A Distortion of History “on Muthulakshmi Reddy's Response to Sathyamurthy”
By A.Vennila · October 18, 2026
The recent Devanayagi event held in Chennai (Sep 19th 2026) discussed the history of Devaradiyars, their artistic contributions and how we could refurbish their image in the eyes of the modern society we live in today. But this discussion invited a lot of backlash against the event organisers and the speakers, labelling them as politically biased, making baseless claims about the abolition of the Devadasi system. Southbound Review took the initiative to discuss with the speakers and supporters of this event and also delved into the academic perspective to discuss the facts available to support the nuanced history of the Devaradiyar system. A.Vennila, who was one of the speakers of the Devanayagi event, faced repercussions for her arguments. In this article, she responds to the critics with evidence while reaffirming her conviction in the very Dravidian ideology they accuse her of having turned against. ***
Following my speech on “The laws abolishing the Devadasi system and the Devadasis” at the DevaNayagi event, I came across hundreds of posts on social media spewing hatred and vile abuse. Apart from one or two posts that qualified for consideration, the rest were little more than verbal assaults, ranging from political leaders to their sympathisers.
In preparation for the Devanayagi event, I had read the Madras Legislative Council debates in their entirety. After finishing the reading and making my notes, a question suddenly occurred to me. We have heard, read, and repeated (including myself) on numerous platforms that Muthulakshmi Reddy angrily retorted to Sathyamurthy, “If the Devadasi system is such a sacred service, why don’t you ask the women in your household to take it up for a while?” But nowhere in the legislative council debate could I find such an exchange. Had I somehow skipped a few volumes? I wondered. By then, the date of the event was fast approaching. With no time left to investigate the matter, I had to let the question go unanswered. Yet, it continued to linger in my mind.
As people kept quoting this alleged exchange between Muthulakshmi Reddy and Sathyamurthy day after day while critiquing me on Facebook, I decided that I had to reread the debates. I went back to the volumes of the legislative council proceedings. In 1927, Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy introduced a resolution in the council seeking to prohibit the dedication of young girls to temples. I read through the names of everyone who participated in the debates. Sathyamurthy’s name was nowhere to be found. I wondered whether his speech had possibly been expunged from the official record, so I checked the list of members who had served in the legislative council at the time. Indeed, Sathyamurthy’s name was there.
Interestingly enough, and aligned with the ethos of my pursuit, I discovered a book during this search. I was astonished. I immediately procured a copy and read it. It was titled ‘The Devadasi Abolition Act: Muthulakshmi Reddy, Sathyamurthy and E.V. Ramasamy Naicker’, by M. Venkatesan, published in 2024. Somehow, I had missed it earlier.
The author identifies seven claims repeatedly circulated on Dravidian movement platforms as myths and dismantles them, one by one, through documentary evidence. One of these is the familiar claim that Muthulakshmi Reddy silenced Sathyamurthy by asking him, “If this is a service performed for God himself, why don’t you ask the women in your own households to do it?”
Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy, who became a member of the legislative council in 1927, set forth the resolution to abrogate the practice of Pottu Kattudhal (the practice of wearing a sacred thread around the neck—contextually, here it refers to marriage with God) for young girls in temples on 4th November 1927. The discussion on the resolution continued till the next day (5th November 1927). Not a single member who spoke on the resolution opposed it. While some proposed amendments to particular words in the resolution, it was eventually adopted. Sathyamurthy was present in the Legislative Council that day, yet he made no speech on the resolution.
In 1927 itself, Muthulakshmi Reddy published a short pamphlet explaining why she was persistently seeking the complete abolition of the Devadasi System. It was titled, “Why should the Devadasi Institution in the Hindu temples be abolished?”
On 1 February 1929, Muthulakshmi Reddy moved a resolution in the Legislative Council seeking amendments to the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1926 (introduced by the Justice Party), particularly with regard to the lands held in the names of Devadasis. She proposed amendments to several sub-clauses. As each amendment was moved, members expressed their views on it. Sathyamurthy, too, spoke during these discussions.
When he spoke on one such amendment that he proposed to a sub-clause, a vote was taken on his position, and the amendment was defeated. It was only during the discussions on amendments to the Hindu Religious Endowments Act that Muthulakshmi Reddy and Sathyamurthy participated in the same Legislative Council debate. It is now conspicuous that the degrading abuse directed at the women in each other’s households was nowhere to be found in their exchanges.
The next major development came on 7 August 1939, when the Madras Devadasi (Prevention of Dedication) Bill was introduced in the legislative assembly again. Miss K. Ammanna Raja moved the bill. Smt. Kuttimalu Ammal, Rajaji and others participated in the debate. The assembly constituted a select committee of nine members under the chairmanship of Dr P. Subbarayan. It included the two women members mentioned above and Smt. Lakshmi Ammal. With the resignation of the Congress ministry following the outbreak of the Second World War, the bill failed to take the form of a law.
