12-02-2004, 11:53 PM
The article below is written by Kalavai Venkat. The original can be found at
Why EVR quit Congress
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Note: Where relevant TSCII 1.7 fonts have been used for Tamil characters.
It is often alleged that the great revolutionary and selfless freedom fighter V.V.S.Aiyar ran a gurukul, which segregated its Brahmin and non-Brahmin students. It is alleged that they were served food seperately. Some of the notoriously false versions would claim that while the Brahmins were served superior food inside, the non-Brahmins were served inferior food outside. It is claimed that E.V.R. quit the Congress party because of this caste based segregation, and the support Gandhiji gave it. Just like the myth of trade between the Tamils and Hebrews in 1000 B.C., this myth also has got transformed into "fact" by mere repetition and intense propaganda. In this series of posts, I am covering the entire episode, by taking recourse to primary data, so that the truth is known to all. The following is the format of the series:
1. The gurukul: Its beginnings and the controversy
2. Gandhiji's judgement and Rajaji's statement
3. EVR's politics of lies and hate
4. Death of V.V.S.Aiyar and Gandhiji's letter
5. Conclusion
I have utilised the following sources for compiling this series:
1. The Hindu - from the archives of that period
2. For a general summary and some references, please see "The Political Career of E.V.Ramasami Naicker" by Professor E.Sa.Visswanathan with a forward by Professor A.L.Basham
3. For a notorious version packed with lies and hate, please see "Ramasami Naicker - Collected Works volumes 1-11" by C.N.Annadurai and translated by A.S.Venu and published by Periyar Self-respect Propaganda Institution
4. For Gandhiji's letters, please see "The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (especially volumes 21-35)
5. For those who can understand Tamil, I would recommend "vIraviLakku V.V.S.Aiyar" by Yogi Suddhananta Bharati, and "V.V.S.Aiyar" by T.S.S.Rajan
6. Others are quoted as relevant
The bulk of my references themselves would be primary - that is reliable newspaper report of that period.
1. The gurukul: Its beginnings and the controversy
------------------------------------------------
December 1922: The great revolutionary and freedom fighter V.V.S.Aiyar starts a school in Kallidaikkuricchi, a pre-dominantly orthodox Brahmin locality in Tirunelveli. The school is started with the objective of imparting patriotic and religious education to boys of *all castes*. T.S.S.Rajan tells us that Aiyar started the school entirely on his own initiative, with the blessings of Gandhiji, who is pleased to hear that this school would turn out boys willing for social service by the hundreds. V.V.S.Aiyar had decided to do something radical then: to impart training in the vedas and other shastras to boys of all castes. He also published a newspaper "Desabhaktan", and often implored the readers to contribute money for this cause. His associate, Mahadeva Iyer, raised a fund of 20,000 rupees from the Nattukkottai Chettiars of Malaya. Tamilnadu Congress Committee (TNCC) promised a donation of 10,000 rupees of which it promised 5,000 rupees would be initial contribution.
This school, which was in makeshift buildings initially, gets shifted to a pucca building in another orthodox Brahmin locality - Shermadevi. There were approximately 200 students in the Gurukul. There is no mention of girls, so probably, it was restricted to boys.
In January 1925, in the TNCC meeting, E.V.Ramasamy Naicker (EVR) charged that the gurukul practised caste segregation. He alleged that the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins were forced to dine seperately, and that inferior food was served to non-Brahmins, who were forced to eat outside the building. He claimed that the son of Chief Minister O.P.Ramasami Reddiar, who also studied there, had complained to him. In the meantime, EVR and his coterie, also started a vicious campaign in the seperatist Tamil newspaper "Tamilnadu". They also indulged in disruptive tactics and stalled every proceeding.
