Two movements, one in the political field and the other in the social sphere emerged in the Madras state spearheaded with the aim to uplift the socio-political status of the backward and the down trodden communities during the 19th and 20th Centuries. The causes for the emergence of these movements are many and varied. Indeed, it should be observed that there existed a few nauseating situations which were immediately responsible for the emergence of the political movement, the South Indian Liberal Federation in 1916, later known as the Justice Party. Since there was no justice in the Tamil society, there arose the necessity of the emergence of Justice Party which fought for social justice. The year 1916 is a turning point in the history of Tamilnadu for the first time the domination of the Brahmin was challenged which directly paved the way for the decline of that community, gradually in the later days.
The social reform of the Justice Party and the Self-Respect Movement had direct impact on the Tamils. However, there existed and still exists a widespread allegation that these movements are communally oriented one and it seems that it cannot be condemned as a movement fanning communalism out right. Indeed, it is a fact that they were sponsored by and fought for not the entire communities in the Madras Presidency, but against a particular section of the society.
The Justice Party was able to secure enough majorities in the provincial Legislature to form the ministry to work the transferred half of the Dyarchical System of Government envisaged in the Government of India Act, 1919 in the Madras Presidency. This fact shows that the movement enjoyed the support of the majority of the non-Brahmins. Similarly, the Self-Respect Movement also got the support of the non-Brahmins, because of its inequalities, untouchability and superstitious beliefs.
As Prof. M.N. Srinivas points out, high-caste dominance in education and in the new occupations thus provided the reason for the backward caste movement. It is no accident that the movement was strongest in peninsular India where only one caste, the Brahmins, enjoyed preponderance in higher education, the professions and government services. It is also an area where, social and cultural gap between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins existed. Further, the British administration in India gave a greater role to Indians in administration which benefits mostly the Brahmins. The extension of governmental control in all holds of social life gave the officers of the government tremendous powers over the lives of the common people. Government officers, to whatever caste they belonged, formed the elite of the society. These factors aroused the feeling of resentment among the high – caste non-Brahmins. This took the shape of non-Brahmins movement in the early years of the twentieth century. It seems that it was a clash between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins, to share the spoils of the British government with the entry of Indians into government service.
Many social factors motivated the emergence of the social movement in Tamilnadu. However, the Periyar Movement was entirely different. In public and social gatherings, the Brahmins preferred to be secluded in the matter of residence and dining. Even in the matter of drinking water too, the Brahmins, considered it polluted, if it was touched by a non-Brahmin, respective of his social or positional or educational status. Pollutions of this sought were observed even by scholars in the various fields like education, art or music. Such abominable instance seemed to have been not at all isolated incidents in those days.
The Movement’s Impact on Marriage System
Periyar Movement rejected the services of the Brahmin priests in marriages. In such Self-Respect marriages an elderly or a local dignitary will conduct the function without any religious rituals that normally go with the Hindu marriages. The bride and the bridegroom in the presence of their parents, relatives and friends exchange flower garlands on expressing their willingness to become husband and wife and remain equal partners in life. Periyar considered the tali a symbol of slavery of women and he wanted to give up the custom in the Self – Respect marriages. Kunchitam Gurusami, the most powerful women speaker in the movement, claimed that between 1929 and 1932 more than 8000 Self-Respect marriages were celebrated in the Tamil districts. These Self-Respect marriages are still going on in Tamilnadu.
The Self-Respect marriages are unconventional but they are the concrete steps to counteract the evils of the caste system. The bill validating the Self-Respect marriage was passed unanimously in both houses of the Tamilnadu Assembly in 1967 and it is a measure remarkable with changes which the Self-Respect propaganda has brought about. As the marriage of this pattern was a revolution against the accepted dogmas, traditions and dharma sastras, it raised the status of women and created equality of sex.
Further a scheme of Planned Parenthood was envisaged. The new pattern of marriage paved the way for creating a congenial atmosphere for the implementation of family planning. The Sefl-Respect movement and its off shoots adopted made it as one of their planks from the beginning. As early in 1930, Periyar considered the necessity of family planning as an urgent need and he gave it a prior importance to that of prohibition. N.T. Sundaravadivelu rightly pointed out that whatever the state of Tamilnadu may lay claim on family planning, it is due to the preparatory work of the mass movement of Periyar.
Women’s Right
Periyar Movement championed for the cause of women. It believed that in the society women were subjected to severe restriction’ that prevented their legitimate place in society. The movement denounced child marriages, the dowry system, the prohibition of widow remarriage and the devadasi system. It upheld the women’s right in the spheres of property and inheritance, divorce, practice the modern methods of birth control and marry outside their caste group. Further Periyar was committed to do away with the child marriage system existing in the society.
As a champion of women’s rights, Periyar called on the women to cast off their shackles and bondages, and to liberate them from the social slavery into which they were thrown by selfish men. Women were not to be considered as the mere object of enjoyment. Periyar criticized this concept tooth and nail. Womenfolk should revolt against the age old system of considering them as subservient to the men-folk. Real women’s liberation movement should provide equal opportunities to women in the society on par with their counter-parts.
Among women, Periyar wanted to create a sense of perfect equality with men in every respect and an instinct to protest against every kind of inequality. His idea was that women should not be treated as precious possessions of men but they should become the creators of a new world.
– Dr. S. Kalaiarasu
Associate Professor of History, Arignar Anna College, Aralvoimozhi – 629 301.
References
1. Rajayyan, K., History of Tamilnadu 1565-1982, Madurai, 1982.
2. Anita Diehl, Periyar. E.V. Ramasamy- A study of the influence of a Personality in Contemporary South India, Madras, 1978.
3. M.L.C. Proceedings 1922, Vol. IV, Government of Madras, Madras, 1955.
4. Srinivas M.N., Social Change in Modern India.
5. The Non-Brahman Manifesto issued under the signatures of T.M. Nair and P. Thiyagaraya Chettiar, reproduced in The Justice Party Golden Jubilee Souvenir, Madras 1968.
6. NNPR, 1926 to 1930.
7. G.O.No.513, Public Department, 1 August 1925.
8. Karunanidhi, M., Nenchikku Neeti, (T), Madras 1975.
9. Kudi Arasu, Madras, 20 December 1931 and 26 June 1932.
10. Subramaniam, M.K., ‘Evolution of Self-Respect Marriages’ in Viduthalai-Periyar Birth Day Annual, 1973.
11. Hindu Marriages (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act 1967, (L.A Bill No.19 of 1967).
12. Spratt, D.M.K. In Power, Bombay.
13. Annaimuthu, V., Periyar E.V.R. Chithanaikal, Vol.1, Tiruchinapallai, 1974.
14. Jarardhanam, A.P. (Ed.), Periyar Memorial Souvenir, Madras, 1968.
15. Nathan, T.A.V. (ed.), The Justice Year Book 1929, p.129.
16. Dravidian, Madras, 8 March 1929;
17. Kali Poonkuntran, Tantai Periyar Arivurai, (Tamil), Madras, 1983.
18. Viduthalai, Madras, 11 October 1948.
19. Periyar, E.V.R. Pen En Adimai Anal, (Tamil), Madras, 1930.