Article 6
This is a continuation of E.M.S.’s evaluation of Sri Narayana Guru. Refer to the previous articles in the series for more context.
Reference: E.M.S.’s discussions on Kerala Renaissance and Sri Narayana Guru can be found in his Malayalam works such as “Onnekal Koti Malayali” (1946), “Kerala Malayalikalude Mathrubhumi” (1948), “Keralathinte Desheeya Prashnam” (1952), “Keralam: Innale, Innu, Naale” (1966), “Indian Swatantrya Samara Charithram” (1977), “Kerala Charithravum Samskaravum” (1981), “Kerala Charithram Marxist Veekshanathil” (1990), along with articles, responses, and speeches published in periodicals like Desabhimani Daily, Desabhimani, and Chinta Weekly. These discussions are compiled in the E.M.S. Sampoorna Kritikal (100 volumes).
7. In the book “Indian Swatantrya Samara Charithram”, E.M.S. refers to the activities of Sree Narayana Guru in the nineteenth chapter titled “Hindu Punaruthanam: Desheeyatheyude Vikrutha Roopam – Hindu Renaissance: A Distorted Form of Nationalism”. (Part – 4) The heading clearly reflects his perspective. In the content, examine how E.M.S. evaluates the work of the spiritual leaders who led renaissance in Bharat, such as Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami Vivekananda, Maharshi Dayananda Saraswati, and Sree Narayana Guru.
He writes, ‘The weakness born out of bourgeois nationalism is the restlessness of the Hindu Renaissance.’
“The movements of Jyotirao Phule in Maharashtra and Sree Narayana in Kerala should be evaluated as part of the movement to reform the Hindu community and culture in a bourgeois manner.”
The pictures of these Renaissance greats, who were ‘Hindu revivalists,’ were also included in this chapter.
-
- Brahmananda Sivayogi
-
- Vagbhatananda
-
- Sahodaran Ayyappan
8. In the question-answer section of the Chintha magazine, E.M.S. further elaborates on this stance: “There is no inconsistency in saying that Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who passed away before Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, was a precursor to the bourgeois nationalist movement. Although it was a few decades later, Sree Narayana Guru, who spread the message of social equality from one end of Kerala to the other, and the social reformers who were his predecessors, contemporaries, or successors, were the representatives of Raja Ram Mohan Roy in this region.
A petty bourgeois group that rose from a section of people oppressed under the dominance of caste, lordship, and hegemony. The best representative of the gradual rise of this petty bourgeois class in the middle and large scale is Dr. Ambedkar. A similar phenomenon in Kerala took shape in the form of the social reformers beginning with Sree Narayana Guru.
Those who opposed E.M.S.’s stance, which assessed Gurudevan as a petty bourgeois and a bourgeois social reformer, have had to part ways with the CPI(M). An example is P. Gangadharan.
E.M.S. has accused not only the present leaders of the SNDP but also the founding leaders of the SNDP, Dr. Palpu and Kumaran Asan, of being bourgeois political spokespersons. For example: E.M.S. Sampoorna Kritikal – 77 (Volume – 64).
Stance on the Sree Narayana movement.
Pay attention to the beginning of this article:
“Over the past century, there has been a growing tendency, particularly in Kerala and more specifically in the Thiruvithamkoor (Travancore) region, to portray Sree Narayana Guru as the sole source of the modern renaissance that has emerged in Kerala. As a result, the significant contributions to the Kerala renaissance made by figures such as Brahmananda Shivayogi from South Malabar and Vagbhatananda Gurudevan from North Malabar have not been given due recognition,” writes E.M.S.
Here, two questions arise: Who ‘portrayed Sree Narayana Guru as the sole source of the renaissance’? Is it because someone elevated Gurudeva in such a way that Brahmananda Shivayogi and Vagbhatananda were not given due recognition?
Pay attention to the comparisons in E.M.S.’s books!
E.M.S. writes,
“Although he did not gain pan-Kerala recognition like Sree Narayana Guru, another individual who significantly contributed to the growth of the community is Vagbhatananda Gurudevan, born in the Kottayam taluk of North Malabar. He, who excelled in scholarship and eloquence, surpassed even Sree Narayana Guru in these aspects. Initially through the Brahmo Samaj and later through his own establishment, the Atmavidhya Sangham, he actively worked against caste discrimination, idol worship, alcoholism, and other such practices, and managed to convert even some upper-caste Hindus into his disciples. There is no doubt that he played a very important role in the social development of North Malabar.”
There is no doubt that both these great individuals carried out renaissance activities in their own ways. Both were scholars. However, the relevance and intention behind the comparison that “Vagbhatananda surpassed Gurudevan in scholarship” is unclear. Just like Vagbhatananda, Sree Narayana Guru also had upper-caste Hindu disciples.
The phrase “Shivayogi’s thoughts are a ‘higher philosophy’ than Gurudeva’s” raises the question: Who is determining this?
“The popular movement established by Sree Narayana:
(To be continued…)