Through My Eyes: Personality Cult - spill of incomplete REVOLUTION

Sailing in the Same boat of "Personality Cult"

If your blood boils just by seeing this image, then you should introspect. You must have already been taken by either of the block.

Common Introduction to Both their Ideas/Views/Opinion

We have to think about them and their life and their ideas in such a context, where it becomes increasingly impossible to have the dialogue or conversation even with whom we differ or there are difference or difference of opinion. And their ideas will remain inevitable for any political discourse, even for those who out-rightly/blatantly reject every single idea and opinion that they had rendered. Their ideas/opinion/views are more dominating in our contemporary politics than in their times. And their critique is also grown tremendously. And yet their supporter or thier critique cannot ignore the powerful ideas and in influence of these two personalities on Society, Nation, Identity, Humanism, Rationalism.... Self-Respect et al.

So, They remains inevitable in the political discourse even in contemporary times even by those who despise them. And that is the power, the influence of their thought and their ideas on Indian Society and Indian Politics.

Criticizing for calling them "So and So..."

Followers of Hindutva call their Political Architect as 'Veer' Savarkar akin to the counterpart Dravidian Ideologue call their guru as Vaikoam 'Veerar' Periyar. It is the way of honoring their Guru/Idol/Hero/Founding Father... Whomsoever.

The Critics of Savarkar, thrash at the ruling NDA of 2002, if renaming of the Port Blair Airport was to acknowledge the sufferings of the political prisoners in the Andamans, a more apt name would have been that of Nand Gopal or Nani Gopal or Hotilal or Chakravarthi or one of the other unsung heroes. Unlike Savarkar, who in his petition pleaded only for himself, Nand Gopal pleaded for humane treatment of all the political prisoners and similarly the other persons do fought.

The Critics of Periyar, demean and question periyar's role in social justice, reservation, promotion of education, liberation of women and especially he has been pulled to debate over his follower's exaggeration UNESCO's Socrates of South Asia (It is disputed to be presented by the local forum rather by erstwhile UNESCO ), Vaikom Veerar, action or condemn in Keezhvenmani Massacre, fictitious Brahmanical conspiracy theory over anything and everything... etc

It is widely critized by different section that, Dravidian narration on Vaikom Temple Entry movement aggrandize Periyar by subventing the key players like T K Madhavan, K P Kesavan Menon, Shri Narayana Guru, Kelappan and other prominent Congress Leader. It is often question for accrediting Periyar as "Vaikom Veerar" purposefully to promote him as a front-runner, strategist, big shot of the first Anti-Caste Movement of South India. From the Dravidian Narration, Vaikom Satyagraha was a Social Revolutionary movement in Travancore for the depressed class people were prohibited from walking in the streets that surrounded the Hindu Mahadevar temple. The Kerala congress leaders appealed to Periyar to take up the leadership in the struggle. He led the agitation and was sentenced to a month's imprisonment. Immediately Nagammaiyar led the movement throughout the Travancore State. It was due to the growing popularity that the movement had secured in Travancore. They roused the public consciousness greatly. This incident showed Nagammaiyar's confidence and her leadership. This Vaikkom incident also sowed the seed for women liberation movement in India.

For the Cause of Humanism

According to Savarkar, there are three tenets one could find in all Human society. First of all, the survival of the fittest, second the inevitability of violence in society, and final one is absence of absolute morality in the human affairs and human politics.

It is in this context he criticized untouchability existing in Hindu society, and stressed on the need to give up such evil practices for the sake of it is further development. So, Savarkar work for religious and social reforms as well. He allowed the entry of untouchables or excluded community and he fight for their entry. Even in schools the children's of those so-called out cast or untouchable communities Savarkar wanted them to be integrated within the larger fold of Hindu society.

Similary, Periyar was very perceptive to the problems of the depressed and oppressed. He wished to change the Dravidian society into a society with pride and knowledge. With all humility he submits that “I took this task because nobody has thought over it”. He proclaimed that he was the fittest person to undertake the work because he had no attachment in anything and his thoughts are rooted in rationalism. He thought that blind faith can be annihilated through destructive methods only. This is possible for a man with firm determination, with impeccable thought, uncaring for slander and death.

