Periyar vs Nehru: The Druid’s Bitter Medicine

Periyar’s (Ramasamy Naicker’s) harsh views on Brahmins, especially the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu, are well known. But not many are aware that their stridency took a sharp ascent in the late 50s of the last century. Earlier, when the British were ruling India, Periyar was measured—by his standards, that is—in his comments on Brahmins, in that he didn’t advocate any overt violence against them. In 1947, when the calamity of Partition was unfolding, he did suggest violence. For instance, in an article written in Viduthalai on July 27, 1947, he declares that Aryans—read Brahmins—living in the Dravida land (which he calls “our land” and distinguishes it from Hindustan) would be solely responsible if Noakhali-like incidents happened there. The Noakhali riots of 1946 resulted in the butchery of countless Hindus.

According to his then-estranged disciple, C. N. Annadurai, he mellowed down in the early 1950s. Anna says, in an article written on March 25, 1956, that Periyar, in fact, referred to the Pappans (a pejorative term, usually employed by him) as Brahmins in a speech made in January 1953, which was later published in Viduthalai. Periyar also said that he didn’t want the Brahmins to be driven out of Tamil Nadu, which in any case would be impractical. He also asserted that he didn’t believe in violence and that there wasn’t much difference between Brahmins and non-Brahmins. All that changed over the next few years.

On June 1, 1954, Periyar asked his followers to begin all their letters with a preamble: “I am a Brahmin-hater”. It appears that his tone and language against the Brahmins turned more vitriolic in the ensuing years. Calling Lord Rama disreputable and Sita a prostitute, he announced that on August 1, 1956, the portrait of Lord Ram would be set on fire—a forerunner of what he was going to advocate for the Brahmins. He was arrested, but released almost immediately. Later in the same year, he was hauled up before the High Court of Madras for casting aspersions against two Brahmin justices for giving a judgement in a case against the collector of Tiruchi, who happened to be a non-Brahmin. Periyar read out a statement in the court that was 128-pages long. In it, he accused Brahmin officials of conspiring against non-Brahmin officials and destroying their reputation. He said rather dramatically, “A country where a Brahmin is a judge and the ruler is a dense jungle teeming with fierce tigers. That is why we are hunting tigers. If you ask whether all Brahmins are like that, the answer is: Unless there is something wrong with your tongue, neem will not taste sweet, honey will not taste bitter. Unless there is a change in birth, a tiger will not eat grass, a goat will not eat a human. It is exactly the same with the nature of Brahmins.” The court dealt with him leniently and asked him to pay a fine of Rs 100. The Indian Express reported on October 22, 1957, that Periyar asked his followers to burn the agraharams (traditional Brahmin settlements) and kill the Brahmins, by way of honouring his 79th birthday. The Express reporter wrote: If the love of his followers for him is real, Mr. Naicker said, they should not hesitate to do this in the interest of caste abolition. He said there was no harm in killing Brahmins as they themselves have shown the way by killing asuras (superhuman demigods with good or evil qualities). He added that nothing would be lost if one out of three Brahmins were killed (which is one per cent of the population). He hoped that a beginning would be made in some Tiruchi villages and at least 30 to 40 Brahmins would be done away with. Unless Brahmin blood was shed, there could be no salvation for Tamilians.

In November 1957, Periyar announced that he would ask his followers to burn the pages of the Indian Constitution. He said, “The government should declare: ‘We will not allow the caste called “Brahmin” to exist in law. Even if it does, we will not permit him to live as a Brahmin. If an official statement declaring that the caste called “Brahmin” no longer exists is not issued by the 26th of this month, we will burn the Constitution.’” In Thanjavur, he asked the crowd, “What would you do if the caste had to be done away with by burning Brahmins’ dwellings and killing at least a thousand Brahmins?” Viduthalai proudly reported: “The crowd roared, ‘Let us burn them. Let us kill them. Your order is law. We will not violate it.’”

The news went to Jawaharlal Nehru and he was livid. He wrote to Chief Minister K. Kamaraj, on November 5, 1957.

My Dear Kamaraj,

I am much distressed by the anti-Brahmin campaign continuously carried on by E. V. Ramaswami Naicker. I wrote to you I think about this some time ago, and I was told that this matter was under consideration.

I find that Ramaswami Naicker is going on saying the same thing again and calling upon people at the right time to start stabbing and killing. What he says can only be said by a criminal or a lunatic. I do not know him adequately to be able to decide what he is, but one thing is clear to me that this kind of thing has a very demoralizing effect on the country. All the anti-social and criminal elements imagine that they can act in this way also.

I suggest, therefore, to you that there should be no delay in dealing with this matter. Let him be put in a lunatic asylum and his perverted mind treated there. I do not understand anyone telling me that the law does not allow us to take action unless actual killing takes place.

The law is often very foolish but it is not quite so foolish as to permit a campaign of incitement to murder.

Yours sincerely,

Jawaharlal Nehru

Later, in a letter, Nehru stated that Periyar’s activities represented the most barbarous thing he had come across in a civilised country. In yet another letter to a legislator, he said, “I have seldom come across anything more primitive and barbarous in any country presuming to be civilised... [Periyar and his group] have to be dealt with an iron hand.”

The Madras government swiftly swung into action. The police arrested Periyar in Tiruchi on November 6, 1957, and released him after charging him under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. Simultaneously, the government introduced a bill in the ass­embly which provided that offences against the Indian National Flag, pictures, effigies and statues of the Father of the Nation, or the Constitution of India would be punishable by imp­risonment up to three years, or fine, or both. Annadurai, speaking on the bill, valiantly tried to defend his mentor, even though Periyar during that period was at daggers drawn with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). Anna said that what Periyar did was a shock treatment and he perhaps did not mean what he said. He suggested that the Chief Minister could meet him personally to sort things out. But he made it clear that there was a crucial difference between Periyar’s Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) and his party, which was the DMK. He said that unlike the DK, his party had no animosity against the Brahmins while it would be staunchly fighting against Brahminism. The state government went ahead and passed the bill, which became law. Meanwhile, the criminal case against him came up for hearing, and after a swift trial, he was convicted on three counts and sentenced to imp­risonment of six months on each, but was asked to serve the sentences concurrently. He was sent to prison on December 14, 1957, and was released only after completing his sentence.

An unfortunate outcome of Periyar’s imprisonment was that the Brahmin lawyer who argued for the government suffered an acid attack by a fanatical follower of Periyar named Thiagarajan. The reason he gave for the attack was that Srinivasachari, the government lawyer, had the gumption to ask the defence lawyer to address the accused as Ramaswamy Naicker and not Periyar. Thiagarajan is still revered by some of Periyar’s followers for his act. Incidentally, Periyar’s imprisonment was the last one in his long and illustrious political life. After his release, he continued to revile the Brahmins, but stopped short of calling for their murder almost until the very end of his long life. In 1973, he again advocated the killing of Brahmins, but then he was 94 years of age and people came to his meetings more to admire his stamina, dedication, and uproariously witty anecdotes than to take seriously his broadsides against Brahmins.

(Views expressed are personal)

P. A. Krishnan is a renowned writer in both Tamil and English.