Political Non-Brahminism and the Self Respect Movement:

Some Implications of Democracy (By R. K. Shanmukham M.L.A)

“To be a democrat is not to decide on a certain form of human association; it is to learn how to live with other men”– Mary P. Folle

Whatever might be the differences of opinion as to the exact measure of self government to be attained by India – Dominion Status or Independence – it is agreed on all hands that the form of Government to be established must be democratic. Democracy is now recognized to be a sort of ultimate good which it would be impious to challenge or even to criticize. The grant of Adult suffrage recommended in the Nehru Report is a characteristic proof of the faith of the Indian intelligentsia in Democracy, and is a convincing answer to those critics who find in the agitation for Indian self government a Machiavellian plot by a microscopic minority to consolidate its own power.

While the genuine faith of the educated Indian in the democratic principle cannot be questioned by the fair minded critic, it would be pertinent to ask whether the average Indian possesses those qualities, which are necessary for the successful working of democratic institutions. This brings us to the fundamental question ‘what is democracy’? In popular discussion the word ‘democracy’ has obtained a connotation exclusively political and denotes a form of Government in which the ultimate control of the machinery of the State is committed to a numerical majority of the people. But democracy is not merely a form of Government. According to Lord Morley “in its broadest and deepest, most comprehensive and most interesting sense, democracy is the name for a certain general condition of society, having historic origins springing from circumstances and the nature of things, not only involving the political doctrine of popular sovereignty by (but) representing a cognate group of corresponding tendencies over the whole field of moral, social and even spiritual life within the democratic community”.

If Democracy then denotes more the form of a Society than that of political machinery, the foundations of a democratic State are to be laid in the character of its citizens rather than in the clauses of a constitution. It may be possible to create political safeguards against the exploitation of the masses by a class, but the ultimate safeguard for democracy itself must depend upon the extension of its principles and ideals into every region of life.

The modern conception of democracy starts from a recognition of the equal intrinsic worth of every individual soul, but the recognition of this principle would be worse than useless if it is not applied in practice to every walk of life. Our democrats must realize that the mere grant of the franchise to every adult citizen does not by itself establish that condition of equality which is an indispensable concomitant of a democratic society. The Indian Nationalist who upholds the doctrine of political equality does not realize the inconsistency of his position when he deliberately denies social equality to millions of his fellowmen. This accounts for the strange fact that many Indian “Nationalists” who are political extremists are at the same time social reactionaries. The conception of social inequality which is a product of the caste system is the very negation of the Democratic Idea. In this sense, whatever might be the historical justification of the caste system, it is the antithesis of and a direct menace to Democracy in India. An uncompromising fight against the caste system is a necessary corollary to the acceptance of the Democratic idea. It is said “that the ultimate battle ground of the Democratic ideal is in men’s hearts”. What is wanted in India is a real “change of heart” in this behalf. It will not do merely to pay lip service to the ideals of democracy; or even to accept them in a spirit of pious sentimentalism. “To the idealistic temper we must attach the pragmatic habit and translate our doctrines into concrete programmes of emancipation and co-operation”. “Enter Democracy, exit caste” must be the motto of every Indian nationalist.

If it is conceded that caste is inconsistent with democracy, it follows that a social revolution must be brought about in order to make India safe for democracy. Historically the democratic movement in the world began with such a social revolution. The first great turning point in the history of modern democracy began with the Protestant Reformation with its fight against ecclesiastical authority and the domination of the priestly class. The French Revolution affirming the political liberty of the citizen against the power of an aristocracy marks the second phase. The Russian Revolution and the movement for the emancipation of the working classes mark the third period in which the foundations of economic freedom are sought to be laid. It might be said that these three battles of democracy – the social, the political and the economic are being fought side by side in India. The awakening of the so-called “depressed classes” and the various movements of Social Revolt especially in South India are the visible manifestations of the attack against the citadel of caste in which the most dangerous enemy of democracy is entrenched. With the successful storming of that citadel, success in the other two theatres of war will be assured.

The affirmation of the doctrine of equal worth of every individual soul does not by any means imply that every individual is endowed with equal capacity. It is only meant to emphasise that the fact of unequal capacity cannot and should not be a ground for denying fair and equal opportunity for every individual. While the justice of this plea is easily recognized, it is not by any means easy to translate it into practice. Very often the fair field given to everyman has in practice resulted in creating an open field for the strong man with the result that the multitude is exploited and new forms of privilege are created. This danger to democracy is specially marked in our country where an iniquitous social system has relegated whole classes of the community in age-long subjection – and in some cases – degradation. The practical applicability of the doctrine of “equal worth” in such cases is not an easy matter. It is this real and practical difficulty that has resulted in the claims put forward by various classes of people in India for specific measures of protection and special methods of treatment. It is not merely unwise but undemocratic to condemn such claims as being anti-national. Those who are against such special claims base their argument upon the ideals of Nationality borrowed from the West, but conveniently forget the fundamental differences that exist in the structure of society in India. To make matters worse, these very pseudo-Nationalists are very often the obstacles to any measure of social legislation or reform intended to remedy our social evils. It is no good denying admission to certain classes in public educational institutions and at the same time maintain that the Competitive Examination is open to every citizen irrespective of class or creed.

