PERIYAR’S GOAL WAS AN EGALITARIAN SOCIETY, NOT MERE ATHEISM - K. Veeramani, President, Dravidar Kazhagam

 

Thanthai Periyar’s objective was to create an egalitarian society in which every individual enjoys equal rights and equal opportunities. Atheism was not his fundamental principle; it was his policy to achieve that objective.

This clarification is of great importance not only for the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Mr. C. Joseph Vijay, but also for many others who share a similar understanding of Periyar’s philosophy. In a statement issued today, Dravidar Kazhagam President Asiriyar K.Veeramani said:

During his reply to the discussion on the Governor’s Address in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Chief Minister Mr. C. Joseph Vijay explained (23 June 2026), the ideological basis of his government and stated:

“Except for Periyar’s policy of atheism, we agree with all his other principles. That is our position.”

It is our responsibility—not only to the Chief Minister but also to many others who hold similar views—to present a complete understanding of Periyar’s philosophy.

The staunch humanist, Thanthai Periyar, dedicated his life to the abolition of caste, untouchability, and the subjugation of women. His central objective was the establishment of an egalitarian society.

The creation of such an egalitarian social order was Periyar’s fundamental principle.

For centuries, the labouring people of this land were divided into hierarchical categories such as “Sudras” and “Panchamas.” Under the Varna-Ashrama system they were branded as “high castes” and “low castes,” while many were condemned as “Untouchables,” “Unseeables,” and “Unapproachables.” Women—constituting half of society—even those belonging to the so-called “higher castes,” were denied fundamental rights including the right to education, property, marriage, and an independent life.

Periyar’s movement sought to eradicate these caste- and birth-based inequalities and establish a society in which every individual enjoys equal rights and equal opportunities.

That—and not atheism—was the guiding principle of his movement.

However, the defenders of the caste order claimed that the Varna system and the so-called Manu Dharma were not creations of human beings but divine commandments. To reinforce this belief, they invoked gods, the Vedas, the epics, the Puranas, temple sanctums, hereditary priesthood, and religious rituals. It was this ideological structure that compelled Periyar’s Self-Respect Movement to critically examine religion and the concept of God.

The Manusmriti (Chapter 1, Verse 87) declares:

“For the preservation of the world, Brahma assigned distinct duties to the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras, who emerged respectively from his mouth, arms, thighs and feet.”

Thus, the caste system was presented as divinely ordained by Brahma himself.

Similarly, the Bhagavad Gita contains Krishna’s declaration:

 

“Chaturvarnyam maya srishtam” — “I created the four varnas.”

The Gita goes even further than the Manusmriti by asserting that one’s svadharma—the duties assigned according to caste through karma— cannot be altered, not even by God himself. Such doctrines were intended to perpetuate hereditary inequality.

It was precisely because these injustices were sanctified in the name of God that Periyar questioned whether such a God could exist and, if He did, whether such a God could ever be just.

Consequently, Periyar did not make atheism the central doctrine of his movement. Rather, he adopted the criticism of God and religion as a programme of social reform, aimed at destroying caste-based oppression and birth-based discrimination.

Periyar himself explained this clearly in his editorial titled “God and Religion”:

“First of all, we have repeatedly stated that we are not concerned with God or religion as such. Our real concern is to remove the sufferings of the oppressed people and to free them from the restraints that prevent them from attaining knowledge, strength and happiness. It was only because many people brought God and religion into the path of our efforts that we were compelled to examine them. We did not enter this field out of any desire or necessity to discuss God or religion.”

This statement reveals Periyar’s true outlook.

He opposed God and religion because, in his view, they had become obstacles to human progress, human dignity, and humanitarian values.

Therefore, atheism and criticism of religion constituted a policy or programme of action, whereas humanism, rationalism, equality, and freedom constituted his enduring principles.

Periyar repeatedly explained that while principles remain constant, methods and programmes may change according to circumstances.

This explanation was originally published in Kudi Arasu on 28 July 1929 under the title “God and Religion,” based on Periyar’s concluding address at the Second Self-Respect Conference of Tirunelveli District.

