GENDER IN INDIAN HISTORY – C.

1500-1950

ASSIGNMENT

Impact of the Self-Respect Movement in challenging and dismantling

patriarchal structures in Tamil society

Name: Janice John

Course: BA History Hons
Roll No: 220322
The Self-Respect Movement (Suyamariathai Iyakkam) was launched by Periyar
E.V. Ramasamy Naicker in 1926 to democratize Tamil society. While scholars—
both Marxist and non-Marxist—have characterized it in various ways
(revivalist, pro-British, secessionist, anti-Brahmin, etc.), most studies have
overlooked its consistent struggle against women's oppression and its efforts to
dismantle patriarchy. Even though Marxist scholars like N. Ram and Arulalan
have briefly mentioned this aspect, there has been no detailed and systematic
study of the movement's stance on women's emancipation. This lack of focus
stems from history being written from a male perspective, despite the fact that
women's liberation was central to the Self-Respect Movement's early agenda.

After his break with the Indian National Congress in 1924, Periyar openly
challenged Tamil society’s entrenched institutions, such as religion, caste
hierarchy, and patriarchy. Unlike reformists such as Gandhi, Siddhar, and
Ramanujam, Periyar called for radical reconstruction rather than mere reform.
At the South Indian Reform Conference in 1928, he declared that mere reform
was insufficient, advocating instead for a total break from oppressive
traditions.

Periyar’s approach to women’s emancipation was not limited to conventional

issues like widow remarriage and women’s education, as he believed these did
not dismantle patriarchy’s core structure. Instead, he targeted fundamental
aspects such as the monogamous family system and the norms of chastity
imposed on women. While advocating women’s education, he criticized its
traditional form, which merely trained women to become "qualified
housewives." He argued that education should aim at economic independence
by equipping women for employment rather than preparing them for marriage.

Periyar saw marriage and family as key institutions that enslaved women. At a
women’s meeting in Victoria Hall, Madras (1948), he described marriage as a
master-slave relationship designed to maintain women’s subjugation. He
opposed ritualistic marriage practices, especially the tying of the tali
(mangalsutra), which he saw as a symbol of women’s oppression. Instead, he
advocated for self-choice marriages, free from societal constraints.

He also attacked the idea of chastity, arguing that it had destroyed women’s
independence and forced them into unquestioning submission to men. In his
1928 pamphlet "Penn Yean Adimaiyanal?" (Why Did Women Become
Enslaved?), he criticized the patriarchal ideal of "pativrata" (chaste wife) and
denounced classical Tamil texts like Silappadikaram and Thirukkural for
reinforcing it. As an alternative, he suggested polyandry and divorce as tools
for women's liberation. In 1935, he advocated for divorce rights and
compulsory marriage registration to protect women from oppression.

Periyar also identified language and literature as carriers of patriarchal values.

He pointed out that Tamil lacked terms for the male counterparts of words like
"adulteress" and "widow," highlighting how language reinforced gender
inequality. He coined new words such as "Vidavan" (widower) and
"Vibacharan" (male prostitute) to challenge linguistic bias. He also criticized
Tamil literature for focusing on women’s physical features while ignoring their
intellectual abilities. In a 1946 speech at Tirupattur, he argued that unless
women actively opposed their portrayal in literature, both literary traditions
and their status in society would remain unchanged.

Periyar linked women’s oppression to property control. He argued that in early

societies, before the concept of private property, women were not subjected to
marriage contracts or oppressive customs. However, with the rise of private
property, women were confined within marriages to ensure legitimate heirs for
inheritance.

Periyar believed that private property was a major cause of women's

oppression, as it necessitated the production of heirs, reducing women to
reproductive tools for lineage continuation. He argued that true women's
liberation could only be achieved by abolishing private property. In this context,
Periyar’s advocacy of birth control was significant—he insisted that women
should have the right to decide whether to have children, unlike other birth
control advocates who prioritized family or national welfare.

Periyar strongly criticized Hinduism for legitimizing patriarchy and women’s

subjugation. Addressing women, he emphasized that Hinduism had reduced
them to dasis (prostitutes) of gods, imposing chastity norms on women while
men remained unaccountable. He mocked Hindu gods for being bigamous,
urging women to reject deities who had multiple wives and concubines. He
ridiculed the practice of worshipping stones as gods and criticized Brahmin
priests for reinforcing women’s oppression through religious rituals.

Despite leading the Self-Respect Movement, Periyar did not hesitate to criticize
his own political allies. He condemned Dravidian intellectuals who claimed to
support women’s liberation yet kept their own female relatives confined to
traditional domestic roles. He also criticized the Justice Party ministry for failing
to implement effective reforms for women, particularly their inaction on the
anti-child marriage law. Periyar was also self-critical, acknowledging in an
obituary for his wife Nagammal that he had failed to fully implement his own
ideals of women's emancipation in his personal life.