V.V.S.Aiyar explained the scenario. "The Hindu" dated 15, April 1925 reports that Aiyar explained that there was *no* caste based segregation in the gurukul. He explained that *only* 2 Brahmin students were granted the *exemption* to dine seperately, as their parents insisted on it, and threatened to pull out the students if their demand wasn't conceded. Aiyar explained that inter-caste dining is yet unknown in Tamilnadu, and more importantly, this was not made known to the parents when the students were admitted to the gurukul. So, he reasoned, that the 2 students were granted exemption from inter-dining. He denied that seperate food was served or anyone was made to eat outside the building, and invited the disruptive elements to visit the gurukul to ascertain themselves. He pointed out that all the other Brahmin and non-Brahmin students dined together, barring these 2 students. He further said that after he raised funds from the public, that is in 1922-23, he had made it very clear that all students should inter-dine, and *no exemptions* will be granted in the future. He also clarified that everbody was taught the same set of lessons - religious and nationalistic. He was quite pained at this campaign of lies by EVR.
2. Gandhiji's judgement and Rajaji's statement
--------------------------------------------
The explanation given by V.V.S.Aiyar should have made it clear that there was no caste based segregation in the Shermadevi gurukul, nor was there any plan to introduce one in the future. The controversy should have died, but that was not to be. EVR and his coterie was actually interested in making political mileage through false allegations. They not only continued disruptive tactics, but also a vicious campaign in their newspapers. Varadarajulu Naidu, a supporter of EVR, had earlier (before the controversy became public) written to Gandhiji. In his letter dated 10, March 1925, addressed to Varadarajulu Naidu, Gandhiji replied (ref. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi vol. 26):
"It seems to me that insofar as the present (2) brahmacharis are concerned, if the parents of the Brahmin boys insist on their boys being allowed to dine seperately, their scruples should be respected (as they were not told about this inter-dining before admitting the students). But for the future, it may be announced that ***no*** brahmacharis would be accepted whose parents would not let their boys dine in the same row with the others. I understand from you (r letter) that the cook at the gurukulam (is and) would be always a Brahmin. What you object to (in your 2 letters) is the seperating of the non-Brahmin boys from the Brahmins. I ***do think*** that all the boys should sit in the same row whilst they are taking their meals."
Note: The original letters of Varadarajulu Naidu were published in Navasakthi dated 27, February 1925 and 6, March 1925, the relevant parts I have indicated within brackets in Gandhiji's letter.
In TNCC meeting on 29, April 1925, Varadarajulu Naidu raised the issue of gurukul. Rajaji made 3 pertinent remarks, as reported by "The Hindu" 30, April 1925:
1. He made it clear that he was against all commensal restrictions, whether the gurukul practised it or not.
2. He said that inter-dining was not practised by *any* section of the Tamil society, so any reform on that front should be gradual and happening without causing friction.
3. He felt that no political capital should be made out of the supposed activities of a private institution - the gurukul here.
Further, "The Hindu" 1, May 1925 reports that in the same resolution, tabled by S.Ramanathan and supported by Rajaji (who differed on point 3 mentioned above), it was recommended that gradations based on birth should ***not*** be observed by ***any*** organization participating in the national movement - private or otherwise. A committee comprising of V.Thiagaraja Chettiar, S.Ramanathan and EVR was constituted (by Rajaji) to look into the gurukul matter as well as all such related issues and report the facts.
3. EVR's politics of lies and hate
-------------------------------
Soon after the TNCC meeting on 29, April 1925, the leadership of the Congress party made a tactical error. They passed a censure against Varadarajulu Naidu for communalising politics. While the censure was justified on factual grounds, it served as ammunition in the hands of EVR & co. EVR had already been humiliated on 2 grounds on previous occasions. Earlier, he tried to make political capital out of Vaikkom agitation, in which he was a late and reluctant entrant. Not only that, he abandoned the agitation mid way through. An imprisonment of few days had rattled him, and like a scared rat he gave up the agitation. Of course, in the few days he participated, he abused the Brahmins, used the filthiest language ever heard by the audience, and abused Gandhiji, and also the Hindu Gods. Much to his chagrin, it was a Brahmin, C.P.Ramaswamy Aiyar who passed the historical bill of allowing the entry of Harijans into the temples. Ironically, while EVR was obsessed with the Brahmins, hated and abused them, he just couldn't emulate their admirable courage in facing the adversary and facing rigourous imprisonment. He just ran away like the coward he was, and for political reasons came to be known as ¨à ì¸õ à £Ã÷ (vaikkom vIrar), meaning "the courageous (fighter) of Vaikkom". That epithet, he was unfit to wear. Anyway, a discussion into this has to be a seperate thread.
