Comrade Anu writes:“In the 1930s the Self-Respect movement, under the influence of Communists in Tamilnadu and the influence of Periyar’s trip to the USSR, supported socialism. Communists like Singaravellu propagated materialist philosophy and socialism through the magazine. Two trends were active within the Self-Respect movement now, one which preferred to restrict itself to social reform and the other trend which wanted to take up anti-capitalist propaganda and activity. The Self-Respect socialists took up orgainsing on problems of the peasantry along with their regular Conferences. Under the influence of the CPI leaders the Self-Respect socialists (samadharma group) merged into the Congress Socialist Party in November 1936.
Periyar faced repression from the British Government for his attack on the NB Govt and for “promoting Soviet Bolshevism”. Periyar retracted. The Self-Respect movement could not sustain its social radicalism consistently and was unable to give expression to the sentiments of the masses demanding a full attack on feudal land relations. Periyar entered the Justice Party and then in 1942 formed the Dravida Iyakkam (DK). ”
Here are our comments on each one of Comrade Anu’s observations:
1.Comrade Anus writes: “In the 1930s the Self-Respect movement, under the influence of Communists in Tamilnadu and the influence of Periyar’s trip to the USSR, supported socialism. “
Not true. Following the Karachi Congress resolutions of 1931, in which Periyar read a nationalist commitment to protecting caste and (Hindu)religion, he and other leaders decided at a self-respect conference held in Virudhunagar that they needed to explore the social and political possibilities of atheism – and so it was decided that Periyar would undertake a tour of, among other places, the Soviet Union,which had adopted atheism as state policy.
From 1928 onwards, the self-respecters had been watchful of the relationship between state and faith – and their English weekly revolt carried several articles on this relationship, as it unfolded in Ataturk’s Turrkey, Amanullah’s Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. The self-respecters also endorsed the world’s first socialist state and revolt, the English weekly run by Periyar celebrated its first anniversary (in 1929) by declaring proudly that the first issue of the weekly was brought out on the day of the Bolshevik revolution. To quote from Revolt: “It was on the 7th day November 1928 that memorable day in the history of the nations, the day of the anniversary of the immortal Revolution in Russia, the day which is looked upon as the violent explosion of human liberty, the day which is memorialised by millions in Russia for the mighty mixing up of monarchs and the masses, – it was on that day that the revolt saw the light of day at Erode. Even as we pointed out at the outset, we ‘unfurled the flag of revolt to destroy tyrannies and to befriend men and women’. Our aim, as we declared, was to put before our people, and humanity in general, how ‘social injustice is at the root of our economic bondage and political subjugation’. Our work in this direction, has therefore been, merely educative. But we have been, not once or twice, branded as ‘destructive’. “True education” as a writer once remarked, “ is more destructive in character, than constructive”. For, mankind has to unlearn many things at its various stages of life. The self-respect movement of which the revolt claims to be a loud-speaking organ, has taught in a period of half a dozen summers, what mankind should unlearn before storing up new stock. In ‘ringing out the old, and ringing in the new’ ideas, the revolt has carried its banner amongst many odds.”( revolt,17th November 1929)
Another extract from a revolt article in 1929 ( review of a book containing the famous debate between Bertrand Russell and the noted American Socialist Scott Nearing) would show, that the Self-respecters had a farily good knowledge of the Russian Revolution but also tried to place its significance in the Indian context :”…The second stage in Mr. Nearing’s argument is a description of the Soviet form of Government. Bolshevism is dictatorship under the control of the industrial workers but dominated by the communist party. Three outstanding characteristics of the Soviet system should be noted. Firstly electoral constituencies are not territorial. They are economic or occupational. The (Motilal) Nehru committee and their supporters will do well to digest the fact that modern Russia considers “joint electorates” as an anachronism and a survival of medieval feudalism. Representatives to the Soviet are elected by “Separate electorates”. The second feature of the Soviet system is the organization of the economic life of the people, altogether eliminating private profiteering in industry. The third characteristic of the Soviet is contained in the motto: “No work. No vote”. The political rights of the country are restricted to those who perform productive and useful service. …A perusal of this book furnishes food for thought on the part of every intelligent Indian. There is no difference as to the nature of the ultimate ideal between the two participants in the debate. Both are socialists. Mr. Nearing advocates violence as a temporary stage, as a means. But Mr. Russell is a stern believer in nonviolence, a Gandhiite. These two are familiar types in our country. But there is one disconcerting fact about which both these thinkers agree. They both recommend the Soviet system for an agricultural and rural civilization like that of India. Nonviolence is necessary only for the technically organized peoples. The charka is the harbinger of a militarist dictatorship. This conclusion may startle the Saint of Sabarmati but may afford some consolation to those wordy warriors who are declaring Independence at Calcutta.” (recvolt,2nd January 1929)
Further, socialism as an ideal was in the air, so to speak, especially in radical free-thought circles all over India – and the self-respecters were keen followers of debates in these circles.