Every movement must distinguish between its principles, which are permanent, and its policies, which may change according to time and necessity— just as the instruments of warfare change with advancing technology and changing circumstances.

It is therefore essential that the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Mr. C. Joseph Vijay, and others who hold similar views understand this distinction.

Periyar’s rejection of God was not his primary principle; it was a ploicy employed in the struggle to eradicate caste and untouchability.

Many years ago, when my friend Malan was the Editor of the newspaper Dinamani, he interviewed me on this very subject. In that interview, published in Dinamani, I made exactly the same clarification— that Periyar’s atheism was not his fundamental principle but a programme adopted to destroy caste oppression.

I repeat this explanation today so that many more people may gain a clearer understanding.

Thanthai Periyar’s atheism was not his central principle. At the same time, his conviction that “there is no God” represented the highest expression of his rationalist thinking. As a movement, however, atheism functioned as his policy for achieving social equality.

- Modern Rationalist  August 11, 2026 

ONE DOES NOT BECOME A LEADER THROUGH ELOQUENCE,BUT THROUGH LEADERSHIP”

 

(The following is the English Version of the excerpts from the speech delivered by Thanthai Periyar on 23rd October 1949, at Salem, as the Presidential address in a training camp organised by Salem-Sevvaipettai Self-Respect Association on ‘Public Speaking’)

It is absolutely essential for young people to receive training in public speaking. In Chennai and other cities, such training organizations have existed for many years. Similar societies, known as debating societies, have long functioned in Western countries, even in small villages, contributing to education.

Those who practice public speaking should think carefully before they speak. They must speak in a way that stimulates the audience’s thinking and ensures that the ideas they present are firmly implanted in their minds. Speech without thought, or speech that does not inspire thought in others, can never be considered good speech, no matter how elegant or well-structured it may be. Such speech produces no real benefit.

Public Speaking as a Means of Livelihood

Some people make public speaking their profession and means of earning a living. We can especially observe such speakers during election campaigns. Whoever pays them becomes their client. They speak in favor of those who hire them, criticize and abuse their opponents, and lavish praise upon those who pay them. Young people should never aspire to become such speakers. A truly honorable speaker will never use their speech for such purposes.

Speaking for the welfare of society is what should be desired and respected. Young people should train themselves to present sound ideas. They should speak only those ideas that can guide people toward a better path. The true public speaker is one who wins over the people by presenting good ideas, speaking the truth, pointing out shortcomings, and explaining genuine needs.

 

“To become a good speaker, it is not necessary to have mastered grammar or literature. What is essential is the ability to speak clearly. A measure of intelligence and sound judgment is enough. If one can explain one’s ideas so that people understand them, that is sufficient.”

 

Staying on the Subject

A good speech is one that never strays from its chosen topic, does not introduce unrelated matters, and is not unnecessarily prolonged with meaningless words. Although speaking in this manner may be difficult, it is the proper way to cultivate the art of public speaking. Every word should be measured so carefully that removing even one word would damage the meaning, while adding another would make the speech excessive.

Some people believe a speech should be ornate, full of rhetorical flourishes, alliteration, and decorative language. In pursuit of such embellishment, they pile up countless ideas and unnecessary words, ultimately diminishing the importance of the actual subject.

Public Support

Some people, once they begin speaking, continue endlessly whether the audience enjoys the speech or not. Even when the chairperson signals them to stop, they refuse. They keep talking until someone literally pulls them back to their seat.

Just as public speaking can suffer from certain flaws, speakers themselves can develop a dangerous disease. More than ninety-five out of every hundred speakers fall victim to it, and once they do, they rarely recover.

What is this disease?

A person learns to speak pleasantly for a few minutes. They address a handful of public meetings. They receive applause from the audience a few times. Immediately, they begin to think they have mastered the art of speaking. They imagine that they have won the support of the people. From there, they conclude that they should become a leader.

Of those who fall prey to this illusion, ninety out of a hundred never amount to anything. Many, after suffering repeated failures because of this ambition, eventually withdraw from public life altogether. A public speaker should never develop such desires or entertain such thoughts.

Anyone who believes that public applause qualifies him to become a leader is, in truth, a fool. He is destroying himself. Public speaking and leadership are entirely different. They have no necessary connection, and they should never be confused.