When he couldn't get any real credit for Vaikkom agitation, which he didn't deserve anyway, he felt humiliated. The second occasion occurred in April 1925. According to Gandhiji's adjudication and the subsequent resolution of the TNCC, V.V.S.Aiyar should have been handed over the check for Rupees 5000. EVR was the Secretary then, and it was his duty to do so. But he was consumed by hate for the Brahmins. He was also an autocrat, a fact that would prompt his protege C.N.Annadurai to part ways with him later on. EVR was also very ambitious. Though he had joined the Congress party only in 1920, he had risen to a position of authority. He also took pride in the fact that hailed he from a wealthy, upper caste family. He believed that he could violate the rules and get away with that, when he unjustly withheld the check payment to Aiyar. As "The Hindu" dated 30, April 1925 reports, TNCC authorised the joint secretary to release the check, and EVR took that as an affront.
He was an angry man now. For a few weeks EVR and Varadarajulu Naidu had been indulging highly abusive public speeches. "The Hindu" dated 14, April 1925 says that they instigated the public to settle the "Brahmin question", failing which they would have to suffer under "Brahmanocracy". But after these 2 incidents, which EVR brought upon himself, he set out on an all out war of unprecedented hate. "The Hindu" dated 4, May 1925 reports what Varadarajulu Naidu said in a public meeting:
"If I win (in this battle against the Brahmin leadership of the Congress party), it will be a glory to both Brahmins and non-Brahmins, but, if I lose, the consequences will be disastrous to the Brahmins of Madras Presidency."
EVR and his cronies would deliver far worse inflammatory speeches and writings, through their mouthpiece ÃÃÃÃÃ (kudiyarasu) - a Tamil daily of the "Dravidianists". He would continuously abuse and tarnish the name of the selfless revolutionary V.V.S.Aiyar, Rajaji and Gandhiji, without any moral scruples and without taking the slightest recourse to facts. Having been a rowdy from his childhood, EVR would excel at this. Bhaktavatsalam, later the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu, and a non-Brahmin himself, was so disgusted with the hate politics of EVR that he would remark, in his letter to "The Hindu" dated 18, April 1925 as well as his public speech in Tamil which is reported in "Politics and Social Conflict in South India" by Eugene F. Irschick:
"¸¡ó¾¢ þó¾ à Ãâò¾ (áð¨¼) Ãò¾à à Ãâá ¬ì¸î ¦º¡ýáÃ, ¬Ã¡ø «¨¾ ®.¦à .á. Ãò¾¢à à Ãâá ¬ì¸¢ð¼¡§Ã" (Gandhi wanted this to be the year of spinning the wheel, but EVR has made it into the year of Shudras).
4. Death of V.V.S. Aiyar and Gandhiji's letter
------------------------------------------
V.V.S.Aiyar had been the most selfless revolutionary and a freedom fighter. He was a man of great moral scruples. Even before the Congress party gave any money, on his own volition he had raised funds to impart vedic as well as nationalistic education to the Brahmins and non-Brahmins alike. That great man had never learnt to face the filthiest campaigns of hate and lies that EVR and his cronies launched.
"The Hindu" dated 25, May 1925, as well as Yogi Suddhanandha Bharati in his book mentioned earlier report that somehow wanting to end the controversy and all the hate campaign, K.Ganapati Shastri and V.S.Shanmugham Chettiar tried to bring about a reconciliation.
But that wouldn't happen, as V.V.S.Aiyar would die on 3, June 1925 at Papanasam water falls. (Reports "The Hindu" dated 6, June 1925). The great man, for none of his faults, and despite all his selfless acts, would die an embittered man, all due to the hateful politics of lies of an evil rowdy called EVR.