2.Comrade Anu writes: “Communists like Singaravellu propagated materialist philosophy and socialism through the magazine. “
First of all a few words about Singaravelu: He, who started his political career as a member of the Swarajist wing of the Congress became radicalized by the socialist ideas. Though he showed keen interest in the struggles of the organized workers in Madras city he was shunned by the established trade union leaders who belonged to the ‘nationalist movement’. He remained such an isolated figure within the Congress that no effort was made by the latterto get him released when he was sent to prison for his involvement in the strike of the railway men of the South Indian Railway in 1928.Periyar himself participated in the agitation in support of the movement and some of the leading self-respecters (who were also Justice Party cadres) were also arrested. Singaravelu was implicated in Kanpur (Communist) conspiracy case. He was part of the Labour-Peseant party which had only a handful of takers in Tamil speaking area. He was able to get rid of his political and intellectual isolation when he became associated with the Self-respect movement (in 1930)which already had acquired some knowledge of and written about Soviet Union, Socialism and Communism and even Hegel. There were articles about the anti-imperialist struggle in China as early as 1927 in Kudi Arasu.
It was Periyar who got the Preamble and the first section of the Manifesto of the Communist Party translated into Tamil and published in Kudi Arasu weekly at the end of 1931 before he left for journey to Soviet Union and other countries accompanied by S.Ramanathan, a veteran in Self Respect Movement and a bilingual intellectual .They simply did not treat the Bolshevik and/or Communist ideas as religious creeds that are applicable to all conditions in all countries without change but rather these ideas were refracted through their self-respect ideals, primary of which was the annihilation of the distinctions made on the basis of one’s birth,-the caste distinctions that are polarized into the categories of Brahmin and Paraiya. All other ideas and ideals were simply adjunct to the primary one.
Moreover,after joining the Self-respect movement, Singaravelu did not really ‘propagate’ communism on his own. His early articles in self-respect weeklies were on a range of subjects, including evolution, idealism and materialism, atheism and so on. Many others besides him wrote on socialism during this time – including women such as Neelavathi and Jeyasekari. S.Raanathan, had a better appreciation of the Indian conditions than the bookish Singaravelu as could be discerned from his writings on Socialism. He was perhaps the first in India to call the untouchables as the proletariat of India.After their return from their journeys abroad, Periyar and S.Ramanathan translated into Tamil Lenin’s articles on Religion and got them published in Kudi Arasu. Engels’s The Principles of Communism was translated by another self-respecter and published in the issues of Kudi Arasu in 1933.
3.Comrade Anu writes:Two trends were active within the Self-Respect movement now, one which preferred to restrict itself to social reform and the other trend which wanted to take up anti-capitalist propaganda and activity. The Self-Respect socialists took up orgainsing on problems of the peasantry along with their regular Conferences.
There were several trends active with the Self-respect movement – socialist, atheistic, anti-Brahminical and so on. In some writers, all these tendencies were present, in others one or the other was dominant. Also, what self-respecters sought was not mere ‘social reform’ – but a radical remaking of the caste order, and a rethinking of the categories of manual and intellectual labour. Their views on the women’s question, on nationalism were startling for the times, and they were amongst the few that took the question of reproduction seriously, as central to the continued production of a particular social form, whether of the family or society.
The idea of a ‘peasantry’ was not pronounced amongst self-respecters. They organised anti-zamindar conferences, just as they did anti-money lender conferences, but this was not merely because some of them were socialist. It was also because zamindars were seen as holding up the brahminical varna order.
The self-respect movement was not a ‘class’ movement, and to read it in those terms is to miss its historical significance and effect – it sought to turn the world upside down and if anyting was millenarian.
4.Comrade Anu writes: “Under the influence of the CPI leaders the Self-Respect socialists (samadharma group) merged into the Congress Socialist Party in November 1936. Periyar faced repression from the British Government for his attack on the NB Govt and for “promoting Soviet Bolshevism”. Periyar retracted. The Self-Respect movement could not sustain its social radicalism consistently and was unable to give expression to the sentiments of the masses demanding a full attack on feudal land relations. Periyar entered the Justice Party and then in 1942 formed the Dravida Iyakkam (DK). …
First of all there was no Communist Party of India proper till 1934. It took shape only after bringing together various Labour and Kisan Parties operating in different regions in India and from the very beginning it had to follow blindly the advice given by the Cointern and the British Communist Party. Perhaps only once, the Comintern had admitted the existence of caste question in India but the strategy and tactics for the Indian Communists suggested by the Comintern , as well know now, were tailored to suit the interests of the Soviet Union only.
