Counter-Hegemonic Visions of Self-Respect in a Novel: Ramamirthammal’s Challenge to Indian Nationalism

Abstract

Periyar’s Self-Respect Movement challenged the ideological hegemony of the Indian Independence struggle by demanding that equality between sexes and eradicating caste be put on an equal footing with national liberation. The author analyses a chapter in a novel written by Muvalur Ramamirthammal, a reformer from a devadasi community, who joined the Self-Respect Movement and became an ardent abolitionist of the devadasi system. In a dialogue between an ex-devadasi, who is represented as a Self-Respect activist, and a Brahmin man with Indian nationalist views, the former devadasi highlights the Self-Respect Movement’s definition of modern citizenship based on the principles of self-respect and dignity of all beginning with women. The article concludes by discussing the novel's wider connection to the Self-Respect Movement and why further research on both respectively is crucial.

Introduction

The Self-Respect Movement, founded in 1925 by S. Ramanathan and led by E. V. Ramasamy (Periyar), believed that the Indian anti-colonial struggle’s demand for equality among nations would remain incomplete if it did not put equal emphasis on equality among sexes and eradicating caste. Periyar espoused that no hierarchy—colonialism, Brahminism or feudalism—could be eradicated, unless women were treated as equal. He believed that hierarchy was perpetuated through women’s bodies and gender hierarchy normalized all other hierarchies. He put the dignity and self-respect of women at the centre of his Self-Respect Movement.

One of the major sociological changes introduced through the movement was the Self-Respect marriage. Women were motivated to choose partners and, if necessary, divorce them and remarry. Self-Respect marriages were not conducted in Sanskrit, nor officiated over by Brahmins. The Movement promoted contraception and permanent birth control measures. Men were taught that sharing of domestic work and child-rearing were all paths to equality through love. Inter-caste, inter-class, inter-religious marriages and widow remarriages were encouraged.

These ideas attracted women from all walks of life—wage labourers, doctors, teachers, former prostitutes and concubines known as devadasis. ¹ These women worked on issues most closely affecting them—widow remarriage, female literacy, contraception, alcohol prohibition, support to survivors of domestic violence and the abolition of the devadasi system. The Self-Respect marriage was seen as a way to get rid of all outdated systems to control women.

Scholar Mytheli Sreenivas looks at Self-Respect marriage as consciously positing ‘alternative modern and nationalist forms’ of citizenship during the emerging anti-colonial struggle. She asserts that the Self-Respect Movement did not concede, in advance, to Indian nationalism the ‘the language of nationalism, as well as of modernity, progress, and universalism’ or the multiple concepts of a ‘national citizenry, nation and national identity…’ (Sreenivas, 2008, pp. 92–93, Ch. 3).

I seek to analyse the chapter ‘Darkness and Light’ from the Self-Respect novel Dasigal Mosavalai (The Dasis’ Web of Deceit; henceforth abbreviated as DM in this article), in line with Sreenivas’ argument. DM ² was published in 1936 and authored by Muvalur Ramamirthammal, a former devadasi ¹ and one of the Self-Respect Movement’s most prominent activists.

Darkness and Light is structured in the form of a dialogue between an ex-devadasi that became a Self-Respect activist and a rich Brahmin man named 'Minor' (Tamil term for a wealthy heir) who espouses Indian nationalist views. The chapter posits certain Self-Respect positions through the character of the reformer, largely drawn from Periyar, in her discussion with her Indian nationalist interlocutor. The chapter invokes the figure of the devadasi and her connections to the Brahmin as signifying non-Brahmin memory of humiliation by Brahmins. It highlights an alternate conception of relations between men and women, through more equal marriages, as a way of eroding hierarchies in Indian caste society. In doing so, it provides a counter-hegemonic alternative to the side-lining of gender and caste oppression in the mainstream Indian anti-colonial struggle.

The following topics manifest prominently in this chapter: how the chapter references Periyar’s critique of Brahminical patriarchy, how the devadasi’s experience as a devadasi signified a non-Brahmin memory of humiliation and the Self-Respect marriage as a solution. These, together, highlight the movement’s more inclusive understanding of modern citizenship.

