Author: V Sundaram
Publication: News Today
Date: December 11, 2006
URL: http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06dec/1112ss1.htm
A detailed study of Karl Marx is called Marxiana.
A detailed study of Gandhi is called Gandhiana. A detailed study of Churchill
is called Churchilliana. A detailed study of Periyar is called Periyarana.
I have read all the writings of that great
intellectual giant Periyar, called the Socrates of Tamilnadu or Bernard Shah
of Europe. Personally I have received great inspiration, illumination and
rational instruction from his mighty intellectual outpourings. l am giving
you some flashes of time-defying wisdom and original genius from the Intellectual
Armoury of 'Periyarana'.
'Tamil is a barbourous language and Tamilians
are barbarians'
'15 August 1947 is a day of mourning and sorrow'
'I want to be surrounded by fifty bloody fools,
so that I am heard without any undue disturbance at all my public meetings'
'Parimelazhagar who wrote the commentary on
Thirukural was a 'Parppanar' (Periyar was always more interested in Dravidian
substance than in Aryan shadow!). '
Periyar was a world renowned authority on
public administration. Writing about The Board of Revenue in 1965, he stated
as follows at a public meeting on the Marina Beach:
'The Board of Revenue today consists of senior
civil servants who are drawing very fat salaries. Unfortunately, not one of
them is a Tamilian: The first member of the Board of Revenue is T A Verghese
ICS. He is a Malayalee. He is not a Tamilian. The second member of the Board
of Revenue is C A Ramakrishnan ICS. He is a 'Parapannar'. He is also not a
Tamilian. The third member of the Board of Revenue is M S Shivaraman ICS.
He is also a 'Parpanar'. He is not a Tamilian. The fourth member of the Board
of Revenue is E P Royappa IAS. Unfortunately he is also not a Tamilian. He
is only a Christian'.
As a world renowned anthropologist, sociologist
and ethnologist Periyar had highly original, iconoclastic and racist Ideas
about who is a Tamilian? The public of Tamilnadu have a right to know whether
Periyar belonged to Karnataka or Tamilnadu and whether his mother tongue was
in fact Tamil. These questions become relevant because of the mysteriously
Magisterial Verdict given by him above on the origins of some of the ICS/
IAS civil servants in Tamilnadu. Today these questions have become more relevant
because the members belonging to the Dravida Kazhagam and Periyar Dravida
Kazhagam are fighting not for the soul of Periyar but for the installation
of the statue of Periyar opposite the Rajagopuram of Srirangam Temple in Tiruchirapalli.
The enlightened public of Tamilnadu, regardless
of caste, colour, creed or religion, (the Brahmins and forward communities
not excluded!) would like to ask the following pertinent questions:
a) Why did Tamilnadu government, which is
usually in a state of self-chosen rational coma in all situations affecting
public peace and welfare, galvanize itself into a state of combat readiness
to deal with the Da Vinci Code film issue which had been fully cleared by
the Film Censor Board of the Government of India some months ago? Tamilnadu
Government gave clear signals to the effect that it is their public duty to
show great concern for the religious feelings and susceptibilities of Christians
in minority in the State. It is a different story that later on, on par with
the stand taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Madras High Court also took
the same stand and overruled the decision of the Government of Tamilnadu to
ban the screening of the film in Tamilnadu.
b) Why is Tamilnadu government indifferent
and contemptuous towards the religious feelings and susceptibilities of the
Hindus who are in absolute majority in terms of numbers in Tamilnadu?
c) Why is it no immediate action was taken
under Sec. 153-A and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code against those elements
who wanted to install the statue of Periyar opposite the Rajagopuram of Srirangam
Temple?
d) Are not some of the anti-social elements
reportedly acting under the banner of the DK and the Periyar DK 'inciting
violence, disturbing public tranquility, promoting, on grounds of religion,
feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities
and insulting other religions or beliefs of other communities in Tamilnadu'?
(Exact words seen in the IPC).
