarāman̲).

Brahmin dominance in society

Through strict   observation   of   a   set   of   rules,   the   Brahmins maintained   their   ‘religious purity’. These rules prevented the free intermingling of the Brahmins with the other caste groups because it was feared that this would ‘pollute’ the ‘purity’ of the Brahmins. Thus, caste affiliation fixed the parameters of their socialization process which further forced the rigid social hierarchy and resulted in each caste group evolving its own peculiar life styles. This   social   setup   was   to   have   important   cultural,   economic,   and   political consequences later.

While observing a   set   of   rules,   the   Brahmins maintained   their   ‘religious purity’. These rules prevented the free intermingling of the Brahmins with the other caste groups because it was feared that this would ‘pollute’ the ‘purity’ of the Brahmins. Thus, caste affiliation fixed the parameters of their socialization process which further forced the rigid social hierarchy and resulted in each caste group evolving its own peculiar life styles. This   social   setup   was   to   have   important   cultural,   economic,   and   political consequences (Irschick, Politics And Social Conflict In South India, 1969)   

The Brahmin intellectual and cultural activity centered partly around the learning and mastery of the Vedic religious scripts. This intellectual tradition enabled the Brahmins to assume a major portion of the appointments in the various levels of administration. Thus, the Brahmin dominance of the civil bureaucracy had existed since pre-British times and also before competitive examinations were introduced in 1858 by the British to break the stranglehold of the Mahratta Brahmins in the district administration of South India. When British rule and English   education   were   introduced, the   Brahmins   realized   the potential advantage which a command of western education would give them, and here, their literary tradition gave them the initial advantage in adapting themselves to western education.

As far as Non-Brahmin Hindus were concerned, the small number of college educated Members from their community meant few important jobs in the government bureaucracy for   them   which   in   turn meant   less political   influence   and   patronage.   The   under- representation of Non-Brahmin Hindus in educational institutions is probably explained by a combination of economic, cultural, and sociological factors.

As the Non-Brahmin Hindus were concerned, the small number of college educated members from their community meant few important jobs in the government bureaucracy for them which   in   turn meant   less political   influence   and   patronage.   The   under-representation of Non-Brahmin Hindus in educational institutions is probably explained by a combination of economic, cultural, and sociological factors. Their superiority was clearly established well before the present century and the level of literacy among them was proportionately much higher than among the Non-Brahmins in the Madras Presidency. One manifestation of this was the high educational output of that community.

Periyar’s version of Ramayana

Periyar was anti-Rama and anti-God precisely because of his anti-Brahmanism. He had become an atheist while on a visit to God’s holiest abode, Benares, when he saw Brahmins there indulging in self-serving behaviors. His special object of hatred was his own namesake: Lord Rama. He saw in Rama an enforcer of Aryan caste hierarchy. As one commentator says, “For EVR, Rama personifies ‘North Indian values’ and is accordingly identified with North Indian dominance of lower castes and women.” His reading of Ramayana was narrow and propagandist at best: Laxman desirous of Sita; Ravana as a dutiful, compassionate and accountable Dravidian king; Rama as villainous Aryan king; Sita willingly offering herself for abduction by Ravana.  

Political Role

Periyar’s political activities are Firstly, his satyagraha at Vaikom (Travancore State) for the Harijan (untouchable) right to enter Hindu temples aroused Brahmin opposition. In recognition of this act, Periyaris still referred to as the “Hero of Vaikom.”

Secondly, Periyar ridiculed the “classics” of Hinduism as fairy tales and pointed out that they were absolutely irrelevant in the modem context.

Indian National Congress

In 1919, he joined in the Indian National Congress, being attracted to the principles they put forward as they went in hand with his ideas like betterment of the conditions of the people, removal of untouchability, prohibition of social inequality etc. He was very much in to the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi and adopted them in a strict sense and tried to practice them. As a result he cast away foreign products especially clothes and took hand spun Khadi. This is very obvious in his words as, “If everyone decide to wear Khadi, there won’t be starvation in this country”. He then joined the non-cooperation movement led by Gandhiji in 1920 and as a result, he closed down his wholesale business and spent his time to do full time service to the society. He also became the part of Temperance movement (1922), and Vaikom Sathyagraha (1924) which made a revolution in the Kerala. The committed and genuine involvement of Periyar in these movements promoted him as an important leader who is admired by all (Irschick, Politics And Social Conflict In South India, 1969).

As an active member of Tamil Nadu Congress, he proposed the ‘Principle of Communal representation’ in Education and employment. Though he proposed these ideas in different congress conferences held in the Tamil Nadu (Thirunelveli, 1920, Thirupur, 1922), there was no positive response for his call to uplift the voiceless. These incidents made Periyar to disassociate with Congress and start the Self- respect movement which later change in the Tamil Nadu (Irschick, Politics And Social Conflict In South India, 1969).

