Sree Govind Bharatvaraj
In the recent past, the popular filmmaker Ranjith has been overtly criticized as an anti-Periyarist and a Hindutva supporter by Dravidian intellectuals and Periyarists. Starting from senior intellectuals like Suba Veerapandian to young Periyarists, this criticism is framed around Ranjith. But how far this argument is true is a serious one that needs to be analyzed.
Being a staunch Ambedkarite, Ranjith has effectively used the cinematic medium to disseminate Ambedkarite politics in the cultural sphere, which the Tamil masses had never witnessed in cinematic frames before. It is after the arrival of Ranjith, the audience has viewed the “actual” Dalit life world and politics in popular culture. Ranjith has created a market for Dalit life and Ambedkarite politics, which paved the way for other mainstream directors to speak Dalit politics on the screens. Beyond filmmaking, Ranjith also runs various cultural centers, film associations, and publishing houses to advocate Dalit culture and politics.
Ranjith is generally known for his uncompromising political criticism, both in films and in public forums. His critical comment instantly goes viral and turns into political discourse. Likewise, in the recent past, his comments on the Dravidian movement, the DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) party, and Periyar have been taken seriously by the Periyarist groups and Dravidian intellectuals. They criticize Ranjith as an extremist, an identitarian, one who speaks Dalit identity politics, and one who tries to split the ideological solidarity of Ambedkar and Periyar. He is also framed as an anti-Periyarist and BJP supporter.
For instance, after the release of the popular film Maamannan (directed by Mari Selvaraj), Ranjith posted a tweet saying that Maamannan exposed the DMK’s shortcomings in addressing the caste question and revealed the caste practices followed within the party. For which the Dravida Iyakka Tamizhar Peravai, head, and popular Dravidian intellectual, Suba Veerapandian, replied, “Ranjith says only DMK has such problems as if other parties in Tamil Nadu are free from caste issues. Such comments from Ranjith are intentional and toxic in nature.” In another speech, Suba Veerapandian says, “When Ranjith criticizes us, he is very harsh. But when he speaks about actors like Rajinikanth, he is very soft. Interestingly, Rajinikanth is a supporter of Modi and BJP politics. This creates suspicion: who is Ranjith and what politics does he support?” In another interview, Thanthai Periyar Dravida Kazhagam member Manoj said, “Filmmaker Ranjith is politically immature and doesn’t have ideological clarity. He attempts to split the unity of Periyar and Ambedkar, who were seen as two sides of the same coin… Someone has imposed Dravidian aversion on Ranjith’s head. He is an identitarian who attempts to separate Dalit politics from the mainstream radical left.”
But what does director Ranjith actually try to communicate about the Dravidian movement, DMK, and Periyar? In one of his popular speeches, Ranjith says, “We talk about Periyar all the time, but how many of us are actually following Periyar? Do we practice his ideology? The answer is no. Periyar is used here only for ‘namesake’ politics. The politicians who spoke about Periyar have failed to carry forward his ideals to the masses. We are not charged up by his radical ideology. We are just emotionally sensitive to his name.”
Ranjith’s core criticism is that the Dravidian politics, particularly the DMK that followed the trajectory of Periyar, haven’t taken forward his radical ideology to the masses. Thus, despite radical social movements, the caste question was unaddressed, and Periyar’s radical project remains incomplete. This criticism that is posed by Ranjith from a Dalit vantage point is true. Further, this criticism of Dravidian politics was already made by scholars in the field of political science. For instance, Hugo Gorringe, Andrew Wyatt, Narendra Subramanian, John Harris, and Marguerite Ross Barnett have constantly made such comments in the scholarly domain. They have argued that the early Dravidar Kazhagam created by Periyar was a classically modernist movement where self-respect was considered a rigorous ethical principle and anti-Brahminism was declared a movement of rationalism. But the Dravidian party—DMK—that emerged from those ideals deserted the goals of Periyar’s social reformation and made caste a focal point in their politics. They advocated for the Brahmin and non-Brahmin divide to exhibit a commitment to social change. But their leadership and core constituency were drawn from wealthy land-owning communities. The increasing power and caste arrogance of the dominant castes in the villages and other parts of Tamil Nadu frequently culminated in numerous acts of anti-Dalit violence. The leaders of the Dravidian parties failed to address the concerns of the Dalits in most of these cases. Thus, the intensity of caste practices in the Tamil state hasn’t reduced much, even after the radical movement of Dravidian groups. Particularly, Periyar’s anti-caste reformatory ideals were not successfully carried forward in a social setting. What director Ranjith is trying to express is a similar criticism of Dravidian politics as made by the scholars. But he is unfortunately depicted and stamped as anti-Periyarist, or, in the worst case, even as pro-Hindutva.
While the iconoclast Periyar and his Dravidar Kazhagam were socially committed and placed criticisms even on DMK leaders and their party, the present-day Periyarist and Dravidian intellectuals have become loyal supporters of the DMK, defending even the slightest criticism of the party. Most of the Periyarist associations in the present day have become an ideological support system for DMK politics. The criticism of Ranjith by the Periyarist groups needs to be seen from this perspective.
To answer the question whether director Ranjith was intending to split the ideological solidarity of Ambedkar and Periyar, it is essential to observe the following: in a recent interview, a journalist displayed two larger images of Periyar and Ambedkar and asked Ranjith, “If you were about to bring alive anyone among these two, who would you choose?” And Ranjith instantly chose Ambedkar instead of Periyar. The interviewer then replied, “I asked this because you were criticized as an anti-Periyarist.” And Ranjith responded, “I have no issue with the doctrines of Periyar. His ideals have always fascinated me in different aspects. I have never had an anti-Periyar mindset. But I have always projected myself as a staunch Ambedkarite. Here, being pro-Ambedkar is being interpreted as anti-Periyar. And I disagree with that approach.”
What could disturb the Periyarist associations is Ranjith’s overt assertion of Ambedkar more than Periyar. This approach is quite new in the Tamil socio-political landscape. Even mainstream Dalit parties like VCK (Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi) never positioned Ambedkar more primarily than Periyar. VCK leader Thirumavalavan, in all his speeches and party visual representations, always placed Periyar and Ambedkar as equals. But Ranjith’s predominant assertion of Ambedkar over Periyar in the Tamil state, which is perceived as the land of the radical Dravidian movement, disturbs the Periyarist groups and Dravidian intellectuals in the recent past.
But Ranjith’s political assertion and criticism need not be seen as an intention to split Ambedkar and Periyar solidarity. As Ranjith used to say, “Like how a Periyarist will tell me I am a Periyarist and I like Ambedkar. I am telling you that I am an Ambedkarite and I like Periyar. There is nothing wrong with that.”
Ranjith never disregarded the immense significance of Periyar and the participation of Periyarists in a collective social justice battle. Further, he is not an identitarian, as he is well aware of the present political scenario and very clear that the caste question can be addressed fully not by identity politics but by a collective social justice movement, including the radical left.
~~~
Dr. Sree Govind Bharatvaraj is working as a guest faculty member at the Central University of Tamil Nadu, Thiruvarur. He is an ardent researcher whose work broadly focuses on anti-caste studies, social movements, and caste and Dalit representation in popular culture. He currently works on anti-caste cinema trends, both in Tamil films and in Indian cinema. He has published in esteemed journals like South Asian Popular Culture and South Asian Review.