The Self-Respect Movement saw the devadasi abolition movement as a twin assertion against caste and gender oppression. It did not want devadasis essentialized as keepers of culture or stigmatized as sexually improper. I discuss how previous scholarship has wrongfully dismissed the devadasi abolition movement as part of a tendency of the Indian middle class during the colonial period to adopt Victorian puritanical morality. When analysed in conjunction with the Self-Respect Movement’s positions on Brahminical patriarchy, marriage, contraception, child-care, work sharing and the Self-Respect marriage, it is quite clear that the devadasi abolition movement was an assertion for equality with dignity.

I delve into the dialogue between the Self-Respect reformer and Indian nationalist to first present Periyar’s critique of Brahminical patriarchy, second to highlight the non-Brahmin memory of humiliation through the devadasi system and, finally, to offer the Self-Respect marriage as a way of ushering in a more just social order.

I conclude by discussing the novel’s wider connection to Self-Respect discourse, how it argues for the Self-Respect marriage as a solution to both the devadasi question and the problems of Indian patriarchy, and why further research on both the novel and the Self-Respect Movement would be valuable.

Historical Context of Devadasi Abolition

Deva-dasis (God’s handmaidens) were hereditary female artistes from selected dominated caste groups who were groomed for temple performances. They were dedicated to a temple and a ritual was performed to marry them to the presiding deity. Kings, zamindars (titled landowners) and priests who controlled the temple trusts exploited some of these artistes as their personal concubines. Over time, girls from these castes were simply prostituted. A few remained accomplished artistes, but the majority were treated as sexual objects and subject to violence and indignity by their protectors. Today, there is a pipeline from these caste ghettoes to the brothels of India.

When Periyar campaigned actively for an end to the devadasi system, the majority of devadasis were completely dependent on the whims and favour of their patrons, as they were unable to choose other occupations or fight against their subjugation. Their agency over their lives and art had long disappeared as decadent zamindars treated them primarily as sex objects and only secondarily as artistes. Periyar wrote:

The fact that, in the name of a temple or a god, some women are kept as common property is an insult to all the women in the society… They aren’t allowed to have any desires, any freedoms….

— (Gopalakrishnan, 1991, p. 32)

As a result of his position, thousands of devadasis joined the Self-Respect Movement, including writer Muvalur Ramamirthammal and Dr Muthulakshmi Reddy, a social reformer who became the first woman Legislator in British India. While Ramamirthammal was a former devadasi, Reddy was the daughter of a former devadasi. They had both experienced the double jeopardy of caste and gender inside the devadasi system and campaigned with Periyar for the first Devadasi Abolition Bill.

Dr Muthulakshmi Reddy recounts in her memoir—My Experience As a Legislator—the positive response her proposal received from various devadasi communities in Cochin, from members of the Telugu Kalavantulu (Arudra, 1990) community and from Erode Municipality.

Some scholarship dismisses the devadasi abolition movement as a tendency of the Indian middle class to identify with the morality of the British colonizers. ³ In a similar vein, contemporary scholars (Kannabiran & Kannabiran, 2003; Srilata, 2003; Sreenivas, 2011) say Ramamirthammal’s novel, though written by a devadasi and a leading figure in Self-Respect Movement, is part of a middle-class trend to marginalize anything perceived to be sexual improper.

Contrary to literature referenced above, I claim that one cannot reduce the devadasi abolition movement or this novel as representative of a victorian puritanical morality alone, especially if we give credence to the progressive Self-Respect discourses present in it. While some work has been done on the progressive Self-Respect aspects of DM and the Self-Respect Movement’s positions in the devadasis abolition debate (Anandhi, 1991; Geetha, 2011; Sreenivas, 2011), there is still a paucity of analyses of the novel’s assertion that the devadasi system should be abolished and replaced with the Self-Respect marriage. ⁴

This is why I focus on the chapter ’Darkness and Light’. This chapter references Self-Respect theorizing and critiques of Brahminical patriarchy, discusses non-Brahmin memory of humiliation in Indian caste society, and advocates Self-Respect marriage as a solution to destroying the traditional hierarchies of caste and gender.

