If Mahatma Gandhi was furious at the racial discrimination he suffered in South Africa, Periyar was upset over what happened to him when he was a Congress activist, and Savarkar by what he saw in the Khilafat years.
Published Jan 13, 2025 | 11:38 AM ⚊ Updated Jan 13, 2025 | 11:38 AM
Periyar and Savarkar.
I am thinking of writing a political play set at the gates of heaven.
As the first scene opens, we see two of India’s ideological titans, “Periyar” Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy (EVR) Naicker and “Veer” Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Both are feeling stranded and looking puzzled.
They are surprised to see each other, and more surprised that they are at the gates of heaven, which kind of proves there is God, something they did not fancy.
You see, both Periyar (a revered title meaning the Elder One) and Savarkar, who are at warring ends of political ideologies in contemporary India, were atheists.
But they realise they are dead and need to find a place to stay in the afterlife. They knock at the gates but no one opens the door. Instead, they are told by a voice from above that they should settle their differences, which would allow them entry into the enchanted other-worldly zone.
Or they have to settle for hell. Periyar thinks hell must be full of Brahmins. Savarkar thinks hell must be a lot like the Andamans where he was incarcerated.
Both are rationalists. They think it is a good, rational idea to try and enter heaven. United by rationalism, they start discussing their respective ideologies, and their nuances.
I will stop right there. To write more, I need to rack my brains further and also figure out a plot to take the play forward. The immediate provocation for my thinking of writing such a play is the news hitting the headlines this month.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone for a college in Delhi named after Savarkar, irking the Indian National Congress that opposes his Hindutva ideology, not to speak of the leader’s fervent apologies to British rulers in exchange for freedom from political imprisonment.
Savarkarism is anathema to the Congress, Savarkar was even tried in the conspiracy case on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, the grand old party’s icon. The assassin, Nathuram Godse, was hanged, but Savarkar was let off for want of sufficient evidence.
Periyar is in the news after Tamil nationalist leader Seeman of the Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) in Tamil Nadu levelled controversial remarks against the Dravida movement founder, known for his outspoken views against Brahmins, violent protests against the community and calls to smash idols of Hindu deities.
Seeman’s remarks this month were more along the lines of making unsubstantiated remarks on Periyar’s views on sex and relationships and his criticism of the Tamil language.
I am not going into the details as they are sparsely reported but it is enough to say that Periyar was a feminist of sorts who believed in the empowerment and liberation of women.
He also advocated inter-caste marriages. Savarkar wanted Hindu unity and stood up against ancient texts like Manusmriti that advocated a caste-based social hierarchy. He was born a Brahmin but loved to cook prawns and hang out with people from other castes, a rarity in his times.
It all gets more curious when you realise that the Hindu Mahasabha leader opposed the Quit India movement as well as the Partition of India, and wanted Muslims to be an unequal minority in an undivided India.
Savarkar accused the Congress of following a policy of appeasement of Muslims. It is believed he developed an animosity towards Muslims when he saw Muslim prisoners being treated favourably in the prisons of Andamans.
The fact that pan-Islamism was strong during the early 1920s when Mahatma Gandhi supported the Khilafat movement for an Islamist Caliphate to build solidarity with Muslims against British rule, was another factor that influenced Savarkar’s worldview.
Savarkar’s essay on Hindutva (Hinduness) written in 1923 could be seen as the seed that grew into India’s current ruling dispensation nearly a century later – even though Savarkar was not a part of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the BJP’s ideological parent, which was founded in 1925.
Savarkar’s reference to India or Hindustan as ‘pitrubhoomi’ (Fatherland) is something I would describe as “ancestral nationalism” (as different from one based on religion).
Periyar was a member of Congress but suffered discrimination at the hands of upper-caste Brahmins that he turned against. He was a native Kannada speaker, not a Tamilian. His Dravida ideology and Justice Party appealed to the non-Brahmin or backward castes of Tamil Nadu, who did not like the prominence enjoyed by Brahmins in both society and seats of power during British rule.
His support for a sovereign country called Dravida Nadu stood firmly against Savarkar’s Hindu nationalism but in fighting casteism, they were of a kind – even though critics say Savarkar spoke against caste but in reality stood close to upper castes and did not act much to end caste discrimination. Apparently, Periyar’s love for prawns did not go far enough.
The point to note is that both Savarkar’s saffron and Periyar’s black (the colour of his Dravida Kazhagam party) have shades of grey. Periyar’s remarks criticising Tamil go against linguistic pride but his remarks against Brahmins suit the Dravida movement’s political ideology of social justice.
Savarkar’s views on caste and God go against the everyday practices of the Sanatana Dharma as followed by most of the RSS/BJP’s avowed supporters, but his dislike of special treatment for Muslim minorities appeals to them.
What I would ideally like is for younger Indians to research more about both Periyar and Savarkar but not view them necessarily or wholly as great leaders whose every word should be respected or adhered to.
My view is that both men were (like many political leaders) influenced by their personal experiences and what they witnessed in their formative years.
If Mahatma Gandhi was furious at the racial discrimination he suffered in South Africa, Periyar was upset over what happened to him when he was a Congress activist, and Savarkar by what he saw in the Khilafat years.
It is pertinent to note that Periyar’s personal life came in the way of his political surge. CN Annadurai broke away from Periyar’s DK to launch the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) that rules Tamil Nadu today when the 70-year-old Periyar married 32-year-old Maniammai in 1949.
It is equally interesting to note that the BJP’s earlier version, the Jan Sangh, did not talk much of Savarkar, who died in 1966, when he was alive.
Jan Sangh was founded by Shyama Prasad Mookherjee, who was earlier with Savarkar’s Hindu Mahasabha. Leading RSS ideologue MS Golwalkar had significant differences with Savarkar’s fiercely political version of Hindu culture.
In other words, both the Dravida and Hindutva movements have fifty shades of grey! Between language, religion, politics, culture and ideology, there is much to be plumbed on who did what, when and why.
What young Indians need to take note of is that leaders like Periyar and Savarkar are not the demi-gods their devout followers portray them as. It is best to discard tinted glasses and see these leaders as products of the times they lived in.
In the play, I have in mind, a surprise element could be in a climax scene in which Jawaharlal Nehru and Bhimji Ramrao Ambedkar step out as the gates of heaven open to welcome Savarkar and Periyar, who settle their differences born out of their personal animosities and experiences.
Both Ambedkar and Nehru were pragmatic reformists who believed in inclusion and justice as key elements of national unity – far from the simplistic ideas of culture or caste that Periyar and Savarkar espoused.
The Constitution of India that Nehru’s Congress and other parties crafted behind Ambedkar’s steering wheel takes into account the views of both Periyar and Savarkar but tames them into a meaningful, pragmatist political culture in which the tricolour flag hides a rainbow of possibilities.
(The writer is a senior journalist and commentator who has worked for Reuters, The Economic Times, Business Standard, and Hindustan Times. He tweets on X as @madversity. Views are personal. Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