The great sensitivity shown by Tamilnadu government
on the nominal Da Vinci Code film issue has not been shown on a more sensitive
and more substantive issue involving the time-honoured religious feelings
and sentiments of the Hindus in majority. Many Hindu temples have been ravaged
supposedly by the DK and the PDK elements. The common man in Tamilnadu doubts
the bone fides of the elected and contrived minority Government of Tamilnadu
and its commitment in the matter of absolute maintenance of law and order
on the one hand and giving protection to the majority Hindus against the planned
onslaught of anti-social elements deriving their so-called inspiration from
the umbrella of Periyarana.
The shameful Congress Party, which calls itself
a national party, has degenerated into a mere suppliant of the DMK party in
Tamilnadu. Congress party is a major partner in the conspiracy of political
silence on this vital and sensitive issue of maintenance of communal and religious
harmony in Tamilnadu.
Following the installation of the EVR statue
in the stealth of the night on 21 November, a self-respecting Hindu approached
Vigil secretary G R Swaminathan, a practicing lawyer in the Madurai bench
of the Madras High Court to file a writ protesting the installation and seeking
an injunction that pending disposal of the case no further move should be
made by the DK to inaugurate the statue. It has been reported that an extremely
hostile division bench remarked: 'Swaminathan, the street doesn't belong to
Hindus alone, it belongs to all people'. The common man in Tamilnadu would
like to ask as to why this kind of response is never shown by the judiciary
when Muslims object to Ganesha procession passing down the Triplicane road
in Chennai every year?
The bench made it clear that although the
statue had been installed without prior government permission, yet it would
not grant the injunction prayed for to stop further moves on the statue. The
defendants were advised to approach the Government for permission before inaugurating
the statue. By giving such an advice, in terms of plain law, was not the High
Court condoning, if not ignoring, the blatantly illegal act of those who were
responsible for the erection of the Statue without obtaining prior Government
permission as prescribed by the Government through a Government order? I have
consulted a few legal luminaries in this regard and all of them are of the
view that the decision of the High Court amounted to condoning the blatantly
illegal act of the D.K., which is akin to post-facto regularization of unauthorized
and illegal construction.
In this context, I would like to quote the
beautiful words of Felix Frankfurter, one of the greatest names in the history
of American Judiciary: 'For the highest exercise of judicial duty is to subordinate
one's personal pulls and one's private views to the law of which we are all
guardians - those impersonal convictions that make a society a civilized community,
and not the victims of personal rule'. Justice Herlan Stone in another historic
Judgement in 1936 proclaimed: 'While unconstitutional exercise of power by
the executive and legislative branches of the Government is subject to judicial
restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense
of self-restraint'. Justice William Douglas, in a landmark judgement in 1947
in USA, declared: 'There is no special perquisite of the judiciary which enables
it, as distinguished from other institutions of democratic Government, to
suppress, edit or censor events which transpire in proceedings before it'.
About two years ago I had written an article
in News Today under the Title 'Decoding the Dravidian Drival' in which I wrote:
'By his highly original writings and platform speeches Periyar tried to educate
the Tamilians that he was being rational when in fact he was being racist'.
The quintessence of rational-racial Dravidianism
is that spiritual knowledge is superstitious and secular ignorance is rational;
character is superstitious and debauchery is rational; chastity is superstitious
and prostitution of mind, body, heart and soul is rational; discipline superstitious
and indiscipline is rational; accepted truth is superstitious and blatant
untruth is rational, refinement is superstitious and brutality is rational;
justice is superstitious and rapacity is rational, counsels of the wise and
the good are generally superstitious and the flattery of knaves particularly
rational. And finally to crown it all having a legally wedded wife is superstitious
and irrational and having innumerable concubines is logically rational.
One can go on like this in this vein endlessly
in a superstitious and irrational manner, because the clear stream of Dravidian
perversity and unabashed bestiality is indeed perpetual and even perennial.
It may not be too much to say that all the leading actors in the highly exciting
and even titillating Dravidian Drama have succeeded condomising everything
excepting the condom itself in the name of rationalism and social justice.
The climax of this lurid and artificial drama
will be reached on 16 December, 2006 at the same spot at Srirangam where the
DK has planned to conduct a 'Moodanambikkai Maanaadu', which is pitted against
the Hindus and Hindus alone and not against any other religion. It only means
that all Muslims and Christians are rational according to the DK.
(The writer is a retired IAS officer)
e-mail the writer at vsundaram@newstodaynet.com