The Novel and the Chapter ‘Darkness and Light’

DM tells the story of the many ways two devadasi sisters, named Kantha and Ganavathi, pursue money and status in their efforts to seduce wealthy zamindars. Their attempts are thwarted by two other women, one an ex-devadasi who has decided to marry, named Gunabusani, and the other a young zamindar’s new bride named Gnanasundari. At the conclusion of the novel, the two devadasi sisters stop ‘weaving’ their ‘web of deceit’, become friends with the zamindars’ wives and together compel the zamindars to respect all women. The main characters begin participating in the Self-Respect Movement (Sreenivas, 2011, p. 76).

In the chapter, ‘Darkness and Light’, Minor, a wealthy Tamil male heir and Brahmin with a licentious tendency, finds out that the address in Madras given to him on a train by two devadasi sisters, Ganavathi and Kantha, is not their real address. Eventually, someone tells the Minor to go to the house of a man named Sivaraman and his wife, Gunabusani, a former devadasi who has been ‘reformed’ after marrying her husband and becoming a Self-Respect activist (Ramamirthammal, 2003). The focus of this chapter is on the conversation between Minor and Gunabusani. It is framed as a dialogue between an Indian nationalist, represented by Minor, and a Self-Respect activist, embodied in the character Gunabusani (Ramamirthammal, 2003, pp. 60–77).

Within this framing, Gunabusani’s conversation with the Minor touches on social topics such as how marriage is structured in Indian caste society and how, in Gunabusani’s view, it ought to be done in a more ‘Self-Respecting’ manner, which refers more to the egalitarian ideals of the Self-Respect Movement and less the puritanical morality of the colonial Indian middle class as will be demonstrated below. She highlights the irony of the assumed divinity of devadasis, the myriad oppressions Brahmanism spawns and more. For example, at one point, the Minor states the following, ‘Is it right to criticise the traditions of marriage set up by our forefathers? Alien practices cannot be imposed on our religious traditions and culture’ (Ramamirthammal, 2003, p. 67). This statement clearly invocates the nationalist inner-outer distinction, as discussed in Chatterjee’s (1990) work. ⁵

In response to this, Gunabusani goes into a tirade against ‘Indian tradition’ as a basis for ethics and society, proclaiming that ‘men [like the Minor] act modern imitating western practices, but when it comes to marriage you treat it as part of our country’s ancient culture’ (Ramamirthammal, 2003, p. 67).

Analysis of Darkness and Light

I analyse three aspects at work in this chapter that constitute some of the themes of Self-Respect discourse:

Periyar’s theorizing and critique of Brahminical Patriarchy’;

Self-Respect invocation of devadasis as signifying non-Brahmin memory of humiliation by Brahmins; and

Self-Respect companionate marriages as a progressive alternative to traditional Hindu marriages.

Theorizing and Critiquing Brahminical patriarchy

The first time the Self-Respect critique of Brahminical patriarchy is discussed is when Gunabusani states, ‘Everyone clings to Ramayana, but do they behave accordingly? If we are to talk of the ancient practices of dasis, prostitution must have started when compulsory marriages came into being’ (Ramamirthammal, 2003, p. 67). The mention of ‘compulsory marriage’ is the key term here that marks this sentence as referring to Brahminical patriarchy and Brahminical conceptions of marriage. However, this is only comprehensible against the background of a Self-Respect conception of Brahminical patriarchy.

Periyar theorizes that the norms and characteristics of masculinity and femininity formed within a social and economic system that had been constituted to overwhelmingly favour the male and ‘[mandate] a law of the father’. Thus, economics, masculinity and the priesthood establishment were interconnected as they served to uphold this patriarchal socio-economic system. This part of Periyar’s writings seems to echo Engels’ work in The Origin of the Family Private Property and The State. However, Periyar reworks Engels’ concepts within the particular context of Hindu caste society.

In line with Engels, Periyar asserts that a woman was taken as a wife into the household once a man had successfully established his rights to private property. This allowed the man to have the woman provide him with services for the protection of his property. He would have exclusive sexual claims on her, and she would give him inheritors in the form of progeny, as custodians of his property. This led to the norm of chaste wifehood, virtue and ideal motherhood. Due to praise for these roles and destinies, women internalized these values and saw these as their rightful place in society. This in turn enshrined their subjugation and created an inegalitarian social system. It enabled some to accumulate wealth while others were forced to work for approval.