In 1934, almost immediately after it first Congress, the Communist Party of India and its front organizations like the Young Workers’ League were banned by the British Indian Government but the ban order brooked no challenge from the Congress Party since the British rulers and the Congress were coming closer to each other after Gandhi unconditionally suspended the individual satyagraha in 1933 and encouraged the Congress to give up once and for all the boycott of the legislatures and enter into the electoral battle. Subsequently, the Government focused its attention on Self-Respect Movement. Periyar and his sister (who was the publisher of the weekly Kudi Arasu’) were arrested for publishing an article by Periyar on the education system in the places of learning -an article construed by the British Indian Government ‘seditious’. Theu served the prison terms of four months and one month respectively. A few months later, P.Jeevanandam and E.V.Krishnasami (Periyar’s elder brother) were arrested under IPC 124A for translating and publishing Bhagat Singh’s Why I am an atheist (it was a not a Socialist or Communist pamphlet.)In the meanwhile since Periyar’s return from Soviet Union, a number of Self-respect cadres were kept under police surveillance accompanied by regular police raids and searches were conducted in their residences and offices.Some well wishers of Periyar and Self-respect movement, who were connected with the ruling Justice Party and the administration cautioned Periyar about possible moves of the Government to ban the Self-respect movement. Periyar, in order to ward off the danger, decided to give an undertaking to the Government that he would moderate his tone in propagating the Self-respect and socialist ideas. He also advised P.Jeevanandam and E.V.Krihnasamai to tender an apology to the Government and get themselves releaed from the prison. Periyar owned up responsibility for compromising with the Government and also for asking Jeevanandam and Krishnasamy to tender an apology to Government to get their release from the prison.Periyar frankly admitted that if he had not resorted to such moves, the Self-repsect movement would have been subjected to two pronged attacks-one from the Brahminical Congress and the other from the British Indian Governmentt (Kudi Arasu,10.3.1935 and 31.3.1935)
Later in 1937 when the Communist leaders like P.Ramamurthy and six others were charged with sedition against the British Indian Government, they resorted to legal methods of arguing in the court that they were only against the maladministration in the country and that proper legal procedures were not followed in framing them under Section 124A of the IPC.They were relased on bail under the personal securities furnished by two Brhamin Congress leaders!
Was that meant Periyar stopped propagating Socialist or Bolshevik ideas.? Far from it. Within a few weeks since he gave the undertaking, he issued an appeal to the Self-respecters to celebrate May Day (till then it was observed only in Madras City) across the entire Tail speaking country(Kudi Arasu,28.4.1935). Articles on Soviet Russia and Communism continue to get published in Kudi Arasu and other Self-respect journals. The titles of the some of the articles (not including those that appeared in other SR journals) which appeared in Kudi Arasu during 1935 alone were:
1.Bolshevik Russia: Refital of false propagada ( Kudi Arasu (KA),15.3.1935); 2.May Day (20.8.1935); 3.Rejuvenated Leningrad (KA,5.05.1935);4.The Underground Railway in Soivet Russia (19.5.1935); 5.New Russia:Primer on the Five Year Plan ( KA 9.6.1935 to 12.9.1935); 6.The Red Russia ( KA 6.10.1935);7.The Progress in Russia ( KA 13.10.1935)
On the other hand, the so called ‘Socialists’ like P.Jeevanandam and Singaravelu (who acquired his identity and recognition as a leftist thinker only through the Self-respect movement, as he never had any significant following at any time in his life but who however never approved the ‘Communists’ endorsing compulsory introduction of Hindi in Madras Presidency by C.Rajagoplachari ministry and described the repressive measures of the Congress government far wore than those of the British administrators) like many of the Communists elsewhere in India joined the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) in November 1936.CSP was floated in 1935 by the Congress in order to pacify the leftists within the Congress, woo the Communist elements outside it, and of course blunt the edge of Subhas Chandra Bose’s criticism of Gandhi. When the Communists joined CSP, in the wake of banning of the CPI, it was called ‘tactics’, while Periyar was attacked for his ‘cowardice’ and ‘compromise’. One important aspect – not merely technical but political one – which is suppressed in the ‘histories’ written by the ‘Communists’ and the ‘Leftists’ is that in order to become a member of the CSP , one had to first of all become a primary member of the Congress (which implied the acceptance of the unquestioned leadership of Gandhi and Gandhism).That is why even as late as 1946 P.C.Joshi could say that “We are afterall Congress Communists”.
The ‘Self-respect Socialists’ who left Periyar berating him for supporting the Zamindars and Land Lords and ‘job-hunters’ of the Justice party ended up campaigning for bigger Zamindars, landlords, factory owners, money lenders and Brahmincal forces of the Congress party in the local government elections and in 1937 general elections held under the Government of India Act 1935.
