Islamists and Muslim-Dravidianist parties in Tamil Nadu celebrate EV Ramasamy Naicker (or EVR, hailed as ‘Periyar’ by his followers) as if he was one of their own. That’s because EVR proposed the idea of “Dravidian Islam,” suggesting that the Muslims of Tamil Nadu were racially Dravidian and part of the broader ‘Dravidian’ identity. He argued that Islam’s egalitarian principles could harmonize with the Dravidian movement’s fight against caste (read Hindus particularly Brahmins). In early 1947, EVR wrote in Kudiyarasu that “Islam was the antidote to untouchability” and encouraged socially disadvantaged Hindu communities to consider embracing Islam to break free from the shackles of caste oppression.
As reported in Viduthalai, EVR reassured his audience at a meeting in Perambur (Mayavaram) in January 1948, saying, “Whether Muslims support us today or oppose us, let me assure you that when Dravida Nadu achieves self-governance, it will not retaliate against Muslims because the Dravidar Kazhagam firmly believes that the Muslims of this country are racially Dravidians.”
EVR had indeed spoken in favour of Islam while ridiculing and abusing the Hindu faith. However, this change of tone towards Islam came after he got proper treatment from the Islamists of those days.
According to prominent Chennai-based academic Kombai S Anwar, Tamil Muslim reformers like P. Dawood Shah, the first man to translate Quran into Tamil with commentaries, was wary of EVR’s atheism.
Dar-ul-Islam, a Tamil publication run by Dawood Shah, criticized the notion of Dravidian race politics and warned against elevating the Tirukkural to the status of a Holy Book or viewing Tiruvalluvar as a Prophet in a Dravida Nadu. In Aiyampettai, a small town in the Thanjavur District, the local jamaat went as far as excommunicating all Muslim members associated with the Self-Respect Movement.
EVR expected Muslims in the Madras Presidency to join his outfit, Dravida Kazhagam, by supporting Jinnah’s call for a separate Pakistan. But the Muslims were clear that their religion came above the Dravidian race. They went behind the Muslim League, and Jinnah showed the finger to EVR’s call for Dravidastan.
Examining E.V.R.’s primary writings and speeches is essential to gaining a deeper understanding of how he perceived Muslims. Here are some excerpts.
Pitting Non-Brahmins Against Muslims & Brahmins
EVR harbored strong animosity toward minorities, particularly Muslims, and expressed his views openly. In a 1962 article, he declared that the nation would be doomed if it continued to support minorities. He vehemently attacked Muslims, blaming them for literally every issue, and worked to rally the non-Brahmin community against both Muslims and Hindu Brahmins by spreading hatred.
In Part 1 of Thoughts of Periyar EVR Vol I – Anaimuthu, 1974, under the title “Minority Society” (Refer Page. No. 46-48), EVR elaborates in an editorial for Viduthalai magazine, dated 6 March 1962, stating, “According to national characteristics, if a minority community, minority religion, or minority culture has dominance or influence in any country, it can be detrimental to the welfare and general development of that country. This country has been oppressed by the minority communities like Brahmins and Muslims due to the foreign rule, the Congress, and the present government, which has shown them justice or special privileges, moreover due to their influence, considering them to be an intelligent, talented and capable community and giving them space for domination, the country has not developed and the majority (natural majority of the country) people have not acquired human nature. I emphasize that this is the reason for the current state of Tamil Nadu in particular. It is my strong opinion that Tamil Nadu is still an unfree and slave country. I know that the majority of the society in this country will not accept this. The reason is that Tamils do not know what freedom is. Because the Tamils were divided into many groups and used to give and do anything, if we want to say that there has been any change in this nature, it has been insisted on thinking about this only after 1900 years.”
He continued, “Let it be. What we need to think about now is, ‘Shouldn’t Tamils live in Tamil Nadu with freedom and self-respect from now on?’. Today’s freedom is not freedom at all. My opinion since the day of independence is that the situation is worse than the freedom we had during the British rule. An example of this is the past, present, and future comfort and influence of the minority community in this country. The women of the Tamil community, who form the majority making up of 90 percent in this country, are often performing hard labor, such as weeding, breaking stones on the road, and carrying dirt to make pathways for others. In addition to this, they contribute greatly to public service and perform more like this. The 3% Paapan (slur for Brahmin popularized by EVR) population lives a high life without doing any work for the public good, telling us, “go away!” ‘Do not touch me.” Similarly Muslims who comprise just 6% without doing any physical labour, take a stance that our men’s gaze shouldn’t fall on their women, with even the women of a beggar’s house living in this country as per ‘gosha’ (pardah) without working. In the same situation, the Tamil men and women of this country are domestic servants and maids. First, which Tamil realizes how humiliating and dishonoring is the stance taken by this two-class status of people in this country. That is their religious principle! Religious customs! – If you think about who in the country, among whom, whose religious principle, whose religious customs, and who is being humiliated in this situation, the level of freedom and self-respect of the Tamils will be clear.”
