Islam is the Antidote!

An analysis of Periyar's views on IslamBy: KHAN YASIR

E.V. Ramaswamy alias Periyar was a Dravidian social reformer and politician from India, who founded the Self-Respect Movement and Dravidar Kazhagam. Introducing him, G. Aloysius wrote that he “was an uncompromising iconoclast, a consistent rationalist and an untiring socio-cultural reformer of the previous century”. On religion, Periyar is considered the Voltaire of South India. Because, like Voltaire, he opposed religion virulently; as in his views the so-called men of religion have exploited religion to exploit common, ingenuous and ignorant masses. He has been a harsh critic of the Aryan influenced Hinduism in Tamil Nadu and spoke appreciatively about faiths of Buddhism, Christianity and especially Islam. He has proposed Islam as the most viable alternative to Brahminical Hinduism.

AN ATHEIST OR NOT?
Periyar has been considered to be a prophet of atheism especially for the downtrodden in South India. But this image of him as being a ‘prophet of atheism’ is far from the truth. To quote G. Aloysius, “While he (Periyar) was alive and active, many stood to lose in several ways because of his nearly three quarters of a century long campaign against the oppressive native religio-cultural practices in general, but the most vicious social irrationality of the Indian society that is the system and spirit of caste in particular, projected him as a rabid atheist of the mould of the 19th century west. This they did in order to de-legitimise him with the masses, who it was generally presumed were “inclined towards things godly and religious” – after all Periyar himself vigorously negated the charges of atheism or any intentions of propagating godlessness. He was a vocal rebel of Hindu society whose voice reverberated with all strength and determination against Brahminical Hinduism.
But in his personal views he was more akin to atheism. He was an atheist or he was not? Readers must have been perplexed by now. At the end of the day he was a believer in no religion in his personal capacity and in this respect he was technically an atheist (only ‘technically’ because in common parlance the word atheist is not only used for a person who does not believe in God but also for those people who hate God or who are anti-God). But “he (Periyar) was not out to preach to the public what he believed or practised in his personal life, that is atheism”.
“Periyar’s target,” elaborates Aloysius, “was specific and contextual – the deleterious and disastrous effect that the dominant ‘religion’ of his day was having on the social life of the people”. He was not opposed to religion as such but only to “such” religions, in his own words, “Intoxication from such religion is more ruinous than that of liquor. Liquor destroys only him who drinks it, but religion destroys him who merely thinks it” (emphasis added). The definition of “such” religion is a religion that promotes caste distinctions, that is opposed to rational enquiry; that is opposed to fraternity; that is opposed to equality.
Since his childhood Periyar saw the atrocities on people belonging to lower castes. His studies concluded that if one has to come out of the shackles of caste, he has to accept Islam. His speeches, writings and sincere pleas to the people to embrace Islam are enough a proof that he was sincere in his appeals and was not mere ‘threatening’ the religious authorities as is commonly believed.
It was because of this alleged discrepancy in his thoughts (regarding religion and atheism) and even propaganda by his opponents that his movement for religious reform – or conversion – to put it more blatantly – did not produce the impact it was otherwise bound to generate. He was particularly hauled over the coals when he put forward his controversial proposal of conversion to Islam as the antidote to the despicable status of Shudras.
But before proceeding further and analysing his views on Islam, one thing should be made clear that his angle and outlook – as he was personally a nastik (atheist) and not a believer in Islam – too was materialistic. To him Islam was no divine-truth, criterion-of-right-and-wrong, a code of conduct decreed by Almighty God. It was only a religion of a powerful community with self respect, a religion that preaches equality and fraternity. In fact it could be safely said that like many other scholars and thinkers of his era, he was interested in “seen” rather than “unseen” of Islam. And truly, be it a scholar or commoner outside the pale of Islam, one could see only the “seen” of Islam; and it is this “seen” generally, which leads to the belief in the “unseen” – if only a conducive environment is provided in which a person is able to apply his rationality without being affected by biases and prejudices.