After the country’s independence, the same bill was introduced on 9th October 1947 for the third time by Dr. Subbarayan. There was a select committee constituted again. The committee under Miss Ammanna Raja submitted its report on 1 November, 1947.
The Devadasi Abolition Bill was introduced and passed for the fourth and final time by Dr P. Subbarayan on 26 November 1947. On 5 December 1947, the Devadasi Abolition Bill was passed unanimously in the legislative assembly. It received the Governor’s assent on 17 January 1948, and the Maras Devadasis (Prevention and Dedication) Act came into force. By the time it finally passed, the bill had been under discussion in the Legislature for two decades.
When the bill was introduced in the legislative assembly in 1939, Sathyamurthy was a member of the Central Legislative Assembly. Muthulakshmi Reddy was no longer a member of the provincial legislature. By the time the bill was introduced again in 1947, Sathyamurthy was no longer alive. His health had deteriorated following his imprisonment during the Quit India Movement, and he died in March,1943.
Three years after first moving the resolution to prohibit young girls from dedicating themselves to temples, Muthulakshmi Reddy wrote a book, My Experience as a Legislator, in 1930. It contains an essay entitled “Devadasi Problem”. In it, she recounts the arduous effort involved in bringing the resolution before the legislative council and acknowledges those who stood by her. She makes no mention of Periyar or the Self-Respect Movement. Perhaps those whom she thanked were the members within the legislature who stood by her. As for support from outside, she speaks of it only in general terms.
Another essay in the book is titled “Legislation to Abolish the Devadasi Service in the Temples and to Prevent the Dedication of Girls.” In this, she mentions the members of the legislature who supported her, a letter written by Gandhi in Young India, and letters from Devadasi associations in various parts of the province expressing their support for her efforts. She doesn’t even mention Sathyamurthy’s name anywhere in the book. She merely notes that some members of the Justice Party opposed the legislation.
Nor does the Autobiography of Mrs. S. Muthulakshmi Reddy, published after her death, mention Sathyamurthy or any debate she had with him. In fact, she nowhere acknowledges the Self-Respect Movement or Thanthai Periyar as having supported her or stood alongside her in the struggle to abolish the Devadasi system. Only the Dravidian movement scholars can find out and tell us.
The author also traces the alleged exchange between Muthulakshmi Reddy and Sathyamurthy to its actual sources.
In 1927, the weekly Kudiyarasu, on page eight, reproduced a passage from Navasakthi under the heading “Oorvambu” (Gossip), dated 6th November 1927. The passage read:
“…We have just one thing to say. There is no need to delve so deeply into music and religion. You can teach your own wives to dance to ragas and talas, have them perform in temples in a state of devotional ecstasy and revel in watching them.”
On page twelve of the same issue, Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, writing under the heading “Self Respect Satyagraha Everywhere,” stated:
“If women’s dancing and women’s service are indispensable to religion and God, why should we not ask every worshipper to arrange for the pure women in his own household to dance, sing and render such services?”
To conceal the texts of the Navasakthi magazine and writings of Periyar and present the fabricated exchange between Muthulakshmi Reddy and Sathyamurthy at the legislative assembly as the truth is a distortion of history.
We do not know if there were discussions about this alleged exchange between Muthulakshmi and Sathyamurthy during their lifetimes. There is no documentation of this supposed exchange anywhere by either of them.
Distortions of history will persist, but there will also be research that brings them to light. The irony here is that this particular distortion, attributed to Muthulakshmi Reddy, a woman who dedicated herself to ensuring that women were accorded dignity and self-esteem, is now being used to subject women to daily abuse. The way this debate has descended into vulgar invective reveals how party supporters and members of political parties, who claim to uphold their ideals, have multiplied without ever grasping that a woman’s dignity matters, regardless of what household she comes from.
There should prevail a condition of freedom to express my dissent within my family itself. I was raised as the daughter of an ordinary foot soldier of the Dravidian movement, someone who embraced the Self-Respect movement as a way of life and remained faithful to its ideals until the very end. I grew up to be a woman steadfast in her convictions.
Unable to muster the courage to engage with an argument, some find it easier to slap the label of “Sanghi” on me, as though they can thereby rewrite my identity. I am the daughter of the man who supported the Self-Respect Movement and wore a black shirt, as the symbol of Freedom of thought and expression. Their labelling, vilification, and denunciations are for winning recognition and approval. For me, this ideology is a way of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment