This past week marked the 142nd birth anniversary of Periyar E.V Ramaswamy. There is no prize to guess what happened on twitter that day. Some 'abuse' tagged him that he is the curse of Tamilnadu and some said that he is the greatest intellectual to have ever walked on this Tamil land. Obviously neither is true, but Periyar is someone who would’ve loved this dichotomy around him. 

I don't quite remember when I got to know about him. That is the thing about great leaders. They are always just there and almost everyone knows them even if they haven't read anything about them nor anything written by them. Like the subatomic particle whose exact position in space cannot be pinned down even though we are sure of its presence. In that case, Periyar in Tamilnadu is the biggest subatomic particle. Everyone knows him and knows him differently. Some think he was a social reformer and some think of him as a hypocrite. When a public intellectual lives a long life as Periyar did, both criticism and appreciation can be true. That too if it is someone who is as outspoken and brash as Periyar was. So, it should not be surprising that love or hate only comes in absolutes. 

Now, I do not claim to be an expert on Periyar. But from the limited reading I did when I was a Periyarist some time back, I have some knowledge on what he stood for. I genuinely think that he did not set out to be a God denying Atheist. That part of him was a culmination of his analysis of Indian, specifically Tamil society. He analysed that the root of all the social evils that plagued the society is religion and the root of these religions is God. All his criticism of society from the treatment of women to the myriad superstitions stem from this analysis of society.

And interestingly, one way or the other, all these issues lead him to religion and the people propagating it. As much as he abused and trivialised Gods, he was more scathing on his attack on the people who enjoyed the benefits of Gods and religions. And at most times, such people were Brahmins. Therefore the criticism that Periyar was a casteist who hated Brahmins as people cannot be true because it discounts the methodology that drove him to bash the Brahmanical system. However, one cannot deny that it brought hatred towards Brahmins as a community in Tamilnadu.  

In hindsight, when we look at some of the things that Periyar said and did, one might not be inclined to his brashness and irreverence. Not that one does not share his end goal but because of the mere knowledge that such brashness and irreverence pushes far than it pulls closer. In fact it is actually quite surprising that it took so long for people to actively start hating him. 

Three factors could explain such delay. One, that the actual improvements (relative to other states) made possible by the Dravidian parties. Two, the conscious and unconscious erasure of nuance and specificities due to the deifying of Periyar. And three because of the simple fact that many people have actually not read Periyar. 

It is now quite clear that raw criticism, for the lack of a better word, cannot be suitable for mainstream politics. Sure, such raw criticism is necessary but that cannot be the basis of politics of an entire State. But Periyarists does not seem to understand this. Talking of Periyarists, I do not think there should be anything called Periyarism. Because of the simple fact that ‘isms’ stagnate thought. And such stagnation will run counter to Periyar’s advocacy for rational thought and changing views. Periyarism seems to have stagnated and Periyarists are reluctant to accept that. The refusal to hear anything against Periyar will make those hardcore Periyarists extinct or irrelevant, more so than now.

Periyar still continues to have an outsized importance on Tamil politics and therefore he can be easily made into an electoral issue. Voting based on a dead man’s character cannot be healthy politics and it is in each of our rationally thinking voters’ interest to rally against such perversion. It is such a pity that 21st century politics is hinged on an individual, whoever that individual might be. Sure, discussions about cultural leaders and their ideas is necessary for a healthy democracy, but does it need to be the defining issue of the State? 

Coming back to Periyar, personally, it is always fun to read or listen to him. He was not an intellectual in the way Ambedkar was but was more grounded in his approach. He was just a normal man who questioned random things around him. When I think of parallels, Christopher Hitchens is the closest I can relate him with. Sure, Hitchens was more educated and well, drunk but I get the same kind of feeling when I listen or read both of these great men- a great deal of irreverence, sharpness and rational logic. 

I have blabbered for too long now, let us end this. The beauty of Periyar is in his raw unabashedness and irreverence. These are not ideal values for mainstream politics and the Dravidian parties realised this early on. Even though they say that they trace their roots to Periyar, they know better than to give his core ideas the main stage. And it is better that way. Periyar is for someone who loves to question things. Periyar himself was a provocateur, a person who pushed people to the extremes to show them their illogical beliefs, a person who loved to be contrarian. We should let him be that person so that we can enjoy his intellectual journey through which so much good has come to this land. And not make him the centerpiece of an election five decades after his death- we have so much else to worry about.