The Self-Respect Movement took several practical steps to challenge

patriarchy:

The Self-Respect Movement revolutionized traditional Hindu marriage customs

by eliminating religious rituals, the role of Brahmin priests, and the practice of
tying the tali (mangalsutra). These marriages upheld gender equality,
encouraged widow remarriage, and supported inter-caste unions, often being
conducted at times deemed inauspicious by Hindu traditions. To further
empower women, the movement organized conferences that educated them
about their oppression and motivated them to advocate for social change.
Additionally, women played a crucial role in mass protests and public
demonstrations, actively confronting discriminatory practices.

In 1930, several groundbreaking Self-Respect marriages challenged orthodox

traditions and promoted gender equality. One such marriage was that of
Sivagami and Sami Chidambaranar in Erode. Sivagami, a widow from a
conservative Hindu family, faced intense opposition, prompting Periyar to shift
the venue to his hometown to ensure the wedding took place. Presided over by
Nagammal, Periyar’s wife, the ceremony excluded religious rituals. Instead, the
couple exchanged rings, took an oath of friendship and equality, and addressed
each other as comrades rather than husband and wife.

Another notable union was that of Kamalambal and Nallasivan in Nagercoil,

where both partners were widowed and had children from previous marriages.
Held in a cinema hall, the wedding drew a massive crowd of 2,500 spectators.
In a bold move that aligned with the Self-Respect Movement’s stance on
gender equality, the groom transferred property worth Rs. 5,000 to the bride,
reinforcing women’s right to own property. The event was accompanied by
songs, pamphlets, and speeches promoting self-respect marriages and equal
rights for women.

The Self-Respect Movement politicized marriage, turning weddings into public

spectacles to challenge patriarchy and religious customs. Venues were
decorated with movement slogans, such as “Long Live the Self-Respect
Movement.”

The Self Respect Movement demonstrated the immense capabilities of women

in organizing and leading within their communities. Unlike other movements,
where women were often considered supplementary to men's actions, the
women in the Self Respect Movement played an independent and equal role,
showcasing their skills in public oratory and organizing conferences. For
instance, the Progressive Women's Association's conference in Madras in 1938
awarded E.V. Ramasamy the honorific title of “Periyar,” which became a
symbol of his legacy, recognizing his transformative role in South Indian
society.

Women in the movement were not only integral to organizing major provincial
conferences but also held leadership roles within these spaces. In the Third
Provincial Conference at Virudhunagar in 1931, for example, Indirani
Balasubramaniam was elected as a council member. Similarly, during the 1933
Samadharma Party conference at Erode, women like S. Neelavathi and K.
Kunchidam were chosen as Propaganda Secretaries, tasked with establishing
the Self Respect League in rural areas. Other women, such as R. Annapurani
and Ramamirtham Ammal, were also given significant roles as district and
inter-district propagandists. This illustrates the central role women played in
both the organizational and propagandist aspects of the movement.

In addition to participating in non-agitational activities like conferences,

women also took an active part in the movement’s mass agitations. One of the
most significant of these was the anti-Hindi agitation, which lasted from late
1937 until early 1940. This agitation was successful in compelling the Congress
ministry, led by C. Rajagopalachari, to reverse its decision to make Hindi a
compulsory subject in the school curriculum. During the early phase of the
agitation, women members were visible and vocal in public processions,
wearing sarees emblazoned with the Tamil flag and chanting anti-Hindi, pro-
Tamil slogans. These processions were often accompanied by public meetings
addressed by women activists, such as the large gathering at Triplicane beach
on September 11, 1938. Additionally, women activists organized farewell
committees for male comrades being sent to prison, demonstrating their
unwavering support for the cause and their active involvement in the resistance
movement.

As the anti-Hindi agitation grew in momentum, women activists of the Self

Respect Movement became increasingly involved, with many of them willingly
courting arrest. On November 14, 1938, the first batch of five women, including
Dr. Dharmambal, Ramamirtham Ammaiyar, Malar Mugathammaiyar,
Pattammal, and Seethammal, were arrested in Madras. Dressed in sarees
emblazoned with the Tamil flag, they sang Bharathidasan's stirring song,
calling for a Tamil army to protect the language, as they marched in a
procession from Kasi Visvanathan Temple to Hindu Theological School. They
were stopped at various points along the way, where they were garlanded by
supporters. Their act of picketing the school led to their arrest, and they were
sentenced to six weeks in prison. Despite being offered the option of paying a
fine of Rs 50 to avoid imprisonment, the women chose to serve their sentence.
From that point, women activists continued to be arrested at different
intervals, with the final batch of five women detained in September 1939. In
total, 73 women were jailed for their involvement in the agitation, and many of
them were accompanied by their children, with 32 children joining their
mothers in jail. This led to a comment by a Congress ministry member,
sarcastically suggesting that women were being arrested to get milk for their
children in prison. The Madras provincial women's conference in Vellore in 1938
demanded an apology for this remark. The Self Respect Movement’s
newspaper Kudi Arasu extensively covered the women’s involvement,
publishing transcripts of their court statements and photographs. Periyar, the
leader of the movement, was also arrested during the agitation on charges of
inciting women to protest.