Periyar notes the particular significance of motherhood in caste society. Women are taught via religion the ‘desire for progeny’ who would inherit the man’s name and wealth. With these conditions in place, though the material historical reasons for desiring children receded from the memory of the community, the ideological religious reasons created by Brahmins took hold over the Hindu male mind. Motherhood was increasingly reified as it became integral to reproducing an inegalitarian social order both in this world and the next.

In addition to constructing female sexuality to submit to caste norms and private property regimes, Periyar asserts that this Brahminical patriarchy was reinforced by the institution of marriage. Here, Periyar links the subservience suffered by the lower castes and the subjugation of women. According to Periyar, marriage disciplines and regulates the familial and reproductive labour of women, thus ‘actively [denying] their desires and rights to a self-respecting life of their choice’. No matter what class or caste, the ‘bond of marriage’ inevitably makes a woman her husband’s slave and property (Geetha, 2002, pp. 90–91), and this material relationship finds ideological expression in Hindu conceptions of marriage according to Periyar. For instance, in the ‘olden days’, marriage invitations had names such as ‘Kannikadana Muhurtham’, ‘Tara Muhurtham’, or ‘Vivaha Suba Muhurtham’. Basically, Periyar puts forth these names as titles for traditional Aryan-Brahmin rituals that would treat women, usually virgins, as ‘giftable commodities’ in the process of a marriage. As gifts, this means women are essentially property with which the husband may do as he pleases and, thus, slaves (Ramasamy, 1983, pp. 14–15).

Therefore, what we have seen above is a theory which enumerates how Brahminism rests on patriarchy and the ways the two work together to produce networks of power that create and maintain women in a subordinate position both materially and symbolically in the form of a ‘compulsory marriage’. In this regard, Ramamirthammal represents herself briefly in this chapter through the character of Gunabusani in order to set forth Periyar's theorizing of Brahminical patriarchy (Ramamirthammal, 2003, p. 67).

Another example in this chapter of the Self-Respect critique of Brahminical patriarchy, is Minor’s response to Gunabusani’s remarks on traditional Hindu marriage. Minor invokes Brahma to defend the traditional Hindu marriage, saying it is ‘divinely ordained’, and that ‘Brahma decides marriages’ and that ‘brahmins [with] divine qualities’ bless the Thali (traditional Hindu bridal necklace). Gunabusani retorts that if ‘Brahma was such a great god…then he would have made man and woman equal partners’ (Ramamirthammal, 2003, p. 67). In making this statement, Gunabusani questions the greatness of the Hindu god Brahma who sanctions and promotes the inherently inegalitarian nature of Hinduism. She then goes on to say that the definition of marriage as ‘divine’ according to the Hindu tradition is an ideological illusion. It only serves to maintain woman’s subservience to man and ‘earn money for brahmins’ since they are the only ones allowed to officiate over the rituals that sanction these traditions (Ramamirthammal, 2003, p. 67–68).

Memory of Humiliation of non-Brahmins by Brahmins

The second aspect of this chapter that I discuss is how devadasis signify non-Brahmins’ memory of humiliation at the hands of Brahmins and Brahminism. Early on in Minor’s conversation with Gunabusani, Minor tells Gunabusani that he has spent much time with devadasis, that his wife is ugly compared to devadasis, and that no man in their right mind could tolerate being with an ugly wife after experiencing ‘the bliss of being with a dasi’.

Gunabusani challenges Minor’s perception of devadasis as well as the low view of his own wife. Minor tries to stand his ground asserting, ‘It is not right to compare Dasis to other girls. Dasis are from heaven and have that divine quality’. Gunabusani ridicules the Minor for thinking that Dasis are divine in anyway (Ramamirthammal, 2003, pp. 63–64).

