2. Periyar E. V. Ramasami
Periyar or Periyar E.V.R. (1879-1973) is the senior most Indian rationalist, atheist and humanist of twentieth century whom I am discussing in this book. Periyar advocated rationalism and he can certainly be described as a humanist, irrespective of whether he himself used the term or not. He favored rational thinking and social justice, including the rights of backward and depressed classes and the rights of women. As a part of his Self-Respect Movement, he supported Self-Respect Marriages with mutual consent and without any role for Brahmin priests or religious rituals.
However, atheism, too, is quite pronounced in his ideas. In his later life, he started his public meetings by categorically asserting the non-existence of god. Periyar was very strongly opposed to the idea of god as well as to idol-worship. He did not believe in the existence of soul. He was also opposed to religion in general and Hinduism in particular. He was uncompromising in his opposition to Brahminism, caste-system and untouchability. Moreover, Periyar was against North Indian influences, including Sanskrit and Hindi language. He associated these with Aryans and Brahmins. He favored Tamil language, culture, and a separate Dravida Nadu. According to him, initially the Tamil society was free from the evil influences of Brahminism. Therefore, he was eager to guard against North Indian influences, which he equated with Brahminism.
Periyar’s original name was E.V. Ramasami Naicker. He dropped his surname "Naicker" because it indicates caste, and he was very strongly opposed to the caste-system. His admirers bestowed the title "Periyar" on him. (In Tamil the word "Periyar" means "the great one''.) He is also referred to as “Thanthai Periyar” (“great leader” or “great father”).
Biography
Biographical information about Periyar is available in Periyar E. V. Ramasami: A Pen Portrait, Periyar: Father of the Tamil Race and Periyar and his Ideologies. Besides, some information is also found in Collected Works of Periyar E.V.R. Finngeir Hiorth’s book Atheism in India, too, contains biographical information about Periyar.
Periyar led a long and eventful life. He was active in a social movement as well as in politics. What follows is not a comprehensive biography of Periyar, but a chronology of main events in his life, particularly from the point of view of the evolution of his rationalism and atheism. I have not ignored political movements totally, but my focus is on Periyar's Self- Respect Movement.
Periyar was born on September 17, 1879, at Erode in Tamil Nadu in a non-brahmin caste. As mentioned earlier, his caste surname was “Naicker”, which he dropped in his later life because of his opposition to the caste-system. Both his father, Venkata Naicker, a leading Hindu businessperson of Erode, and his mother, Chinnathayi Ammai, were orthodox in their religious beliefs. Periyar could speak three Dravidian languages: Kannada, Tamil and Telugu. Though Kannada was his mother tongue, he mostly used Tamil.
Childhood
Periyar spent sometime in his early childhood with a maternal aunt of his father. She was a childless widow and wished to bring him up. As a child, he started mixing and eating freely with people who were considered "untouchable" by the orthodox. Worried about the way he was growing up, his father brought him back to his home and sent him to a school at the age of six. According to Periyar, "the purpose of sending me to school was not so much for my education, it was perhaps with the intention of preventing me from indulging in what they considered to be delinquencies."
Periyar has himself narrated some of his childhood experiences. According to him, from the very beginning, he did not have any feeling of caste or religion, though he sometimes, when forced by circumstances, pretended to observe them. He did not have any faith in God either.
At the age of six, Ramasami was sent to a school near Erode. The houses around the school were inhabited by Muslims and "untouchable" castes. Periyar was strictly warned not to eat and drink with them. He was told to drink water only at his teacher's residence who was a strict vegetarian. Nevertheless, very soon Periyar started going to the homes of his classmates, and started drinking water and eating food with them. When this news reached his home, Periyar's mother was very upset. Ultimately, he was withdrawn from his school. As mentioned by Periyar, at that time his parents were "observing the rituals like orthodox Brahmins".
Thus, Periyar's schooling stopped at the age of twelve and he had only six years of formal education. It seems he acquired knowledge about religions, etc., by talking and listening to people at his father’s shop, where he was sent to work. He apparently put his leisure time to fruitful use.
Marriage
Periyar was married to Nagammai at the age of nineteen. His wife was only thirteen at that time. Two years after the marriage a girl child was born to them. However, the child lived only for five months and thereafter they had no child. Nagammai was brought up in an orthodox family. Though in the beginning she apparently had some problems in adjusting with her unorthodox husband, in later life she co-operated fully with Periyar in his public activities and campaigns. She died in 1933.
Periyar becomes an ascetic!