He advised that the duty and the responsibility of the rationalist are to work with reason, without any second thought. Rationalist considers all countrymen as one. Rationalism is clarity with evidence. Rationalism is the live wire of man. If a man gets clarity in reason he is ripened in his rationalism. The aim of the rationalist is to live a life of a layman. Not to inflict pain on the living beings is the outcome of rationalism. These are the views of E.V.Ramasamy.

Voice against the dogmas and Superstition in the Religion?

Non-Believer - Atheist - Godless Society?

They both are equally a revolutionary radical thinkers and they wanted to reform society and inculcate the people with Rationalism. it is less and less explored and largely ignored by their critique, because of their reduction or their synonymous or affiliation with so and so Political Idea.

All human societies designed such a way, all Individual struggle for life, only the fittest can survive and others get eliminated (as envisioned by Herbert Spencer), and according to Savarkar Modern Civilization which is Competitive and naturally has inbuilt violence though developed societies has intertwined with the concept of Non-Violence. He emphasised on Dynamism of the society, it should be in accordnace with the changes in the time. And one can only survive if they able to cope up with changing nature of the society. He advocated Indian Hindu Society should under go such dynamic forces of change to adopt modern and quality. Therefore he argued them to get rid of unnecessary evil practices of the past, and follow the paths of Science and Reason. He nurtured a critical perspective of dealing with the ancient religious scriptures, and advised following it only if it is able to deal with the changing need of the time.

Similarly Periyar EVR, advocated Rationalism, Reasoning against Ignorance. He stigmatized those blind superstition, discrimination in the name of God and Religion.

Periyar, as a street-fighter, carried emotionally driven discourse which is more absurd in nature. His’s atheism was crude and obnoxious. His so-called research on the Ramayana dwelled on such grave issues as whether Sita slept with Valmiki. His rationalism was hollow and lacked any useful content. Though his love for science was childlike, he did not have the intellectual rigour to understand what the scientific enterprise was all about. He once said that the white people who lived in the temperate regions were less brainy than the ones who lived in Tamil Nadu. The reason? Their flowers were less fragrant than the flowers of Tamil Nadu. Their snakes don’t have venom but the Tamil snakes do.

Social Issues: Food, Marriage and other

Both were an illustrious social reformer. They firmly believed that political and social reforms are equally important and complementary to each other. Periyar believed the later is a prerequisite to achieve the former objective.

Savarkar believed that eating and drinking pattern has many myths and he started speaking loud about it. What to eat and drink is a medical issue, not a religious one. One may eat and drink as per individual preference and digestive capacity under specific circumstances. There is no harm in eating what is medically permissible with any medically fit individual, not in a common plate but as a common meal. Be it a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian, eating and drinking with any one destroys neither caste nor religion.

Inter-caste marriage was one another cause he worked on. Breaking the prohibition of intermarriage does not imply forcibly marrying off girls of one caste into another caste. What it means is that if a Hindu with desirable qualities such as love, character, and capacity chose a spouse from another caste, then such an alliance should not be condemned simply because their castes are different.

Savarkar was a strong opponent of the caste system. He repeatedly argued that what the religious books say about untouchability is irrelevant. The social practice was unfit for a modern society. In his collection of essays on breaking the caste system, he welcomed the constitutional provision that made untouchability a crime.

Helping the Britisher's Agenda of "Divide and Rule"?

The Imperial British had a policy of "Divide and Rule". With this the British, developed an environment of social tensions, between different communities in India, such as Hindu and Muslims, Dominant Hindu and depressed classes, Hindus and Sikhs, and Hindus and Jains etc.