He then declared, “The privileges and rights given to minorities only give birth to children is a “betrayal– blatant betrayal”. This is a natural characteristic. (Or fate) That is why the irresponsible people of our Tamil Nadu dare to do anything by using the support of such minorities for their selfish and anti-social activities. These traitor minorities are also waiting to be used by such irresponsible social traitors. As long as Tamil Nadu remains a country in the Indian Union, Tamil Nadu will only suffer this fate. Tamil Nadu politicians have become more position-money lovers, so this truth is not acceptable to them. We feared the Brahmin and gave more space to the Muslims. We are enjoying its fruits today. This has become a proverb that fearing to trample on dung, we stepped on shit. Why am I saying this? Paapan has a reason to betray. That is, his lies and frauds, high-low life is getting exposed. What reason do Muslims have to betray? They should release it and satisfy the people. Only then, they will desire to leave the treacherous crowd. The reason for writing so much is to explain that leaving minorities in the dominion and giving them special privileges is detrimental to Tamil Nadu and the Tamil majority society. Everyone knows that I am a humanist and that I express my views openly and without any veil of secrecy.”
This editorial reflects EVR’s deeply divisive rhetoric, in which he not only targeted Muslims but also sought to create further divisions in society by pitting non-Brahmin communities against both Muslims and Brahmin Hindus.
1857 Revolt – Ridiculing Muslims As ‘Tulukan’
EVR dismissed the 1857 revolt, which is widely regarded as India’s first struggle against British imperialism, by claiming it was a movement driven by Brahmins, Vaishya Maratha kings, landlords, and wealthy Muslims. According to EVR, these groups particularly Muslims sparked the rebellion because the British were taking their lands and instituting reforms, including the spread of Western civilization, which alarmed conservative and religious factions. He contended that the infamous story of the greased cartridges used in Enfield rifles was a fabricated excuse, invented to mask the real issue: these groups feared losing their caste and status if Indian soldiers were required to serve overseas. EVR argued that the disturbances of the time, including the rebellion, were rooted in the resistance of these elites to losing their power and privileges.
In Thoughts of Periyar EVR Vol II – Anaimuthu, 1974, under the title, “What is Happening Today is Also a Continuation of the Sepoy Revolt,” (Refer Page. No. 844-846) EVR elaborates in an editorial for Viduthalai magazine dated, 16 October 1966 stating, “What is happening in India today is like the ‘Sepoy Mutiny’ of 1857. The Sepoy Mutiny was an anti-reform riot by the commoners instigated by Brahmins due to the reforms made by the whites. There was not even political reason behind the revolt. How the Paapan, Wealthy, Muslims are buttressing today’s political revolt from behind, like the same way Paapan, selfish Vaidic Maratha Kings, Zamindars and Muslims were responsible for the revolt during that period.”
In the same article, EVR used a derogatory term, referring to Muslims as “Thulukan,” and stated, “Just as during the Sepoy Mutiny, the Sepoys in war elevated an old Muslim (Kilatu Thulukan) to the throne, today’s Sepoys are trying to elevate the lowest of the low to the throne.”
Minorities Are Non-Tamils
He referred to Christians and Muslims in Tamil Nadu as “non-Tamils,” stating, “In Tamil Nadu’s population, Brahmins make up 2.75%, Christians around 4%, Muslims approximately 5%, Malayalis about 8%, and people from Karnataka roughly 5%. When you combine these groups, they account for 25% of the population. Yet, these ‘non-Tamils’ occupy 75% of the top positions in employment. The suffering of Tamils, he argued, is due to the fact that Brahmins, Christians, Muslims, and others falsely claim to be Tamils.”
Critique of Purdah And Muslim Clergy In Kudi Arasu
E.V. Ramasamy’s journal, Kudi Arasu, on October 14, 1928, published an essay titled “Why Purdah Must Be Abolished,” sparking significant debate. A year later, on November 4, 1929, M.S. Hussain Saheb contributed another essay to Kudi Arasu, titled “The Injustice of Purdah.” In it, he argued:
“Men and women must be allowed to see each other freely and intermingle so that they may wed based on mutual attraction and understanding. Can a man have any greater pleasure than a wife of his heart’s desire? Why must we hide our women behind a visual prison in the name of religion?”
Earlier that same year, on March 3, 1929, Kudi Arasu published another essay, “Islam and the Self-Respect Movement,” where it sharply criticized religious clergy. The article condemned them as “Pauranika liars” who, according to the publication, misled young Muslims and diverted them from rational thought and the ability to make enlightened, independent choices.
Birthday Message – Four Enemies: Paapan (Brahmins), Low Man Among Us, Muslim And Christians
This could not be independently verified from the primary source but in a birthday message published in the Viduthalai magazine on 18 September 1963, EVR declared that the Tamil society had four enemies: the Paapan (Brahmins), the lowly among us, Muslims, and Christians. Titled “Our Society Has Four Enemies,” the message read, “Today, these four groups—Paapan (Brahmins), the lowly among us, Muslims, and Christians—are the societal enemies for us. These four groups already do not care about our society. Among them, three already live in a higher status than us in the society over politics, economy, education, positions, and religion. Another group, which doesn’t think of our disgrace, even your disdain, only focuses on ‘food, saree, and money’ as their life goals. So, they are willing to sacrifice even for a single thing. A situation has emerged where these four groups have become major obstacles in our pursuit of our goal. It is inevitable that this situation may destroy our development and our current well-being.”