One needs to point out that there were certainly sections of Brahmins within the Congress party who were opposed to inter-dining. T.R.Mahadeva Iyer, who took over the gurukul after the death of V.V.S.Aiyar was one such. He held that the rights of the individual students to dine seperately or together must be respected. Even though, no data is forthcoming on how he ran the gurukul after V.V.S.Aiyar died, there is reason to believe that he allowed each caste, not just Brahmins, to dine seperately, if they so wanted.
This prompted Gandhiji to write a letter (ref. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi vol. 34) to him on 27, August 1927 (The exact date is uncertain, as another publication, just comprising Gandhiji's letters mentions the date as 22nd) where he stated that he should hand over the gurukul to a committee of principal donors, if he can't run the institution on the basis of the resolution of TNCC (to which we ref. earlier).
There is no mention of Mahadeva Iyer's reaction to this, but the gurukul never functioned after 1927. There is no reason mentioned anywhere why it closed down. May be if I research further on "The Hindu" archives I will find out. If I do, I will update all of you.
5. Conclusion
-------------
Now one can conclude on the basis of the facts presented so far that,
1. V.V.S.Aiyar didn't practise segregation in his gurukul.
2. He allowed exemption for 2 Brahmin boys to dine seperately, only because their parents insisted, and he allowed it because inter-dining wasn't a clause when those students were admitted. Aiyar himself was opposed to segregation.
3. Gandhiji never supported segregation. In fact, he insisted on common dining. He only allowed those 2 exempted students to continue as it is, because a promise had already been made.
4. Rajaji never supported segregation. He was also for common dining and asserted that all nationalistic institutions should never allow such practices. His only contention was that the Congress party shouldn't interfere in the affairs of private institutions for entirely politicised reasons. He also felt that changes, at individual level, should be gradual.
5. EVR didn't quit the Congress party because of the alleged segregation. He quit because of his hatred for Brahmins, and because he had been sidelined after all his attempts to communalise and indulge in autocratic and hateful politics.
6. EVR never again fought for either independence or for removing untouchability, after quitting the Congress. So, that could have never been his reason for quitting.
Thanks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why EVR quit Congress
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Note: Where relevant TSCII 1.7 fonts have been used for Tamil characters.
It is often alleged that the great revolutionary and selfless freedom fighter V.V.S.Aiyar ran a gurukul, which segregated its Brahmin and non-Brahmin students. It is alleged that they were served food seperately. Some of the notoriously false versions would claim that while the Brahmins were served superior food inside, the non-Brahmins were served inferior food outside. It is claimed that E.V.R. quit the Congress party because of this caste based segregation, and the support Gandhiji gave it. Just like the myth of trade between the Tamils and Hebrews in 1000 B.C., this myth also has got transformed into "fact" by mere repetition and intense propaganda. In this series of posts, I am covering the entire episode, by taking recourse to primary data, so that the truth is known to all. The following is the format of the series:
1. The gurukul: Its beginnings and the controversy
2. Gandhiji's judgement and Rajaji's statement
3. EVR's politics of lies and hate
4. Death of V.V.S.Aiyar and Gandhiji's letter
5. Conclusion
I have utilised the following sources for compiling this series:
1. The Hindu - from the archives of that period
2. For a general summary and some references, please see "The Political Career of E.V.Ramasami Naicker" by Professor E.Sa.Visswanathan with a forward by Professor A.L.Basham
3. For a notorious version packed with lies and hate, please see "Ramasami Naicker - Collected Works volumes 1-11" by C.N.Annadurai and translated by A.S.Venu and published by Periyar Self-respect Propaganda Institution
4. For Gandhiji's letters, please see "The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (especially volumes 21-35)
5. For those who can understand Tamil, I would recommend "vIraviLakku V.V.S.Aiyar" by Yogi Suddhananta Bharati, and "V.V.S.Aiyar" by T.S.S.Rajan
6. Others are quoted as relevant
The bulk of my references themselves would be primary - that is reliable newspaper report of that period.
