This has reference to the two articles, “Brahmin baiting, Periyarism and fall of Dravidian movement” and “DK chief’s support to Brahmins shocks TN Dravidians”, published as part of the debate in DV (Nov. 16, 1991).
The first article, with the support of DV editorial of Oct 1, tries to establish that Untouchables are not given any worthy post in Dravidar Kazhagam. The truth is Pallar Katchi and Parayar Katchi in those days meant a party of Untouchables. This is true even to this day. Unlike in other political parties there. is no separate wing for Untouchables in DK. Giving a separate identify to Untouchables within the organisation is against the philosophy of Periyar EVR. It was M.K. Gandhi who separated and segregated the Untouchables causing their further enslavement. But Periyar promoted free mingling of our people with other non-Brahmins.
Veeramani reply: In DK, we cannot make out the caste of ils cadres. This is its greatness. Uniformity among Untouchables is easier. Uniformity in the functioning and treatment among the graded non- Brahmins is not so easy. DK has marched over a lot in this direction.
Replying to a reader in his Viduthalai daily, DK chief Veeramani said there was no discrimination against Dalits in his organisation. All are Dravidians. Due representation is being given to Dalits. I stand guarantee to the truth of this statement.
Your article says no Dalit is interested in the periyarist movement because Dalits find no wave-length with the Dravidian movement. DK is a down-to-earth practical movement based on a well-studied ideology and not a mere political party. The wave length of political parties may vary but there is no need for the DK to change its colours because it seeks no votes.
Periyar & Babasaheb: It was the DK and Periyar who focussed the attention of t the oppressed people on Babasaheb Ambedkar in Tamil Nadu when he was alive. The leadership of the Untouchables in those days went after M.K. Gandhi without caring for Ambedkarism. DK considers the roles of Periyar and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as two sides of the same coin today and holds Babasaheb in great reverence. The basic ideology and the ultimate goal of both Babasaheb and Periyar is one and the same humanism.
PMK limitations: Your article speaks about the role of PMK in TN. PMK has got certain limitations. It is a political party. Its main priority is to capture power. No doubt, to some extent it can mobilise the Vanniars and a particular section of Untouchables on the political front. But the personal and social behaviours of its cadres are anti-Dalit and in support of brahminical social order.
Without any work on the social front, mere political work of PMK will not take it anywhere. Already Dalits in PMK are getting disillusioned with the party.
Justice Party was brahminical: Justice party leaders fought for due representation of non-Brahmins in govt. They never fought against brahminism but only Brahmins in their personal and social life. The Justice Party leaders were brahminical. Only a simultaneous light against brahminism both on social and political fronts will only take us to the desired destination. Mere poli political power will not take us anywhere. is proved by the collapse of DMK
Our past experience about the Justice Party and our present experience about DMK should make the PMK leadership to seriously think and plan Its future tactics and strategies. I support the statement of the author of the article on the need for principled cadre-formation in PMK. Dr. Ramadoss must know that without liberating the oppressed Vanniyars, Dalits and others, he cannot gain anything by winning political power.
The role of DK and PMK are not opposed to each other. They are supplemental to each other, DK is non-political but it has political interest Its political Interest is of objective nature but not a not a subjective one. Because of the objective political nature of DK, can easily and effectively express its opinion on any issue affecting the oppressed Dravidians. Support of DK to some actions of the Bangalore papatti is dubbed as support to Brahmins now a days. This is the burden of the article, “DK chief’s support to Brahmins shocks TN Dravidians”
Dalit temple priests: A proper study of Periyar thoughts will make us understand the stand of Veeramani on representation to Untouchables in the temple priest course because that will pave the way for their appointment as priest in in govt govt-managed temples Periyar supported the rights of all sections for equal representation and this made him support Dalit appointments as temple priests. DK, however, is an atheistic organisation. It believes in no god. Supporting reservation for SCs in the temple priest course should not be confused as its deviation from the no-god ideology.
Brahmins angry with papatti: Brahmins of TN have been claiming the Bangalore papatti as their jati representative. They even want to the extent of saying they have succeeded in re-establishing in TN the rule of Aryans. Alter there announcement of reservation for SCs in vedic institute, the Brahmins of TN are revising their opinion on her. When Brahmins are opposing the Bangalore papath is it not Veeraman’s duty to support her? The law of contradictions says oppose what the enemy supports and support what our enemy opposes. The DK chief has supported the Bangalore papatti because our enemy is opposing her. So the DK chief is rightly marching on the right path laid down by Periyar.