THE DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM

One of the first Non-Brahmin institutions to be established in this century in Tamil Naduwas ‘The Dravidian Association’, which was inaugurated in 1912. The Raja of Panagal, Dr. T.M.  Nair, and C.  Nadesa Mudaliar were elected President, Vice-President, and Secretary respectively, of the Association. The Dravidian Association did not adopt ananti-colonial posture like the Indian National Congress. On the contrary, the leaders of the Association thought that Non-Brahmin interests would be best served if they cooperated with the British rulers and operated within the colonial framework. In this manner, they hoped   to   gain   concessions   for   the   Non-Brahmins   from   the   British. Their political objective, was ‘to safeguard the political, social, and economic interests of the Dravidian people’. This party mainly focus on non-Brahmin (N, 1963, p. lahovary).

The   Dravida   Kazhagam, held its first party conference at Tiruchi in 1945 and adopted black flag with a red circle in the center as its symbol. The ideology behind the flag is ‘Black symbolize the subjugation of Dravidians and red circle symbolizing the hope of the downtrodden Dravidians. The circle was to expand to fill the darkness all round until the flag was red.’ Organizational units of the DK were set up at village, taluk, and district levels. The DK elaborated the anti-Brahmin theme of earlier Non-Brahmin political organizations but with greater militancy. Specifically, it attacked the injustices of the Hindu caste system which was   an   important   theme   of   the   earlier   Self-Respect   Movement. 

However,   its   major political objective was the achievement of a Sovereign Independent Dravidanadu and the energies of the party members were directed toward promoting this cause. In   order   to   mobilize anti-Brahmin,   anti-caste   system,   anti-Hindi   and   anti-North sentiments and to promote a feeling of Dravidian identity, the party launched a “cultural offensive”   on   many   fronts.   Widow   re-marriage,   inter-caste   marriage,   and   “reform marriages” were encouraged.

In   order   to   mobilize anti-Brahmin,   anti-caste   system,   anti-Hindi   and   anti-North sentiments and to promote a feeling of Dravidian identity, the party launched a “cultural offensive”   on   many   fronts.   Widow   re-marriage,   inter-caste   marriage, and “reform marriages” were encouraged. The political goals, strategies, and the “cultural offensive” of the DK were exerting a tremendous influence on the social and political life of Tamil Nadu. The attempts by the DK to glorify the political and life of past of the Tamils (N, 1963, p. Sattanathan AN. (1982). )

THE JUSTICE PARTY

After the issuing of the ‘Non-Brahmin Manifesto’, a decision was taken to form a political party which would be principally concerned with the safeguarding and advancement of the political interests of the Non-Brahmin community. The Justice Party was fairly successful in its attempts to advance the political and socio-economic interests of the Non-Brahmin community. It also succeeded in checking the Brahmin dominance of the political system to a great extent. It achieved these by capturing political power in the elections held under the Montagu-Chelmsford scheme of 1919 and introducing statutory measures that curbed Brahmin influence and advanced Non-Brahmin interests.

Reservation

It is a known that Periyar E V Ramasami had to quit Congress in 1925, as the Brahmin dominated Tamil Nadu Congress Committee refused to accept the principle of Communal representation for Dravidian Race in Public Services. Till his last breath, he safeguarded the reservation policy. “

Power is an important factor in the world. Everyone craves for power. There is a deep wound of insecurity among the people and they want to heal this wound with the medicine called power. Everybody wants to assert his or her identity and for that, the tool is power. For the sake of power, the political parties of today forgo their ideologies and join hands with other parties, which have no ideologies of their own. These people have no vision for the country. Their political philosophy is, “Capture power by any means— it is only the tool of self-assertion.” On the other hand, the political philosophy of Periyar is human respectability with an emphasis on economic and social equality, which must be primarily based on rational thinking. Periyar was never interested or cared for seats of power. However, he was in a continuous fight against certain oppressive ideas accepted in society. The re-presentation of his political philosophy is the Self-Respect Movement, which later came to be known as “Dravida Kazhagam.”

“COMMUNAL REPRESENTATION IS THE ACCREDITED RIGHT OF EVERY” 

Section of the Dravidian people of this nation and its government. It is the common right of all citizens belonging to every community. The main motive of the principle of communal representation is to eradicate the unequal status amongst the citizens. Communal representation is a ‘boon’ to create a society of equals. When there are communities which are forward and progressive hampering the well being of all the other communities, there is no other go but to resort to the system of communal representation. It is by this way the suffering communities could begin to heave a sigh of relief. The need for the prolongation of the system of communal representation will automatically cease, and it will be found absolutely unnecessary to continue the policy any longer when all the communities have become equals.”

