At a spiritual gathering in Hosur last Saturday, Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madras High Court declared that “in Tamil Nadu, there are rationalists, who call us unworthy (ayogya), fools (muttaal) and barbarians (kaattumurandi) for treating Gurus as Gods”, and then turned the phrase back on them: “Those who are saying so are the real unworthy, fools and barbarians.”
At an event called the “Guru Vandana Utsava”, the judge, who in recent months has occupied an unusually visible public space, framed the remarks within a personal testimony about faith, describing God as “an abstract idea” but a Guru as a tangible, living presence whose “aura” dispels negative energy.
“My daughter completed a law course in Patiala, Punjab,” he said, recounting a late-night drive back to Delhi through heavy mist. “Visibility was so low, not even five feet.” The car’s tyre got punctured. With vehicles speeding past, the driver struggled to change the tyre. At that moment, Justice Swaminathan said, he found himself murmuring, “Gurunatha, Gurunatha.”
“The God is an abstract idea. But Guru is present. You can’t touch God, but you can touch the feet of the Guru. That night changed my life. When we feel helpless, only Gurus can help us, nobody else can do it,” the judge said in deeply personal testimony of his faith.
Borrowing from Periyar
However, the evocation of faith was accompanied by the criticism of rationalists. The judge’s words were not new to Tamil political culture. They echo the most famous inscription associated with E V Ramasamy ‘Periyar’, the rationalist leader who died in 1973. On the pedestal of Periyar’s statues is the declaration: “There is no god, and no god at all. He who created god was a fool, he who propagates god is a scoundrel, and he who worships god is a barbarian.”
Periyar, born in 1879, built the Self-Respect Movement around an uncompromising critique of caste hierarchy, ritualism, and Brahmin dominance. He asked people to abandon caste suffixes, promoted inter-dining, stood for divorce rights for women, and insisted on rationalism in public life. His rhetoric was deliberately abrasive — iconoclastic in a period when the social order was tightly stratified and dissent on such matters was rare.
In the 1920s and 30s, Periyar’s polemics were aimed at dismantling entrenched power structures. His successors moderated his radicalism. C N Annadurai, once Periyar’s pupil, would later say, “I would neither break the Ganesha idol nor the coconut.” Over decades, Periyar became less a political agitator and more an ideological figurehead, a symbol of social justice and Tamil self-respect that even rival parties claim as inheritance.
Justice Swaminathan’s speech, in contrast, unfolded in a different context. His remarks did not challenge caste or hierarchy but responded to critics of faith. However, the rhetorical symmetry is striking: the same words — “unworthy, fools, barbarians” — turned against rationalists. The setting, tone, and office of the speaker, however, transform their meaning.
By echoing the political vocabulary of a bygone era, he introduced a combative edge to the speech. In Periyar’s time, the words were meant to shock a conservative society into debate. In a modern courtroom culture, their reappearance in the voice of a judge carries a different resonance.
In the public eye
In recent months, Justice Swaminathan has been in the spotlight for several reasons. Last December, he waded into a religious dispute in Madurai by directing the lighting of a lamp at a site contested by a Hindu temple and an adjoining dargah. The judgment was roundly criticised by the DMK and a week later, 107 Opposition MPs submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla for initiating a motion to remove him.
The judge has also spoken about Sanatan Dharma, saying he will carry it close to his heart for the remainder of his term. In court, he has been involved in contentious exchanges with advocates. In one instance, advocate S Vanchinathan, in a petition to the Chief Justice of India, accused Justice Swaminathan of caste and communal bias, allegations that the judge has denied. At one hearing, he described critics as “comedy pieces” and, in a moment of candour, said he called the lawyer a “coward.”
These episodes have sharpened scrutiny of Justice Swaminathan’s public remarks. To his supporters, his Hosur speech was the testimony of a man of faith addressing a sympathetic audience. To critics, the language and timing raise questions about the tone expected of a sitting judge.
Periyar’s radicalism once unsettled the Madras High Court itself. During the Emergency, a petition sought the removal of “offensive” inscriptions from his statues. The court dismissed it, holding that Periyar believed in what he said.
In Hosur, the focus of Justice Swaminathan’s message was the defence of his faith. Yet in borrowing the vocabulary of an insult once wielded by Periyar, he bridged two traditions that historically spoke past each other rather than to each other.