I have read or learnt about Vaikom Satyagraha as an epoch-making event in the history of Kerala, and it is there in the background of our thinking as a great step of the region in the direction of egalitarian society. It was all about equal access to public space (specifically around the famous Vaikom temple) to all people without caste distinction. However, the lessons of those days have hardly transferred any bit of the spirit that was in the revolutionaries. We read that almost 50 years after the event, and now we are 'celebrating' its centenary. 

From March 30, 1924 to November 24, 1925! One year, seven months and 25 days. A marvellous saga of perseverance of a group of 'truth seekers' or 'truth clingers' (satyagrahis) with the courage of conviction, fought  and suffered for the ideal  of 'equality'.  I salute the government of those times of Travancore, for it being humane when compared to several modern democratic states which easily wipes out any such protests and protesters. The treatment meted out to the protesters against Silver Line railway, last year, by a democratically elected government, appears cruder than the treatment received by the satyagrahis of those days from an autocratic state under an inherited monarchy. 

The lessons for me from this outing are basically about individuals -- participants, supporters, influencers. 

The first is a set of individuals -- basically belonging to the Indian National Congress of those times -- K. Kelappan (Kerala Gandhi), K.P. Kesava Menon and T.K. Madhavan. While, perhaps none of them was a direct victim of casteist injustice, the latter, the real spirit behind the movement,  definitely bore the brunt of being born into Ezhava caste, on which was enjoined a degree of untouchability. 

The active frontline involvement of leaders who were from the perpetrators of the evil gave strength to the movement. T.K. Madhavan's perseverance deserves appreciation. Failure of his effort in the Sree Moolam Assembly between 1917-20, gave him time to think over, strategize, and get nationwide endorsement in the 1923 Kakkinada Congress, and the support of the state Congress leaders. 

Tributes are due also to the very many nameless volunteers who joined the sit-in day after day, facing the threat of arrest, and yet continued the struggle for over a year. 

The presence of Amchadi Thevan is to be specially noted, conspicuous in the picture of satyagrahis, by the absence of a shirt on him. He is from Poothotta, now part of Ernakulam district, just across the river separating it from Vaikom. Glad to see there are efforts to honour and perpetuate this representative from the Dalit groups of those times.

Today’s beleaguered Congress party should take a cue from the lofty ideals that inspired the party of those times, and reinvent itself from the kind of deplorable mood of dissipation, despair and disunity that envelops the party.  If it were to exist, survive and win, it needs to be of and for the people, and identify the issues that affect people, and ultimately reinvent itself as party standing for justice.

Four stalwarts, noted by their involvement/non-involvement in the satyagraham, were: 

Mahatma Gandhi: His intervention is said to have generated the compromise resolution.  Gandhi’s guidance and his visit had evidently lent it the non-violent strength it possessed. All the same it was a compromise, about which Gandhi too was frustrated. Compromise involved opening three sides of the access roads to all communities, but restricting the eastern access as a privilege for the Brahmins, and the release of the satyagrahis imprisoned. 

However, Gandhi’s challenge to the crown prince to do full justice to the discriminated communities was responded to in earnest, and his voluntary yes, was translated into the Temple Entry Proclamation Act of 1936, 12 years after the struggle, soon after his ascending the throne.  I have only sympathy for Rani Sethu Lakshmi Bayi, who seemed to have been unable to get out of the prison of her hierarchical caste-faith perception, but still was willing to give in, unlike some of the present-day popular governments. 

Though Gandhi's advice to the Christians and the Sikhs involved in the agitation to step out of what was a Hindu affair appears alienating, I feel that it was the safest position in this regard, especially, this having more to do with a practice within a religious community. While hierarchical caste segregation could have been seen as an internal matter of a particular community, when it comes to violating rights of the citizens, it could be a cause for anyone to intervene. 

The case in point had also issues of civil rights of mobility and use of public space.  From this angle, the instruction to the two communities to step out was perhaps not the best counsel. Perhaps, his 'ever growing truth' had not grown enough by then, to give priority to the civil rights aspects over the internal matter of caste issue within the Hindu-fold. 

Sree Narayana Guru: He kept aloof from the struggle, as to him the demand should have been for the entry into the temple itself, with entry being accomplished by any means making it impossible for anyone to observe untouchability. Guru, as ever, was radical, but I feel the radicality should have been in the pattern of his ingenious installation of an 'Ezhava Sivan' rather than of seeking entry into a Brahmin-dominated place of worship. I wonder whether he ever had the desire to be part of the larger-fold, or would rather have preferred to uphold and reinforce the dignity of the unique Ezhava identity. 

The restrictions should have been challenged by assertion of such identity, I feel. It doesn't mean that I am not for the unity of the so-called larger Hindu-fold. Unity is welcome, but should definitely be in terms of equality among all who adhere to the fold.  However, the struggle has led to the various divided castes of Keralam to be united as an organised religion, which was hardly ever the status prior to that. 

(I am not claiming in this matter, Christianity, at least its Indian version, has escaped the crude reality of caste discrimination.  Though, theoretically and theologically, Christianity would not accept caste, and treat it as un-christian, in practice, caste still persists within it.  Nor can one find christian egalitarianism practised anywhere in its perfection.)

E.V. Ramasamy ‘Periyar’: (Then with the Congress party). He joined the agitation with his wife Nagamma. Both were arrested. He earned the title of the ‘hero of Vaikom’ (Vaikom Veeran).  He too was not in favour of any compromise in this regard, and was not happy with the outcome. 

Mannathu Padmanabha Pillai: It is heartening to find the Nair community leader Mannathu Padmanabha Pillai leading people in protest march against the discriminatory practice. He is bold and free enough to criticise the stance taken by the Queen acquiescing to the Brahmins. His involvement as the community leader of a caste group devoid of the sufferings from untouchability is an indicator of enlightened minds in the community, even in those darker days. 

I would also add a fifth person, Barrister George. Personally, I feel good to see this lone Christian name among the leaders. At one point, he was even leading the struggle when all the rest were arrested; his presence indicated the public spirit among Christians.

I marvel at the spirit of justice in the people from Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, cutting across the boundaries of communities, to take the trouble to travel to this Southern tip of India and participate in what they had perceived as a just cause. Though this spirit is prevailing even today, when we compare the mobility and communication facilities of both times, I feel the spirit of solidarity for justice leaves much to be desired today, and need to be promoted by all professing faith in God. 

This movement could be seen as a healthy move from within to purify and refine one's religion and this is expected of every true religion -- as a Church axiom attributed to St. Augustine (4th century) in this connection would read: Ecclesia semper reformanda est -- the Church must always be reformed. 

But the culmination in temple entry proclamation by the young king Sri Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, had also the scheming and intelligent maverick bureaucrat of those times, Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Iyer, (generally perceived as anti-people for his iron-fisted rule), behind it. Sir CP saw that this was in the best interests of the state of Travancore (southern part of the present Kerala) and the king, and also for the larger fold of Hindu community, which might otherwise face a threat of erosion by way of conversion to Islam or Christianity. 

Sir CP’s legal and intellectual acumen made the act possible, ironing out all objections likely to rise from all possible angles, and highlighting the voluntary aspect of the decision as the greatness of the ruler. His unpopularity in the region notwithstanding, his concern for the Hindu community, his knack in foreseeing the trouble, and his loyalty to his employer (the king) deserve respect.

The long-lasting effect it has had on Kerala community is to be recognised. In spite of all my reservations about the state having gone to dogs notwithstanding, from my experience of having travelled and lived in different parts of this country, it could still be rated as numero uno as far as freedom of speech, mobility or expression is  concerned. This is now being increasingly threatened with fundamentalism gaining grounds within religions, neo-revivalist movements within them tending to seek matters that divide than unite among them. 

Perhaps, the dominant manipulative politics of pure convenience, with the sole agenda of grabbing power for pleasure is spreading its tentacles on the religions too, bringing them down to earth, instead of the transcendental plains they should take their adherents to. 
But I do have greater hope in religions, that even with all the genuine as well as unfounded allegations of irreligiosity in them, there is much greater goodness in those circles than what we can find today in the divisive and exploitative political circles. As this episode was ultimately about access to all Hindus without distinction to a Hindu worship-place, I would like to extend the aspect of access.  

Can religions grow to be more inclusive at least to the extent that anyone is welcome to the places of worship, in so far as s/he is not doing anything that is against the decorum of the place?  If the places of worship are thought to be the dwelling place of the divine, then let any seeker be welcome there to experience that.