A grand two-day conference was held at St Antony’s College, Oxford University, on September 4 and 5, 2025, on “The Self-Respect Movement and Its Legacies”. Organised by the historian Faisal Devji and the Sanskrit scholar Jim Mallinson, the conference marked the centenary of the Self-Respect Movement. Participating in the conference, panelists from diverse disciplinary backgrounds spoke about the histories, ideas, theories, politics, personalities, and trajectories of the Self-Respect Movement and highlighted its contemporary significance to Indian as well as international conversations on social justice, federalism, and more. The commemorative address was given by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, M.K. Stalin, who praised the internationalisation of the ideas of the Self-Respect Movement.
At the event, Stalin released two books: The Cambridge Companion to Periyar edited by A.R. Venkatachalapathy and this author, and The Dravidian Pathway by Vignesh Rajahmani. In academia, this is indeed a fine moment to be working on Dravidianism, and the Oxford event highlighted the global nature of the scholarship. There has been an increasing recognition of the importance of the Self-Respect Movement and Dravidian politics beyond the borders of Tamil Nadu. How does Tamil Nadu, with its magnificent temples and joyously celebrated festivals, stave off the BJP’s Hindu nationalist politics from gaining a foothold? How are welfare measures being delivered to the people through an effective public distribution system? Why is its gross enrolment ratio one of the highest in the country? What is the federalism that it defends so strongly? Where has Dravidian anti-caste thought come from and how effective has it been in practice? Who were the key leaders and intellectuals who charted this course? Academics, journalists, and policymakers have taken renewed interest in these questions, and there has been a boom in writing on Dravidian politics in the past decade. The two dissidents from the Congress party who started the movement a century ago might not have anticipated such an impact.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin unveils a portrait of “Periyar” E.V. Ramasamy, at St Antony’s College in Oxford, UK, on September 5, 2025. | Photo Credit: X/@mkstalin
It is common knowledge that the Self-Respect Movement was started by “Periyar” E.V. Ramasamy and S. Ramanathan in 1925 following their differences with the Congress party, mostly about its refusal to give due priority to the problem of caste and its reluctance to support proportional representation. A weekly, Kudi Arasu, was launched in 1925 to articulate non-Brahmin politics. Political non-Brahminism already had a presence in Tamil Nadu since 1916 through the Justice Party. Even before that, a range of Tamil social and religious reformers had been advocating egalitarian anti-caste ideas. Figures like Ramalinga Vallalar, Athipakkam Venkatachala Naicker, members of the Madras Secular Society, Somasundara Naicker, M. Singaravelar, Iyothee Thass, Maraimalai Adigal, Lakshmi Narasu, Subramania Bharathi, and Thiru Vi Kalyanasundara Mudaliar contributed to a lively environment of thinking about caste, religion, language, and identity. They came from different social backgrounds but all felt that much had to be changed in society. In such fertile soil were the seeds of self-respect sown.
A portrait of the poet Subramania Bharathi taken at Bharathi Illam in Chennai. | Photo Credit: N. SRIDHARAN
Suyamariyadhai, or “self-respect”, was a novel concept. The term itself might have been used before but it gained significance as a concept only after 1925. It sought to challenge the major political concept in colonial India, namely swaraj, or “self-rule”. The latter was the mobilising term of the anti-colonial nationalists. This was a clash of what the post-Marxist thinker Ernesto Laclau would call “empty signifiers”. Very simply, empty signifiers are signifiers without signifieds. The word “tree”, for example, is the signifier, while the signified is the object associated with the word, a botanical organism with a trunk, branches, leaves, etc. On the other hand, empty signifiers are words that do not have any specific object corresponding to them. Self-rule or self-respect does not correspond to any specific thing. They can have different meanings according to time and place. But such empty signifiers are crucial to politics.
Also Read | Periyar wins yet more hearts and minds at the 2024 Chennai Book Fair
Empty signifiers are not achieved goals; they are used in politics to address an inadequacy. If self-rule or self-respect are lacking, political formations present their objectives as addressing this lack. Laclau argues that what is said to be lacking, what is absent, becomes the empty signifier crucial to that politics. To the nationalists in the Congress, India lacked self-rule and the fight for that was paramount; for Periyar, Indians lacked self-respect, and suyamariyadhai for him took precedence over swaraj. In an editorial in Kudi Arasu on January 24, 1926, he wrote: “To the person without self-respect, self-rule is useless. But even for a person without self-rule, self-respect is essential. A person without self-respect is a corpse.” In his subsequent writings, he argued that caste, religion, and patriarchy deprived the individual of self-respect, and nationalism was an ideology that masked this.
