In India, over the last 10 months, high-voltage
election hungama has hogged the headlines, with several
name-callers adding spice to it. It started with the ‘chai-wala’ being pitted
against the ‘shehzada’ and the ‘Italian’ against the ‘Gujarati’, and culminated
in the ‘crane’ calling the ‘gun’, ‘toxic’ and a ‘liar’. Along the way, there were
several more episodes of mud-slinging by our netas, which the Indian public quietly watched from the ring.
There was once a time when the complete absence of chivalry
and decency among our leaders did not upset us. But, not anymore. In an encouraging sign of an evolving
democracy, the recent Delhi election results have proved that the Indian voters
do attach a great deal of value to political decency among our leaders.
This blog is an eulogy to two great leaders of a bygone era,
who stand out as shining examples of people who believed in playing the ball
and not the man.
Ironically, it was a die-hard politician, the ex-CM of Tamil
Nadu Mr M. Karunanidhi who once famously declared, “Political decency must be
preserved at all costs...”, and cited the example of the friendship between EV Ramaswamy
Naicker and C. Rajagopalachari , two giant
figures who have played important roles in shaping the socio-political landscape
of Tamil Nadu. It is unfortunate that not
many Indians, outside of Tamil Nadu have heard of the former, whereas the
social and cultural contributions of the latter are more or less forgotten by the
current generation of our countrymen. (Contemporary historian Ramachandra Guha has,
however, given these two men their due credit in his book, Makers of Modern
India, 2010)
Actually, the story of their friendship is a case of curious
chemistry between two diametrically opposite public personalities. Unlike the unique
relationship between Nehru and Gandhi – two uncharacteristic political allies
united by a common cause, the bond between Periyar and Rajaji was a strange one - of harsh political
rivalry in public and warm personal affinity in private.
EV Ramaswamy Naicker, a.k.a
Periyar, the chief architect of the Dravidian (self-respect) movement that
sought to eliminate caste and untouchability from the society, was a dyed-in-the-wool
atheist and rationalist. Coming from a relatively lower caste, albeit a rich
household, he was extremely vociferous about his disdain for religion and
Brahminism, which he believed were at the root of the social and economic inequalities
in the country.
He scandalised the God-fearing section
of the society by proclaiming that, “anyone who believed in God was a primitive”.
He fought tooth and nail to give the
indigenous Tamil (Dravidian) race a social berth and identity independent of the
dominant Aryan/ Brahmin culture prevailing then. His radical stance on these
issues earned him several enemies among Brahmins, who were then a dominant force in
the society.
Contrast this with the persona of
C. Rajagopalachari a.k.a Rajaji, the epitome of the Brahmin elite – a committed
theist and a renowned literateur. Deeply religious, and a pious Hindu, Rajaji
was also a devout Gandhian who led the Salt
Satyagraha movement in the South.
An accomplished writer, he was one
of the co-founders of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, a body that primarily
promoted Aryan culture; he also translated the great Sanskrit epics into English
and authored a book on Hinduism.
In short, he was a complete
antithesis of what Periyar stood for.
One a well-educated, smooth-talking
statesman, an intellectual and connoisseur of arts & literature, the other,
a school drop-out but a sharp businessman and a fire-brand activist.
Chalk and cheese? The
dissimilarities don’t end there.
Periyar was a staunch supporter
of women’s rights and raised his voice against child marriages, orthodox
marriages and suppression of women, and also promoted widow remarriage. He
fought for women’s right to education and their equal rights to property. He
held and voiced liberal views on divorce and birth control. On the other hand, Rajaji’s views on women’s
role in public life was pretty much conservative; to quote Ramachandra
Guha, “he saw them as home makers and carriers of our culture, but not
really as independent agents in their own right.”
Based on the social reforms
initiated by Periyar at the grass-root level as the Chairman of Erode Municipality
(Erode is a textile town in Tamil Nadu), it was Rajaji, who persuaded the
former to join the Congress. Both the men were staunch detractors of
caste-based discrimination and were united in their war against untouchability.
Initially, a committed member of
the Congress and a devout follower of Gandhi, Periyar eventually fell out with
both on the issue of reservation for the backward classes, which went against
the Congress motto of treating all Indians as equals. While the Congress led by
Gandhi believed that in India, religion (and hence, caste) could not be
delinked from politics, Periyar was of the opinion that real freedom for people
would come only from their liberation from the oppressive caste-based social
hierarchy. However, Periyar’s polarised
stance on various burning issues did not stop Rajaji from trying to bring him back
into the Congress fold at various junctures, albeit unsuccessfully.
Later, in 1953, on becoming the
CM of Madras state Rajaji introduced a new education system which laid stress
on students learning their family vocation to help them build upon their skills
to earn a living. This was a genuine attempt to balance practical experience
with academics. But, the Dravidan parties, including Periyar’s, protested
vehemently. They saw this as a vile attempt of the upper class to return to the
old caste-based (which was originally vocation-based) social order.
So, over a period spanning nearly
five decades, the two men pitted themselves against one another, never missing
a political opportunity to point their daggers at each other’s throats.
And yet, on the personal front, these
two men shared a warm rapport, one that is very rare in politics. In his sunset years, when Periyar was faced
with the threat of rebellion by his party men over his plans to remarry, the
person he turned to for personal counsel was none other than his arch political
rival, Rajaji. The story goes like this.
Periyar, at age 72, wanted to marry his long-time companion Maniammai, half his
age, in order to nominate her as the heir to his party. On this matter, he
consulted Rajaji, who, it is believed, advised against the marriage warning
that it would do irreparable damage to Periyar's image. Nevertheless, Periyar went ahead with his
decision and married Maniammai. Some years later, when Rajaji called upon his
ailing friend, he reportedly thanked Maniammai for taking care of his friend
well. It is believed that the camaraderie exhibited by the two men in this meeting
surprised Maniammai so that she likened their mutual affinity to that shared by
a married couple.
When Rajaji passed away in
December 1972 at the age of 94, it is said that an ailing Periyar, aged 93,
insisted on attending the cremation, where he apparently broke down, possibly
re-living memories of their kinship. Incidentally,
periyar exited this world exactly a year later, in December 1973, probably in search
of his friend.