1. The gurukul: Its beginnings and the controversy
------------------------------------------------
December 1922: The great revolutionary and freedom fighter V.V.S.Aiyar starts a school in Kallidaikkuricchi, a pre-dominantly orthodox Brahmin locality in Tirunelveli. The school is started with the objective of imparting patriotic and religious education to boys of *all castes*. T.S.S.Rajan tells us that Aiyar started the school entirely on his own initiative, with the blessings of Gandhiji, who is pleased to hear that this school would turn out boys willing for social service by the hundreds. V.V.S.Aiyar had decided to do something radical then: to impart training in the vedas and other shastras to boys of all castes. He also published a newspaper "Desabhaktan", and often implored the readers to contribute money for this cause. His associate, Mahadeva Iyer, raised a fund of 20,000 rupees from the Nattukkottai Chettiars of Malaya. Tamilnadu Congress Committee (TNCC) promised a donation of 10,000 rupees of which it promised 5,000 rupees would be initial contribution.
This school, which was in makeshift buildings initially, gets shifted to a pucca building in another orthodox Brahmin locality - Shermadevi. There were approximately 200 students in the Gurukul. There is no mention of girls, so probably, it was restricted to boys.
In January 1925, in the TNCC meeting, E.V.Ramasamy Naicker (EVR) charged that the gurukul practised caste segregation. He alleged that the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins were forced to dine seperately, and that inferior food was served to non-Brahmins, who were forced to eat outside the building. He claimed that the son of Chief Minister O.P.Ramasami Reddiar, who also studied there, had complained to him. In the meantime, EVR and his coterie, also started a vicious campaign in the seperatist Tamil newspaper "Tamilnadu". They also indulged in disruptive tactics and stalled every proceeding.
V.V.S.Aiyar explained the scenario. "The Hindu" dated 15, April 1925 reports that Aiyar explained that there was *no* caste based segregation in the gurukul. He explained that *only* 2 Brahmin students were granted the *exemption* to dine seperately, as their parents insisted on it, and threatened to pull out the students if their demand wasn't conceded. Aiyar explained that inter-caste dining is yet unknown in Tamilnadu, and more importantly, this was not made known to the parents when the students were admitted to the gurukul. So, he reasoned, that the 2 students were granted exemption from inter-dining. He denied that seperate food was served or anyone was made to eat outside the building, and invited the disruptive elements to visit the gurukul to ascertain themselves. He pointed out that all the other Brahmin and non-Brahmin students dined together, barring these 2 students. He further said that after he raised funds from the public, that is in 1922-23, he had made it very clear that all students should inter-dine, and *no exemptions* will be granted in the future. He also clarified that everbody was taught the same set of lessons - religious and nationalistic. He was quite pained at this campaign of lies by EVR.
2. Gandhiji's judgement and Rajaji's statement
--------------------------------------------
The explanation given by V.V.S.Aiyar should have made it clear that there was no caste based segregation in the Shermadevi gurukul, nor was there any plan to introduce one in the future. The controversy should have died, but that was not to be. EVR and his coterie was actually interested in making political mileage through false allegations. They not only continued disruptive tactics, but also a vicious campaign in their newspapers. Varadarajulu Naidu, a supporter of EVR, had earlier (before the controversy became public) written to Gandhiji. In his letter dated 10, March 1925, addressed to Varadarajulu Naidu, Gandhiji replied (ref. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi vol. 26):
"It seems to me that insofar as the present (2) brahmacharis are concerned, if the parents of the Brahmin boys insist on their boys being allowed to dine seperately, their scruples should be respected (as they were not told about this inter-dining before admitting the students). But for the future, it may be announced that ***no*** brahmacharis would be accepted whose parents would not let their boys dine in the same row with the others. I understand from you (r letter) that the cook at the gurukulam (is and) would be always a Brahmin. What you object to (in your 2 letters) is the seperating of the non-Brahmin boys from the Brahmins. I ***do think*** that all the boys should sit in the same row whilst they are taking their meals."
Note: The original letters of Varadarajulu Naidu were published in Navasakthi dated 27, February 1925 and 6, March 1925, the relevant parts I have indicated within brackets in Gandhiji's letter.
In TNCC meeting on 29, April 1925, Varadarajulu Naidu raised the issue of gurukul. Rajaji made 3 pertinent remarks, as reported by "The Hindu" 30, April 1925:
1. He made it clear that he was against all commensal restrictions, whether the gurukul practised it or not.
2. He said that inter-dining was not practised by *any* section of the Tamil society, so any reform on that front should be gradual and happening without causing friction.
3. He felt that no political capital should be made out of the supposed activities of a private institution - the gurukul here.
Further, "The Hindu" 1, May 1925 reports that in the same resolution, tabled by S.Ramanathan and supported by Rajaji (who differed on point 3 mentioned above), it was recommended that gradations based on birth should ***not*** be observed by ***any*** organization participating in the national movement - private or otherwise. A committee comprising of V.Thiagaraja Chettiar, S.Ramanathan and EVR was constituted (by Rajaji) to look into the gurukul matter as well as all such related issues and report the facts.
3. EVR's politics of lies and hate
-------------------------------
Soon after the TNCC meeting on 29, April 1925, the leadership of the Congress party made a tactical error. They passed a censure against Varadarajulu Naidu for communalising politics. While the censure was justified on factual grounds, it served as ammunition in the hands of EVR & co. EVR had already been humiliated on 2 grounds on previous occasions. Earlier, he tried to make political capital out of Vaikkom agitation, in which he was a late and reluctant entrant. Not only that, he abandoned the agitation mid way through. An imprisonment of few days had rattled him, and like a scared rat he gave up the agitation. Of course, in the few days he participated, he abused the Brahmins, used the filthiest language ever heard by the audience, and abused Gandhiji, and also the Hindu Gods. Much to his chagrin, it was a Brahmin, C.P.Ramaswamy Aiyar who passed the historical bill of allowing the entry of Harijans into the temples. Ironically, while EVR was obsessed with the Brahmins, hated and abused them, he just couldn't emulate their admirable courage in facing the adversary and facing rigourous imprisonment. He just ran away like the coward he was, and for political reasons came to be known as ¨à ì¸õ à £Ã÷ (vaikkom vIrar), meaning "the courageous (fighter) of Vaikkom". That epithet, he was unfit to wear. Anyway, a discussion into this has to be a seperate thread.
When he couldn't get any real credit for Vaikkom agitation, which he didn't deserve anyway, he felt humiliated. The second occasion occurred in April 1925. According to Gandhiji's adjudication and the subsequent resolution of the TNCC, V.V.S.Aiyar should have been handed over the check for Rupees 5000. EVR was the Secretary then, and it was his duty to do so. But he was consumed by hate for the Brahmins. He was also an autocrat, a fact that would prompt his protege C.N.Annadurai to part ways with him later on. EVR was also very ambitious. Though he had joined the Congress party only in 1920, he had risen to a position of authority. He also took pride in the fact that hailed he from a wealthy, upper caste family. He believed that he could violate the rules and get away with that, when he unjustly withheld the check payment to Aiyar. As "The Hindu" dated 30, April 1925 reports, TNCC authorised the joint secretary to release the check, and EVR took that as an affront.
He was an angry man now. For a few weeks EVR and Varadarajulu Naidu had been indulging highly abusive public speeches. "The Hindu" dated 14, April 1925 says that they instigated the public to settle the "Brahmin question", failing which they would have to suffer under "Brahmanocracy". But after these 2 incidents, which EVR brought upon himself, he set out on an all out war of unprecedented hate. "The Hindu" dated 4, May 1925 reports what Varadarajulu Naidu said in a public meeting:
"If I win (in this battle against the Brahmin leadership of the Congress party), it will be a glory to both Brahmins and non-Brahmins, but, if I lose, the consequences will be disastrous to the Brahmins of Madras Presidency."
