The Dravidian Movement is a complete hypocrisy and EVR is the leader of that hypocrasy. His statements on social justice are always very cheap and always targeted one particular community and religion. EVR or his successors never dared to comment on the superstitions in the other religions.
In the name of self respect, they fooled the fellow tamilians and made a good buck. Self respect and dravidian movement made few families rich and let few fascinated by the action and many confused. It started as Anti God to Anti Hindu to Anti-Brahmin to Anti India to anti-adopted principles.
As it is mentioned, EVR is a good name to make money. EVR is more business today.
All the 2nd generation successors take EVR's name in rallies, books and news paper articles and never follow any of the principles. All are strong devotees of one or other god or godman. The 1st generation still chant his name to project them as the social justice provider. The first generation still supports anti-nationals, terrorists, butchers, tree-cutterss, poachers in the name of Tamil(A vision of EVR they undersood?)
EVR is a brand in tamilnadu today like coca-cola, Pepsi, Kingfisher and Jony Walker.
No doubt that his movement with whatever intentions it may be really started giving equal opportunities for all communities and creamy layer is reaping the benifits today. To Let all communities grow in the present atmosphere, EVR is one real reason.
RE:Self respect movement became Hypocrisy and Anti National Movement
by rationalbeing being on Apr 30, 2007 12:40 PM Permalink
what periyar did not mention that the chaturvarna was first adopted according to the division of work,not on the basis of caste.in history,we would find several intercaste,even inter religious marriage including friendship between different communities-rajput king married a bhil girl,sri krishna was a yadav who married several khsatriya girls,akbar and jehangir married rajput hindus,sri ram had a friend like guhak who was a chandal,laxman got knowledge from ravana when he was in death bed.so ancient india was not full of casteism.jabal stayakam was welcomed by maharishi goutam who termed satyakam as brahmin(satyakam had no registered father),chandragupta maurya got the title from her mother who was a dasi and chandragupta maurya and samrat ashoka were not the representative of upper castes.sufi movement,bhakti movement was against casteism and religious narrowness.sri ramakrishna and swami vivekananda faught against casteism not balming the hinduism alone.so i think periyar missed and crossed the line.he could have mentioned the tolerism of hindus who gave place to other religious groups.there is not a single evidence in the ancient,medieval even in some parts of modern world in the field of religious tolerance in christian and islam country.also hinduism accomodated several different thoughts within a religion-here we have idol worship,nirakar god,even we get atheist philosophy,every person can woeship god in any foem in this religion.hinduism is the only religion which never involved in forceful religious conversion.but pity is that periyar did not mention these positive sides.but sme extent he spreaded a sense of hatred in the name of abolishing casteism.i donot know why.yes upper castes are very much responsible in many cases.but almost all of the great persons are from upper castes who made indians proud by their tallent,dedication not by their caste identity,what periyar also did not mention that many people from upper castes did several social reforms-RAJA RAMMOHAN ROY,ISWAR CHANDRA VIDYASAGAR were brahmin but did siGnficant social reform,sri ramakrishna vivekananda also did their best,upper caste personalities were greatly involved in the country's freedom struggle(subhas bose,tilak,nehru ,gandhi ,gokhale,bagha jatin,jatin das,lala ljpat and many names)where the leadership was maintained by them.even the great achiever of tamilnadu-srinivas ramanujam,cv raman was from upper castes.i donot know why he ignored all this.ok,but still he has a place in my mind for his movement for social justice which some extent changed as a movement of hatred at latter stage.