Viewed calmly without prejudice it would appear that the special claims of certain classes are nothing more than a demand for such measures as will neutralize the position of inequality in which they are placed. Such a demand is not merely just and reasonable but is eminently consistent with the implications of Democracy. The word Efficiency is always trotted out in discussions on such occasions. Speaking about the danger to socialism arising out of the doctrine of Efficiency, Professor Hobhouse remarks, “Be that as it may, as the expert comes to the front and Efficiency becomes the watch word of administration, all that was human in socialism vanishes out of it … all the sources of inspiration under which socialist leaders have faced poverty and prison, are gone like a dream and instead of them we have a conception of society as a perfect piece of machinery, pulled by wires radiating from a single centre, and all men are either experts or puppets. Humanity, Liberty, Justice are expunged from the banner and the single word Efficiency replaces them.” The implication of these remarks of Professor Hobhouse is that an over emphasis of the doctrine of Efficiency may endanger the very foundation of democracy. The true Democrat must realize that Efficiency and capacity are measures not of worth but of obligation; and that the Law of Life is mutual service.

If Democracy is looked upon merely as a political form or an economic scheme, it is bound to decline and die. If Democracy is to survive and triumph over the iniquitous Social System of India based upon caste, its essential spirit must capture our consciences and wills and must compel that personal practice in our everyday life without which democracy cannot live.

– Revolt, 12 December 1928

The Political Philosophy of the Self-Respect Movement  (By Miss Gnanam)

The Self-respect movement stands for the social regeneration of the masses and the classes. It stands for the creation of an ideal society built upon the bedrock of equality and fraternity in all the spheres of life. It aims at complete equality between man and man as well as man and woman. Religion as a power to meddle with and shape society is completely ignored. The Self-respect movement is nothing if it does not stand for complete secularization of life. “Religion is the opium of life”. This is the guiding principle that shall shape the destinies of the Self- respect movement.

The relation of politics and political action to this movement is one which requires careful consideration. That the Self-respect movement is social in its outlook is true. But the political philosophies prevalent in our times are so chaotic that one does not clearly see the potentialiy of the Self-respect movement as a political factor as well. This does not mean that politicians do not recognize its soundness as a political creed, a stepping stone to political power. But we are of the opinion that the Self- respect movement is something more than a mere creed. It is a guiding political principle, a sound political philosophy.

Let us examine a little the political tenets prevalent in our times. The democratic systems of Government in vogue in the advanced countries of the west, the group or the federal system of Government prevalent in America, France etc., represent a political principle which is becoming day by day mere anachronisms. The Government of such groups can be defined as the counting of “heads”. It is no wonder therefore, that such systems of Government, stinking as they do with social and religious superstition serve as fertilizers to the cropping up of “an abnormal race of unscrupulous people called politicians”. Society is food for their political power. Such governing forces are mere bubbles on the surface. It does not in the least matter even if when they are pricked.

On the other hand the Marxian philosophy certainly aims at supplanting such political groups with powerful representatives of society. It does not care for the form but the principle is the only imminent thing. We may call this principle a political philosophy but it is built on the strong foundation of economic equality. This is the only principle that guides the society and religion has absolutely no place. This is the other extreme of political reaction. This movement aims at leveling down human beings to the status of economic machines. Human instincts, human needs, biological factors etc., that make an individual’s life worth living are sacrificed for the purpose of erecting a socio-political machine.

On the other hand, the Self-respect movement wants to build up a government on the ideals of a social principle already enunciated. The method of political action adapted to the tenets of the Self respect movement is therefore a process of elimination and persuasion. Politics pledged to religious neutrality in national life and the method of least resistance in social reformation have no place in Self-respect politics. The Self-respect movement raises a standard of revolt against such socio-political parties whose cry of nationalism is but an election stunt. Nationalism with religion and social inequalities is but another name for gilded slavery, while communalism eschewed of its religion and its concomitant social superstitions is liberty cent percent. Battles fought in the name of nationalism are no more than swords brandished in the air, while even mild strokes aimed at social superstitions on the basis of the Self-respect movement will usher in a new era in the political life of a country.

Communal representation is the immediate expediency in the political action of the Self-respectors. It may be argued the communalism is built up on the basis of religious and social superstitions. It must also be borne in mind that communalism is the direct outcome of religious domination. We must strike at the root of this immoral domination. How can you do it but by mobilizing all our forces against a set of unscrupulous men, who are trading upon the religious power already conferred to them through age long frauds. Revolt against such a race is essential to wrest political power from them. Revolt is also essential to help the process of education which alone can help us in the rebuilding of a Self-respecting society.

