Progressive politics is not about attacking or condemning venerated institutions or leaders but about acknowledging past contributions while addressing historical gaps.
However, when political parties or leaders ridicule significant figures of the past for selfish political reasons, such attacks are misplaced and counterproductive.
Periyar Ramasamy’s contributions to Tamil Nadu and the Dravidian movement are monumental and beyond reproach.
No Tamil leader in their right mind would dismiss his legacy as an icon of the Dravidian social movement.
While Periyar spoke of South Indian states as part of a Dravidian identity, this was never to marginalize Tamils but to include them as a central part of the Dravidian trajectory.
The term “Dravidian” encompasses Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, and the people of Karnataka, representing the ancient Dravidian civilization.
Periyar’s ideological focus was not whether one believed in God, but on social justice—breaking the Brahminical caste system, liberating women, and exposing how religion was manipulated to serve the ruling class.
Unlike B.R. Ambedkar, who converted to Buddhism to escape Hinduism’s oppressive structure, Periyar believed Hinduism needed internal reform. He did not advocate replacing Hinduism but sought to eradicate its Brahminical domination, which suppressed Dravidian worship and culture.
The BJP, driven by its Hindutva agenda, naturally opposes Periyar due to his critiques of Brahminical Hinduism.
However, opposition to Periyar from Tamil nationalist parties is perplexing, given their professed Tamil-centric ideology.
Recently, certain Tamil nationalist factions have criticized Periyar for his Dravidian nationalism, overlooking the fact that Tamil nationalism is part of a larger Dravidian framework.
Even leaders like the LTTE’s Velupillai Prabhakaran, who pursued Tamil nationalism, did not reject Dravidian nationalism.
In fact, the LTTE benefited from Tamil Nadu’s deep-rooted Dravidian cultural ethos.
There is no inherent contradiction between Tamil and Dravidian nationalism.
The current opposition may stem from political alignments, such as fostering ties with the BJP, rather than any ideological clash with Periyar.
Periyar’s vision was to unite Dravidian ethnic groups under one political umbrella.
However, he may have underestimated the divisive impact of centuries of Aryan-Brahminical dominance on these communities.
Tamil nationalist parties and the BJP would do better to focus on combating corruption and financial mismanagement rather than misusing Periyar’s name to further political agendas.
The DMK’s recent initiative—offering $1 million to decipher the Indus Valley Civilization script, believed to have Dravidian roots—highlights the relevance of cultural preservation in the face of Hindutva’s hegemonic push.
Without this political context, it is doubtful the DMK government would have taken such a proactive interest in reclaiming ancient Dravidian heritage.
Prof Dr P.Ramasamy
Chairman, Urimai Party