It is being criticized, Savarkar started out as a large-hearted revolutionary, abjectly renounced his principles in the Kala Pani Prison (Andaman), refused to join his fellow prisoners in their struggle and stayed away from all activities against the Colonial British after his release from prison. This shift/opportunistic attitude make his critique to conclude that, with his virulent anti-Muslim campaign, has indirectly helped the British in their policy of 'divide and rule'.

Similarly, It is being criticized that EVR and his movement were pro-British and they also supported the Muslim League in its pro-Pakistan demand. In an interview to a Tamil magazine, Anantha Vikatan, in 1965, EVR expressed how he had hoped that, given the pro-British stand of their movement, the British would hand over the authority to the Justice party. In his own words, “I went and told the British that it was not British honesty to hand over the power to them while we are the ones who have always supported you. The British smiled and said that they now knew only Hindu-Muslim difference and not Brahmin non-Brahmin difference. Then I went and saw Jinnah and asked for his help. He said that your plan looks good but it lacks the legs to stand on. And he told that only I had to look after my problem." The media wrote that Jinnah had tar-brushed the face of EVR.

Sharpening the Weapon - To fight for the cause?

It is being justified by the followers of Savarkar that weapon of Sanathanam, Cultural Revivalism, Religious Identity (in his terminology HINDTUVA which he differentiate from the very own Religion Hinduism which he don't adhere to). It was believed to be pitched against the Colonial power. He used the thoughts from Italian Nationalism, Ideas of Revolutionary Mazinni, to mobilize, integrate people against the Powerful British Empire.

Similarly, followers of Periyar EVR justify that weapon of Anti-God, Anti-Religion were used to fight against Domination (in his terminology BRAHMANISM). He used it to inculcate Humanism, Rationalism... et al. Also he instigated Linguistic Identity or Pride and was pitched against the domination of MAJORITARIANISM of this Nation (in essence Anti-Hindi Agitation is a war against the same oppressive force)

Periyar in his last ever speech, on December 19, 1973, he spoke that he had been striving for long to annihilate god, religion, the Congress, Gandhi and the Brahmin. One might think that by Brahmin he meant Brahminism. However, he stated the opposite in an earlier meeting on August 31, 1959: Who do you hate? The Brahmin or Brahminism? What is Brahminism?’ – for questions such as these, my reply is Brahminism came from Brahmins and hence it is the Brahmins who should be annihilated. It is like asking whether you hate thievery or the thief. It is because one is a thief, one indulges in thievery. When someone says he hates thievery, it means he hates the thief, too, doesn’t it? Thus, Brahminism grew out of the Brahmin and I am striving to annihilate the root.

Reasoning, Scientific Temper

Extract from Samgara Savarkar (1936), A close scrutiny of the Vedas as well as the Muslim Quran, the Christian Bible and the Jewish Old Testament and the Book of Moses makes it clear that the so-called divinely written or sent religious scriptures are man-made. No doubt, these scriptures have unprecedented historical and literary value. It is also admissible that these scriptures are a treasure house of words, worthy of respect and deep study…But they are not literally true. What does not stand the test of scientific reason ought to be verily discarded even if it appears in Vedas, Avesta, Quran, Bible, Book of Moses and the like. It is incorrect to think that everything that is ancient, is necessarily sacred and worthy of worship.

Openness - Listening to Others Opinion/Views

So, despite of their serious differences with other Leaders/Thinkers both (Savarkar and Periyar individually) say it be Gandhi, Netaji, Rajaji, Ambedkar they had a openness to have conversation. But this dialogue is something that is missing in our contemporary discourse on these thinkers and their ideals which was there when they were articulating and expressing their differences.

Chauvanism - Cultural, Religious or Linguistic

Savarkar was in favour of the ideal of Hindustan for the Hindus, occupation of this land by the non-Hindu race was considered as an act of aggression. This in his views the right of the non-Hindus of living in Hindustan, depended on their acceptance of Hindu dominance. So, Hinduization of national life or quality, this indicates the ideology of cultural chauvinism. Yet Savarkar did not totally negate the right of minorities to coexist although made it conditional.

Similarly Periyar EVR capitalized his Ideology, Movement on Aryan-Dravidian fault line, many criticize it as "Racialist Communalism" and also he made a clarion call on "Tamil Nadu for Tamils"

It is criticized that, "If caste were to be the sole criterion to determine one’s ideology, we must remember that Periyar too came from a very rich mercantile clan. He also led for some time one of the most reactionary parties of India, the Justice Party. His fight was primarily for the rights of the elitist intermediary castes. It is no accident that he did not lead any temple entry movement in Tamil Nadu. It is also a historical fact that other than making grand speeches, he did nothing substantial towards the annihilation of castes."

Self-Proclaimed "Whatsoever"

Be it either Atheist Savarkar or Caste-Crusader Ramasamy, both are Preacher, Profound Thinkers.... It is being criticized that in several occasion they have deviated from their own ideas. They failed in proving themself, in their allegiance/conviction.

In 1952, Savarkar went to Pune to announce the closure of Abhinav Bharat, the revolutionary outfit that he had set up as a student to fight for independence. In a public speech, he said that revolutionary organizations have no place in a constitutional state, echoing the views of his friend B.R. Ambedkar.

“The end of the age of revolution and the coming of Swarajya means that our primary national duty in the new age is to abandon the methods of rebellion so that constructive and lawful politics will gain primacy. To overthrow foreign rule, we had to inevitably have secret societies, armed revolt, radical activities, civil disobedience; these were holy. But if we stick to these methods after we have got our freedom, then the damage we will inflict will be worse than what even our enemies could do…

The establishment of Swarajya does not mean that Ramrajya will follow immediately…..it is our duty as citizens to support our national government that we should at least for sometimes bear whatever pain lies ahead. So that the national government gets time to address important questions. We should support the government with our hard work and patience.

Responsive Cooperation to Colonial British?

Savarkar had a kind of religious conception of Nation or Nationhood, his conception of a State is more or less modern and republic. So, and therefore, he was against the British rule and wanted the authority or the power to rule over India in the hands of Indians themselves. But it was obstructed by several constraint and factors. The Secular notion of Congress, Muslim separatism, emergence of depressed classes and increasing fragmentation of Hindu community and demands by the Sikh, and many other religious communities make Savarkar to respond to colonial rule in a much more what he called Responsive Cooperation. He distanced himself and his politics from the mass movement. The followers of Savarkar justify this as Pragmatic move. That in their words, from a revolutionary patriot to a Hindu nationalist, Savarkar also developed a pro-British pragmatic approach in the later parts of life and that remains a controversial side of Savarkar politics and activity.

Similarly the other side of Periyar EVR, he opposed British Exit from India, He believed British Colonial rule as a Liberator from Brahmanical Dominance and Conspiracy. He wrote, “India should never go anywhere near democratic principles. The reason is 90% of our population are fools and 97% of them are persons of low birth. How will their rule set right our country?”

After the Soviet Tour (Dec/1931 - May/1932), there was an impact on Periyar's Political Career. Even though Periyar was in touch with Communist Party of the Soviet Union officials, the logistics of the tour were being managed by the League of the Militant Godless. Periyar started insisting his followers/ party-men to relinquish the prefix like Thiru, Thirumathi, Sri and insisted to adopt 'Thozhar' or 'Comrade'. He took strenuous effort to address more in then 40 sessions within 3 months to express his admiration for Soviet and to propagate Communist-Socialist Ideology. Considering that the government was paranoid about the red spectre, reaction was swift. Police action was taken against him and his family. Periyar was soon forced to take a call on the party’s programme and its immediate future. In March 1935, in a public statement, he declared that he was withdrawing his socialist programme in the larger interest of his self-respect movement.

Considering the Anti-Brahmanical, Racist Communalist Outlook, case in Tamil Nadu, Brahmins here used the opportunities that the British Government provided, it was not that they arm-twisted anybody to get where they did. The Justice Party came to power in 1920 and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in 1967. In the intervening years, Madras had a Brahmin chief minister for only four years (including the uncertain years between 1952 and 1954). The British had no love lost for them because most of the intellectual leaders of the Brahmin community were with the Congress. Unfortunately, Periyar and his disciples could not look at the problem from this perspective. They attributed – exactly like Hitler did with the German Jews – grand conspiracies and clever manipulations by Brahmins for the plight of the non-Brahmins. It did not ever occur to Periyar that independence would open the sluice gates of education and other opportunities. He wanted the British to continue to remain in power – while simultaneously complaining that they were succumbing to the machinations of the Brahmins.

Supporting Nazi and Hitler?

In the 21st session of the Hindu Mahasabha, V.D.Savarkar made the following comment: "The Indian Muslims are on the whole more inclined to identify themselves and their interests with Muslims outside India than Hindus who live next door, like Jews in Germany."

Similarly Periyar wrote, “Parpanan should be driven away from this land,” on 29 January 1954. He further said, “However much a rationalist or atheist, if a person is a Brahmin he should not be allowed in our organizations” (20 October 1967).Also the magazine he edited, published articles praising the ascendancy of Adolf Hitler and warned Brahmins in Tamil Nadu that they should learn from the plight of Jews in Nazi Germany and opt for course correction.

“The Jews are only interested in themselves, and nobody else. They somehow contrive to have the rulers in their pocket, participate in governance and conspire to torture and suck the lives out of other citizens in order that they live (in comfort).” These blatantly anti-semitic lines were penned on March 20, 1938, when Hitler’s flag was flying high. These are the next lines: “Are they not comparable to the Brahmins who too have no responsibility but have the rulers in their pocket, have entered the ruling dispensation and been lording over (all of us)?”

Founder of Political Ideology

Savarkar was developing those thoughts and ideas of Hindu Nationalism in this context when there is a kind of increasing realization and growing critique of the economic and political dimensions of British Raj by one section, and also by the revitalization of religious and cultural tradition of native populations.

Similarly Periyar was consolidating his thoughts and ideas in to Dravida Nadu (in essence Regionalism/Separatism) Periyar E.V.R. said, “The Aryans who came in search of meadows quarreled with the natives namely Dravidians and won the latter over to them. The Dravidians who submitted themselves to the Aryans were treated as slaves and called Sudras and Panjamas. But those who opposed the Aryan rule were branded as Ratchasas (Demos).”(Kudi Arasu/1946).

Now we people make a clamour "Asurarai Pottru" instead of "Surarai Pottru". All credit goes to Periyar EVR and his research works.

This view of E.V.R. is echoed by Bharathidasan in his song entitled Samathuvapattu (Songs of Equality) to gain wider audience, patrons, devotee, enthusiast.

If the above Interpretation or Twisted argument, make you to accept in bias with one Personality or against one Personality, you must question your Rationality/Affiliation/Inclination.

You can carry someone's Idea, but not his/her Personality. We often fail at this point. And in the name of protecting/safeguarding our IDOL/HERO we degrade our self to peep into other's personal life. We make several effort, spending our energy in degrading other's Icon/Idol. Often today's debates, discussion, quarrel has shifted Personality centric, rather based on Ideas/ Thoughts. This could never be equated to Rationalism, Progress or even Dignity or Self-Respect.

Conclusion:

If it is about Hinduism, Reformation, Swaraj we cannot compare Savarkar no where near Mahatma Gandhi... Similar, if it is about Anti-Caste, Social Reform, Rationalism we cannot compare Periyar no where near Dr.B.R. Ambedkar. Every leader has their own approach, perception. They have acted as demanded by the situation. We cannot blatantly follow or blatantly reject any idea just with our bias or inclination to a leader or personality.

End Note:
There is fools, stupids, Gullible and others believing/trapped in misconceptions, falsehood, fakenews,spreading rumours blatantly. Your Rationality, Reasoning doesn't rely on whom you expose, what you criticize, but in ensuring that you are not into any of that kind!!

#TakeitLight #EducateYourself