Locating the Social: Revisiting Caste and Conversion in Meenakshipuram

Soon after the mass conversion, members of Hindutwa organisations including VHP and Arya Samaj and people like Hindu right Wing leader and then opposition party’s leader Atal Bihari Vajpeyee and then central minister Yogendar Makwana came to the village for analyzing the causes of conversion and tried to get them back by offering homes, land and equal position. But only a few people returned to their old religion (Thirumavalavan 2018). (Hindu Munnani an outfit of RSS was formed in Tamil Nadu in 1982 as a response to Meenakshipuram mass conversion of Devendra Kula Vellars to Islam)

Azhar Ali| Kalpeta| 04-7-2020 Bilal Muhsin|Eranakulam

Religious conversion and subsequent change in faith require a large amount of mental and physical transformation. It is an act of total shift not only in terms of faith but also in terms of one’s perceptions of his/her surroundings, fellow peoples and other species. But most importantly conversion changes ones perception of one’s own self.

The act of religious conversion, in India is different and in a way unique from rest of the world because of the caste based social structure. Historically, conversion in India is considered as a form of social protest against caste system and a tool of social mobilization. Conversion, in India happens as a site of social protest where the conversion of individual or group of people takes place as a reaction to social injustice or oppression.

Religious conversion, especially conversion into Islam has always been an issue of contention for Hindu Nationalists since the colonial period, specifically in South India. Dr. Hadiya’s case in Kerala brought in the discourse of the ‘legitimacy’ of religious conversion. Dr. Hadiya, earlier Akhila, converted to Islam from Hinduism and married Shafin Jahan through a decent affiance. But the High Court of Kerala suspended their marriage by accusing it to be a case of persuasion and ordered to keep Hadiya in house arrest. There were lots of debates that took place in Kerala public regarding conversion and ‘Love Jihad’. But later, the Supreme Court suspended the High Court’s judgement and stood by her decision to live with Shafin Jahan.

Another incident that happened in Kerala is the dispute surrounding the death and cremation of Najmal Babu. T.N Joy, became Najmal Babu after embracing Islam in 2015. He enunciated, publicly in a press meet, that ‘becoming Muslim’, is the ultimate solidarity towards Muslims in a Fascist era. Joy was a prominent figure in Kerala cultural and literary realm and a former Naxal leader. His everlasting wish was to cremate him in Cheraman Juma Masjid and he wrote for permission to the Imam of Cheraman Masjid three years before he embraced Islam. But when he died, his death wish was denied by his family members and his dead body was burnt according to Hindu rituals. The disputes that came out during Hadiya’s marriage as well as Najmal’s death shed light to the inability of secular-liberal narrations in locating the real question.

The existing literature in India on Dalit conversion is mainly located around the discourses of social mobility in which the notion of social mobility is kept as the reference point of most of the conversion studies. This study is based on our field work in a small village of Tamilnadu- Meenakshipuram, where a large number of villagers converted into Islam in February 1981. This paper tries to view conversion as a method of complete separation from the ‘Social’ in Hindu social order through considering oneself as a ‘liberated body’. Here, we intend to locate the communitarian existence of converted bodies and its socio-political dynamics through the direct narrations of the converted people.  Theology itself is understood through the narrations of the converted people and their interpretations of the sacred texts.

Meenakshipuram Conversion

Meenakshipuram is a small village located in Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunalveli district. Meenakshipuram conversions happened on 19th February 1981 where 180 families from Pallar community converted to Islam (Kalam 1990) as a reaction to the oppressions of Tevars-the caste Hindus. The incident gained larger media and political attention not only in Tamilnadu, but also all over the country.

