Samadharma: Periyar’s concept for India
Greater than a criticism of faith, samadharma is a dedication to equality and to a secularism that may assure it.
Udhayanidhi Stalin’s feedback on Sanatana Dharma, made at a public assembly on September 2 organised by the leftist platform Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artists Affiliation, have stirred appreciable controversy. The Tamil Nadu Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports activities Growth in contrast Sanatana Dharmato illnesses that should be eradicated. This triggered reactions throughout India, the place BJP members and supporters of the Hindu Proper strongly protested towards his remarks, together with by submitting legal circumstances, issuing dying threats, and warning of different types of bodily violence.
Udhayanidhi has, nevertheless, been supported by leaders comparable to Priyank Kharge of the Congress, D. Raja of the CPI, and Thol. Thirumavalavan of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi. In Tamil Nadu, administrators of widespread anti-caste movies like Mari Selvaraj, Pa. Ranjith, and Vetrimaaran have additionally come out in help of Udhayanidhi, and so have many Dravidian, Left, Dalit, and civil society organisations.
Part 295A of the IPC
Udhayanidhi’s feedback haven’t created a lot of a flutter in Tamil Nadu because the State has seen a lot sharper feedback made on faith by leaders of the Dravidian motion earlier as nicely and has been fairly tolerant of them. One of many circumstances filed towards Udhayanidhi is underneath Part 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This part has an fascinating historical past. It was enacted by the British colonial authorities in India in 1927 following reactions towards a Hindu writer over a e-book that was allegedly disrespectful of Prophet Muhammad. The writer was ultimately assassinated by a Muslim extremist. Unbiased India determined to retain the regulation, which has since then been used to curtail any criticism of faith.
Ambedkar with Periyar after they met at a Buddhist convention in Rangoon in 1954.
| Picture Credit score:
By particular association
In her current e-book, Harm Sentiments: Secularism and Belonging in South Asia, Neeti Nair writes that within the Fifties, Part 295A was deployed to guard Muslim damage sentiments from Hindu Proper polemics, however by the Nineties, Sections 295A and 153A had been being commonly used towards works of secular organisations and towards opinions of these like B.R. Ambedkar (for Riddles in Hinduism) and A.Ok. Ramanujan (for “Three Hundred Ramayanas”), which had been thought-about to offend Hindu sentiments. Thinkers of the Hindu Proper, who name for the “decolonisation” of the Structure and the regulation, have hardly ever ever protested towards these sections drafted by the colonial powers.
Part 295A additionally has a historical past with the Dravidian motion. In 1953, one Veerabathiran Chettiyar filed a 295A case on Periyar E.V. Ramasamy and some others affiliated with the Dravidar Kazhagam for breaking an idol of the Hindu god Ganesha in public that yr. This was dismissed by the Extra District Justice of the Peace in Could 1953, and when the case was taken to the Excessive Court docket, it was dismissed in October 1954.
Chettiyar pursued it within the Supreme Court docket, the place Justice B.P. Sinha held that the decrease courts had been in error to dismiss the case by their interpretation of 295A and additional that “any object nevertheless trivial or destitute of actual worth in itself, if thought to be sacred by any class of individuals would come inside the which means of the penal part. Neither is it completely essential that the item, with the intention to be held sacred, ought to have been really worshipped. An object could also be held sacred by a category of individuals with out being worshipped by them.” (Free speech advocates should check out this judgment for the authorized and social implications it could have.) Nevertheless, because the case was “stale”, Justice Sinha didn’t advocate any motion towards the accused however warned that if such acts had been repeated the regulation ought to act towards the offending individuals.
Such acts had been repeated by Periyar till the top of his life. Though he bumped into bother with the regulation all through his public life, for Periyar the criticism of faith was a central element of his ideas, his politics, and his understanding of social justice. Periyar gained controversy for his iconoclastic acts of breaking non secular idols, burning non secular texts, making provocative speeches about gods, and his valorisation of asuras and rakshasas (the antagonists of the gods in Hindu mythology), to not point out varied offensive satires and cartoons revealed within the papers that his celebration, Dravidar Kazhagam, introduced out. If thought-about in isolation, it’s straightforward to see Periyar as an insouciant provocateur, a crude atheist who made criticising Hindu gods and faith alone his sole mission. However Periyar was additionally guided by a dharma.
Highlights
- The criticism of faith, which he noticed as the foundation and justification for social inequalities, was a central element of Periyar E.V. Ramasamy’s ideas, his politics, and his understanding of social justice.
- Periyar, who typically courted controversy for his iconoclastic acts comparable to breaking non secular idols, burning non secular texts, and making provocative speeches about gods, did so to display his samadharma, which was based mostly on the precept of social equality in its most complete sense.
- Periyar himself outlined samadharma as a situation of equality, neutral justice, and the absence of social hierarchies. It’s an concept that each one of India can profit from.
Precept of social equality
Samadharma was central to Periyar’s political creativeness. A.R. Venkatachalapathy notes that this was a neologism coined by Periyar. The bottom phrases are samam, or equal, and dharmam, for which it is rather laborious to seek out an actual English equal since it will probably imply regulation, justice, ethics, conduct, order, and so forth. Periyar makes use of samadharma to consult with a socialistic creativeness premised on the equality of all, versus Manu dharma, varnashrama dharma, stri dharma, and so forth, which promote social hierarchies and embed inequalities between castes and the sexes. It additionally meant a lifestyle that centred self-respect, freedom, and equality as inalienable attributes of people.