In 1904, i.e., six years after his marriage and at the age of 25, Periyar left his home without informing anyone. It seems there were increasing clashes between Periyar and the orthodox ways of his family. Periyar regarded “thali” (a necklace worn by married Hindu women in some parts of India) as a symbol of slavery. Periyar's removal of the "thali" of his wife created a furor in his family. Probably this led to Periyar’s unannounced exit. Later he became an ascetic and visited North Indian cities including Varanasi (Benaras), which is considered holy by Hindus, and studied the ways of sanyasis. According to K. Veeramani, this enabled him to see for himself that God and religion were the weapons of the priestly class for dominating, exploiting and enslaving the vast majority of the population. Very soon, he was on his way back home.
Back to family and business
On returning home, Periyar once again took up his family business. Until the age of thirty, Periyar was strengthening his father's business. Periyar's father died in 1911. Periyar took keen interest in public work even during his father’s lifetime. By 1920, he held twenty-nine offices of public importance including the chairmanship of Erode Municipality. Besides, he was an honorary Magistrate for several years.
Inside Congress
In 1919, Periyar joined the Indian National Congress. Subsequently he resigned the Chairmanship of Erode Municipality and other positions. In 1920-21, he participated in the Non-Cooperation Movement started by Gandhi. Periyar, his wife Nagammai, and sister Kanmma were imprisoned several times during the non-cooperation movement. Periyar also participated in Gandhian programs for prohibition of alcoholic drinks. He was a strict teetotaler throughout his life. Periyar became the President of the Tamil Nadu Congress during 1923-24.
Vaikkom Satyagraha
In 1924, as the President of the Tamil Nadu Congress, Periyar led the famous Vaikkom Satyagraha in Kerala. Vaikkom is a place in Kerala where the depressed class people (Ezhavas and Adidravidars) were prohibited from walking on the streets surrounding a temple. Travancore Maharaja, who was Periyar’s friend, tried to persuade him to suspend his campaign, but Periyar refused to do so. He was imprisoned twice by the Travancore government during this campaign. Periyar's wife and his sister, too, participated in this campaign along with many others. Finally, the government yielded and the depressed classes gained the right to use the roads around the temple. Because of this successful struggle, Periyar was given the title of "The Hero of Vaikkom" by his admirers.
Periyar’s role at Vaikkom was appreciated by only one newspaper, Nava Sakthi. Other newspapers and weeklies ignored his role. In Periyar’s assessment, the press was mostly dominated by Brahmins. Therefore, Periyar started his own weekly, Kudi Arasu (People’s Government, Republic) at Erode from May 1924.
Disillusionment with Congress
Periyar joined the Congress in 1919. At that time, he had hoped that, with the cooperation of enlightened members of the party, he would be able to remove the evil of untouchability. He had also hoped to obtain proper share for the backward and depressed class people in education and in government appointments.
In all the Conferences of the Indian National Congress in Tamil Nadu, Periyar used to propose setting aside a certain percentage of seats in elections to legislatures and in government services for the underrepresented non-brahmins. He considered this essential for social justice. Soon after his return from Vaikkom, at the historic Kanchipuram Congress in 1925, Periyar made the sixth and the last attempt to move a resolution in favor of what was known at that time as "communal representation" (reservation for socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of society). As this resolution was disallowed in the open session, he left the Congress once for all, declaring that "the Congress cannot do any good to Non-brahmins." In fact, several other instances made Periyar think that the Congress was a Brahmin dominated party and the upper caste members of the party did not have any genuine sympathy for lower caste and classes.
Self Respect Movement
When Periyar resigned from Congress, the Justice Party and the Swaraj Party were other main political parties of Tamil Nadu. As Periyar saw it, the Swaraj party, too, was dominated by Brahmins. The Justice Party, on the other hand, was dominated by non-brahmins. It supported reservations for non-brahmins in public services and education. Therefore, Periyar took interest in the activities of the party and sometimes addressed its meetings. In 1927-28, Periyar was busy addressing public meetings and non-brahmin conferences. He supported the Justice Party, though he did not identify himself with it.
An important event in the development in the Self-Respect Movement took place in 1929. In December 1928, the President of the Justice Party, Panagal Rajah, suddenly died. This stimulated Periyar to organize the first Self-Respect Conference at Chengalpattu, near Madras, on 17-18 February 1929. The conference passed resolutions against varna-vyavastha, untouchability, purohit system and intrusion of Sanskrit or any north Indian language in matters of worship. The Conference favored equal property rights for women. Resolutions were also passed urging people not to spend any money on worship in the temples, or for building new temples, Vedic schools, etc. People were exhorted to drop their caste surnames and to stop wearing caste marks on their foreheads or their bodies. It was emphasized that public funds should be used for educational purposes and for creating employment opportunities for the unemployed.
The next Self-Respect conference was held at Erode on 10 May 1930. The resolutions passed at this conference emphasized the need to end discrimination among human beings. This conference took a bolder step than the previous one, and condemned in strong terms the worship of idols in temples. It was declared that people had many social and financial problems to attend, and therefore, there was no need for them to waste time over an imaginary God.
In this way, Periyar organized several Self-Respect Conferences in Tamil Nadu. Among other things, he encouraged and supported inter-caste marriages and widow-remarriages. Periyar advocated man-woman equality in these conferences. Periyar also popularized Self-Respect Marriages by mutual consent, which were conducted without any Brahmin priest or religious ritual.
In 1930, Periyar supported a bill in the Madras assembly for the abolition of the Devadasi system under which young girls were attached to Hindu temples as sex workers. Periyar described this system as a disgrace to Hindu religion.
In 1932, Periyar visited Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Germany, France, Portugal, Russia and England. His longest tour was of Soviet Union. After returning to India, Periyar formulated a Socialist Manifesto and started propagating it. At this stage of his career, Jayaprakash Narayan, who was at that time a prominent leader of Congress Socialist Party, met Periyar and invited him to join his party. However, Periyar did not respond to the invitation.
As mentioned earlier, Periyar was opposed to the Hindi language. He believed that the adoption of Hindi as a national language would strengthen the hands of the Brahmins and weaken the influence of Tamil language and culture. When, in 1938, C. Rajagopalachari, as Chief Minister of the then Madras Presidency, made Hindi compulsory in schools, Periyar started an agitation against it. Periyar was sent to jail because of his anti-Hindi agitation. In December 1938, when Periyar was still in prison, he was elected leader of the Justice Party in his absence. On 27 August 1944 the Justice Party was converted into Dravidar Kazhagam (Dravidian Association).
Second Marriage
In 1949, sixteen years after the death of his first wife, Periyar married his 28 years old secretary, Annaiyar Maniyammai. Periyar was 70 years old at that time. His marriage led to a split in Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) and some of Periyar’s followers led by C.N. Annadurai (1909-1969) formed a separate organization called Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). Maniyammai had been Periyar’s secretary for about six years before he married her. Periyar felt that he could trust her to carry forward his movement and ideas.
The DMK became a political party, whereas Periyar moved away from party-politics into a more purely ideological direction.
Campaign in favor of Reservations
Periyar, as noted earlier, was in favor of reservations for non-brahmins (Backward Classes and Dalits). In fact, it was largely because of this issue that he had left the Congress party. The Justice Party, on the other hand, had implemented this policy while in power in 1928-29. Periyar had supported what was then known as the “Communal G.O.” (Government Order) of the then Government of Madras. This order provided for reservation for non-brahmins (Backward Classes, Dalits and other minority communities like Muslims and Christians) in the State Government services which were largely dominated by the Brahmins till then. Thus, the policy of reservations was being followed in Tamil Nadu even before independence.
In 1951, after India became an independent Republic, the Madras High Court declared the “Communal G.O.” of the Madras Government was against the provisions of Indian Constitution. Periyar started a powerful popular agitation against this. Ultimately the Indian Constitution was amended for providing reservations for socially and educationally backward classes [Article 15(4)]. Incidentally, this was the first amendment to the Indian Constitution.
Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution
In 1952, Periyar founded a registered trust named Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution for propagating his rationalist ideas. He donated almost all his property acquired until then to this trust. Publication of low-priced books and periodicals to propagate Periyar’s ideas was one of the purposes of the trust. Periyar donated large sums to the government for improvement of hospitals. He also started schools particularly for women and girls.
Various Campaigns for Social Reform
In 1952, Periyar opposed the scheme of new elementary education based on parent’s hereditary occupation introduced by the then Chief Minister of Madras State, C. Rajagopalachari. Under the scheme, all students were required to learn their parent’s occupation in school. Periyar’s agitation was so intense that Rajaji had to quit the post of Chief Minister. Consequently, Kamraj became the Chief Minister and he scrapped the scheme.
In 1953, Periyar, in order to discourage idol worship, led a statewide campaign to break the idols of Ganesh at public places. Periyar continued his campaign for the abolition of caste-system and the varna- vyavastha. He and his followers burnt the effigy of Rama and broke idols of Vinayaga (Ganesh). Copies of some Hindu scriptures, like Manusmriti and Ramayan, which sanction varna-vyavastha, were publicly burnt. In 1955, Periyar was arrested while trying to burn the pictures of Rama at public places.
In 1967, when DMK came to power and Annadurai became the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Periyar extended his support to Annadurai. In fact, it was Annadurai who brought legislation to change the name of Madras State into Tamil Nadu. His government also enacted the Self-Respect Marriage Act legalizing Self-Respect Marriages promoted by Periyar.