Soon after the mass conversion, members of Hindutwa organisations including VHP and Arya Samaj and people like Hindu right Wing leader and then opposition party’s leader Atal Bihari Vajpeyee and then central minister Yogendar Makwana came to the village for analyzing the causes of conversion and tried to get them back by offering homes, land and equal position. But only a few people returned to their old religion (Thirumavalavan 2018). (Hindu Munnani an outfit of RSS was formed in Tamil Nadu in 1982 as a response to Meenakshipuram mass conversion of Devendra Kula Vellars to Islam)

Apart from going through the historical accounts of the conversion, we would like to focus more on converted people and their narrations about conversion in this article. The people from Devendar Kulala Vellalar (Pallar) community did not seek any governmental beneficiaries through conversion, instead they were well aware that they will lose the present concessions that they gets from the government, because many of them were well educated and fully aware of constitutional rights(Mathews 1982). George Mathew writes “According to the prevailing rules, SC converts will lose concessions which they normally receive from the government. In Tamil Nadu the Muslim converts will lose free education up to post matric stage, scholarships from Central and state governments for higher studies, books and special hostel facilities, quotas in educational institutions, reserved government jobs, quicker pattas for land and grants and loans for houses and agriculture. Those who converted were aware of the fact that they would lose the concessions enjoyed as dalits. But for the community now, human dignity was more valuable than concession”.

Our journey to Rahmathnagar was on 16, 17 October 2017 as a field visit for our college magazine. We reached the village 16^th morning and spend two days there.    In addition to the loss of governmental concessions, the people of Meenakshipuram were suffering from various socio-political complexities including media hunting. When we were entering the village for our field visit, the villagers suddenly surrounded us because they thought we were journalists. Their explanation for such behaviour was that the media was fabricating them as criminals and ill-affected people and because of this experience; they were not allowing journalists into the village^.

The geographical features of the village must be noted here. The village started with a Koil (Masjid). The space that the Masjid was located is the location in which people used to assemble during their conversion. Until then the Temple was their location for assemblage. According to the people of Meenakshipuram the change from Temple to masjid was a radical transformation from an enslaved location under caste elites into a free space for expressing themselves. The Masjid is situated inside a compound which is protected by a stumpy wall. The village Madrassa is also located inside the compound, along with the Masjid. The Masjid has a separate wall, inside this small wall there is a yard filled with bricks. On the left, there is space for Wudu (Ablution). The Masjid of the village is relatively small and the Imam in charge is from another village and he leads prayer five times. During the day time, only four or five people participate in jama’ath (collective prayer) because of the unavailability of villagers. The Imam told us that there would be more people in evening prayers.

The village consists of a couple of homes and three or four shops including tea shop along with a government school. We noticed that many houses were painted in green colour and religious symbols are stuck on walls. Most of the villagers are farmers and few of them are government employees. After conversion, the villagers began to migrate into gulf countries with the help of Muslim organisations like Tableegh  Jama’ath. Soon after conversion, people from Tableegh Jama’ath visited the village in order to teach them religious lessons. They taught villagers how to perform religious rituals and funded for building the Masjid. With the advice and financial support of Tableegh, many of the young people were sent to higher educational institutions including Arabic colleges and they got prestigious jobs in the state as well as abroad.

There are mainly two kinds of narrations that can be seen among the peoples of Meenakshipuram regarding their conversion. Umar Qayyam is a former school teacher, who used to teach Tamil language in the school of the village and one of the earliest leaders during the conversion movement. He was 43 when conversion took place. His account on conversion is about its social relevance as emancipation from the caste oppressions of Tevars. According to him “the conversion of the people of Meenakshipuram was not a temporal reaction to anything but was the result of collective thinking for a long. The villagers were thinking about religious conversion at least ten years before the mass conversion, even the date of conversion itself was decided collectively. In India, especially in Tamilnadu, There is a long trajectory of anti-caste movements. Ambedkar could create a mass movement against upper caste hegemony, but he failed to address people from the south. In South India the caste hierarchy is different from that of the north. In the case of Meenakshipuram itself, the Thevar community is lower caste according to caste hierarchy. But because of socio-political and regional peculiarities they ruled over the lower castes for a long time. Periyar also advocated for conversion. Periyar also stated that “Islam is the only religion which can eradicate all social hierarchies.”

The reason they chose Islam, according to Umar Qayyam  is because “Islam is the most egalitarian religion and only Islam gives self-respect to us. Islam teaches us to respect others as well as respect ourselves. It has the potential to move away from caste system through both its ideals and rituals.” He takes the example of praying collectively as an instance in which, people from different socio-ethnic origins assemble together and bow down in front of God.

The second kind of narration regarding conversion is that it is happened because of the will of god. It is a kind of narration that mainly focuses on theology and religious myths. Eesa, a 50 year old farmer, said that he was a child during conversion. According Eesa, conversion happened in Meenakshipuram because “god has selected us into his path”. For him, they out casted their caste position through embracing Islam because “earlier we were Pallars and now Muslims. Now we have only one identity which is Islam. Earlier people from Thevar community used to come here, beat us and intimidate us. Now no one has the courage to enter here. This change happened only because we embraced Islam.” He accepts the fact that they have converted their religion as a social protest against caste oppression, but he believes that the ultimate reason behind conversion is that Allah gave them Hidaya (God’s grace). His narration is different from that of Umar Qayyam because his idea of self-respect is largely coming from beliefs and myths. He was also very passionate on Tippu’s succession of Malabar and he believes that through the religious propagation of Tippu Many non-Muslims of Kerala became Muslims.” Tippu came to Malabar and fought with Savarnas and held the hands of many lower caste people (made them Muslims). It is the ultimate aim of a Muslims, to preach our ideology”.  He also believed that there is a story behind the mass conversion. Ten years before the conversion took place, a man from Pallar community, named Thyagarajan, fell in love with a Thevar’s daughter. The Thevar got to know this and brutally beat up Thyagarajan with his stooges. Soon after this, Tyagarajan went to Ponnani in  Kerala and converted to Islam and changed his name into Haider. He came back and killed the Thevar and two of his stooges and then married the  Thevar’s daughter. This incident is considered as first event of conversion. But what Umar Qayyam dismissies this narrative and says that “there was no incident like that. It is a myth and people who don’t know history, believe so”.

The Imam of the Masjid had given an account of religion and social life of the villagers. “I have been coming from the neighbouring village, and have been assigned to work here nearly fifteen years back. At the time of conversion, most of the villagers were illiterate; they did not have any interest in studying. But after the conversion, everyone started to concentrate on improving their skills in reading and writing, not only Tamil, but also in English and Arabic through Islam. You know, Islam compels people to read and write. Because of Islam’s lessons, now they have progressed. Islam made them socially, mentally and spiritually into a higher position. We need to work hard here, no matter who you are in this world. You will have better position in front of Allah.”

In Meenakshipuram the process of conversion is still happening. We also meet Shamsudheen, at 78 years of age; he converted to Islam only seven years back. Most of the families comprise both Muslims and non-Muslims and they live harmoniously, whoever wants to embrace Islam, it is easy to do that. According to Eesa “we live in a society similar to Prophet Mohammed’s society in Mecca. Like Mohammed’s society our families consists of both Muslims and non-Muslims. If anyone want to be a Muslim, it is easy to do so”. Through such a narration they are creating a new conception of ‘society’ and ‘social practices’ based on religious imaginations and theology.

Meenakshipuram, now Rahmath Nagar is an important site, while the conversions are irreplaceable in the history of anti-caste struggle in India. The space itself challenges Hindu imaginations of space, time and social being. Rahmathnagar is an Urdu term which means Land of Mercy (The word Rahmath is originally Arabic which is the most important adjective of Allah according to Qur’an). According to the villagers,  they were placed from a land of injustice into a land of universal justice and love.

