Reassessing Periyar E.V. Ramasamy’s take on Tamil, which he called a barbarian language
Actor and Makkal Needhi Maiam founder Kamal Haasan, in his maiden speech in Rajya Sabha, launched a scathing attack on Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s remarks about Dravidar Kazhagam founder Periyar EV Ramasamy, which once again shed light on one of Periyar’s most controversial claims: Tamil is a barbaric language. The minister had accused DMK leaders of displaying the portrait of a man who described Tamil in such derogatory terms.
Unlike many political figures who reconsidered their stance in the face of public outcry, Periyar remained determined and unapologetic. A rationalist who struggled for self-respect and firmly believed that Hinduism was inherently casteist, he had little patience for Tamil literary texts that in one way or another promoted the idea of God and justified the idea that greatness depended on one’s birth.
A clear defense
He went so far as to pen a detailed statement defending the Tamil designation, expressing his opinion with characteristic frankness. But none of his ideological heirs, except a determined group of Periyarists, were prepared to support such a rigid view. His political successors, including C. N. Annadurai and M. Karunanidhi, moved away from his stance on the Tamil language. TirukkuralAnd SilappathikaramAlthough they also kept their distance from Bhakti literature.
In fact, Karunanidhi took a quite different approach. He wrote the dialogues himself poompuharmovie adaptation SilappathikaramHe erected a statue of Kannagi in Marina, meticulously introduced the ancient Sangam literature and wrote commentaries on this statue. Tirukkural. Thus, the DMK charted a different path, positioning itself as the protector and defender of Tamil linguistic pride and cultural heritage. During his tenure as part of the Congress-led UPA, Karunanidhi secured classical language status for Tamil; this was a turning point celebrated by his party as historical recognition of the antiquity and literary richness of the language. Since then, the DMK has persistently accused the BJP of not providing financial support to Tamil commensurate with the financial support given to Sanskrit, framing the issue as a matter of cultural equality and federal justice.
Yet. It was Periyar who advocated reforms to the Tamil script; these suggestions were formally accepted when MG Ramachandran was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. To support his claim, Periyar referred to the script reforms carried out by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Türkiye. Defending his view, Periyar said, “I have been saying for the last four decades that Tamil is a barbaric language. When the Brahmins and the Brahmin-dominated government tried to impose Hindi as the national and official language, I gave Tamil some leeway to oppose their efforts. Even then I wrote that English was the language that should replace Tamil.” Periyar’s views on Tamil language and literature are examined. Periyar’s Cambridge FriendEdited by AR Venkatachalapathy and Karthick Ram Manoharan. In his article, Periyar’s Interest in LiteratureAntony Arul Valan argues that critics who cite Periyar’s description of Tamil as a barbaric language as evidence of his anti-Tamil sentiment often overlook the larger corpus of writings that contextualize his hyperbole and explain the intellectual underpinnings of his criticism.
In their introduction, Venkatachalapathy and Manoharan observe that Periyar believed that the DMK unnecessarily glorified the imaginary, pristine and ancient Tamil past while compromising pressing questions of caste and gender. Part of Periyar’s complaint was that, in his assessment, 99% of Tamil teachers lacked even a basic knowledge of English. As a result, they remained isolated from global intellectual currents and perpetuated irrationality. “Tamil teachers have a deep belief in religion which makes them superstitious and dogmatic. They are miles away from philosophical discussions,” he wrote. Another of their arguments was that until relatively recent times, teachers of other subjects were predominantly Brahmins, which prevented the development of a rational mentality among students. “Even a student studying science would apply holy ash or Vaishnavite marks on his forehead,” he joked.
‘More barbaric than Tamils’
If he has a good disposition towards any text, it is Tirukkural. But he didn’t even shy away from that. His argument was that although Tiruvalluvar condemned what he called “Aryan barbarism”, he nevertheless succumbed to some elements of it. “We can take solace in the fact that the Aryans are more barbaric than the Tamils,” Periyar said.
Kali Poonguntran, vice president of Dravidar Kazhagam, said Periyar’s concern was that there was not enough literature in Tamil to pave the way for human development and development of scientific spirit. “His aim was not to denigrate Tamil but to turn it into a language of science. That is why he advocated reforming its alphabet,” he explained.
Periyar also made it clear that he held no hatred towards Tamils. “It is my pain that Tamil has not become a language of science and rationalism like English,” he wrote.
Mr. Arul Valan also reminded Ma.Po. Popularly known as Ma.Po.Si. Sivagnanam, known as Sivagnanam, won this title Silambu Selwar because of his scholarship SilappathikaramHe identified two major problems in Periyar’s approach to literary criticism. “Periyar fails to grasp the essential unity of a text—its central core and the way events, characters, and techniques come together to illuminate that core—nor does he understand why reading should revolve around this fundamental theme. He fails to grasp the depth or scope of literary imagination,” he wrote.
However, Mr. Arul Valan responds to Periyar’s criticism. “His critique of these texts was to seek the new – not just to reject the old, although he saw many of them as outdated – but it was also a response to contemporary attempts to put these old ideas in the service of nationalism or tradition,” he argues.
It was published – 20 February 2026 05:30 IST
