E.V. Ramasamy (Periyar)

Overview

Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy (1879–1973), universally known as Periyar ("The Great One" or "Elder"), was the most transformative social reformer in modern South Indian history and one of the most radical anti-caste voices in all of India. A former businessman who abandoned wealth and political power to become a full-time activist, Periyar built a mass movement that challenged the religious, social, and political foundations of caste hierarchy in ways that were more direct, more confrontational, and in some ways more revolutionary than any other Indian reformer of his era.

Periyar's philosophy was built on three pillars: self-respect (the dignity of the individual against caste humiliation), rationalism (the rejection of religious dogma and superstition), and social justice (the dismantling of Brahminical supremacy and the empowerment of non-Brahmin, Dalit, and women communities). He was not merely a critic of caste; he was an architect of a counter-ideology — what he called the "Dravidian" identity — that reimagined South Indian society outside the framework of Hindu orthodoxy.

Periyar's influence extends far beyond Tamil Nadu. His ideas shaped the Dravidian political parties that have dominated Tamil Nadu politics since 1967, inspired the Dalit Panther movement in Maharashtra, influenced anti-caste activists across India, and provided an intellectual foundation for reservation politics, language rights, and secular governance. Yet he remains controversial: his attacks on Hinduism, his atheism, his iconoclasm, and his sharp rhetoric against Brahminism have made him a polarizing figure. Understanding Periyar requires engaging with both his revolutionary impact and the complex debates his legacy continues to provoke.

Early Life and Formation

Periyar was born on September 17, 1879, in Erode, a town in the then-Madras Presidency, into a wealthy Tamil Nadu Naicker family. His family was engaged in trade and agriculture, and young Ramasamy was exposed to both the privileges of caste and the injustices of the colonial social order. He had little formal education — he attended school only until the age of ten — but he possessed a fierce intellect, a powerful oratorical gift, and an instinctive sense of how to mobilize mass opinion.

From Business to Politics

• Early business years: Periyar entered his family's trade in agricultural goods and textiles, becoming a successful merchant by his twenties. He traveled extensively across South India, witnessing firsthand the caste discrimination, untouchability practices, and Brahminical dominance that structured rural and urban life. His business experience gave him a practical understanding of economic exploitation, but it also made him acutely aware that caste oppression was not merely economic — it was deeply embedded in culture, religion, and social ritual.
• Entry into Congress politics: In 1919, Periyar joined the Indian National Congress and quickly rose to prominence as a local organizer in Tamil Nadu. He was drawn to the Congress by its anti-colonial platform, but he soon became disillusioned with the upper-caste, Brahmin-dominated leadership of the Tamil Congress. He observed that Congress meetings were conducted in Sanskritized Tamil, that Brahmin leaders monopolized positions, and that the nationalist movement showed little interest in the social emancipation of non-Brahmins and Dalits. His Congress years were formative: they taught him that political independence without social revolution was meaningless.
• The Vaikom Satyagraha (1924): Periyar's first major national exposure came during the Vaikom Satyagraha in Kerala, a protest against the prohibition of lower-caste people from walking on public roads near the Vaikom Mahadeva Temple. Periyar traveled to Vaikom to support the satyagraha, was arrested twice, and became a hero to the anti-caste movement. The Vaikom experience deepened his conviction that religious orthodoxy was the primary obstacle to social equality and that direct confrontation with Hindu institutions was necessary.
• Break with Congress: By 1925, Periyar had concluded that the Congress was fundamentally uninterested in caste reform. He resigned from the Congress and founded the Self-Respect Movement (Suyamariyadai Poraattam), which would become the vehicle for his life's work. The movement was not merely a political party; it was a social revolution that sought to transform the minds, marriages, rituals, and daily practices of Tamil society.

The Self-Respect Movement

The Self-Respect Movement, founded in 1925, was Periyar's most original and enduring contribution. It was not a political party in the conventional sense but a mass social reform movement that used propaganda, public meetings, marriages, conferences, and publications to dismantle caste consciousness and instill a sense of dignity among the oppressed. The movement's core principle was that the individual's self-respect was the highest value, and that no religion, tradition, or social institution had the right to degrade human dignity.

