The vocalist sister duo Ranjani Gayatri ignited a storm by withdrawing from participating in the highly anticipated Music Academy’s conference slated for 2024. Not only that, but they have also pulled out from presenting their scheduled concert on 25 December 2024.
Their reason for doing so was that TM Krishna who was being conferred the Sangita Kalanidhi sang in praise of a man who called for the genocide of Brahmins – the community that TM Krishna himself belonged to.
The Sangita Kalanidhi is conferred by The Music Academy in which N. Murali, the brother of N. Ram, Director of The Hindu Publishing Group is a trustee (or whatever is his designation).
After the controversy became a national issue with the genocide calls of EVR getting exposed, The Hindu’s Frontline has now come in defence of the hate spewed by EVR.
The Hindu Frontline came up with an article that justifies this genocide call. Despite there being clear evidence of the genocide calls by EV Ramasamy, the writer insists on calling it an “alleged” act.
The byline reads “In hierarchical societies, reformers challenge the status quo with provocative and uncivil speech. Accusing them of hate speech is ill-intentioned.” The writer’s attempt to downplay his calls for genocide as merely provocative and uncivil speech reveals a lot about his intentions.
The Commune has collated instances of EVR’s writings and speeches where he indeed called for the genocide of Brahmins.
How Does Frontline Justify & Whitewash The Genocide Call?
Here’s how they do it. In the article, the writer says, “His rationale was that it was meant to raise indignation among the backward and oppressed castes of their lowered position in society. He further said that there was no violent action that followed his words.”
So since there was no “real violence” following this genocide call, it is not exactly hate speech. The writer also adds, “…his (EVR) emphasis on non-violent forms of protest to show that Periyar never stood for violence against Brahmins.”
Non-violent forms of protest included cutting the janeu and the Shikha of Brahmins – no one actually died so these protests are non-violent?
Then the writer goes on to define what constitutes hate speech. He writes, “Hate speech and offensive speech are ruptures in civility. But, importantly, both are not the same.”
The writer quotes Malcolm X, “To take a more radical example, Malcolm X referred to whites as devils and crackers. There are occasions where he called on African Americans to resort to violent means of protest. He lampooned the media who portrayed him negatively: “The press calls us racist and people who are ‘violent in reverse’. … They make you think that if you try to stop the Klan from lynching you, you’re practising violence in reverse” (Malcolm X Speaks, page 165). The language he used was offensive, provocative, and inflammatory. But while it contributed to Black militant assertion, it posed little or no threat to white lives or property.”
It is noteworthy that Malcolm X stopped using vituperative language about whites once he moved away from the Nation of Islam.
The writer also quotes Maraimalai Adigal and Iyothee Dasa Pandithar as figures who even before EVR would criticise the Brahmins in modern Tamil politics. They vehemently opposed Brahmin claims to superiority, with Thass even denouncing Brahmins as impostors (fake), while in the late 19th and early 20th century, various religious and secular thinkers, writers, and political leaders “challenged” Brahmin privilege.
It must be noted that Maraimalai Adigal was a progenitor of a Vellala supremacist interpretation of culture and language, hardly a subaltern activist. Iyothee Dasa Pandithar claimed apex ritual status for his community, calling them the original “Parppanar” and the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu, the usurpers. This is a fringe theory that has few takers today. It is again a supremacist take, hardly an egalitarian or subaltern one.
Then the writer quotes Namdeo Dhasal, a Dalit activist, “Dalit Panther leader Namdeo Dhasal’s poetry subverted conventions of Marathi literature and was brutally explicit in its denunciation of caste. In his “Man, You Should Explode”, the poet writes: “One should blow with cannonballs all priests/ And inscribe epigraphs with a cloth soaked in their blood” (Velivada, January 15, 2016).”
In reality, Namdev Dhasal advocated militant action against specific caste enemies akin to the approaches of Marxists of the USSR and Cambodia. Can such words be justified?
Coming back to TM Krishna, being a Brahmin if he engaged in promoting the people who called for the genocide of his own clan it does not make it right. Take the case of Bobby Fischer, though a Jew himself, engaged in anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. His being a Jew did not make antisemitism or Holocaust denial okay. This applies to the likes of TM Krishna too. Just because the call for genocide did not result in genocide does not make it alright.
So many untenable claims here.
1. The vanguard of Periyarism is not a subaltern, but the classes at the top of the pyramid who claim common cause with true subaltern to direct ire at a small minority
2. Malcolm X stopped using vituperative language about whites once he moved https://t.co/sH94mnAgvN— Suren (@zeneraalstuff) March 29, 2024
EVR himself has said many times that he really meant what he said and he wasn’t just trying to cause trouble or start arguments. Saying we should all act against a whole group of people and making harsh generalizations about them are examples of hate speech, no matter why it’s said or who it’s said to. Hate speech isn’t alright in any situation in a civilised society.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.