Then, she goes on to criticize the men of devadasi community for standing by and watching the exploitation of their sisters, wives, daughters and mothers:

If you want to abuse someone you say you son of a whore and he is infuriated. But the male lions born to devadasis do not care. If they did, would they let their womenfolk carry on prostitution and stand by watching quietly? There are crores of poor people in the world, do they send all their women into prostitution? Can’t you see that this community is evil? (Ramamirthammal, 2003, p. 64)

The tendency in the scholarly literature on the issue of devadasi abolition in India has criticized such rhetoric as symptomatic of a puritanical morality among the Indian middle class in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (de Bruin, 2004; Kannabiran, 1995; Kannan, 2016; Sreenivas, 2011). However, given the fact that the above passage is taken from a Self-Respect novel, attributing such rhetoric to puritanical morality is only one side of the story. After all, the above passage is clearly an expression of how some devadasis represented their experience as non-Brahmin memory of humiliation by Brahmins and Brahminism.

In order to comprehend this implicit theme as being present in passages like the one above, some historical background on the Self-Respect position in the devadasi abolition debate is required. In relation to the devadasi abolition debate and the kind of positions that emerged within it, the Self-Respect Movement was radical compared to Indian nationalists’ responses to the same matters. When Dr Muthulakshmi Reddy introduced her Devadasi Abolition Bill in 1930, a very protracted and intricate discussion on the rights and status of devadasis came about, especially in the Self-Respect camp. Self-Respecters saw the bill as being against ‘caste-sanctioned sexual servitude’. They believed that the devadasi system was a ‘system of sacred prostitution…imposed on women from the non-Brahmin castes…’ (Geetha, 2011, p. 37).

Historically, no Brahmin woman became a devadasi. Only women from non-Brahmin, more precisely Shudra ⁶ castes, were dedicated as devadasis (Chakravarti, 2013, p. 89). Thus, the very term ‘dasi’ meant both enslavement and dishonour; devadasis were concrete manifestations of an original dishonour that Shudras suffered under Brahmin domination. Shudras were considered ‘sons of fallen women’ and dishonoured through induction into a caste-based ‘system of sexual slavery’ into Brahminical discourse (Geetha, 2011, p. 37).

Given this memory of humiliation, the figure of the devadasi was perceived by non-Brahmins as the ‘quintessential Shudra woman, ordained to serve the upper castes’ (Chakravarti, 2013, p. 89). Self-respect activists were infuriated by how ‘sexual and caste voyeurism’ was sanctioned by the devadasi system. She had to meet the gaze of her upper-caste patron and satisfy his desire. She had to reduce her personhood in her limited agency to ‘lure’ men. Gunabusani’s statements in this chapter put forth by Ramamirthammal give the Self-Respect position of the devadasi’s agency (Geetha, 2011).

Self-respect Ideas of Marriage and Companionship in Dasigal Mosavalai

The third aspect I discuss from this chapter is the topic of marriage and its restructuring in a Self-Respect fashion to combat Brahminical patriarchy. Early on in his conversation, Minor asks Gunabusani whether devadasis can desire the same man continuously, even if he loses his wealth. In other words, can a devadasi ‘fall in love’ and be devoted to one man contrary to their tendency to court men due to the latter’s material wealth. He asks this because he himself thinks that the devadasi sisters he encountered earlier on the train to Madras were ‘good women’ unlike other devadasis (Ramamirthammal, 2003, p. 66). In response, Gunabusani asserts that men and women ‘have the same natural desire’ and devadasis do ‘choose one man as an intimate companion’ while simulating love with others in exchange for some sort of payment as per her vocation (Ramamirthammal, 2003, p. 66).

Gunabusani goes on to talk about how love ought to be and what prevents love from persisting. She states, ‘Whatever the caste, if a man and woman love each other and are faithful they will never be separated’ (Ramamirthammal, 2003, p. 66). Here, the author refers the capacity of real love to transcend caste divisions. However, Gunabusani asserts, ‘But today love is not found either in marriages or a dasi’s house. It is only when marriages for love become common practice that this feeling of distaste for one’s wife, hankering after other’s wives, visiting dasis etc. will disappear’ (Ramamirthammal, 2003, p. 66).