Suyamariyathai punctured the idea of Kauravam
There was another social notion that self-respect undermined, namely, kauravam. Loosely understood, suyamariyathai and kauravam may appear to be pointing to the same idea of dignity. But kauravam was dignity in prestige, one that could be attained only by establishing superiority over another. In a caste society, kauravam was reserved for the elite landed and/or moneyed communities, which the others had to concede. Suyamariyathai on the other hand punctured the idea of kauravam by lampooning caste-community pride and centring the self-respecting individual.
The Self-Respect Movement and the Dravidian movement had significant overlaps. The “Dravidian” idea took root in modern Tamil Nadu in the late 19th century, following the publication (in 1856) of Robert Caldwell’s A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages. The term “Dravidian” had no political salience or social significance in premodern Tamil Nadu. It was a perspective rooted in a selective reading and subversive misreading of history where the “Aryan invaders” were seen as oppressors and “Dravidian natives” a relatively egalitarian lot. The “Dravidian” of the Dravidian movement was primarily the non-Brahmin of south India, although it was flexible enough to accommodate others too.
Periyar was a key leader of the Dravidian movement but not the only one. Others before him and after him also shaped the Dravidian narrative. It underwent many political changes, giving birth to the various Dravidian parties we see today. But Periyar was the key leader of the Self-Respect Movement, which eschewed political power and focussed on social change. Periyar strongly felt that an electoral political party would eventually compromise with caste.
Who was the subject of self-respect? Which was the “self” the Self-Respect Movement was addressing? Contrary to criticism, it was not limited to the non-Brahmin non-Dalit castes. An individual had to transcend all caste and religious affiliations to attain self-respect. The Self-Respect Movement thus sought to create a civic body of individuals who had cut all ties with what was seen as non-modern communities. They were to be bonded by commitment to certain progressive ideas and goals. The Self-Respect Movement was anti-communitarian; this was both its strength and its weakness. Periyar, in describing himself, described the ideal self-respecter: “I am a reformer of human society. I do not care about country, god, religion, language, or state. I am only concerned about the welfare and growth of human society” (Periyar Kalanjiyam 18, 95). In his life and after, Periyar remained disconnected from any community. The self-respect he promoted was a globally valid concept. Anyone fighting for dignity in any society where it was denied was a potential self-respecter.
Objectives of the Self-Respect Movement
Jaathi ozhippu (annihilation of caste), penn viduthalai (liberation of women), and samathuvam (equality) were three key goals of the Self-Respect Movement, which criticised the defence of Varnashrama Dharma by Hindu conservatives. They were excited when Babasaheb Ambedkar published his Annihilation of Caste in 1936, which Kudi Arasu immediately translated and published on its pages. From its inception, the Self-Respect Movement attacked caste as such, and not just untouchability, and in this it shared much in common with what Ambedkar propounded. The Movement gave unconditional support to his demand for separate electorates.
Also Read | Editor’s note: The other freedom fight
The primary focus of the Self-Respect Movement’s criticism was Brahmins. Brahmins were not only at the apex of the caste system, sanctioned by religion, but their sociocultural power pervaded the political domain, according to the Movement. This led to the Self-Respect Movement’s rhetoric getting labelled as anti-Brahmin. But it would be unfair, and ahistorical, to brand it merely as being anti-Brahmin because the Movement confronted hierarchies and notions of superiority within the non-Brahmin castes as well. Periyar’s documented speeches at caste conferences of intermediate castes criticised notions of caste pride; he urged them to make common cause with the Dalits to demolish the caste system. The Self-Respect Movement defended reservation for Dalits and backward castes and welcomed their active political participation. But annihilating caste would involve tackling other problems as well.
February 2, 1968: Periyar E.V. Ramasamy unveils the portrait of C.N. Annadurai, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu at the Garrison Theatre in Madras. | Photo Credit: THE HINDU ARCHIVES
To the Movement, caste and patriarchy were interlinked. Periyar, however, did not merely see the issue of women’s oppression as a question of rights alone; he foregrounded social, economic, and sexual liberty for women. His libertarian views on sexual relations were unprecedented and continue to evoke harsh reactions. The Self-Respect Movement challenged not only the Hindu idea of pativrata (devotion to one’s husband) but also the Tamil idea of karpu (chastity). They saw these ideas as reproducing caste purity. The Other Half of the Coconut (2003), edited and translated by K. Srilata, is an interesting compilation of women writers associated with the Movement. The diversity of writers and their concerns is noteworthy. The Self-Respecters platformed Muslim women writers such as Alhaj Subako who were critical of patriarchal oppression among Muslims. Women in the Soviet Union and Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey were role models for the Self-Respect Movement. Arriving atsamathuvam, an equal society, was not possible without women’s liberation and the annihilation of caste.