Additionally Learn | Self-respect and socialism
Periyar had appreciable fascination for the Soviet Union, particularly its promotion of atheism and ladies’s liberation. Between February and Could 1932, he toured the USSR, the place he met with Soviet leaders, labour unions, and atheist teams.Returning to India, he commissioned translations of atheist works from socialistic views comparable to Bhagat Singh’s Why I’m an Atheist and Lenin’s writings on faith. He had an excellent relationship with well-known Tamil socialists like M. Singaravelar and P. Jeevanandam. Following a crackdown on the socialists by the colonial powers, he briefly gave up his advocacy of radical Left concepts, however all through his life he was sympathetic to some type of socialism.
Additionally Learn | Faith, gender and equality
A number of the defenders of Sanatana Dharmadeclare that it’s everlasting. Ambedkar rejected this by saying: “Nothing is everlasting or sanatan. All the things is topic to vary.” Periyar, too, subscribed to related views. In a speech delivered in 1929 on the subject of dharma, Periyar stated that the dharmapractised 300-400 years in the past could be unsuitable for right this moment. Additional, ideoology, regulation, dharmawould change in keeping with time and place. He argued that the extreme maintain of faith and superstition on individuals’s minds was holding again India’s progress and made an appreciative touch upon Kemalist Turkey for shaking freed from Islamic fundamentalism (Periyar Kalanjiyam 27, pages 36-46).
Periyar Kalanjiyam, the definitive version of the whole works of Periyar, has been revealed in 37 volumes that chronologically cowl his speeches and writings revealed in Kudi Arasu, the weekly journal that he based and edited.
In an identical vein, in a speech in 1930, he accused the outdated dharmaof being accountable for ills like caste, hierarchy, poverty, and landlordism and referred to as for his or her removing (Kudiarasu September7, 1930). “Immediately’s dharmacan be seen as adharmatomorrow,” he stated, emphasising the significance of change within the historical past of countries and religions. Samadharma is supposed to be that locomotive of change.
Periyar’s samadharma was not based mostly on a strict programmatic principle however somewhat on the precept that social equality in essentially the most complete sense is paramount. And whereas he did focus quite a bit on faith as the foundation and justification for social inequalities, it was not that he was blind to different causes as nicely. In a speech in 1973, the final yr of his life, he outlined samadharma as a situation of equality, neutral justice, and the absence of social hierarchies (Periyar Kalanjiyam 31, pages 192-194). He referred to as for the abolition of personal property and for difficult values that remember the focus of wealth on the expense of labour.
“Periyar makes use of samadharma to consult with a socialistic creativeness premised on the equality of all, versus Manu dharma and varnashrama dharma, which promote social hierarchies.”
However why did Periyar see an excessive and provocative criticism of faith in any respect essential to advertise samadharma? Couldn’t faith be seen merely as a non-public affair? To Periyar, faith couldn’t be seen as a non-public affair as a result of it was by no means so in India. From the time of the anti-colonial wrestle to post-Unbiased India, influential nationalist leaders used faith in and as politics.
Nehruvian India promised secularism, however secularism in its radical iteration would actively contain a problem to custom, so it was moderated. If a politics based mostly on non secular sentiment confronted and sought to undermine secularism, Periyar sought to cement secularism by making the criticism of faith an open public affair.
Secondly, a legion of anti-caste leaders in and earlier than Periyar’s time recognized varnashrama dharmaas an integral a part of Hinduism. That liberal and conservative Hindus defended it solely appeared to justify the anti-caste leaders’ criticism of Hinduism as a complete. We must always do not forget that from the nineteenth century the time period Sanatana Dharmawas not related to the reformist faction however somewhat with orthodox sections of Hindus who firmly opposed reform and defended hierarchies like varnashrama as pure. Anti-caste leaders naturally responded to this.
As an illustration, Ambedkar’s Philosophy of Hinduism argues that social hierarchy is central to Hinduism. Periyar’s samadharma, as a regulation of equality, was against faith not owing to any dogmatic dedication to atheism however owing to faith’s unwillingness to result in equality. He criticised Hinduism essentially the most as a result of it was the faith of the bulk in India and since he thought that caste obtained its validation from texts such because the Manu Smriti and concepts like varnashrama dharma. This, after all, didn’t forestall him from having amicable relationships with reformist Hindu saints like Kundrakudi Adigalar. Nor did he limit his criticism to Hinduism alone. He additionally criticised Islam with respect to the remedy of ladies in Muslim societies.
Samadharma is equality, however it isn’t a liberal concept of tolerance. It begins from the premise that equality is universally fascinating and proceeds to criticise all political programs or non secular concepts that stand in the way in which of equality. In fairly a number of cases, Periyar stated that if God stood for caste and gender equality, he would haven’t any drawback with faith. However provided that God and faith are sometimes invoked to defend inequalities, he needed to criticise them.
Seen within the mild of this Dravidian custom, we will perceive the help to Udhayanidhi Stalin in Tamil Nadu. Some well-wishers of the DMK have considerations that his feedback may have an effect on the INDIA alliance that has formed up among the many opposition events. Political expediency typically calls for restraint and maybe even self-censorship, and it is for that reason that Periyar didn’t need to enter politics. However Periyar’s concept of samadharma is greater than a criticism of faith, it’s a dedication to equality and to a secularism that may assure it. That is an concept that each one of India can profit from.
Karthick Ram Manoharan is Assistant Professor of Social Sciences on the Nationwide Legislation Faculty of India College, Bengaluru. He’s the writer of Periyar: A Research in Political Atheism (Orient BlackSwan, 2022).