When Gunabusani talks of ‘marriages of love becoming common practice’, she speaks against the background of the wider practice of the Self-Respect marriage.

Periyar saw Self-Respect marriages as an important step in liberating women from Brahminical patriarchy, and many of his speeches at the marriages he attended outlined his theories of love, marriage, conjugality and divorce. Since Self-Respect marriages turned the traditional private ceremony into an occasion for ‘public homilies’, they disentangled marriage from domesticity and, moreover, opened the space for public criticism of domesticity. As voluntary unions, Periyar insisted Self-Respect marriages allow divorce. He thought that women would have to practise polygamy when becoming afflicted with an unhappy marriage if a provision for divorce was not allowed since the lack of an option for divorce affected women more adversely than men.

While the Self-Respect marriage did much to lessen the grip of the oppressive features of ‘traditional’ marriage, its primary virtue was how it conceptualized women as people and citizens rather than wives or potential mothers. This type of marriage construed women ‘as equal subjects with equal rights to property and power in the household and outside of it’. This meant that women did not need to proffer themselves as ‘mere adjuncts of men and bearers of their seed’. Hence, immense political importance was accrued to Self-Respect marriages as they allowed women to see ‘motherhood as a choice rather than their destiny’ (Geetha & Rajadurai, 2011, pp. 403–404).

It was this transformation of marriage into a ‘matter of individual choice and desire’, and a social contract, that allowed women to concretely and boldly challenge nationalism, caste and patriarchy. Because women could marry whoever they wanted within the arrangement of the Self-Respect marriage, the caste Hindu family seemed exposed to withering away over time. Moreover, structures of caste appeared threatened since giving women the choice of constituting their own identity ‘in freedom, in self-respect, and on the basis of a chosen reciprocity’ weakened caste identity as it was located in women’s bodies and sacralized within ‘strategies of control and discipline’ (Geetha, 1998, p. 12). Hence, when Ramamirthammal, through the character Gunabusani, talks about how love cannot be found in ‘marriages or a dasis’ house’, she is referring to the hierarchies of caste and gender one would find in patriarchies of this period, whether traditionalist or modern Indian nationalist. When Gunabusani goes on to assert that the solution is having ‘marriage for love [becoming] common practice’, she is actually referring to the egalitarian nature of the Self-Respect marriage as it was practised where women could live their live as ‘subjects’ equal to men beyond conceptions of wifehood and motherhood constructed by forces of Brahminical patriarchy.

Conclusion

To conclude, I first discuss how Ramamirthammal’s position constitutes what Pandian has defined as the transitive critique put forth by the Self-Respect Movement. I then go on to argue that the novel advocates for a Self-Respect form of marriage as a counter-hegemonic solution to the issues of the devadasi system and reform of Indian society more widely. Lastly, I recommend points in both DM and the Self-Respect Movement that future scholarship should further analyse and discuss.

In the chapter ‘Darkness and Light’, the character Gunabusani makes connections between devadasis, Brahmins and Brahminism and Indian nationalism as all aspects of the system of caste, gender and class oppression in Indian society. As demonstrated above, the primary ways she does this is through a manifold of references to Brahminism, Brahminical patriarchy and non-Brahmin memory of humiliation in Indian caste society. All such discursive themes collected together mirror what Pandian has described as the ‘transitive critique’ employed by Self-Respect Movement.

By ‘transitive’, Pandian refers to how the ‘Orientalist conception of Hinduism’ provided the basis for a ‘new critique of Brahmin power’ (Pandian, 2007, p. 187). The ‘eliding of Hinduism, Brahmin and nation’ allowed a particular critique of the Brahmin to rise in the Tamil region in the 1920s, which thought of all three elements as constituting the figure of the Brahmin. This transitive critique, propagated by the Self-Respect Movement, meant that putting forth one of the above elements could ‘produce a network of references to other elements through a set of discursive associations’ (Pandian, 2007, pp. 187–188). In other words, each element could ‘stand-in’ for the other; for example, a critique of the ‘Indian nation’ could be seen and comprehended as also a critique of Hinduism and the Brahmin (Pandian, 2007, p. 188).