Two other guiding principles of the Movement were samadharmam (socialism; Periyar’s usage of this concept was discussed by the author in the October 6, 2023, issue of Frontline) and pagutharivu (rationalism). The Self-Respect Movement always claimed commitment to socialistic ideals, though it did not articulate a clear theory of what this socialism was and how it could be implemented in practice. Samadharmam was seen as a path for attaining samathuvam, by abolishing varied social hierarchies. What made the Movement’s pursuit of samadharmam different from other socialist groups in the country was its approach to pagutharivu.
The Self-Respect Movement in general and Periyar specifically were ascribed considerable notoriety in their times, and later as well for their criticism of religion. Pagutharivu was incompatible with religious belief and devotion. Like the Madras Secular Society before it, the Self-Respect Movement subjected religion, particularly Hinduism, to extensive criticism. Satires and parodies were used liberally. Gods were ridiculed and often subjected to crude and vulgar humour. The Movement saw religion as a force of evil that duped the masses and benefited a small elite. Its followers attacked the idea of bhakti—not only devotion to god but to language, nation, literature, and even cinema stars. While it was willing to engage with Saivite reformers like Maraimalai Adigal or Kundrakudi Adigal and were eager to platform pro-Buddhist views, the propagation of atheism was an integral part of this social movement, as this alone could effectively challenge caste, which was intertwined with irrational religious beliefs.
Issues persist
The ideas and goals of the Self-Respect Movement provide a useful framework not only to understand its intellectual history but also to gain an insight into how Dravidian politics fared in practice. While one can appreciate the steady progress of Tamil Nadu in multiple socio-economic indicators, it is a reality that the many of the issues that the Self-Respect Movement sought to address still persist. One continuously reads reports of caste violence by members of some backward castes against Dalits. There is visible and risible pride in caste identity. Many castes, including from among the Other Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes, narrate glorious histories for their own communities, competing to show that it is they who are the original, superior caste. At least a dozen castes claim that they have descended from the great Cholas. One sees nauseating sexism celebrated in cinema as well. How do we understand the Self-Respect Movement’s core principles—samathuvam (equality) and penn viduthalai (liberation of women)— in this context? How do we view samadharma (socialism) in a State that takes pride in attracting foreign direct investment and is generally capital-friendly?
Leaders of the Dravidian parties in power have generally scored well in protecting measures for institutional social justice and welfare. Works on policy such as S. Narayan’s The Dravidian Years (2018) and on political economy such as A. Kalaiyarasan and M. Vijayabaskar’s The Dravidian Model (2021) have discussed the extent to which both the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam have been effective in delivering desirable goods and services. There have been genuine attempts to bring about incremental change. For instance, M. Karunanidhi started the Samathuvapuram scheme in villages in Periyar’s honour, creating housing localities that would accommodate members of different castes. The idea was to create fraternity across castes in villages where such divisions ran deep.
Also Read | Samadharma: Periyar’s idea for India
But “caste feeling” has held out much more strongly. And once it became part of the competitive electoral system, no party could afford to take the sort of radical stand on caste, religion, or patriarchy that the Self-Respect Movement took. Few have shown the courage to upset “community sentiment”. The Self-Respect Movement had no such fear when it ridiculed caste identity and pride. Its anti-communitarianism created committed cadres who disowned, and were often disowned by, their communities. But their reach had its limits. A self-respecter would readily assist two lovers marry outside their caste. But should violence follow, they had little resources to challenge it and would have to rely on the law. When the Movement avoided the pursuit of political power, its members also avoided that essential element of politics—the possibility of physical confrontation. It was a movement of ideas, and it fought in the realm of ideas. Its most potent weapon against “irrational ideas” was humour and satire. But, as we know, community sentiment is against critical comedians.
December 24, 1973, the day Periyar passed away, a gathering of prominent leaders of Tamil Nadu, including the then State Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister K. Kamaraj, N.V. Natarajan, P.U. Shanmugham, K. Anbazhagan, V.R. Nedunchezhian, S. Madhavan, and others. | Photo Credit: THE HINDU ARCHIVES
The power of communities remains strong in India, and it greatly influences politics. A caste, linguistic, or religious community translates into a ready-made vote bank. Likewise, in times of gross economic inequalities, communities provide social and psychological succour to many individuals. These fault lines cannot easily be addressed by focussing on liberal values alone. Even the liberal West is witnessing new forms of communitarianism, from majorities and minorities to national, ethnic, and/or religious lines. The individual is under threat from multiple forces; the honeymoon of the idea is over.
Ideas are contested because they do have the power to influence material reality. If caste, religion, and patriarchy can transform according to the times, there is no reason why the ideas of the Self-Respect Movement cannot. At its centenary, the Self-Respect Movement has much to teach the world but also much to learn from global struggles for social, economic, and political justice. It is good that it is leaving the borders of Tamil Nadu and internationalising itself.
Karthick Ram Manoharan is Assistant Professor of social sciences at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. He is the author of Periyar: A Study in Political Atheism (Orient BlackSwan, 2022).
COMMents
SHARE