– Revolt, 17 April 1929

The Self-Respect Movement (Mr. R. K. Shanmukham’s Reply to Critics)

Addressing a public meeting at Virudunagar under the auspices of the Non Brahmin Youth League, Mr. R.K. Shanmugam M.L.A. made a reply to his critics and explained how he had not sacrificed consistency in holding the office of Secretary of the Swarajist party in the Assembly and mingling with the Self Respect movement.

The Youth Movement, he said had been growing during the last 10 or 15 years in all countries of the world. That nations like Turkey and China had asserted their freedom and equality of status with the other nations of the world was due to the awakening of the youth of those countries. So also the national awakening of this country would depend in large measure on the strength of the youth organization.

He wanted to take this opportunity of replying to certain criticisms which had been leveled against him because of his support to the Non Brahmin Self-respect movement while holding a responsible post in the Congress. He had explained his attitude towards the Self-respect movement several times but he thought he might explain his position a little more clearly now. He would make bold to say that there was nothing inconsistent between the Congress policy and the principles of the Self-respect movement. He would boldly assert that anyone gainsaying this would be a false Congress man. He would go further and say that when it was made clear to him that the Congress stood opposed to that movement he would be prepared to resign his membership of the Congress. But he was sure that no close student of the Congress movement would say that the Self-Respect movement was opposed to the Congress creed. He believed that the Congress was the forerunner of the present Self-respect movement and that it was because the Congress had committed the initial blunder of paying attention to the political self respect of the country to the exclusion of communal and social self respect that the present Self-Respect movement had become imperative.

The Congress itself though it began as an organization for reforming society had been changing its creed, until to day has as its goal the attainment of Swaraj by all legitimate peaceful and non violent means. The speaker believed that this was incomplete and with this view he had sent up an amendment to the Congress creed a few years ago urging that it should also extend to the eradication of communal differences and inequalities. He therefore believed that if the Self-respect movement did not run its full course, these would be a great hindrance to our national growth. The Non Brahmin movement, he said was a social rather than a political revolt. Brahmin ascendancy was as old as the day of Vasishta and Viswamitra. Viswamitra, a Non-Brahmin established his equality with Vasishta himself and owing to the tactfulness of Vasishta all further trouble was averted. But such tactfulness was not present among the Brahmins nowadays. Even if the Brahmins acceded to the equality of status of all castes there was necessity for the Self-Respect movement for the purpose of educating the Non Brahmins to a realization of their equality of status.

The speaker next explained the significance of the Chingleput Self Respect conference and said that they were most reasonable. He denied that some of the resolutions tended towards atheism or heterodoxy.

In conclusion he characterized Mr. E.V. Ramaswami Naicker as the author of a social upheaval comparable to the French Revolution.

Do none but the Brahmins engage study?

Do none but the Khasatriyas exercise sway?

Do Vysias plough and Sudras only.

These greedy liars propagate deceit. And fools believe the fictions they. (sic)

– Revolt, 17 April 1929

Jainism and the Self-Respect Movement (By “Self Respector”)

Ever since I became a follower of the Self-respect movement, I was thinking if there existed any movement in ancient India which advocated the principles for which the movement stands at present. I am a student of philosophy and religion and I take pleasure in studying books on comparative religion. For nearly a year I have been studying some books on Jainism. While I was going through those books I was extremely glad and very much surprised to find the Jaina teachings to be the same as those of the Self- respect movement.

For the information of the readers I give below some of the grand and sublime teachings of Jainism.

1. The Jaina thinkers do not belive in an anthropomorphic God who creates, rules and destroys the world.
2. God according to Jainism is any perfect soul that has realized the Divinity in itself. You and I can become God by our own efforts.
3. Every man is the architect of his own life. He is alone responsible for his happiness or misery.
4. Every man is endowed with infinite energy which he is at liberty to use.
5. Social, economic, political or even spiritual emancipation of a nation or community is in the hands of its movements.
6. The world is eternal and matter is indestructible.
7. Jainism does not believe in any of the superstitious beliefs of Hinduism.
8. The Jains do not believe in Piturloka or Shraddas.
9. They have no caste among them. They hold that even the son of a “Pariah” should be respected as god if he has right perception.
10. They do not admit the Brahmins into their houses or temples and do not seek their help for any ceremony.
11. They do not accept the Vedas, Puranas, Smritis or any of the Brahminical books.
12. They lay much stress on individual exertion. “If you want to be happy, you must work. Neither Rama, Krishna nor Christ can help you”
13. Their first teaching is, “Be kind to all beings, respectful to those that are righteous, merciful to those that are perversely inclined.”

The teachings of Jainism are in short, based upon Commonsense, Reason and Logic.

– Revolt, 23 June 1929