Key Principles and Practices

• Self-respect marriages: Periyar introduced "self-respect marriages" (suyamariyadai kalyanam) that rejected Brahmin priests, Sanskrit mantras, and caste endogamy. These marriages were conducted without religious rituals, often by the couple themselves, and explicitly challenged the Brahminical monopoly over marriage sacraments. The practice was controversial but spread widely, and it remains an option in Tamil Nadu today. It was not merely a symbolic act; it was a frontal assault on the caste system's ability to reproduce itself through controlled marriage.
• Rejection of religious hierarchy: The Self-Respect Movement attacked Hinduism as a religion that had sanctified caste discrimination. Periyar argued that Hindu scriptures — the Vedas, the Manusmriti, the Puranas — were explicitly designed to maintain Brahmin supremacy. He organized public burnings of the Manusmriti, staged demonstrations against temple entry restrictions, and encouraged followers to abandon temple worship. This was not merely religious reform; it was a call for religious rebellion.
• Social reform through propaganda: Periyar was a master of mass communication. He published the newspaper Kudiyarasu (The Republic), founded the magazine Pakutharivu (Rationalism), and toured villages across Tamil Nadu giving fiery speeches in accessible, vernacular Tamil. He used humor, sarcasm, and direct confrontation to expose the absurdities of caste practices. His rhetorical style was deliberately provocative: he wanted to shock people into questioning their assumptions.
• Economic dimension: The Self-Respect Movement was not only about caste and religion; it also demanded economic justice for non-Brahmins and the working class. Periyar supported labor rights, tenant farmers' movements, and the nationalization of land and industry. He believed that caste and class were intertwined, and that true liberation required both social and economic transformation. His advocacy for reservation in government jobs and education — which he pursued from the 1920s onward — was a direct result of this integrated analysis.

Anti-Caste Radicalism

Periyar's anti-caste stance was more radical than almost any other Indian reformer. While Gandhi sought to reform Hinduism from within and Ambedkar sought constitutional and legal redress, Periyar sought to destroy the ideological and cultural foundations of caste itself. He did not ask for inclusion within Hinduism; he demanded exit from it. His anti-caste politics was not accommodation but annihilation — not of the caste-oppressed, but of the caste system itself.

Periyar vs. Brahminism

• Critique of Hinduism: Periyar's central argument was that Hinduism was not a religion but a "social conspiracy" designed to maintain Brahmin dominance. He argued that the Varna system (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra) was not a divine order but a man-made hierarchy of exploitation. His critique was not merely sociological but theological: he denied the authority of the Vedas, mocked the concept of divine birth, and argued that the gods themselves were inventions of the priestly class. This made him a target of intense hostility from Hindu organizations and a hero to anti-caste activists.
• Reservation and affirmative action: Periyar was one of the earliest and most consistent advocates of caste-based reservation in India. He demanded that government jobs, educational institutions, and political representation be proportionally allocated to non-Brahmins, Dalits, and other backward communities. His advocacy laid the groundwork for the reservation policies that became constitutional mandates after independence. In 1950, when the Madras government's reservation policy was challenged, Periyar organized massive protests that eventually led to the First Amendment of the Indian Constitution, which explicitly protected reservation laws.
• Comparison with Ambedkar: Periyar and B.R. Ambedkar are often compared as the two giants of anti-caste thought. Both were radical critics of Hinduism, both supported reservation, both were deeply skeptical of the Congress, and both converted to new religions (Ambedkar to Buddhism, Periyar to a form of rationalist atheism). However, their strategies differed: Ambedkar was a constitutionalist and legal scholar who worked within the framework of the state, while Periyar was a mass mobilizer who worked outside formal politics. They met several times and expressed mutual respect, though they never formed a sustained political alliance. Together, they represent the two poles of anti-caste strategy in India: the legal-institutional and the social-revolutionary.
• Attitude toward Gandhi: Periyar was deeply critical of Mahatma Gandhi, whom he saw as a representative of upper-caste Hindu interests. He criticized Gandhi's defense of the Varna system, his opposition to separate electorates for Dalits, his use of Hindu religious symbolism in politics, and his failure to challenge Brahminical power structures. Periyar's famous statement — "Gandhi is a saint, but he is a saint for the Brahmins" — captured his view that Gandhi's politics, while morally impressive, was socially conservative. This critique was harsh but not unfounded: Gandhi did defend the Varna system as a division of labor rather than a hierarchy of status, and he did oppose Ambedkar's demand for separate electorates.