EVR’s legacy, when examined critically, reflects a deeply contradictory figure whose so-called advocacy for minorities masked an agenda riddled with prejudice and opportunism. Far from being a unifying force, his rhetoric often exacerbated divisions and perpetuated stereotypes. The celebration of such a figure by contemporary political factions highlights a troubling willingness to overlook his deeply problematic views in favor of a selective and misleading narrative. Far from being a champion of unity or progress, EVR’s vision was steeped in exclusion and antagonism, making his veneration by any community a questionable and paradoxical choice.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
Did EVR Endorse Incestuous Relationships? Here’s What He Actually Said That No Dravidian Stock Will Tell You
The long-standing portrayal of EV Ramasamy Naicker (or EVR, also undeservingly hailed as ‘Periyar’ by his followers) as a champion of women’s rights is under scrutiny, with Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) leader Seeman accusing the Dravidianist ideologue of endorsing incestuous relationships. While Dravidianists have refuted a viral quote attributed to EVR, excerpts from his writings suggest a relativistic view of sexual norms, raising fresh debates about his legacy.
For long, EVR has been portrayed as a liberator of women and a champion of women empowerment by the leftist and Dravidianist ecosystem. However, this carefully constructed image of him is being shattered to smithereens, thanks to social media and anti-Dravidianist political entities like NTK and the BJP.
NTK head Seeman has grabbed Tamil Nadu’s attention by controversially commenting that EVR had endorsed incestuous relationships.
Seeman allegedly questioned the concept of EVR’s women’s rights, asking, “Is this about women’s rights? Is it right to say that if you have desires, you can have a physical relationship with your mother, daughter, or sister and be happy? I want you to answer that.”
This seems to be based on a viral image claiming to be a quote of EVR made in Viduthalai magazine on 11 May 1953, which says, “If you cannot control your lust, get satisfied with your sister or mother, even if they are women. Your satisfaction is important.”
However, the Dravidianists have “fact-checked” that EVR never said such a thing by showing the edition of Viduthalai on the said date as evidence.
But the Dravidianists are not giving the whole picture.
While EVR may not have said the controversial quote verbatim, there is evidence suggesting that he implied sexual relationships are subjective constructs shaped by cultural, geographical, and temporal contexts.
Here’s Proof
In The Thoughts of Periyar EVR Volume I by Anaimuthu 1974, under the section titled “Relationship” (Pages 194-196), EVR elaborates in an editorial on the Viduthalai magazine dated 2 June 1945, where he stated that “The system of sex and the system of property are mostly dependent on the customs of the country, religion, or caste, customs, etc., and it is to be assumed that there is no other reasonable or mandatory singular way, causal system in the whole world. In this regard, the natural characteristics of other living beings are not seen to be subject to any limitation. If we look at our ancient scripture, there are many stories of a man having sex with his own daughter and his own mother. There are countless stories of immoral adultery. Having sex with a guru’s wife or brother’s wife is not considered a crime. Having sex with another man for the sake of procreation is not considered a crime.
In some places, having sex with Brahmins is not considered a sin. There are countless stories of gods having sex with devotees. Therefore, it is impossible to say which of these things is right and which is wrong. Yet, according to the medical method and the sexual philosophy no one has ever tried to say that the methods of sexual intercourse that have been taught is a crime. Therefore; it can be said that a rational man must admit this. However, it is to be considered from the above that no specific uniform method can be found so that sin and virtue; divine punishment and honor are applicable to matters related to sex. This system of relationships, not only in sexual relations, but also in many matters related to human morality, it is unable to determine virtue and sin, to determine good and evil, and in the same way, it has been the case that there is one way for a nation, one way for a religion, one way for a class, and one way for a caste. Therefore, when considering these matters and wondering what a man with common sense and research could say to the question of how a man should behave, he could not find any other guide than prudence, and so it was necessary to cite this relationship as an example.”
The operative word in the above quote of EVR is prudence.
Prudence implies making decisions based on circumstances, considering consent, mutual understanding, and societal impact. He may argue that what is considered moral or immoral in one context or culture might not apply universally.
EVR lists instances from ancient scriptures where incestuous relationships occurred without expressing moral condemnation. He presents these examples as part of a broader argument that sexual norms are culturally constructed, which could lead some to believe he views incest as acceptable in specific contexts.
By stating that no singular method or moral system governs sexual relationships and that customs vary across cultures and periods, he appears to dismiss the idea of universal moral taboos, including incest. This relativism could be interpreted as tacit acceptance.
EVR’s emphasis on ‘prudence’ and rationality, rather than moral or religious standards, could be seen as sidelining the ethical concerns about incest.
While the quote does not explicitly advocate for incest per se, EVR’s refusal to morally condemn it, combined with his relativistic framing of sexual norms, leaves room for interpretation.
Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.