Ramayana and DMK Chief

For M Karunanidhi, DMK chief and Tamil Nadu chief minister, Lord Ram is not a historical persona but a figment of human imagination. He has not only invited BJP leader L K Advani for a public debate on Ram’s historical status but also - as if turning the knife into the wound - has advised him to read Valmiki’s Ramayana with all the care it deserves. It is common knowledge in Tamil Nadu that Karunanidhi knows his Ramayana well.

Karunanidhi's remarks have provoked Advani and his cohorts to breathe brimstone and fire. But they have not succeeded one bit in turning the Hindus of Tamil Nadu against Karunanidhi. Their desperation is evident when Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, BJP spokesperson, claimed during a press meet that Karunanidhi has lost his head. Perhaps, he meant Karunanidhi's followers too.

But for a minuscule fraction of rationalists, the majority of the cadres and sympathisers of the DMK are practising non-Brahmin Hindus. They regularly visit temples, worship, and go on pilgrimages. If they stand by Karunanidhi despite his open disavowal of Ram, they have their own reasons. For one thing, there is nothing novel in Karunanidhi's comments on Ramayana. From the days of the Self-respect Movement founded by Periyar E V Ramasamy in the 1920s, Ramayana and Ram have been subjects of vigorous public debate in Tamil Nadu.

The non-Brahmin critique of the Ramayana in Tamil Nadu is based on three sets of arguments. First, Ram, a twice-born Kshatriya immersed in Brahminical ethos, kills Sambuk, a Sudra, for doing penance. Thus he emerges as an upholder of Brahminical caste norms. Second, he is neither an ethical ideal since he kills Vali not by confronting him directly, but by unmanly deceit.

Finally, Ramayana is claimed to be an allegorical story of northern imperialism over the south. Each of these arguments has its own resonance for the non-Brahmin Hindus in Tamil Nadu. They continue to ask why the Brahmin should be privileged over the non-Brahmin and refuse to take Ramayana uncritically.

What is more, Dravidian politics has kept in the fore regional Tamil identity and non-Brahmin caste identity instead of any religious identity. Its supporters belong to all religions - Hindus, Muslims and Christians. If at all the question of religion finds a place in the public arena of Tamil Nadu, it is only in relation to language and caste identities.

For instance, it is a long-standing demand of non-Brahmin Hindus in the state that they should be allowed to conduct pujas in the sanctum sanctorum of temples - not in Sanskrit but in Tamil.

Thus, a monolithic Hindu identity, not qualified in terms of caste, language and region, is problematic for a Tamil non-Brahmin Hindu. It is not surprising that he looks with suspicion at the undifferentiated Hindu identity promoted by BJP. Karunanidhi's confidence in his non-Brahmin Hindu followers is not misplaced if political precedents in the state are any indication. He has weathered in the past similar campaigns against him by the Hindu right.

The 1972 state assembly and Lok Sabha elections are a case in point. Prior to the elections, Periyar conducted an anti-superstition conference at Salem. As part of the event, an effigy of Ram was taken out in procession and was beaten by sandals. The effigy was finally publicly burned. When the pictures of the procession appeared in the press, it produced an outrage in north India. A B Vajpayee, then with Jan Sangh, condemned the Salem conference as a "shameful event which wounded the religious feelings of millions of Hindus in the country".

A beleaguered Congress (O) led by K Kamaraj found an electoral opportunity in the Salem incident. He sullied his secular reputation and joined hands with Hindu communalists. C Rajagopalachari, leader of the Swatantra Party, buried the hatchet with his rival Kamaraj and asked Brahmins to hold their sacred thread and vote against DMK. Hindu communal outfits such as Jan Sangh, the Temple Protection Committee and Asthiga Samaj managed to mount a concerted campaign against DMK with the support of the press. The campaign portrayed the DMK as incorrigibly anti-Hindu.

The election results came as a shock to Congress (O) and the Hindu right organisations which supported it. Kamaraj was the only Congress (O) candidate to win a Lok Sabha seat from the state. DMK and its allies won the rest of the seats. DMK’s perfor-mance in the Tamil Nadu assembly election was unprecedented. It won 184 of the total 234 seats. Thus the majority of the Tamil Hindus chose the DMK and ignored Ram.

There is no one way of being a Hindu but many. Because of the specific history and texture of politics in Tamil Nadu, an average Hindu in the state not only believes in his religion with much devotion, but is also critical of it on different counts. It is a religious disposition similar to that of a reformer. If Karunanidhi could call Ram into question without losing his political constituency, it is precisely because of this fact.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/LEADER_ARTICLE_We_Do_Things_Differently/articleshow/2395923.cms