Such a transitive critique is precisely what is at work when Ramamirthammal evokes references to the Self-Respect critique of Brahminical patriarchy and non-Brahmin memory of humiliation in the chapter ‘Darkness and Light’. Within the structure of the chapter, such sets of discursive associations serve to identify that devadasis and the devadasi system are not an isolated issue but part of a wider system of oppression.

Gunabusani’s concurrent use of the terms ‘prostitution’ and ‘compulsory marriage’, when she asserts, ‘If we are to talk of the ancient practices of dasis, prostitution must have started when compulsory marriages came into being’ serves to link Brahminical patriarchy to the non-Brahmin memory of humiliation by being prostituted through the devadasi system.

The second conclusion I draw in my essay is on the significance of the chapter’s advocacy of the Self-Respect marriage. Tied to men through relations of mutuality and free to construct themselves as they want within the frame of the Self-Respect marriage and the Self-Respect Movement more generally, a new identity came into being for women: that of the citizen. According to Geetha, this citizen was the ‘woman of civic virtue’, one who could assert and act on an identity that neither inferiorized her with respect to men nor construed her as ‘essentially different from them’.

The idea of citizenship as it was shaped and refined by self-respecters, for both women and men, was a complicated one. Certainly, given the movement’s concrete sociopolitical struggles for the rights of Adi Dravidas, women and others prevented from living a life of self-respect, legal identities are implicitly included in the Self-Respect idea of citizenship. However, the Self-Respect Movement envisioned creating a new republic through a more comprehensive ideal of citizenship. This ideal would not only significantly affect the structure and processes of the state but society as well; it signified and advocated for a dedication to deconstructing ‘caste, wily faith, and gender differences’.

Along these lines, citizenship was to constitute fresh modes of individual and communal relations that were undergirded by mutuality and self-respect. It was to signify ‘new structures of feeling’ that included women and men in relationships that permitted, in Geetha’s view, ‘a felicitous and complex interplay between reason, emotion, desire, freedom on one hand and which established comradeship in love, as in politics, as the basis of the new community, on the other’ (Geetha, 1998, pp. 12–14).

It is in the above Self-Respect idea of citizenship that Ramamirthmmal’s advocation of Self-Respect marriage within the chapter finds its significance; for instance, recall what Gunabusani says to the Minor, ‘…today love is not found either in marriages or in the dasi’s house. It is only when marriages for love become common practice that this feeling of distaste for one’s wife, hankering after other’s wives, visiting dasis etc. will disappear’ (Geetha, 1998, pp. 12–14). In addition to what was said above about this quote, what is more apparent now with the above Self-Respect idea of citizenship is how Ramamirthammal believed the oppression that women faced within Indian caste society could only be solved through a new configuration of their subjectivity that was cognizant of the complex nature of desire and gave them the freedom to live lives beyond the confines of traditionalist roles as wives and mothers.

In terms of further work on Ramamirthammal’s novel in particular and the Self-Respect Movement more widely, I believe that future scholarship should examine to what extent certain themes of the movement, whether it be the critique of Brahminism and Brahminical patriarchy, the Self-Respect marriage, and more, was partly a counter-hegemonic response to Indian Nationalist conceptions of citizenship, the Nation, modernity, progress and so on as Sreenivas has asserted elsewhere (Sreenivas, 2008).

In this vein, I have sought to provide an analysis of the chapter ‘Darkness and Light’, which was explicitly constructed, as demonstrated above, to be a dialogue between Minor, a character with Indian nationalist positions, and Gunabusani, his Self-Respect activist interlocutor and how some of its primary themes were the theorization and critique of Brahminical patriarchy, devadasis as signifying non-Brahmin memory of humiliation and the Self-Respect marriage as a proposed solution to deconstructing hierarchies and oppression within Indian caste society.

I believe further work on the Self-Respect Movement is not only valuable academically but also politically. It would allow us to seriously consider past alternative visions of the nation, citizenship, universalism and other such characteristically modern concepts from the history of modern India. Such an endeavour seems all the more pressing as Hindutva and Hindu nationalism seems to be installing itself as the hegemonic identity and ideology of India in the wake of the collapse of secular Indian nationalism. It too rests on patriarchy.