Conversion- A separation from the Hindu ‘social’

Ambedkar had stated “.. I want you to recall the stories of the atrocities perpetrated against you. ..This is not a feud between rival men. The problem of untouchability is a matter of class struggle. The reason for their anger is very simple. Your behaving on par with them insults them. The untouchability is not a short or temporary feature; it is a permanent one .To put it straight, it can be said that the struggle between the Hindus and the Untouchables is a permanent phenomenon. It is eternal, because the religion which has placed you at the lowest level of the society is itself eternal, according to the belief of the Hindu caste people. No change, according to time and circumstances is possible. You are at the lowest rung of the ladder today. You shall remain lowest forever. This means the struggle between Hindus and Untouchables shall continue forever. How will you survive through this struggle is the main question. And unless you think over it, there is no way out. Those who desire to live in obedience to the dictates of the Hindus, those who wish to remain their slaves; they do not need to think over this problem. But those who wish to live a life of self-respect, and equality, will have to think over this. How should we survive through this struggle? For me, it is not difficult to answer this question. Those who have assembled here will have to agree that in any struggle one who holds strength becomes the victor. One, who has no strength, need not expect success. This has been proved by experience, and I do not need to cite illustration to prove it “So, if you sincerely desire that your qualifications should be valued, your education should be of some use to you, you must throw away the shackles of untouchability, which means that you must change your [Hindu] religion[1]…”

For Bruno Latour, the social consists of everything including science, metaphysics, objects and species. For him, every object has agency and they act in the society. In order to experience ‘social’ we first have to “learn how to deploy controversies so as to gauge the number of new participants in any future assemblage. Then we have to be able to follow how the actors themselves stabilize those uncertainties by building formats, standards, and metrologies and finally, we want to see how the assemblages thus gathered can renew our sense of being in the same collective.” (Latour 2005) What he tries to argue is that a ‘social’ is experienced through the process of deployment, stabilization and composition. It is a kind of keeping the ‘social’ alive without any ruptures. What Latour lacks, is that he starts only with the deployment of the disputes or controversies but he can’t see from where the ‘social’ emerges.

According to Pro. Sunder Sarukkai[2] when things are gather together, or individuals are assembled together, another entity comes into being. This can be called the ‘social’. So everything that is joined together is the part of that new entity. Here again, another fundamental question emerges: What are those things? What is the nature of those things? Can we define their forms properly? He gives an example of people gathered in a conference hall.  Many things including people, tables, chairs, fans, windows, space and time etc. are situated there. Such a setting produces something new and he says that“it can be called a ‘social’”. The question is: what is the nature of things? We say there are people but we cannot define them in a particular manner because for some people, there are only individuals, but for others, the hall might consist of professors, researchers and students. So the concept of social varies based on individual perspectives, emotions, knowledge, physical characteristics etc. Here Sarukkai asks the question “what are the common characteristics which make them be together?”  It is that they ‘exist’. Existence of everything that is assembled there is the common characteristic which make them ‘be’ together and that creates a ‘social’. In addition, Sarukkai also says that there is a ‘real’ behind every appearance of the ‘social’. In every appearance, something behind it is what the ‘real’ behind the appearance.

Sarukkai’s paradigm of the ‘social’ is important for the analyses of the Indian Social Structure. Firstly, in the Hindu social order, the social is formed not through independent individuals but it is a social which is experienced through people’s caste identities. Fundamentally, the gathering spaces of the Hindu ‘social’, especially sacred locations like Temples and Pooja spaces- bound with the idea of purity and pollution. So the nature of the ‘social’ is determined by one’s caste position. Dalits experience Upper-caste people as superior to him in the Hindu ‘social’. Everything that is used by the Dalit is seen as something that should be kept away from Upper-castes because he is considered as a ‘polluted body’. The next premise is crucial in analysing Hindu society, Sarukkai’s notion of ‘Existence’ as a common characteristic of gathering together for the creation of social is crucial in understanding Hindu ‘social’ because in Hindu society, the common characteristic is not only existence , but also existence either as ‘pure’ or as ‘impure’.

And last, it can be said that the ‘real’ behind this appearance of ‘social’ is ‘Brahmanism’. Gail Omvedt argued that Brahmanism has always remained as an absolute spirit in Indian society through various forms across different centuries. It was a suppressive power sometime and an ethical/ value position in other times. In modernity, it is the soul ideology behind the nation-state (Omvedt 2011). Thinking of the Hindu society from this vantage point leads us to perceive the ‘social’ as a site of unequally distributed bodies. Here the ‘social’ is maintained by Hinduism by deploying, stabilizing and composing, as Latour pointed out. This way, the caste based social formation remains eternal and unquestioned.

