Periyar E. V. Ramaswamy: Philosophy and Ideals

The Philosophy of Periyar E. V. Ramaswamy centred around atheism. His atheist arguments were predominantly against Hindu scriptures like Vedas, Manu Samhita, Ramayana, Mahabharata etc. His frank and unapologetic words are often shocking if not alarming. Before the end of this article about Periyar you’ll either detest him as an iconoclast or admire him as a rationalist. Only fierce honesty can have that kind of effect on readers.

Thanthai Periyar E. V. Ramasami considered himself a rationalist. He was against anything that was not in tune with reason. He was not loyal to any particular political party. Instead, he extended his support to whoever he thought had done well to the society. He would not support a party just because it was in power. He respected M. K. Gandhi with all his heart, but when the latter refused to take a strong stand against Untouchability, Periyar was somewhat disillusioned.

Gandhiji said: “If the Untouchables (lowest caste people) are prevented from drawing water from a well, let separate well be dug for them; if they are not allowed into the temple, let separate temples be built for them.” I said then: “If no amends are made for the abject humiliation that they cannot draw water from a well, let them there die of thirst. That they must be freed from this degradation is more important than the provision of water to save their lives.”

Periyar aimed his struggle against the Brahmins whom he thought were responsible for caste system. The scriptures, he believed, were some of the things that the Brahmins used to justify their behaviour. He considered Christianity and Islam were in a better position than Hinduism in the matter of social justice. They offered equality and self respect to humanity that caste-ridden Hindu society failed to provide.

He was introduced to Hinduism at quite a young age when Tamil Vaishnav Gurus came to his house and talked about Mythologies. He started placing questions that embarrassed the gurus as well as his family members. His next encounter with religion took place in Kaasi, a noted town of Hindu pilgrimage on the banks of Ganges. There he could not get free meals from the inns that were exclusively for the Brahmins. He starved severely for few days till he couldn’t suffer the pangs of hunger anymore. Wearing a thread on his bare chest, he tried to enter the choultry disguised as a Brahmin. But his moustache betrayed him. He was thrown out. During the feast inside the choultry the leftover food were thrown at the street. Periyar, compelled by the unbearable burning of starvation had to compete with the street dogs in eating the remnants of the left over foods in the leaves. Though the choultry was occupied by Brahmins, it had been built by a wealthy philanthropist of Dravidian Race from Tamil Nadu. The hypocrisy agitated him.

Though Kaasi (Varanasi) has been acclaimed as the most “sacred town” by the Brahmins, the worst ugly scenes of immoral activities, prostitution, cheating, looting, begging crowds for alms, floating dead bodies on the River Ganges turned Periyar to abhor that so-called holy-town.

Back in school, he was asked not to eat or drink in any low-caste house. He had to drink water from the house of a teacher who was a strict vegetarian and belonged to Odhuvar caste. The girl who came with the water used to place the brass tumbler on the ground and poured water into it. Periyar had to drink it without sipping. After drinking he had to place the tumbler upside down. Then the girl would pour water on the vessel before taking it into the house – to purify the vessel touched by a low-caste.

 Compared to this the social position of Brahmins was fairly advantageous. One could go to heaven by prostrating before the Brahmins, or, by drinking the water after washing their feet. It was only the Sudras who were not wanted and there were innumerable ways to insinuate that – to remind the Sudras that they should never forget their place in the society.

They (The Brahmins) tuck the sacred thread they wear in the ear as they pass urine or motion. They say that they escape pollution by this. They will wear the thread only after a bath or when they deem they are pure and clean. Similarly they tuck the thread in the ear when they talk to the Sudras.

Had God created the human beings, why would he make them unequal? Why would Brahmins get special treatment, whereas the low-caste Sudras would be deemed impure? All these questions disturbed Periyar. He took to extensive reading of sacred books to find answer. All he could find were incongruities. They seemed so obvious that it was only surprising how they might stand a rationalist’s arguments. That was the reason, Periyar concluded, to prohibit non-Brahmins from learning Sanskrit. All those texts were in Sanskrit. If people started reading them, that would expose the Brahmins.

According to the Hindu sacred text, during the marriage of Shiva and Parvathi, Brahma had a good look at the Parvathi’s thighs. This made him extremely lustful. He ejaculated repeatedly, first into the vessel near the sacred fire, then on plants and trees, on the ashes of a graveyard, on a heap of bones – and it seemed by doing that he impregnated almost everything around him. When some of Brahma’s semen dropped on the ground, a bird came and consumed it. It immediately became pregnant and gave birth to Sakuni. When a frog swallowed it, it gave birth to Mandothari. Finally when it fell on a lotus flower, the lotus became pregnant and gave birth to Padma.

When Brahma saw the beauty of his daughter Padma he was once again filled with lust. When Padma refused, he chased her. He began to quote the Vedas to make her realize there was nothing wrong in enjoying with anyone, anytime, anywhere for the sake of giving birth to a child. He somehow managed to convince her daughter to have sex with him.

Brahma developed multiple heads to stare at the erotic dance of Thilothama. In these sexual escapades he spared no one, not even a female bear. A human being with bear head called Jambu Vandan was thus born. He even wooed Urvasi, a prostitute. Now since Brahmins are born from the face of Brahma, they were considered the highest caste and the primary beneficiary of the wealth and property of other castes and communities. It is further ordained by The Veda itself that it was a King’s moral obligation to punish those who defy the Vedas and their rituals. What tyranny!

Probably, what served best in safeguarding interests of the upper-caste, was Manu Samhita. It gave Brahmins a place close to deities. They were even allowed to eat flesh of any living being – stags, goats, birds, porcupine, pig, bison, rabbit, and tortoise. They were allotted all that was the best – cow’s milk, curd, paddy, rice, fruits. A Sudra, on the contrary should be away on the day of the ceremonies. The word Dasan, meaning slave, should be affixed to all the Sudra names. Anyone who gave the ceremonial offerings to a Sudra, went to hell. All the upper-caste people who failed to worship Brahmins would become Sudra. In any congregation, food should be offered first to all the Brahmins present. Left over, if any, should be given to others. According to Manu, it was the King’s responsibility to see that Sudras served Brahmins, who had every right to extract work from Sudras with or without payment. Brahma created Sudras to work for the Brahmins. According to Manu,

Any eatable article becomes polluted and unfit for consumption when:1.       A pig dashes against
2.       Hens and cock fly over
3.       When a dog looks at
4.       When a Sudra touches

The Sudras were not entitled to property. There should be no hesitation, said Manu, to plunder the wealth of Sudra. Severe punishments were to be meted out to a Sudra who dared to speak against a Brahmin or so much as utter a Brahmin name through his lips.

If a Sudra talks ill of a Brahmin his tongue should be cut off. Chap.8.S.270 

If a Sudra pronounces the name of a Brahmin or talks of his caste or accuses him, an iron rod ten inches long should be heated red-hot and thrust into the mouth of the Sudra. Chap.8.S.271 

If the Sudra dictates the Brahmin to do a particular thing, boiled oil should be poured into the mouth and ears of the Sudra. Chap.8.S.272 

If the Sudra hits at the Brahmin’s hair, beard, legs, neck, penis, his hands must be cut off. Chap.8.S.283 

If the Sudra sits in a seat along with a Brahmin, his hips should be scorched or he should be driven away from the town. Chap.8.S.281

Manu exempted Brahmins from all forms of punishment. Even if a Brahmin did something bad, he should be worshipped, because he was superior to all.

Manu’s sermons on women were more shocking. They were not only patriarchal but also perverse. Giving pleasure to men and producing child were, according to Manu the sole purpose of a woman. A woman, he said, should obey the father as an infant, obey the husband in her youth and obey the children when widowed. A woman can never exercise her will independently. (Chap 5, S 148). Manu summed up women with the words,

Bed, seat, beauty, pregnancy, anger, lie, betrayal etc were created only for the sake of woman.

To the family that is not having a child, the wise Manu spoke once again.

If a family suffers on account of not having a child the woman could obtain the consent of the father-in-law and the husband and have intercourse with the brothers-in-law and the close relatives of the husband and give birth to children(Chap 9, S 59).

According to Manu, it is no sin to kill a woman or a non-Brahmin.

When Periyar E. V. Ramaswamy tried to trace the root of Untouchability, no matter what path he chose, it led him to religion. The mythological figure that we idolized, the sacred texts that we blindly followed only drove us deeper into regression and servitude. The edicts made by Brahmins were unfairly imposed upon the rest of the society in the name of tradition and religion. Even the study of Ramayana did nothing but bolstered this view. The fictional characters whom chose to be our role models seemed hardly worthy.

Rama according to the Valmiki Ramayana, was not an upright man. He had a hand in many acts of perfidy.

Rama, said Periyar was in truth a Sudra-slayer. He did it mainly to please the Brahmins. Rama conspired with Sugriv, Vali’s unfaithful brother and struck a deal with him. He treacherously killed Vali. No matter whom he killed, the Brahmins sang his eulogies. As if they justified, on his behalf, all the killings. It was a great cover up. Unlike projected by many interpreters, Ravana was not driven crazy by Sita’s beauty. He abducted her to avenge his sister Soorpanaka whom Lakshman had molested brutally. Ravana, according to Valmiki was a learned man, a scholar. His subjects were pleased with him. But even when Rama killed him, Brahmins took every pain to establish the killing was for good. Perhaps his only fault was he was a Dravidian king.

According to the text Ravana was cursed. If he touched any woman without her consent, his whole body would be ablaze. He brought Sita to Lanka, and yet survived. It is more likely that Sita didn’t protest much or, perhaps she accompanied Ravana willingly. Also the chronology of Valmiki’s Ramayana only suggested that it was not Rama whose child Sita was carrying. When Rama found out she was pregnant, he was furious. He asked if during her stay in Lanka she had ever committed adultery. Sita evaded the question. That Rama was very popular among Brahmins, didn’t come as a surprise. He followed Manu’s Code in almost everything he did. His whole life was devoted in pleasing the priests who in turn suppressed everything that pointed to his doubtful character.

Periyar pointed all these contradictions that made him extremely unpopular among not only the Brahmins but also those orthodox Hindus who blindly followed the faith.

... he who boldly tells the unadulterated truths will become the arch enemy of many people. By this it is not meant that all people should be liars. It only indicates that the real truth and philosophy are prevalent in the society in a different form by nature and name. On account of this many truths are found to be unconvincing.

Instead of Ramayana and Mahabharata that he considered to be Aryan literature, he encouraged people to read Thirukural by Thiruvalluvar. “You could find only virtue, wealth and love in Kural,” he said. However, he rejected its divine utterances or inspired Apocalypse. He wanted it to be read solely for moral guidance.

Thanthai Periyar E. V. Ramasami believed that a god who created only inequality among men, was good for nothing. A code that taught us to oppress women can’t be called a moral code. As long as we treat them as fantastic stories, works of fiction, there was no problem in reading them. But it would be a great blunder to project such stories as true. When people believed them blindly, Periyar observed, that would only result in under development of the brain. God is a myth, he said, God is a big hoax.

It is said some gods are able to play with mountains as mere play balls. Many fantastic qualities are attributed to our gods. But have we performed any miracle in any way to the outside world? Nothing so far! Even the matchstick would not have come to us, if Europeans had not come here (India).

Periyar however, wrongly believed that the West was somewhat free from the influence of religion. This was only partially true. Even today there are people of a certain Christian sect who refuse medical care as they believe it intervenes with God’s plan. Also Periyar had the misconception that Islam was free from casteism. Today Islam has over 300 distinct sects. Some of them are in constant strife with each other. Because of this misconception Periyar often encouraged conversion of low-caste Hindus to other religions. However his observations regarding religion in general were very accurate and relevant even today. Like B. R. Ambedkar, Periyar too had great respect for Buddha. He considered Buddhism akin to rationalism. Buddha condemned all forms of idolatry and wanted people to search for the truth themselves. However, I wonder what they would think had they learned about the Rohingya crisis.

He despised astrologers. He believed they were the foremost exploiters of the people’s greed and superstition. Their business continues to flourish so long as people are not rational free thinkers.

In the name of the malevolent planets, it will be seen that the astrologer, the magician and the temple priest exploit the people and relieve them of their hard-earned income.

The real reasons behind the popularity of astrology are that first, men are afraid to face the world and secondly, they are extremely greedy. Today some believe astrology to be a speculative science. To Periyar it was not even that. It was a mere speculation, a fraud. There is no shortcut for success. Good results come with hard work and sincerity. If the astrologers could control luck, wouldn’t they be millionaires themselves?

View Source

There were many things Thanthai Periyar E. V. Ramasamy believed like there were things he didn’t. He believed in equality, social justice. He believed in Russia and its communism. He was a fierce critic of Brahmanism. He had publicly burned Manu Smriti and Ramayana and attracted widespread protest. He took the cause of Untouchables at a time when most others were afraid to talk about it. In Vaikom, the low caste people were not allowed to walk in the streets around temple. When local Congress leaders started an agitation, Periyar joined them. For this he was sentenced twice to undergo imprisonment for six months for each term.

In 1925 when the Congress party showed apathy in taking up his cause, Periyar left the party. Before he joined Satyagraha he held 29 important posts in various places. He gave up all that. Though he was a confirmed atheism, he also emphasised that God and religion were sometimes more helpful than laws, to prevent criminality. All men should have mutual love – he said – to receive help from others. He mentioned discipline, love, sympathy, honesty and indebtedness as essential virtues. He was opposed to believing anything – even his own preaching - blindly. He encouraged critical thinking. Rationalism, according to Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, is already in our possession. It’s only a pity that so few of us actually put it to use.

Back to Philosophy Bookshelf
Back to Religion Bookshelf

---