Rationalism and Atheism

Periyar was one of the most prominent atheists in Indian public life. He rejected not only Hinduism but all organized religion, arguing that belief in God was incompatible with rational thought and social progress. His rationalism was not merely philosophical skepticism; it was a political weapon aimed at dismantling the religious justifications for caste, patriarchy, and social submission. "There is no God," he declared. "There is no God. There is no God at all. He who created God is a fool. He who propagates God is a scoundrel. He who worships God is a barbarian." This was perhaps the most inflammatory statement ever made by an Indian public figure, and it made Periyar a target of religious outrage throughout his life.

The Rationalist Agenda

• Science over superstition: Periyar campaigned against superstition, astrology, miracles, and religious fraud. He organized demonstrations against "godmen," exposed fake miracles, and encouraged followers to rely on scientific medicine rather than faith healing. His rationalism was not abstract; it was a practical program for modernizing Indian society. He believed that superstition was the ideological foundation of social submission: if people believed that their suffering was divinely ordained, they would not fight for justice.
• Education and critical thinking: Periyar founded the Self-Respect Learning Centres, which offered free education in rationalism, science, and social reform. He emphasized that education should be liberating, not indoctrinating. He criticized the colonial education system for producing clerks rather than citizens, and the Indian education system for reinforcing caste hierarchy. His educational vision was practical and vocational: he wanted people to learn skills that would make them economically independent and intellectually free.
• Atheism as social liberation: For Periyar, atheism was not merely a philosophical position but a social necessity. He argued that belief in God produced passivity, fatalism, and submission to authority. If God had ordained the caste system, then challenging caste was challenging God — and most people were not willing to do that. By removing God from the equation, Periyar sought to make caste a purely human invention that could be abolished by human action. This was a deeply political atheism, aimed at empowerment rather than nihilism.
• Contemporary rationalist organizations: Periyar's rationalist legacy continues through organizations like the Dravidar Kazhagam, the Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, and the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations (FIRA). These organizations continue his work of exposing religious fraud, promoting scientific temper, and defending secularism. Periyar's rationalism has also influenced the Tamil Nadu government's public policy, which has historically been more secular and anti-superstition than most other Indian states.

Women's Rights and Gender Equality

Periyar was one of the most consistent advocates for women's rights in Indian history. He argued that patriarchy and caste were twin systems of oppression, and that the liberation of women was inseparable from the liberation of the lower castes. His feminist politics was not merely about legal rights; it was about transforming the fundamental structures of marriage, family, property, and social status that subordinated women.

