A 100 years of the Self-Respect Movement in Tamil Nadu

This year marks the centenary of the Self-Respect Movement, which changed the course of the political discourse in Tamil Nadu. Though the movement was recorded to have started in 1925, historians contend it did not possess a singular moment of origin.

V. Geetha and S.V. Rajadurai, in their book, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium (From Iyothee Thass to Periyar), write: “The Self-Respect Movement comes to us, as it were, in process, as an ideological impulse, an energetic mobilising of men and women across castes and classes, a vision of a society that had erupted into rebellion, into acts of defiance, daring and, finally, as a time of great churning, when all things were subject to doubt and enquiry, when all matters, however sacred and inviolate were relentlessly interrogated... When women ignored the claims of family and the bonds of community; when young men willingly forsook personal fortunes and defied elders; a time when scores of hitherto despised and ignored peoples, until the, mere objects of charity, pity and paternalist benevolence, were asked to play protagonists in a struggle which, above all, was committed to running there world upside down.”

Social reformer ‘Periyar’ E.V. Ramasamy, who later founded the Dravidar Kazhagam, through the launch of Tamil weekly Kudi Arasu (Republic), paved way for the formal beginning of the Self-Respect Movement.

Following his departure from the Indian National Congress in November 1925, Periyar utilised an opportunity to address a Justice Party special conference in Coimbatore, “to espouse a radical and militant non-Brahminism.”

According to the authors, “He observed that the Justice Party had been unable to attract popular support because it did not have a political programme which addressed the real needs of the people.” He chided that its members and leaders seemed to labour under the illusion that an English education and a position in the services, in themselves, would bring cheer and good to the non-Brahmin commonweal. Periyar went on to assure his audience that he endorsed these objectives but did not consider them significant achievement in themselves. He warned, “They could very well go to constitute a non-Brahmin elite which, in the days to come, could prove as oppressive as a Brahmin oligarchy.”

Radical reform

Kudi Arasu was seen as an extension of the Self-Respect Movement, taking a more radical strand of the Dravidian movement, articulating the radical politics of caste and gender and embarking on a far-reaching reform of Hindu society.

In her research article ‘Advocacy journalism and the self-respect movement in late colonial South India’, published in Sudasien-Chronik–South Asia Chronicle, Uma Ganesan notes Kudi Arasu as a movement in itself intervened in the crowded journalistic space of early 20^th century South India that was dominated by Brahmins and other upper-caste elites to create an alternative space for articulating its goals and mobilising support for its programme of social reform. The movement, in particular, posed a radical challenge to the Gandhi-led Congress nationalism by identifying the Congress as a bastion of Hinduism and its caste system, according to her.

“Since the Hindu religion and its caste system were held to be the primary obstacles to the ‘attainment of true progress and freedom for the nation’, the upper-caste composition of the Congress and Gandhi’s religion-tinted nationalism were seen as especially problematic,” the research article noted.

Though Mr. Rajadurai and Ms. Geetha noted that Periyar urged ‘Justicites’ to adopt Gandhi’s Constructive Programme and his attempts to interest the Justice Party in constructive work were aimed at non-Brahminism a popular constituency and endowing it with a more credible ideological resonance.

Coinciding with Periyar’s views of the Justice Party, author N.K. Mangalamurugesan, in his book, Self-Respect Movement in Tamil Nadu 1920-1940, wrote the launching of the South Indian Liberal Federation (Justice Party) in 1916 marked the first step of the non-Brahmins in challenging the Brahmin supremacy in the political and social fields. “But the activities of the party were largely confined to the interests of educated and rich non-Brahmins with the result that bulk of the non-Brahmin masses remained untouched by them,” he added.

Mangalamurugesan had recorded that the credit of making of non-Brahmin masses conscious of their rights goes to Periyar. “It is he who instilled into them a sense of pride and self-respect by starting the Self-Respect Movement.”

As a movement, it is known for its radical social reforms, including the introduction and popularisation of self-respect marriages, its advocacy for women’s liberation from oppressive social norms like championing causes such as widow remarriage, the right to divorce, the right to property, abortion, promotion of inter-caste marriages, and advocating the polarisation of social reform over political independence, among others.

Observers feel that the movement, celebrating its 100^th year in the era of Hindutva politics and cultural homogenisation, needs to redefine itself and its role in contemporary society.