While the ‘Self-respect Socialists’ were busy in discovering in Congress ‘a massive anti-imperialist front’, Periyar went on getting the Tamil translation of Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste (It was serialized in Kudi Arasu iin 1936 with the photograph of Ambedkar.It was brought out in a book form later ( several editions were published).1936 and 1937 were the years that saw the complete route of the Non Brahmin Justice party to which Periyar was giving conditional support.
Periyar never stopped propagating Bolshevik ideas, as is often argued in Communist circles. Iindeed Kudi Arasu, his weekly continued to publish articles on the subject. For instance, an article on Lenin appeared on 25 July 1937. Articles on developments in China were published fairly regularly right through the late 1930s. R. H. Nathan wrote an article condemning Chiang-Kai-shek and supporting the Chinese communists (KA 5.9.37). An article on Chinese students and their role in advancing the cause of China also appeared (KA 15.5.38). A biography of Karl Marx was published in several parts and eventually published as a book (KA 20.2.38). J. K. Velan wrote an article `What Is Marxism?’ which was also published in several parts in Kudi Arasu (the first part appeared on 29.5.38). In 1939, in a riposte to P.Jeevanadam’ journal Janashakthi’s views on the national question in India, a self-respecter quoted from Trotsky’s The History of the Russian Revolution at length about Lenin’s views on Nationality Question and Self-determination. Articles on Socialism, Marx, Engels, Lenin,Stalin etc., continue to people the Self-respect and Dravidar Kazhagam journals till Periyar’s last day.
Periyar had never been in the Justice Party and held any position in it, though he was giving conditional support to it for all the measures taken by it for the progress of the non Brahmins and Dalits. Periyar did not merely join Justice Party in 1938, he was straight way elected its President! He was undergoing rigorous imprisonment in Bellary jail for leading the anti-Hindi agitation and by that time, the Justice party weakened by the successive electoral defeats in local body and general elections, desertion from its ranks, conversion of many Justicites to greener pasture of the Congress, had already become a leaderless, rudderless sinking ship. He was approached by some progressive elements from the Justice Party to take over its leadership. Periyar agreed and while he was still in prison, he was elected as the President of the Justice Party by the end of 1938. His presidential address was read out by a prominent member of the Justice Party in its Conference held in 1938. After his release from the prison, Periyar began giving a thorough overhauling and reorienting the Party and kept it away from electoral politics. In 1944 he reorganized it as Dravidar Kazhagam to the bitter chagrin of the conservative elements of the old Justice Party. He described the new Party as the fusion of the Justice Party and the Self-respect movement . Dr Ambedkar, who visited Madras (Chennai) in 1944 met with the leaders of both the factions and gave a clean chit to Periyar, while ruthlessly criticisng the old Justicites for their sole concern with the share in government jobs and offices. He even advised them to come out from their cocoons and follow the lead of Periyar! By 1946, Periyar, by and large did not have the support of wealthy land lords in the erstwhile or business persons who were at one time or other close to either the Justice party or the Self-respect movement.
Periyar was the only leader in South India who criticized the undemocratic way with which the Constituent Assembly was constituted from the very day of its formation to the day the India was proclaimed a Republic in 1951.He never accepted India as a nation. He always insisted that it was a Brahmin-Bania construct.Yes.He did not have theoretical or material arsenal to get his ideal of Dravida Nadu realised. He had no clear understanding of the nature of the state from the ‘class perspective’. He did not have well articulated economic policies. But those who had all these were unfortunately chained to the idea of Bharat .
Dravidar Kazhagam under his leadership had also floated its Trade Unions and Kisan Sabhas in 1952 -Dravida Vivasa Thozhilalar Sangam ( Dravidian Agricultural Workers Association, consisting mostly of the Dalit agricultural workers) and Madras Railway Workers Union with ‘Thondu’ Veerasami, a Dalit parliamentarian as the General Secretary.
The only organization which came forward courageously to defend the Communists (and shelter some of the leaders) when the CPI was banned in 1949-51 was Dravidar Kazhagam. Dravidar Kazhagam’s solidarity with the Communists was appreciated and acknowledged in letters written tby M.Kalyasundaram and A.K.Gopalan, two of the prominent Communists. Dravidar Kazhagam’s effort enabled a number of Communist candidates enter the Parliament and Madras Legislative Assembly in 1952.But alas, the Communist never wanted to build permanent bridges with the radical anti-caste movement and went ahead with their ‘class struggles’.That is a different story.
This does not mean that Dravidar Kazhagam had no blind spots. There were many. But they have nothing in common with the distorted version of its history presented by the Communists.