EVR and his cronies would deliver far worse inflammatory speeches and writings, through their mouthpiece ÃÃÃÃÃ (kudiyarasu) - a Tamil daily of the "Dravidianists". He would continuously abuse and tarnish the name of the selfless revolutionary V.V.S.Aiyar, Rajaji and Gandhiji, without any moral scruples and without taking the slightest recourse to facts. Having been a rowdy from his childhood, EVR would excel at this. Bhaktavatsalam, later the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu, and a non-Brahmin himself, was so disgusted with the hate politics of EVR that he would remark, in his letter to "The Hindu" dated 18, April 1925 as well as his public speech in Tamil which is reported in "Politics and Social Conflict in South India" by Eugene F. Irschick:
"¸¡ó¾¢ þó¾ à Ãâò¾ (áð¨¼) Ãò¾à à Ãâá ¬ì¸î ¦º¡ýáÃ, ¬Ã¡ø «¨¾ ®.¦à .á. Ãò¾¢à à Ãâá ¬ì¸¢ð¼¡§Ã" (Gandhi wanted this to be the year of spinning the wheel, but EVR has made it into the year of Shudras).
4. Death of V.V.S. Aiyar and Gandhiji's letter
------------------------------------------
V.V.S.Aiyar had been the most selfless revolutionary and a freedom fighter. He was a man of great moral scruples. Even before the Congress party gave any money, on his own volition he had raised funds to impart vedic as well as nationalistic education to the Brahmins and non-Brahmins alike. That great man had never learnt to face the filthiest campaigns of hate and lies that EVR and his cronies launched.
"The Hindu" dated 25, May 1925, as well as Yogi Suddhanandha Bharati in his book mentioned earlier report that somehow wanting to end the controversy and all the hate campaign, K.Ganapati Shastri and V.S.Shanmugham Chettiar tried to bring about a reconciliation.
But that wouldn't happen, as V.V.S.Aiyar would die on 3, June 1925 at Papanasam water falls. (Reports "The Hindu" dated 6, June 1925). The great man, for none of his faults, and despite all his selfless acts, would die an embittered man, all due to the hateful politics of lies of an evil rowdy called EVR.
One needs to point out that there were certainly sections of Brahmins within the Congress party who were opposed to inter-dining. T.R.Mahadeva Iyer, who took over the gurukul after the death of V.V.S.Aiyar was one such. He held that the rights of the individual students to dine seperately or together must be respected. Even though, no data is forthcoming on how he ran the gurukul after V.V.S.Aiyar died, there is reason to believe that he allowed each caste, not just Brahmins, to dine seperately, if they so wanted.
This prompted Gandhiji to write a letter (ref. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi vol. 34) to him on 27, August 1927 (The exact date is uncertain, as another publication, just comprising Gandhiji's letters mentions the date as 22nd) where he stated that he should hand over the gurukul to a committee of principal donors, if he can't run the institution on the basis of the resolution of TNCC (to which we ref. earlier).
There is no mention of Mahadeva Iyer's reaction to this, but the gurukul never functioned after 1927. There is no reason mentioned anywhere why it closed down. May be if I research further on "The Hindu" archives I will find out. If I do, I will update all of you.
5. Conclusion
-------------
Now one can conclude on the basis of the facts presented so far that,
1. V.V.S.Aiyar didn't practise segregation in his gurukul.
2. He allowed exemption for 2 Brahmin boys to dine seperately, only because their parents insisted, and he allowed it because inter-dining wasn't a clause when those students were admitted. Aiyar himself was opposed to segregation.
3. Gandhiji never supported segregation. In fact, he insisted on common dining. He only allowed those 2 exempted students to continue as it is, because a promise had already been made.
4. Rajaji never supported segregation. He was also for common dining and asserted that all nationalistic institutions should never allow such practices. His only contention was that the Congress party shouldn't interfere in the affairs of private institutions for entirely politicised reasons. He also felt that changes, at individual level, should be gradual.
5. EVR didn't quit the Congress party because of the alleged segregation. He quit because of his hatred for Brahmins, and because he had been sidelined after all his attempts to communalise and indulge in autocratic and hateful politics.
6. EVR never again fought for either independence or for removing untouchability, after quitting the Congress. So, that could have never been his reason for quitting.
Thanks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->