Because of such a conception of the ‘social’ in Hindu society, many converts point out that caste is located not inside the body but it comes into being through the ‘other’s’ gaze upon a person. So it remains in between two, not inside one. This is why they find the possibility of Islam there. If one becomes Muslim, s/he no longer bears his/her caste identity.  Eesa of Meenakshipuram shares such an idea through his experiences, he says “earlier Thevar treated us like animals; they used to come to us and beat us whenever they want, without any reason. They considered us like their cattle. We worked for them day and night and paid like a beggar. Now everything has changed. We totally broke every relation with them. We are self-sufficient now. We gained our self-respect through the teachings of our prophet”.

What strikes us here is that the ‘body’ itself transforms from an essentailised position into an ideal one. The caste identity is being replaced by a communitarian identity which is universal in characteristic. We wish to call this change as ‘the separation from Hindu Social’. By embracing Islam one is separated from his/her caste identity along with all worldly obedience. Here liberation from caste identity makes one separated from Hindu ‘Social’ and a new cosmopolitan identity comes into existence.

 This universalism is materially visible in Meenakshipuram, as after conversion many of the natives had migrated into Gulf countries with the help of local Muslim organizations and many youngsters started studying across the country including religious Madrasas. Also, the change in name of the village, from Meenakshipuram to Rahmath Nagar-Land of mercy in Urdu (The term Rahmath is originally from Arabic and it is one of the most important adjective of Allah according to Qur’an) – is a significant transformation.

Finally, the role of theology and religious imagination for the emancipation needs to be discussed here. We are taking Eesa’s comparison of his village with that of Prophet Mohammed’s society where both Muslims and non-Muslims lived together in families and conversions still happened. Such a narration creates a new kind of ‘sociability’ which enables him to think in a different way and which paves way for a new social ethics to interact with his surroundings. I think it is the liberation from his old social ethics of servitude towards everything and now he has his ‘agency’ to position himself as a member of Prophetic society. In addition to it Eesa was highly passionate when he was talking about the Prophet and Allah, that he explained the love of Allah to his creations, on how much he loves Prophet Mohammed and how Prophet loves him. Such an experience of love itself has huge potential to liberate oneself from caste oppression because the Dalits have historically been denied expression of love and his/her emotions have been suppressed by the Hindu social that did not see them as humans. What makes them awake through divine love is the thought of being loved by God and His Prophet.

Through this paper, we intended to share our conceptualisation of religious conversion as an act of separation not only form Hindu religion and philosophy but also as a radical rupture from the Hindu ‘Social’ itself. We wish to read Ambedkar’s idea of conversion as emancipation in this manner. As he says that no Dalit will attain self-respect and equality in Hinduism, if anyone wishes it they must think beyond Hinduism.

You can write to the author

Azar Ali: [email protected] Bilal Muhsin: [email protected]

References

1.         Kalam, Mohammed.A- Religious conversions in Tamil Nadu: can these be viewed as        protest movements- Indian Anthropologist, Vol. 20, No. 1/2 (June & December,       1990), pp. 39-48

2.         Thirumavalavan, Thol- PhD Thesis on Meenakshipuram Conversion, 2018

3.         Mathew,George- Politicisation of Religion: Conversions to Islam in Tamil Nadu-Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 26 (Jun. 26, 1982), pp. 1068-1072

5.         Latour,Brono- Reassembling the Social, An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory,           Oxford University Press 2005

6.     Omvedt, Gail- From Buddha to Ambedkar and Beyond, Oxford University Press             2011

---

[1]Dr.B.RAmbedkar- Conversion as Emancipation, Critical quest 2004

[2]Taken from Sarukkai’s Talk in ‘Ontology of Social’ on JNU philosophy Colloquium held on 15th February 2014.