Excepting the Brahmin community, all other communities such as Dalit’s, non-Brahmin started to demand for communal representation soon after the talk of representation of Indians in governance began. For a long time, except the Brahmin community, all other communities carried on agitation urging the government to implement the policy of communal representation. The Brahmins, particularly the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu, resorted to many ways to put hurdles and create obstacles against the implementation of the policy of communal representation. They pursued cunning methods and conspired many times against the communal representation policy, which was a boon to all downtrodden Dravidian communities.

Moreover, when we have allowed the classification of the society based on religion, caste and community, we cannot stand in the way of the people demanding special rights, based on religion, caste and community.  There is nothing wrong on their part or of any community in safeguarding their interests. I don’t see anything dishonest in that.

MERIT AND EFFICIENCY

All communities urge for concessions today. It is ensured to them by law. Even in the matter of merit of downtrodden are given concessions. Because of this concession given to the Backward and Scheduled caste people, you do not see any danger. It cannot be said that the standard of administration has fallen only on account of concession extended. It cannot be argued that a good trait of humanity as honesty had deteriorated. No community is discriminated. All communities are treated equally. By the reservation policy based proportionately on the total population, all the communities derive their legitimate share. Periyar fought for caste-based reservations. He felt unless social equality is achieved, you can’t have reservation based on economics status. His main aim was to bring about social justice where Brahmins and Dalits had equal status socially. I would say he changed the value system of Tamil Nadu. The questions he raised against caste are still relevant.

Conclusion

We can say that Periyar’s entire world-view was centered around extreme hatred—or say abhorrence—towards Brahmins. Although, he hated Gandhi, Congress, Aryans and Sanskrit as well, but these hues of hatred were second-hand—derived from his hatred towards Brahmins and Brahmanism. The lowest common denominator of all of his hatred was the Brahmin and Brahmanism.Brahmanism stood for a tyrannical, caste-ridden, Sanskritic value system as against egalitarian and non-Brahmanical Tamil value system.

Ramasamy Naickar tried to counter the challenges of the hegemonic Indian nation through the construction of Tamil or Dravidian Nationalism. It was not territory based and allowed enough space for articulating one identity. “The movement upheld a more inclusive notion of citizenship by integrating the aspirations of lower cast, religious minorities and non- Hindi speakers”.

This Dravidian movement proclaimed a glorious Tamil past against the powers of Brahminism, the product of the North. Hence the differentiation as Brahmins was eliminated and the identity as Indian who aspires for an ideal nation is obtained. So we could say that he was able to influence so many people especially non- Brahmins, to raise their voices against the superstitious beliefs of that time through the light of reason and succeed in bringing awareness among the people to create better citizens of the society.

The Brahmin community claimed to have a hold on all the sastras and texts. Because they created such a divide, he was against it. He was against dividing humanity in the name of caste. According to him, that is the biggest crime in the world. He was not against anything blindly; he had logical reasons to everything. According to him, reciting of the mantras is a mercantile activity. That was why he fought to make non-Brahmins and harijans poojaris (priests). He wanted priests from all communities and said it should not be the monopoly of one community alone. If he was anti-God and anti-temple, why should he fight for this? He wanted social justice. According to him, God should be equal to everyone.

BY- TANVI

M.A. Political Science

References

Irschick, E. F. (1969). Politics And Social Conflict In South India. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/PoliticsAndSocialConflictInSouthIndia/page/n7/mode/2up

Irschick, E. F. (2021, June ). The Non-Brahaman Movement and Tamil Separtism. (B. Thirugnanam, Ed.) Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352477299_PERIYAR_VS_ANNA_A-CRITICAL_STUDY

Jeyarāman̲, P. (n.d.). Periyar: A Political Biography of E.V. Ramasamy. Periyar: a biographical sketch from 1879 to 1909, 124 pages. Retrieved from http://www.periyar.org/html/ap_bios_eng1.asp

Karruppusamy, K. I. (22 February 2021). The Shudras; Vision for a New Path. ‎Vintage Books. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/books?id=V34fEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=true

N, L. (1963). Dravidian origins and the West, Madras. VOLUME-8(ISSUE-8). Retrieved from https://www.worldwidejournals.com/global-journal-for-research-analysis-GJRA/recent_issues_pdf/2019/August/August_2019_1565095994_0806787.pdf

Sattanathan AN.  (1982).  The  Dravidian  Movement  in  Tamil  Nadu  and  Its  Legacy.  University of Madras.