Leadership is one field; public speaking is another. A leader may become a good speaker because of the responsibilities of leadership. But no one becomes a leader merely because they are an effective speaker.

Many have failed because they did not understand this distinction. People may admire someone as an eloquent speaker, but that does not mean they will accept him as their leader.

Speak with Humility, Clarity, and Responsibility

Those who come to the platform to speak should do so with a sense of caution and responsibility. They should choose their words carefully. They must speak the truth. They should express themselves with clarity. At the same time, they must remain conscious of their own abilities and limitations.

A speaker should never assume that because he possesses some knowledge or ability, he can declare, “This is my opinion,” or “I say this,” as though his words alone carry authority.

To become a good speaker, it is not necessary to have mastered grammar or literature. What is essential is the ability to speak clearly. A measure of intelligence and sound judgment is enough. If one can explain one’s ideas so that people understand them, that is sufficient.

A speaker should not indulge in personal abuse. Even when criticism cannot be avoided, it should be expressed with restraint, precision, and, as far as possible, indirectly rather than through harsh or insulting language.

 

Periyar reflects on his own position

“I am now seventy years old (in 1949). If I happen to use a somewhat improper or slightly offensive word, people are unlikely to become angry or misunderstand my intention. But if the same words are spoken by a young man, a student, or someone who speaks merely for a livelihood, the audience—men and women alike—will regret having come to the meeting and may even walk out.”

Therefore, every speaker must remember that the style and manner of speech should be appropriate to one’s age, experience, standing, and personal character. If a speaker wishes to achieve good results, he must speak with humility and self-restraint. He should present his views as humble opinions rather than as unquestionable truths.

Even those who disagree with him should be able to say, “Poor man, that genuinely seems to be his sincere belief,” rather than feel offended or attacked. Someone writing from the privacy of home may write almost anything. But a public speaker is different. A speaker regularly faces the people directly. Therefore, he must always speak with the awareness that careless words may permanently damage his reputation and cause people to lose respect for him.

A Speaker Represents More Than Himself

In ancient times, communication was largely through verse and song. Prose oratory, as we know it today, scarcely existed. Times have changed. The prestige once enjoyed by singers has diminished.

In the future, Periyar says, public speakers will command greater respect than singers or actors. Given the condition of society, effective public speaking has become an essential necessity.

Even in drama, cinema, and other forms of entertainment, the spoken word now carries greater influence than music or scholarship alone. Nothing equals the usefulness of speech in educating people. For worthwhile social service, good public speaking is indispensable.

A speaker is, in effect, a teacher. He is a guide who helps show people the right path.

The Responsibility of a Public Speaker

Those who aspire to become speakers should always remember this responsibility.

Some people, after learning to speak, become obsessed with promoting themselves. The moment they see a public meeting, they become impatient to get onto the stage. They send notes requesting an opportunity to speak. Some even persuade others to send such requests on their behalf.

At meetings where senior leaders have already been scheduled to speak, they plead for a chance to address the audience and often speak for so long that those who follow are inconvenienced. A good speaker should avoid such behavior altogether.

The Misuse of Popularity

Some people, after gaining popularity through their speeches and becoming known to the public, immediately start newspapers or magazines of their own.

If they are unable to run these publications with dignity and integrity, they begin using them to collect donations. They praise those who contribute and criticize those who do not. They exploit the influence they gained through public speaking for personal benefit. If money is not forthcoming, they even change their principles and convictions.

Such abuses, Periyar warns, often arise when the gift of public speaking is misused.

Therefore, if an irresponsible person—one who lacks integrity, honesty, and a sense of duty—becomes a public speaker, he can become a great nuisance to society. People may eventually regret having encouraged such a person to become a speaker in the first place.

For this reason, choose only worthy individuals. Train only those who possess responsibility and integrity. Let your speeches serve the people more than they serve yourselves.

Conclusion

Periyar’s central message is that public speaking is not a path to fame, power, or leadership—it is a moral responsibility and a form of public service.

Source: Viduthalai – 6th November 1949

- by Modern Rationalist  August 10, 2026