Thread by @shrikanth_krish

My take on Periyar -

A cranky and rather poorly educated man, who powered a movement that was curiously reactionary. A reaction against a certain kind of elitism which did characterize South Indian high culture

Someone whose rhetoric became "dated" in his own lifetime

Periyar and his acolytes are proof to the view that "Reactionary" politics is not solely the preserve of what we call the "Right"

Politics of Reaction can stem from the so-called "progressive" side as well

One could argue that there is a "reactionary" element even in the writings of BR Ambedkar

Though Ambedkar was better educated and intellectually a more "serious" figure than "Periyar"

This is in sharp contrast to other upper caste politicians of the Center-Left, who were "progressive" in the truest sense of the term. And not in the least bit reactionary..

E.g. Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Jawaharlal Nehru, maybe even MK Gandhi

On "Periyar" again

Ostensibly he claimed to be a champion of reason, science, , the English language etc

But his reactionary side blinded him to the fact that it was indeed the "elites" who he was revolting against who best embraced these so-called vehicles of "progress"

He created this stereotyped vision of the brahmana varNa as the votaries and custodians of tradition (which he reviled)

While many on the Right would like that to be true, the reality is tradition has many sources in Indian society. And its sustenance is not entirely top-down

The reality was -

It was his own people (the subalterns of different hues) who were more conservative and "hidebound" than he'd have liked

The elites he reviled were ironically embracing "change" and "modernity" (for better or worse) more readily and rapidly

This made his entire rhetoric somewhat hollow, risible

Because it didn't reflect the ground realities. The reality being that the gulf between the accomplishments of V1 and the rest in Tamil society was driven more by forces of modernity than by sources of traditional authority