A notable exchange took place in court between a female activist arrested for
her participation and a prosecuting inspector. The inspector suggested that she
could avoid punishment if she promised not to engage in such agitations again,
but the activist responded firmly, stating that she and other women were
willing to endure suffering for the progress of their language and nation, and
that their husbands had no right to interfere in their decisions. This exchange
reflects the deep consciousness that women activists had developed about their
rights and their role in the movement.

One exemplary woman from the movement was Moovalur Ramamirtham

Ammaiyar, who was born in 1883 in the Isai Vellalar caste, traditionally
associated with the devadasi system. Ramamirtham Ammaiyar eventually
broke free from the devadasi system, married a musician named Suyambu
Pillai, and became an outspoken advocate for the abolition of the practice. This
led to her ostracism from her community, but she persisted in her activism, first
within the Indian National Congress and later with the Self Respect Movement.
She became deeply involved with the Self Respect Movement after the mid-
1920s, where she became a leading campaigner against the slavery of women,
particularly those in the devadasi system.

Ramamirtham Ammaiyar was a tireless speaker at conferences and was known

for her critique of Hinduism and the way it perpetuated women’s oppression
through the devadasi system. Ramamirtham Ammaiyar also contributed
significantly to the movement’s intellectual output, writing essays in Kudi Arasu
and authoring novels, including Tasikalin Mosavalai Allathu Matipettra Mainer
(The Treacherous Net of the Dasis), which reflected her own experiences as a
devadasi and critiqued the exploitative nature of the system. The novel
highlighted the exploitation of devadasi women by wealthy men and chronicled
the efforts of two sisters to escape the profession and form the Devadasigal
Munnetra Sangam (Federation for the Progress of Devadasis). In her writing,
Ramamirtham Ammaiyar fiercely condemned the ways in which religion and
the state had historically legitimized women’s subjugation. She also wrote a
fictional serial, Damayanthi, in 1945, further exploring issues of women's rights
and oppression.

Ramamirtham Ammaiyar, a relentless activist and writer, eventually left the

Dravida Kazhagam (the new name of the Self-Respect Movement after 1944) in
1949, partly due to her disapproval of Periyar’s decision to marry a young
woman when he was much older. Despite a two-decade-long partnership with
Periyar, she disagreed with his personal decisions and chose to separate from
the movement.

When comparing the Self-Respect Movement's approach to the issue of

women’s rights with that of the nationalist movement, the differences are
stark. The nationalist movement, while mobilizing women in the anti-colonial
struggle, ultimately reinforced the pre-existing patriarchal structures. Women
were placed in the role of preserving the 'spiritual core' of the nation, often
within the confines of traditional domestic duties like motherhood and chastity.
This view was grounded in a new form of patriarchy that allowed women to
participate in public life only if they conformed to these "spiritual" qualities.
Prominent nationalist leaders like Thiruvi Kalyanasundaram advocated for a
model of femininity that emphasized patience, self-sacrifice, and endurance,
which further tied women's roles to motherhood and submission.

In contrast, the Self-Respect Movement, under Periyar's leadership, actively

challenged patriarchal institutions such as marriage, family, and chastity. The
movement advocated for the abolition of the devadasi system and promoted
Self-Respect Marriages, which were an attempt to create a new social order
free from these traditional constraints. However, despite these radical ideas,
the movement itself was not immune to patriarchal tendencies. Later phases of
the Self-Respect Movement began to revert to traditional gender roles, with
women activists being addressed as “mothers” or “sisters,” and their
participation framed in terms of preserving the "chastity" of the Tamil
language. Furthermore, even the Dravida Kazhagam's platform, after its
formation, lacked a specific focus on women's issues beyond urging their
political participation.

Analysis and Conclusion

The Self-Respect Movement’s radical stance on gender and caste reform was
groundbreaking, but its true significance lies in how it framed feminism beyond
mere legislative changes. Instead of advocating for incremental reform, Periyar
and his followers sought to dismantle the very foundations of patriarchy—
marriage, chastity, and religion. One of the most unorthodox aspects of
Periyar’s ideology was his critique of monogamous marriage, an institution that
even many progressive movements have been hesitant to question. By
advocating for divorce and polyandry, he preempted debates that Western
feminism would only later embrace, challenging not just patriarchal control but
also the capitalist structures that reinforce it. Another crucial element of the
movement was its use of language as a tool for deconstructing gender
hierarchies. The invention of words like "vidavan" (widower) and "vibacharan"
(male prostitute) reveals a deep understanding of how language reinforces
societal norms. However, while the movement was radical in its rhetoric, its
later trajectory highlights a familiar paradox: even the most progressive
ideologies struggle to escape ingrained patriarchal biases. The eventual
framing of women’s roles within familial and nationalist contexts, despite
earlier calls for complete autonomy, suggests that radicalism can often be
diluted by social inertia. This contradiction forces us to question whether any
movement can truly sustain revolutionary ideals in the face of cultural and
political pragmatism. The Self-Respect Movement’s legacy, then, is not just in
what it achieved but in the questions it left unanswered—questions that remain
relevant as we continue to grapple with gender, caste, and systemic oppression
today.