PERIYAR ON ISLAM
In a speech delivered at Erode (his hometown) in 1929 he said, “It is only superstition to believe that on account of religion that if a Hindu consumes cow’s meat, it is sin and if a Mohammaden does, it is no sin; both the beliefs have no meaning. All religions of the world are raised on superstition... I am pleased, not on the basis of sin or virtue or heaven or hell.” In the same speech he went on making his point that he is pleased because a few of adi-dravidians converted from the Hindu religion and truly “they are liberated” from what he called “an animal state of idiocy and uncivilisation”.
At the end of his lecture he concluded, “Therefore until the Hindu society achieves true equality and unity there is no way out for untouchables other than becoming Muslims in crowd”.
In a speech delivered at Trichirapalli 1947, he was more perspicuous in his ideas and suggestions. The solutions like bringing Shudras to the mainstream and ‘inculcating’ in them self respect etc. by different day dreaming Hindu reformers was in general scoffed at by him as ‘sleep-inducing & soporific drugs’ that could reduce pain for the time being but the core problem will nevertheless persist. The problem, “has only one remedy and that remedy is Islam” – he declared unequivocally.
He commented rightly and thereby threw a light upon the tragic plight of Indian Muslims that have made (especially in that era) their religion a ‘closed commodity’ a hereditary religion like Judaism. Periyar demolishes this by arguing that Muslims of India are not proprietors of Islam. Muslims are in India, Egypt, Abyssinia, Japan, Germany, etc. And for all of them there is no God but one and that too without form.
He said, “What is common to all; fraternity, equal rights and discipline and all the rest depends upon the traditions of the different countries.” In the same speech he made a controversial and absolutely untrue remark – either to please and sooth masses or due to lack of understanding of Islam that, “if you in the dravidanadu become Islamic, then that Islam would be what we determine it to be….” Both the sentences read together could be considered a plea of a doctor who wants his patient to take the medicine anyhow, even by declaring that it tastes like a vanilla ice-cream.
In response to the flooding letters and people for an argument over his speeches in Trichy, he wrote a piece in which he succinctly analysed – WHY ONLY ISLAM?
First he took a leaf out of prevalent environment of hatred of Hindus towards Islam (take note of the fact that those were the days of two-nation theory, communalism and partition, when, as opposed to Muslim communalism, two nation-theory and other factors, the saffron brigade was successful in rallying the Hindu masses behind it.) He raised some of the most pertinent questions.
Some of his pungent sentences are quoted as below. “The reason behind the hatred of the Hindus toward the Muslims today is their hatred of Islam itself. Because Islam is contrary to the Aryan religion (Hinduism), the Hindus (the Aryans) hate Islam. It is contrary because Islam demolishes the very foundation of the Hindu religion. For the Aryan religion, which is also called Hindu religion, there are so many gods having also as many forms. And among the people there are several caste discriminations. The caste has been devised according to circumstances of birth. The people are divided into higher and lower castes such as Brahmin, Shudra and Panchaman (Pariah). It is in accordance with this principle that we have become members of low caste.
“In Islam, on the other hand, there is no Brahmin (high caste) or Shudra (low caste) or Panchama (least caste). In other words, Islam is founded on the principle of one god and one caste, that is, one family and one divinity. It could also be said that such a principle belongs to and needed for the Dravidians. The so-called Hindu (Aryan) religion is based on many gods and many castes, which are also created by the gods. Through this arrangement of many gods – many castes, the Aryans (the Brahmins) get good benefits and privileges.
“The Dravidians, on the other hand, find only ruin, degradation and obstacle to human rights. It is for this reason the Islamic principle is very odious to Brahmins. For the Dravidians, on the contrary, Islam is opportune for the removal of degradation and achievement of welfare. Therefore the Brahmins, the Aryans are constrained to hate Islam”.
What about Christianity? One could think that it also (principally) does not believe in caste and inequalities. But ground realities – of which Periyar was very much aware – were telling a different story. Periyar also appreciated Christianity a great deal in comparison to the Aryan religion. Nevertheless he also acknowledged, “If people leave Hinduism, they should follow some other religion. What religion should be recommended to people? Christianity was more like the Brahmin religion, so I recommended Islam to people. Because, in Christianity there are untouchable Christians, Nadar Christians, Vellala Christians and so on. So even in Christianity there are differences followed based on Varnashrama Dharma; so, in India, it is Hindu Christianity! If the Depressed Classes embraced Islam, they would get social equality in a very short period.”
He accused the Brahminical order that was bent upon perpetuating caste distinctions in Indian society and said that they had made “us all enemies of Islam by projecting it as devilish, satanic and monstrous”. He rightly asks, “Which reform or good effort that we want to undertake and Islam prevents?”
The opposition to his ‘rebellious’ and ‘blasphemous’ thoughts did not halt and answering an uncivilised letter full of abuses and scurrilous words, Periyar is forced to ask, “Why at the mention of Islam, agitate like a bull that has seen red?” he argued that he is advising only those people to embrace Islam who hate Shudra-tag and believe that Dravidian society should have self respect and human feeling”. He challenges, “If there is any alternative method, please go and demonstrate.” The failure of all attempts – that include the attempts of Gandhi (to bring Shudras to the mainstream of Hinduism) and of Ambedkar (mass conversion to Buddhism) – has vindicated Periyar. Periyar was sure on his conclusion that Islam is the ultimate solution for all the evils of a caste-ridden society. An agitated Periyar also said, “The Hindus forever blame Muslims and spread the poisonous propaganda that many Hindus were forcefully converted to Islam? Am I forcing you?”
He was a great fan of the Prophet (may Allah bless and greet him) and once said in a lecture, “There are enough ideas ... of Muhammad Nabi, which are acceptable and could be supported and held up as ideas even by people like us who do not see any divine nature in him and also by those reformists who belong to other religions”.

WHY HE REMAINED AN ATHEIST?
If his views are as above mentioned then why he himself did not embrace Islam? The question is perplexing, twisting and is often exploited by his opponents to cast doubts on the sincerity of his views and efforts. What’s the truth, only God knows but one most cogent explanation, according to my studies, is as follows: It has been already said that his opponents unleashed a fierce propaganda-crusade against him to de-legitimise his views in the masses by regarding him as an atheist. In such scenario if at all he would have become a Muslim, his opponents would have got a priceless weapon with which they could have demolished all his movements and sincere efforts for the development of the Shudras. At least in my view this is what Periyar would have thought and his fear of losing all his hard earned reputation and influence in one go, he restrained from proclaiming faith in God in open. And Indian realities are vocal for the veracity of this exegesis. People have listened to him because he was ‘one of them’; the moment he would have become a Muslim he would have become ‘the other’ and the empathy with which he was able to call out ‘his’ people would have been lost instantly. And his dream of uplifting his people would also have been shattered that very moment. This was the logic that unfortunately appealed to him. After all uplifting his people was his foremost concern.
Though, this is a tragedy that such a great reformer, due to harsh realities of his society, could not proclaim his belief in a faith which according to him was the ultimate solution to the owes of his people and community. Now it is our responsibility to change this harsh reality. To reach out to ‘his’ people with ‘his’ message that no great man in future would pay the price of the ignorance of his people, bury the truth that he discovered into the deepest of the heart, and die with a believing heart but a fearing mind and an unbelieving tongue.