Periyar's Feminist Agenda

• Property rights for women: Periyar campaigned vigorously for women's property rights, including the right to inherit land and the right to control their own earnings. He argued that economic dependence was the root of women's subordination and that without property rights, women would remain subject to male authority. His advocacy contributed to the broader women's movement in Tamil Nadu and influenced the Hindu Succession Act reforms that eventually gave daughters equal inheritance rights.
• Right to education and employment: Periyar insisted that women should have access to the same education and employment opportunities as men. He founded schools and colleges for girls, encouraged women to enter professions, and demanded that the government reserve a percentage of jobs for women. His view was that women's education was not a privilege but a social necessity: an educated woman would raise educated children and resist patriarchal oppression.
• Critique of marriage and family: Periyar's critique of marriage was radical even by modern standards. He argued that the traditional Hindu family was a prison for women, designed to ensure male control over female sexuality and labor. He supported divorce, widow remarriage, inter-caste marriage, and the right of women to choose their own partners. His self-respect marriages were explicitly designed to dismantle the patriarchal and Brahminical aspects of the marriage ritual.
• Women in the Self-Respect Movement: Women played a central role in the Self-Respect Movement, not merely as followers but as leaders, speakers, and organizers. Periyar encouraged women to speak at public meetings, to write for movement publications, and to take positions of authority. This was virtually unprecedented in early twentieth-century India, where women's public participation was severely restricted. The movement produced a generation of feminist activists who continued to shape Tamil Nadu politics for decades.

Language, Identity, and Tamil Nationalism

Periyar was a central figure in the construction of the "Dravidian" identity — a political and cultural identity that distinguished Tamil and South Indian society from North Indian, "Aryan," Brahminical Hinduism. This was not ethnic nationalism in the European sense; it was an anti-caste, anti-imperial identity that sought to unify non-Brahmin South Indians across caste lines around a shared historical experience of oppression and a shared vision of social justice.

The Dravidian Identity

• Aryan-Dravidian theory: Periyar used the linguistic and anthropological Aryan-Dravidian theory — which posited that South Indian Dravidians were a distinct people from North Indian Aryans — as a political weapon. He argued that the Dravidian people had been colonized twice: first by "Aryan" Brahmins who imposed the caste system and Sanskrit religion, and then by the British who imposed colonial rule. This "double colonization" narrative gave the anti-caste movement a historical depth and a geopolitical vocabulary that ordinary people could understand. While the Aryan-Dravidian theory is scientifically contested today, its political impact was immense.
• Tamil language and pride: Periyar was a passionate advocate for the Tamil language against the dominance of Sanskrit and Hindi. He campaigned against the imposition of Hindi in Tamil Nadu (a struggle that continues to shape Indian federalism), promoted Tamil as the language of administration and education, and founded Tamil-language schools and colleges. His language politics was not merely cultural; it was a challenge to Brahminical power, which had historically used Sanskrit as a sacred language accessible only to the priestly elite.
• Anti-Hindi agitations: Periyar's opposition to Hindi imposition was a defining feature of Tamil Nadu politics. He organized protests against the Congress government's attempt to make Hindi the sole official language of India, arguing that this would marginalize Tamil and other non-Hindi languages. His anti-Hindi campaigns laid the groundwork for the language riots of 1965 and the subsequent constitutional protection of linguistic states. The Two-Language Formula (Tamil and English) in Tamil Nadu education is a direct legacy of Periyar's language politics.
• Dravidian vs. Tamil nationalism: Periyar's Dravidian identity was inclusive of all South Indian languages — Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam — not just Tamil. However, after his death, the movement split between the broader Dravidian identity (represented by the Dravidar Kazhagam) and Tamil-specific nationalism (represented by smaller groups). The major Dravidian political parties — DMK and AIADMK — have navigated this tension by emphasizing both Tamil pride and a broader South Indian solidarity, while rejecting the separatist tendencies that some feared Periyar's rhetoric might encourage.

Dravidar Kazhagam and Political Legacy

In 1944, Periyar renamed the Self-Respect Movement the Dravidar Kazhagam (Dravidian Organization), signaling a more explicit political orientation. The organization was not a political party in the electoral sense — Periyar refused to contest elections, believing that the parliamentary system was inherently corrupt and that true social change could only come from mass mobilization outside the state. However, the Dravidar Kazhagam became the mother organization from which all major Dravidian political parties would emerge.