In 1969, Periyar announced a programme of agitation to enter the sanctum sanctorum of temples to condemn the practice according to which only the Brahmins could become archakas and perform puja in temples. The non-brahmins were not and are still not allowed to enter the sanctum sanctorum of the temples and officiate as archakas. As an atheist, Periyar did not believe in the institution of the temple. However, he announced this campaign to assert the rights of non-brahmins. Consequently, the then D.M.K. Ministry enacted the “Tamil Nadu Archaga Act 1970” which entitled all including Adi-dravidars (“untouchables”) to become priests. However, this act was challenged in the courts, and the Supreme Court struck it down as opposed in the “agamas”.
In 1970, Periyar organized a new forum called the Rationalist Forum, as a non-political social organization for promoting rationalism. In this way, Periyar started various organizations and led several campaigns in favor of rationalism and social reforms as well as against Brahminism and untouchability.
In 1970 itself, UNESCO honored Periyar as “Prophet of New Age” and “Socrates of the South East Asia”. The citation read as follows:
“Periyar, the prophet of New age, the Socrates of south East Asia, Father of the social reform movement and arch enemy of ignorance, superstitions, meaningless customs and baseless manners.”
Periyar died on 24 December 1973 at Vellore Christian Hospital, Tamil Nadu. He was ninety-five years old at that time. His body was brought to Periyar Thidal in Chennai (Madras City), the place from where organizations founded by him operated. He was buried at Periyar Thidal on 25 December in a simple wooden coffin in a distinctly un-Hindu ceremony.
Publications
Periyar published several journals in Tamil to publicize his ideas. As mentioned earlier he started publishing Kudi Arasu (Republic) in 1924. Besides, he also published Puratchi (Revolt), Pagutharivu (Rationalism), Viduthalai (Freedom) and Unmai (Truth). In 1970 the English monthly The Modern Rationalist was inaugurated by Periyar.
Periyar wrote a number of articles in Tamil journals founded by him. He delivered many extempore speeches in different parts of Tamil Nadu. These speeches, too, were printed in these journals. From these journals, which form part on an archival material in the library situated in Periyar Thidal, a series of volumes have already been published by the Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, including Collected Works of Periyar E.V.R. Besides, Emerald Publishers have published English translations of several of Periyar's works, namely, Periyar Is There God?, Periyar on Religion and Periyar on Women's Rights.
Philosophy
Periyar has expressed his views on many issues, including on political issues. However, he is best known as the founder of the Self-Respect Movement. In this book, I will concentrate on Periyar's views on issues, which are of relevance to rationalism, humanism and atheism. I have used Collected Works of Periyar E.V.R. as my main source for this chapter. Besides, I have also drawn from other English books mentioned above.
The first chapter of the book Collected Works of Periyar E.V.R. is titled "Genesis of My Self-Respect Movement". Periyar has very clearly mentioned his life's mission and the aims of the Self-Respect Movement in it:
My mission was decided by me. I resolved to eradicate the evils of casteism. I decided to fight against god and superstitions…
I started the Self-Respect Movement with the same motive. If my ambition is fulfilled the class hatred in society will cease.
Thus, Periyar started the Self-Respect movement, with the aim of establishing a casteless society based on complete equality. Eradication of social evils, promotion of rationalism, and freeing the society from the shackles of superstitions and blind faith in God and religion were high on his agenda. Ensuring social justice for “Shudras” (non-brahmins) by way of reservations in educational institutions and in government jobs was an important objective for him. Periyar made it clear that such reservations should continue as long as castes exist.
Rationalism
Periyar gave an important place to rationalism in his philosophy. One of the Tamil journals published by him was named Pagutharivu which means “rationalism” in Tamil. He was also the founder of the English journal The Modern Rationalist.
As noted earlier, Periyar founded the Rationalist Forum in Tamil Nadu. In fact, Periyar gave an important place to rationalism in his Self-Respect Movement. In an article published in Viduthalai in 1963, Periyar has described his social movement as being “based on rationalism”. In Collected Works of Periyar E.V.R., the words “Self-Respect Movement” and “Rationalist Movement” are used interchangeably.
In his “The Genesis of My Self-Respect Movement”, Periyar has emphasized the importance of rationality in human life.
In another chapter of Collected Works, titled “Rationalist Thinking!”, which is a speech delivered by him in 1971 while inaugurating a Rationalist Association, Periyar says:
We want the people to live as rational beings. We do not propagate anything unbelievable. We do not talk anything based on god, children of gods, incarnations, religion, shastras, customs, and so on. We talk of things acceptable to our sense of reasoning. All of you are endowed with the same sense of rationalism. Think over what is right and acceptable to your reason in all matters we talk about.
According to Periyar, adoption of a rationalist outlook in society would have solved many of its problems. Nevertheless, people were prevented from adopting a rational outlook by those who claimed that what they were saying were “words of god”, and that they themselves were not ordinary human beings but “incarnations of god”, and so on. Such people, maintains Periyar, actually wanted to impose their own ideas on the society, and that is why they did not want people to think independently. Periyar emphasizes that the capacity of reasoning alone distinguishes human beings from other animals. In case of human beings, sense of reasoning can lead to mental development and a happy life.
God
Periyar was very strongly opposed to the idea of god, as well as to idol-worship. He has used strong language and strong agitational methods for expressing his opposition. In his later life, he used to start his public meetings by categorically asserting the non-existence of god:
There is no god.
There is no god.
There is no god at all.
He who created god was a fool.
He who propagates god is a scoundrel.
He who worships god is a barbarian.
Even Periyar’s last speech, delivered in Chennai (Madras) on 19 December 1973, began like that. The speech has been printed by the Dravidar Kazhagam Publications, with the title Periyar’s Declaration of War on Brahminism. In this speech, Periyar has also enumerated the five principles of the Self-Respect Movement:
1. God must be abolished.
2. Religion must be abolished.
3. Congress must be abolished.
4. Gandhism must be abolished.
5. Brahminism must be abolished.
Thus, Periyar gave highest importance to the eradication of the god-idea in his Self-Respect Movement.
In Periyar on God and Man, Periyar has explained his statement, “he who invented god is a fool.” According to Periyar, in primitive times, human beings wanted to understand how the world was created and how it continued to exist. They wanted to understand the cause of birth and death. They saw around themselves many human-made things and were able to understand how they were created. However, they were not able to unravel the mystery of birth-existence and death. Thus, they imagined the existence of God in order to explain it. Therefore, the idea of God, says Periyar, is an outcome of ignorance, and the inability of human beings to understand the real nature of things. The idea is rooted in mere guesswork. What is more, this convenient myth, invented by human beings, blocked further inquiry and research into the real nature of things. It prevented majority of people from thinking deeply on important issues. Belief in God and his powers made people ignorant and foolish. As they began to shed their belief in God, they gained wisdom, and consequently the society was able to make progress.
Periyar comes down heavily on persons who propagate the idea of God, and claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, shapeless, etc. According to Periyar, these dishonest people talk in such a manner as if they have personally seen god!
Periyar grants that there are certain things, like air, which do not have any definite shape, yet we are able to feel their presence through five senses of taste, smell, touch, sight and hearing. Nonetheless, he emphatically declares that it is “absurd to believe a thing, which we can neither see nor feel.”
According to Periyar, no one has been able to prove the existence of God. He rejects the causal argument (God as the cause of the universe) on the familiar ground that it cannot explain who created God. He maintains that if God can come into existence without a cause, so can this world. Periyar points out that those who propagate God expect everyone to follow them blindly.
As an atheist, Periyar firmly states that the belief in God or gods is “detrimental to the welfare of the society.”
In his “Why I am an atheist”, Periyar says:
I confess that I am an atheist in a manner in which I am spoken of. Those who are afraid of atheism cannot achieve anything. Equality, for example, cannot be propagated and maintained unless you are an atheist. Atheism is analogous to equality.
Periyar expresses the view that even those who profess belief in God do not, in practice, leave everything to God. They take precautionary steps before doing any thing. They distinguish between their own action and the acts of nature. In other words, they too are practical atheists to some extent.
Idol-worship
Periyar was very strongly opposed to idol- worship. As noted earlier, in 1953 in order to discourage idol-worship, Periyar led a statewide campaign to break the idols of Ganesh at public places. Periyar has criticized various myths associated with the births and lives of different Hindu gods and goddesses. He has quoted from various Puranas for doing so.
While justifying his programme for breaking the idols of Hindu gods, Periyar has linked his opposition to idol-worship and other religious practices with his opposition to the four-fold classification of castes. Periyar has drawn attention to the fact that the varna-vyavastha had degraded the Shudras by placing them at the bottom of the caste hierarchy. Besides, the shastras, puranas, temples, prayers and gods, etc., have perpetuated their low position, and have been acting as hurdles to their advancement. Therefore, Periyar strongly advocates that the society must get rid of all these things in order to secure the social, educational and the economic advancement of the Shudras.
Soul
In addition to rejecting the god-idea, Periyar has also rejected categorically the concepts of soul, rebirth, fate, karma, moksha, heaven and hell. According to him, these superstitions are playing havoc with human life.
Periyar points out that all religions, except Buddhism, believe in the existence of soul. It is assumed that, when a person dies, his or her soul moves around in the temporal world, or depending on their karma goes to heaven or hell, or takes rebirth, or is metamorphosed into ghost or spirit. It is also claimed that the soul is invisible.
According to Periyar, the idea of soul or atma is totally irrational. We can see and feel the body and its different organs, but the soul, just like God, can neither be seen nor be touched. Again, just as is the case with God, it is not possible to prove the existence of soul in a rational manner. People, who believe in the existence of soul, do so blindly without using their intellect.
Periyar gives the example of a clock to make his point that we do not need the concept of soul for explaining death. When, due to gradual unwinding, the pendulum of a clock comes to a halt, and it stops showing time, we do not say that “soul” of the clock has gone out of it! The clock simply stops functioning. Similar is the case with human beings. When they die, the body stops functioning. As far as human life is concerned, everything comes to an end with death. There is no atma or after-life.
Religion
Periyar was opposed to all religions. As we have noted earlier, abolishing religion was one of the important aims of the Self-Respect Movement started by Periyar. Because of his opposition to the caste-system, and because he worked in a predominantly Hindu atmosphere, he concentrated his fire on Hindu religion.
In his "Quintessence of Hindu Philosophy", which is a speech delivered by him in 1947 at a function organized by the Philosophy Department of the Salem College, Periyar has emphasized the need for unfettered philosophical research on issues related to God and religion. According to Periyar, nothing should be exempted from the purview of such research, and arriving at the truth should be the only aim of such an inquiry.
In his speech, Periyar has discussed the view that religion is needed to connect human beings with God, and that it was created by divine persons for this purpose. According to Periyar, God is believed to be all-powerful, omnipresent and endowed with other supernatural powers. If it is really so, why should one need an intermediary to relate human beings with God? Besides, it is totally unjust to classify human beings as "divine" and "ordinary". If God created "divine" persons, who created the other human beings? What was the need for God to create two different categories of human beings?
Periyar did not believe in the existence of God. It is obvious that he raised these questions for the sake of argument. Periyar has also raised the question of the conflicting truth-claims of different religions.
Even if it is true, asks Periyar, that God could be realized only through religion, why should there be so many religions? Why should there be controversies and contradictions among them? Why should there be religious wars? Why should massacres take place in the name of religion? Why should suffering and misery overtake humanity because of religions?
Periyar has also questioned the alleged divinity of the founders of various religions. He points out that the number of persons claiming to have divine powers has been increasing day by day. There are many controversies and differences of opinion about them. It is very difficult to believe, according to Periyar, that religions were created by men with divine powers.
Some of Periyar’s selected speeches and writings on religion have been published in the form of a book titled Periyar on Religion. One of the Periyar’s articles contained in the book is titled “Why should Religion be Abolished”. Periyar begins his article by asserting that religion suppresses rationalism and destroys social unity by making human beings think that they belong to separate communities.
Periyar has also referred to different interpretations of “religion” in his article. One set of interpretations equates religion with ethics by claiming that religion is constituted by “the rules and regulations for human life”, or by maintaining that “religion regulates the conduct and character of people” and so on.
Periyar clearly says that he is not opposed to religion in this sense, but, according to him, this is not a correct interpretation of religion. He mentions other “dogmatic” interpretations of religion:
1. Religion is concerned, not with the physical existence of man, but with his soul.
2. Religion considers worldly life with its joys and sorrows, a worthless trifle and is chiefly concerned with life in the higher world.
3. Religion explains the relationship between man and God.
4. Religion has nothing to do with the five senses of man and is concerned with the spirit or soul beyond human perception. Religion ignores worldly life with its joys and sorrows, and enables man to reach the holy feet of God and attain salvation.
We have already seen that Periyar has rejected the concepts of God and soul as unfounded superstitions. Thus, he is naturally opposed to religion in the foregoing senses. Expressing his opposition to all religions, Periyar says:
The enthusiasts of every religion think that the principles of their religion are suitable for all countries at all times and their religious leader should be acknowledged as the head of the religion all over the world. The stubbornness with which they hold on to this view makes it difficult for us to believe that any religion can be accepted as a dependable guide for society.
According to Periyar, religious principles are not dependable for every day worldly life. They are even less dependable when they refer to soul and other worlds. Periyar also draws attention to the fact that religious disagreement and conflicts among dogmatists of various religions have led to violent and bloody conflicts in society. Besides, according to Periyar, religion favors the rich people. Therefore, Periyar favors total abolition of religion. According to him, "the abolition of religion will bring unity and peace to society" and help in getting rid of the tyranny of the rich.
Similarly, in his "Religion is the Cause of Injustices in the World", another chapter of Periyar on Religion, Periyar expresses the view that religion is a barrier, which has blocked human progress. People who follow religion do so blindly, just because their ancestors also did so. They do not bother to think about the nature or the utility of religion for human beings. According to Periyar, a person who wants to be serviceable to others needs no religion at all:
In spite of there being so many religions and branch religions, none of them helps man to live a happy and useful life; one who wishes to lead such a life will have to find some other means to help him.
According to Periyar, human beings should aim at finding happiness for themselves and others. One should accept only such good and truthful principles, which are practicable and useful. The principles and restrictions, which are imposed on the people by the various religions, but are difficult to practice, are not going to benefit humankind. It is best to discard such doctrines, which are contrary to human nature.
In his "Can't People Live Without Religion?", Periyar has discussed the view that a good and civilized life is not possible without religion. According to Periyar, it is a totally mistaken view. Periyar firmly believed that one could lead a good and creative life without religion:
Among the people who don't care for religion, and have no faith in it, there are so many who have realized their natural talents and powers, risen to high positions and utilized everything in their possessions for the welfare of the society. It is absolutely meaningless to say that a man can realize his latent powers and be of service to his society only with the help of religion. It is equally meaningless to say that to develop a man's character and to enable society to be disciplined, religion is necessary.
Brahminism
Periyar was uncompromisingly opposed to Brahminism. Eradication of caste-system including untouchability was the most important aim of his Self-Respect Movement. Periyar worked for a casteless society based on the value of equality. He believed that this could be achieved only by the abolition of Brahminism.
In his "Manu - A Code of Injustice to Non-Brahmins", Periyar has severely condemned Manu's code as expounded in the Manu dharmashastra or the Manusmriti. According to him, Manu's code is only a weapon in the hands of the "high-caste Brahmins". It enables Brahmins to call themselves high and superior, and to lead a comfortable life at the cost of others. The non-brahmins (Shudras), on the other hand, have been deprived of their self-respect and decency, and have been reduced to the status of perpetual slaves. Manu's code, as Periyar sees it, is an instrument for Brahmin dominance and monopoly over the society.
Periyar has quoted several passages from the Manusmriti in order to substantiate his point. He has focused on passages, which have given all kinds of privileges to the Brahmins on one hand, and degraded Shudras in all possible ways, on the other. He has also quoted some passages, which degrade women and give them an inferior status.
The Manusmriti claims that the Brahma, the creator of this world, is also the creator of the Manusmriti. It goes on to declare that the Vedas and the dharmashastras should not be questioned or logically debated by anyone. Any nastika (non-believer) or a critic of the Vedas, who "insults" them on the basis of logic, should be socially boycotted by "noble" persons.
According to the Manusmriti, Brahma created the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras from his mouth, hands, thighs, and feet respectively, and prescribed different duties and responsibilities for each of them. Because of being born from the mouth of the Brahma, and because of being born in the highest caste, the Brahmins alone have the right to receive and enjoy the wealth and property of all other castes and community. Even if a Brahmin begs for gifts or takes alms (dan) from others, he is supposed to be actually taking his own belongings. All others are said to enjoy every thing owing to the mercy of the Brahmins.
Moreover, a Brahmin can make a Shudra work for him, with or without making payments, because the Brahma has created the Shudra only for serving the Brahmins.
Periyar has shown that discrimination between Brahmins and others begins from birth and naming ceremony itself. According to the Manusmriti, the name given to a Brahmin should indicate virtue, whereas the name given to a Shudra should indicate lowliness. Further, the word "Das" (slave) should be added to the names of the Shudras as a suffix.
Periyar has quoted a passage where Shudras are compared to pigs! Food becomes polluted and unfit for consumption when a pig smells it, or hens and cock fly over it, or when a dog looks at it, or when a Shudra touches it.
The Manusmriti has recommended all kinds of harsh and cruel punishments for the Shudras. For example, if a Shudra talks ill of a Brahmin his tongue should be cut. Again, if a Shudra pronounces the name of a Brahmin, talks of his caste, or accuses him, a ten inches long red hot iron rod should be thrust into his mouth. Similarly, if a Shudra dares to give moral lessons to a Brahmin, he should be punished by pouring hot oil in his ear and mouth. If a Shudra hits a Brahmin, his hands must be cut off. If a Shudra occupies the same seat as a Brahmin, he is to be punished by branding his waist with hot rod and or getting his buttocks cut! If a Shudra leaves his profession and adopts the profession of a higher caste, the king should confiscate his property and expel him from his kingdom.
In contrast to this, Brahmins are to be subjected to mild punishment only. For example, if a Brahmin is awarded death sentence, it is sufficient to shave his head, but all others, including the Shudras, have to actually die.
The Manusmriti has given a degraded and inferior status to women as well. Even if the husband is morally degraded and is devoid of knowledge and other qualities; the wife must worship him like a god. Women are not considered fit for being independent. She must remain under the control of her father in childhood, of husband in youth and of son after the death of her husband.
According to Periyar, it is important for the youth of India to know the injustice and cruelty embodied in the Manu's Code, so that they can exert themselves to get rid of its evil influences.
Women's Rights
Periyar was a champion of women's rights. In several Self-Respect Conferences, which he organized in Tamil Nadu, Periyar advocated man-woman equality, and equal property rights for women. Among other things, he encouraged and supported inter-caste marriages and widow-remarriages. Periyar popularized Self-Respect Marriages by mutual consent, which were conducted without any Brahmin priest or religious ritual.
Periyar also supported the abolition of the Devadasi system under which young girls were attached to Hindu temples as sex workers. Periyar described this system as a disgrace to Hindu religion.
Periyar's speeches and articles relating to women's rights have been published in the form of a book titled Periyar on Women's Rights. In his various speeches and articles contained in this book, Periyar has supported women's education, property rights for women, Self-Respect Marriages, birth control and widow remarriages. Periyar has also expressed his views on love, chastity and "prostitution".
According to Periyar, love is not different from other human feelings like desire, kindness, affection and friendship. These feelings are same whether they are directed towards living beings or towards non-living things. Besides, all these feelings are subject to change. They are not fixed or permanent. However, an imaginary significance of extra ordinary nature is artificially associated with the word "love" in the minds of most of the people. This creates confusion in the minds of men and women who live together, and they are deprived of the happiness, which they could have, if they were left alone. It is owing to a mistaken conception of love, says Periyar, that people frame a bogus rule that a husband must live with one wife and that a wife must live with one husband. Consequently, everyone is compelled to live like that.
According to Periyar, kindness, desire, love, lust, friendship, attraction and distaste of sex, etc., are private feelings of human beings. These should not be discussed, determined or imposed by any third person. Every one must have the freedom to settle these issues based on his or her taste, attitude and satisfaction. It is unnecessary and uncalled-for anybody to interfere into the private affairs of others.
Periyar has expressed unorthodox views on chastity as well. According to him, the concept of chastity is used only for keeping women in bondage. If women are to get real freedom, says Periyar, the practice of imposing chastity on women alone will have to be discarded. Chastity, then, will become a discipline "imposed by both men and women voluntarily on themselves". Periyar has opposed forced marriages, which compel women to live with persons whom they do not like. Similarly, Periyar has also opposed religions and laws, which force women to put up with the brutal behavior of husbands. As he says:
The cruel religions and laws, which force women to put up with the brutal behavior of the husbands for the sake of chastity, must die out. The wickedness of society, which, in the name of chastity forces a woman to suppress her real feelings of love and live with the man who has neither love nor kindness for her, should also go.
According to Periyar, natural or voluntary and free chastity can only exist in a society in which the above mentioned evils have been eliminated. Otherwise, one can only have slavish chastity enforced on women in a one-sided manner.
According to Periyar, the word "prostitution", too, is used only with reference to women. The concept that prostitution is a sin is applied only to women and not to men. In Periyar's view, if such a discriminatory attitude to prostitution obstructs the movement for the liberation of women, it is the duty of public service- minded persons to discard the very idea of prostitution. As he says:
Like the word "chastity", word "prostitution" also is given a wrong and damaging significance and is applied to women unnaturally with the ulterior motive of enslaving them. For a life of equality and independence the concepts associated with the words, "chastity" and "prostitution" are utterly irrelevant and unnecessary. They may be considered necessary for a contract between a man and a woman for living together. Even there, restricting those words to women alone is unnatural.
According to Periyar, "the sex urge and the feelings of passion and desire are all natural". The concepts of chastity and prostitution have been artificially and cunningly created to keep others under subjection. There is no point in framing rules, which go against human nature and create avoidable suffering.
Periyar does not object to the belief that the human society needs certain principles and restrictions. Nevertheless, he insists the rules and regulations governing relationship like master-servant, master-slave should not be extended to all relationships in human society. According to Periyar:
The principles governing public life should not hamper or damage the personal freedom of any individual and should be such as not to give room in their application for partiality or discrimination between the high and the low. More important than these they should conform to nature. When we say that all principles should be justly apply, nobody need to go to dharmashastras to find out what is justice. What one considers just should be such as to be accepted as just by others as well. Further, it should necessarily suit human intelligence, ability and experience.
Thus, it is obvious that Periyar has supported a rational and secular ethics based on the values of freedom, equality and justice. He has emphasized that moral rules must take into account the realities of human nature.