From Social Movement to Political Power

• Conscientization, not electioneering: Periyar's deliberate refusal to enter electoral politics was a principled choice. He believed that political parties were inevitably compromised by the need to win votes, which meant accommodating caste, religion, and corruption. He wanted the Dravidar Kazhagam to remain a pure social movement that could hold all political parties accountable. This strategy was both a strength and a weakness: it preserved the movement's radicalism but limited its direct policy impact. Periyar's followers would later split over whether to remain a social movement or enter electoral politics.
• The DMK split (1949): In 1949, a group of younger leaders led by C.N. Annadurai broke away from the Dravidar Kazhagam to form the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), a political party that would contest elections while maintaining Periyar's ideological commitments. Periyar was deeply opposed to this split, and the relationship between the DK and DMK remained tense for decades. However, the DMK's electoral success — it won power in Tamil Nadu in 1967 and has governed the state for most of the period since — demonstrates the political viability of Periyar's ideas. The DMK and its rival AIADMK are both ideological descendants of Periyar, even as they have moderated his radicalism in governance.
• Reservation policy: The Dravidian parties implemented and expanded reservation policies in Tamil Nadu to levels unmatched in any other Indian state. Today, Tamil Nadu provides 69% reservation in education and government jobs, the highest in India, through a system that Periyar pioneered. This has been controversial — critics argue it has reduced merit and created a political culture of patronage — but it has also produced one of the most socially mobile and educationally advanced lower-caste populations in India. The "Tamil Nadu model" of social justice is Periyar's most tangible policy legacy.
• Secular governance: Tamil Nadu's political culture, shaped by Periyar's atheism and anti-Brahminism, has been consistently more secular than most other Indian states. Temple administration, religious education, and caste-based rituals have been subject to more state regulation in Tamil Nadu than elsewhere. While the state is not anti-religious — most Tamils remain religious — the political discourse is secular in the sense that religion is not a legitimate basis for public policy. This "Periyarist secularism" is distinct from both the Indian constitutional model and the Western liberal model, and it remains a subject of academic debate.

Criticisms and Controversies

Periyar was and remains one of the most controversial figures in Indian public life. His iconoclasm, his atheism, his anti-Brahmin rhetoric, and his political alliances have all been subject to intense criticism from multiple directions. Understanding these criticisms is essential to understanding why Periyar continues to provoke strong reactions across the political spectrum.

Major Criticisms

• Anti-Brahminism as reverse discrimination: Critics argue that Periyar's rhetoric against Brahmins was not merely a critique of caste hierarchy but a form of reverse discrimination that targeted an entire community. His statements that Brahmins were "conspirators," "exploiters," and "foreigners" in South India have been condemned as hate speech by some commentators. Brahmin organizations have long campaigned against Periyar's statues, his writings, and his commemoration. Defenders respond that Periyar's critique was directed at Brahminism as an ideology, not Brahmins as individuals, and that his movement included Brahmin allies and supporters. However, the line between ideology and community is often blurred in practice.
• Alliance with the Muslim League and Jinnah: In 1940, Periyar met with Muhammad Ali Jinnah and expressed support for the Muslim League's demand for Pakistan, arguing that the Dravidian South should also have the right to self-determination if the North was creating a Hindu-majority state. This has been used by critics to accuse Periyar of being "anti-national" and of supporting partition. Supporters argue that Periyar was not pro-Pakistan but anti-Congress, and that his statement was a tactical warning rather than a secessionist program. In any case, after independence, Periyar abandoned the separatist rhetoric and focused on reform within the Indian Union.
• Attitude toward Gandhi and nationalism: Periyar's harsh criticism of Gandhi — whom he called a "Bania" (merchant caste) and a "Brahminical saint" — has been condemned by Gandhians and nationalists as disrespectful and politically naive. Critics argue that Periyar failed to understand Gandhi's complex engagement with caste, his work with Dalits, and his opposition to untouchability. Periyar's defenders counter that Gandhi did indeed defend the Varna system, did oppose separate electorates, and did represent upper-caste interests, and that Periyar's critique was necessary to push the nationalist movement toward genuine social reform.
• Relationship with colonialism: Periyar was accused of being a British stooge because he opposed the Congress and because the British sometimes supported non-Brahmin movements as a divide-and-rule strategy. Periyar did accept British honors and did meet with British officials, but he argued that his priority was social reform, not political independence, and that the Congress was not a reliable vehicle for social justice. His relationship with colonialism was pragmatic rather than loyalist: he used British institutions to advance anti-caste causes while remaining fundamentally opposed to foreign rule. The "British stooge" charge has been largely rejected by historians, though it continues to appear in political rhetoric.
• Iconoclasm and religious offense: Periyar's public attacks on Hindu deities, his desecration of religious images, and his inflammatory statements about God and religion have been condemned by Hindu organizations as blasphemous and offensive. In 2023, a controversy erupted when a Periyarist organization broke a statue of the Hindu deity Manu, leading to widespread protests. These incidents raise difficult questions about the limits of free expression, the protection of religious sentiment, and the balance between iconoclasm and incitement. Periyar's defenders argue that religious ideas must be subject to the same criticism as political ideas, and that offense is the price of intellectual freedom.

Legacy and Contemporary Relevance

Periyar died on December 24, 1973, at the age of 94, after a lifetime of activism that spanned six decades. His funeral was one of the largest in Indian history, with millions of mourners across Tamil Nadu. Today, his legacy is embedded in the political, social, and cultural fabric of South India, and his influence extends to national debates about caste, secularism, and social justice.

Enduring Impact

• Dravidian politics: The DMK and AIADMK, which have dominated Tamil Nadu politics for over fifty years, are both ideological descendants of Periyar. While they have moderated his radicalism in governance, they have maintained his core commitments: secularism, social justice, Tamil pride, anti-Hindi sentiment, and reservation. No other Indian state has been so consistently shaped by a single ideological tradition. This has made Tamil Nadu a laboratory for "subaltern" politics — the politics of the non-elite, non-Brahmin, non-English-speaking majority.
• Dalit and anti-caste movements nationwide: Periyar's influence extends beyond Tamil Nadu. His writings have been translated into multiple Indian languages, and his ideas have influenced Dalit activists in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and North India. The Dalit Panther movement of the 1970s explicitly drew on Periyar's rationalism and anti-caste militancy. Contemporary anti-caste intellectuals like Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd and S. Anand have cited Periyar as a foundational influence. His insistence that caste is a religious, not merely social, phenomenon has shaped contemporary debates about whether anti-caste politics requires leaving Hinduism.
• Feminism and gender politics: Periyar's feminist legacy is visible in Tamil Nadu's relatively progressive gender indicators: higher female literacy, lower female infanticide, greater female workforce participation, and more women in local government than most other Indian states. The women's wings of Dravidian parties, the self-help group movement, and the aggressive legal defense of women's rights in Tamil Nadu all trace back to Periyar's advocacy. Contemporary feminist scholars have debated whether Periyar's feminism was fully emancipatory or whether it was subordinated to the larger anti-caste agenda, but his contribution to women's public life is undeniable.
• Secularism and rationalism: In an era of rising Hindu nationalism, Periyar's uncompromising secularism and rationalism have gained renewed attention. His critique of Hindu majoritarianism, his defense of minority rights, and his insistence on a scientific temper resonate with contemporary defenders of Indian secularism. However, his atheism and iconoclasm remain barriers to mainstream acceptance. Periyar represents a more radical, more confrontational version of secularism than the constitutional model, and his legacy raises questions about whether Indian secularism can afford to be polite in the face of aggressive religious nationalism.
• Statues, memorials, and commemoration: Periyar's statues are ubiquitous in Tamil Nadu — in every town, in front of government buildings, in schools and colleges. He is commemorated in state holidays, government programs, and educational curricula. This official commemoration has been controversial: critics argue that it represents a partisan political ideology, while supporters argue that it corrects the historical erasure of anti-caste leaders. The debate over Periyar's statues is part of a larger global conversation about which historical figures deserve public honor and whose stories are told in the public sphere.

Sources