tamil nadu
& Tamil Eelam freedom struggle
`De-ideologisation of politics is the tragedy of Tamil Nadu'
Professor K.Sivathamby in Frontline, 8 November 2002
[see also
1.திராவிடக்
கட்சிகளின் தமிழ்த் தேசியம்
- Sanmugam Sabesan, March
2005
2.What
Caused Veerappan? - Guna, October 2000
3.Caste & the
Tamil Nation and
4.'Bharathy,
Periyar E.V. Ramasamy & Tamil nationalism' in Tamil
Heriatge - the Tamils are an Ancient People and
5.
Selected
Writings - Karthigesu Sivathamby]
The Dravidian movement, which has dominated politics in Tamil
Nadu for about four decades, faces an identity crisis. Nothing
signifies this crisis better than the competition among the
Dravidian parties — the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the All India
Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam — to forge an electoral alliance and share power with the
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh-driven Bharatiya Janata Party, which
stands for whatever the Dravidian movement set out to fight against.
The Dravidian parties, which miss no opportunity to describe
themselves as the true inheritors of the legacy of E.V. Ramaswamy
Periyar, whose rationalist world-view rejected the Vedas and the
``revealed truth'' of the scriptures, do not hesitate to find common
cause with the BJP, which has declared that ``the guiding principles
of Bharat will come from the great teachings of Vedas, ancient Hindu
and Indian scriptures".
Social justice, the birth cry of the Dravidian movement, is a
concept that has not been accepted by a major section of the upper
castes that form the social base of the BJP. The Sangh Parivar's
world-view, based on the principle of ``one nation, one culture'',
is essentially opposed to linguistic nationalism and social
reformism, the two major currents that converged to make the
Dravidian movement a powerful political force in Tamil Nadu. In
fact, the BJP stands for the division of States into smaller units
for ``administrative convenience'', much against the principle of
linguistic reorganisation of States — a principle that flows from
the democratic need to reflect the pluralistic character of Indian
society and which forms the basis of the federalist political
arrangement envisaged by the founding fathers of the Constitution.
In recent times, the demand of some States for greater financial
devolution has not found resonance from the parties of the Dravidian
movement, which was the champion of State autonomy.
The deviation of these parties from the tenets of Dravidianism is
not just a matter of political opportunism. According to Karthigesu
Sivathamby, a prominent Tamil scholar from Sri Lanka who has closely
studied the evolution of the Dravidian movement, it is the
culmination of a process that started in the 1940s. Ideological
shifts took place at different periods in the history of the
Dravidian movement, he says.
The crucial one, according to him, was the break between Periyar
and C.N. Annadurai, who founded the DMK. After the split, the
movement saw major deviations — from atheism to universal theism
(`one god, one community'); social reformism to electoral politics;
separatism to national integration.
These deviations were the result of, among other things, the
changes that took place in the post-Independence politics of India
and the limitation of the Dravidian ideology itself in that it
lacked an economic perspective. `
`There was no ideological coming of age,'' in the Dravidian
movement, says Sivathamby, who has done two insightful studies on
the Dravidian movement — Understanding the Dravidian Movement:
Problems and Perspectives (in English) and The Relevance of the
Dravidian Ideology Today: A Historical Perspective (in Tamil). The
ideological shifts culminated in the deideologisation of politics,
he says in this interview he gave R. Vijaya Sankar in Chennai
recently. (The interview was done as part of a study on ``The
post-1967 phase of the Dravidian movement'' under the Appan Menon
Memorial Award).
An Emeritus Professor of Tamil in the University of Jaffna,
Sivathamby, along with the late
K.
Kailasapathy, is considered as an outstanding Tamil scholar from
Sri Lanka. His areas of study include social and cultural history of
Tamils, culture and communication among Tamils, Tamil drama, Sri
Lankan and Tamil Nadu politics, and so on. He has published about 50
monographs and books on these subjects. His research on the Sangam
period in Tamil history is considered a pioneering work. In
recognition of his scholarly achievements in Tamil studies, the
Tamil Nadu government conferred on him in 2000 the Thiru V.
Kalyanasundara Mudaliar Award. Sivathamby is a Visiting Professor of
Tamil to universities in India (the University of Madras and the
Jawaharlal Nehru University), England (Cambridge), Finland and
Norway. Excerpts from the interview:
In what historical context did Dravidianism emerge as an
ideology?
"When one retraces the steps of the Dravidian movement, the
first and the more important one was the emergence of a new
`class' conglomeration of various non-Brahmin castes of the then
Madras Province — the Pillais, the Nairs, the Kammas, the Kapus
and the Reddys. Their emerging interest was such that they would
have invented some glue to stick them all together. An
ideological glue was a socio-political or an ideological
necessity at that time. And the emerging concept of Dravidianism
— from its original, and acknowledged, meaning of a section of a
group of languages — provided that glue.
The other crucial factor is the impact of the British rule and
the type of social dislocations it had created. In British
India, in the ideological need to bring India into one cultural
concept, the role played by, or the role ascribed to, Hinduism,
the Sanskrit texts and the great revelational books, from Max
Mueller to the Theosophical Society, especially Annie Besant,
creates a new awareness which all historians have recorded.
And there were two responses to that. One was the Thani Thamizh
(Pure Tamil) Movement. It was a sort of an elaboration of the
Aryan-Dravidian ideology because
Maraimalai Adigal, its founder, was never against
translations. He wrote long English prefaces for his Tamil
works.
But the more important response was the so-called rationalism,
starting from people like Iyothee Thaas. In fact, except for a
few people, no one has taken this seriously at the level of
modern Indian historians. This question has not been tackled
properly. There was a growing movement of rationalism,
especially coming from the underprivileged classes. There were a
number of caste groups, associations of the so-called lower
castes — early Tamilians... the Pariars, the Pallars, or the Adi
Dravidas. The new life, the new encouragement given, to the
so-called Brahmanism was a reaction to this.
Now we come to the crux of the problem — the inability of the
Congress leadership in Madras to relate social problems to
political demands. So the social contradictions were swept under
the carpet. So much so, as one leading non-Brahmin Congressite
told me, Gandhi himself was responsible for the political
launching of the
Self-Respect Movement in Madras because he did not
understand the sort of inner desperations, the inner workings of
the mind of the people during the Vaikom struggle. Leaders like
Thiru Vi Ka (V. Kalyanasundara Mudaliar) on the other hand were
trying to relate the entire Tamilian history to the question of
socio-political liberation. So the lid was off with the Vaikom
satyagraha.
By this time the rationalist movement, through its association
with the world socialist movement, was becoming more scientific.
It was not merely rationalism in the Ingersolian sense. It was
becoming more and more scientific... promotion of socialism, and
so on. And this is seen in the immediate tie-up of M.
Singaravelu Chettiar and Periyar.
The moment the major political victory of the freedom fighters
was achieved, the social contradictions in Tamil Nadu came to
the fore. In 1944 the Dravidar Kazhagam was formed. In 1949 it
broke up and the DMK came.
There was a sort of social ferment. There was a sort of unfelt,
unheard of, unrecognised strength of this whole movement. Nehru
dismissed the movement. But within four years it became an
important force. "
Does it mean that it was the nationalist response to the
social question or the lack of it that mainly contributed to the
growth of the Dravidian movement?
"Nehru was being idealistic. The southern leaders of the
Congress failed to bring up this question. Some of the Congress
leaders themselves were very progressive in their political
views but were not so progressive on the social issues.
After India won Independence and embarked on the path of
development, the hegemony of the Congress was questioned and
provincialism came to the fore for the first time, in the Madras
Province. In the context of the Congress' failure to take into
account the traditional social differences and social oppression
prevailing in Tamil Nadu and give importance to the perspectives
on social differences, the Dravidian movement emerged as an
expression of the socio-cultural grievances of some sections of
society. This expression was fully politicised with the
emergence of the DMK. It brought about a change, new styles of
leadership and new forms of recruitment and political
mobilisation in the political trajectory of Tamil Nadu. It
created a new political vocabulary in Tamil Nadu."
Was there a kind of duality in the Congress' approach...
politically progressive and socially conservative?
"Yes. So the explosion in the Dravidian movement has to be
understood in these terms. It emerged basically as a movement of
grievances. It can now be recorded that these grievances were
the result of, one, caste inequalities and, two, the problem of
sharing of the government positions that the British rule was
prepared to give because of these inequalities. The second
aspect is the politics of the Justice Party. The Justice Party
only wanted a share in government jobs and education. And
Periyar gave an ideological dimension to the Justice movement.
Looking retrospectively at Periyarism per se, when it is worked
down to its basics, it speaks for the honour of the individual
or the respect for individual rights. These questions should
have been accommodated within the Congress or elsewhere without
any problem. But that is where I think the class distinctions
that arose out of the process of modernisation in Tamil Nadu or
in Madras came into play. The professionals who came from these
classes confused caste and class. So the Dravidian movement grew
as a movement of grievances."
Where did the movement flounder?
"It floundered when it rejected religion as a whole in the
course of its fight against Brahmanism. Religion has a social
necessity — religion in a traditional, unequal, hierarchical
society which Marx himself accepts. Religion is ``the sigh of
the oppressed...''
``...the sigh of the oppressed... the heart of a heartless
world... the soul of a soulless environment..'' If you take the
topography of Hinduism in Tamil Nadu, there is a sharp
distinction between the stone-built temples with high walls and
high gopurams (towers) and those that lie outside them — the
Karumari Amman temples, the Grama Devathas where you find
clay-made structures. When there was this total rejection of all
these higher forms of religion what happened was one of the
things that complicated the whole notion of Sanskritisation
which (M.N.) Srinivas speaks of. When that was rejected people
went in for Karumari Amman and other local gods. The Dravidian
movement could not do anything with that. The very same force or
medium which went against religion was responsible for bringing
up the Amman temples and local gods.
The second problem was that the socio-political grievances for
which the Dravidian movement gave expression were not cemented
with a basic economic perspective. The grievances were not given
an economic orientation in as much as they were given a
political orientation. This became evident during the period in
which the Dravidian movement wielded political power. One can
notice that with the acquisition of political power, differences
among the leaders acquired more importance. Owing to its
inability to forge a politico-economic outlook, the leadership
took the path of populism.
Thirdly, when the questions of marriage registration, the
question of increasing the quotas were neglected, they naturally
affected the mobility of the lower groups, which included
Dalits. But the Dravidian movement stood for the upward social
mobility of the middle groups, whereas it should have, in terms
of its own ideology of rejection of religion and going in for
the fundamental rights of all the people, included Dalits also.
"
Periyar strived for shudra-Dalit unity
But it never happened. In fact the Mandal Commission Report
refers to this. It said Tamil Nadu will be the last place
(where) the whole issue of Dalit-Other Backward Class conflict
will come up. But when the conflict came it exposed various
things.
The Mandal Commission talked about this. It observed that as
long as Tamil Nadu remained in the grip of Tamil cultural
revival, a real movement of backward classes would not emerge
there and that as in other States, the conflict between Dalits
and Other Backward Classes would not hide the
Brahmin-non-Brahmin divide. This, according to the Mandal
Commission, was because Dalits in Tamil Nadu had readily
accepted the Self-Respect Movement. But the Mandal Commission's
perspective was proved wrong within ten years of its
implementation. The question is whether the Dravidian movement's
attempts at cultural revival has created a commonness among the
non-Brahmin castes of Tamil Nadu.
Where exactly did the Dravidian movement fail?
"When all that has been written on C.N. Annadurai is now put
together, one could detect a major problem he faced. He was able to
gather all these social grievances into one major political demand
but was not able to resolve them internally, in terms of organising
the party. I've quoted (P.) Ramamurthy in my book. He (Annadurai)
tells Ramamurthy: "We have come to power much earlier than we
expected.'' The break between Periyar and the DMK was crucial
in this.
A major shift took place in the Dravidian movement with the
formation of the DMK in 1949. It was at this stage that the
Dravidian movement emerged as a movement that gave full expression
to Tamil national consciousness. It underwent the following
important ideological shifts:
1. The decision to take part in electoral politics (1956);
2. Moving away from atheism and advocating the principle of
`one god, one community';
3. The abandoning of the demand for a separate Dravida
homeland (1963).
As a result of this, there was no — for want of a better term
I would say — ideological coming of age. At this point, looking
back, with my Marxist background, I feel that Periyar knew that
going beyond social reform into political action demanded
something more for which he was not ready. Because political
demand has its own trajectory. In that sense Periyar was a
Gandhian.
Gandhi, as assessed by E.M.S. Namboodiripad in his The Mahatma
and the Ism? What was Periyar's limitation? Why did he not travel
that extra mile?
"I had earlier thought, from a Marxist point of view, that he
should have immediately politicised the whole thing. But the
problem was that the politics of Tamil Nadu had undergone change
in the post-colonial period. This is where I think
post-colonialism as a concept has to be seen. All those forces
which in colonial India promised relief or salvation from
British rule now turned themselves into political parties and
groups. As we got rid of colonialism the only radical force that
was with us, Netajism, shot itself out or kicked itself out of
India. There were various sections within the Congress. Rajaji
himself had a group. The Congress (O) and (I) came. Politics was
turning inwardly. And the Communist movement was banned.
I now think that — I don't know to what extent this caught the
imagination of Periyar — the type of social grievances that he
articulated could not have been done politically at the time. So
Periyar kept out of politics. It was an irony. The man who
should have demanded political action did not do it. The others
who wanted political action, politicised culture."
What does it mean and imply — the idea of politicisation of
culture?
You cannot understand the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, its
rise, its strength and its weaknesses without understanding the
whole idea of politicisation of culture. It is basically a
communication strategy — the platform speech, the rhetoric, the
theatre, the newspaper and the film.
The issues that were neglected because of social contradictions
earlier, now came to the forefront in free India. And these
issues were politicised — the Tamil pandit not getting
recognition, Tamil Pongal being considered Maha Sankranthi, and
Tamil not getting a place, and so on. The DMK did not intend to
revive Tamil religion. They did not want to revive religion but
Tamil culture — the reification of the Sangam period... the
reification of Silappadhikaram. Silappadhikaram is full of
magic. I don't think there is any other work of that period
which is so full of magic, wonders and miracle. But a political
reading was done into the text... that it symbolised the glory
of the three kingdoms — Chera, Chola and Pandya.
And in this process of politicisation of culture and looking
into individual grievances without an economic concept, ideology
slipped. As long as you had a man who understood the whole thing
it was okay. Annadurai died. And once MGR (M.G. Ramachandran)
came to power, or had come to command power, ideology was in the
back seat.
The emergence of the Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam led by M.G.
Ramachandran brings about some major ideological shifts in the
Dravidian movement. First, though a tactical one, was the AIADMK
taking itself into the larger national circle. It marked the
beginning of a break from the DMK's stand on State autonomy. It
also marked a major shift from the basic atheistic aspect of the
Dravidian ideology. Although measures such as the enhancement of
reservation in jobs and the nutritious mid-day meal scheme for
schoolchildren made a major social impact, the distinct
socio-religious perspective of the Dravidian ideology was
eroded.
What about DMK president M. Karunanidhi?
The problem is, Karunanidhi symbolises Tamil, the rhetoric.
The tragedy of Tamil Nadu is, as I look at it as a student of
Tamil literature and as a Marxist, there has been a
de-ideologisation of politics. As a Marxist I would say that the
basic problem was that the whole Dravidian ideology was not
shaped in terms of economics.
And there all-India politics matters. It is very interesting —
in spite of all these things, West Bengal continues to thrive,
and Kerala has a common sense of purpose. The question is this:
What was the Bengali spirit that the Communists could tap? What
was the Malayalam spirit that they could work on. What was the
Bengali spring on which Jyoti Basu stood? And what was the
Kerala spring on which EMS (Namboodiripad) stood? And what
happened in Tamil Nadu? Dravidianism is no more a coherent
ideology. It has been deideologised. And the tragedy is, without
another proper ideology taking its place.
There is another aspect. The beginning is not within Tamil Nadu.
The emergence of provincialism. The glue that the British
government and the Indian intellectuals gave for India, the
great Indian culture and all that, was not able to hold this
country together. Provinicialisation or regionalisation of
politics and the politics of ruling India leads to all sorts of
alliances. Now provincialism has become a part of Indian polity.
So now there must be some lowest common factor, highest common
factor, or lowest common multiple to bind them together.
What will be this new binding factor and when will it emerge,
if at all?
That is an all-India problem, not a Tamil Nadu problem.
Because Tamil Nadu is now in India and India has Tamil Nadu as a
part. So will you have a movement which will sort of make its
appeal on the basis of a common pool of grievances — a common
pool that will make Indians alive to socio-political debates and
at the same time stay within India? This is the real challenge
that awaits India's politics.
Anti-Brahmanism and later anti-casteism was the bedrock of the
Dravidian movement, especially when Periyar was actively in the
field. More than half a century later, Tamil Nadu has been
witness to the most vicious kind of clashes between Dalits and
backward communities such as Thevars and Vanniars. Does this
signify the Dravidan movement's failure? Has the Tamil national
identity failed to transcend caste identities?
When you look at the way the policy of reservation in jobs and
education has worked in Tamil Nadu (as at the all-India level),
it has strongly reinforced the permanence of caste groups and
caste consciousness. This has created a historical
contradiction. That is, the movement that sought to reject the
socio-cultural hegemony of a particular caste has strengthened
the caste consciousness of the low and middle castes among which
it should have maintained equality. This is why caste clashes
have become a persistent phenomenon in the contemporary history
of Tamil Nadu.
Despite the struggle against the caste system, the system was
reinforced owing to the absence of a change in the basic
socio-economic system and to the persistence of certain
``relations'' in sectors that have seen change. This will
complicate the process of democratisation in the long run. But
we should not forget the fact that such a situation has arisen
as a result of the process of democratisation. Had the Dravidian
movement taken the process of ``democratisation'' of the
non-Brahmin communities to its logical conclusion, the process
would have reached the oppressed sections of Tamil society.
When you look back, it is clear that the process of
democratisation is not complete. The historical task remains
incomplete. In its efforts to get rid of castes, ironically, the
Dravidian movement has only strengthened castes. Caste identity
has become one's second self in Tamil Nadu.
Despite the process of de-ideologisation, the Dravidian
parties put together still constitute a strong force in electoral
terms.
The social grievances that the Dravidian movement gave
expression to are real. The raison d'etre of Dravidian
consciousness has been the insurmountability of these
grievances. Also the movement has shown the possibilities of
upward social mobility for the middle caste groups and the
Dravidian parties still command support from these sections.
If the grievances are real, is there a possibility of the
grievances being channelled into a separatist path again?
I rule out the possibility of Tamil
Nadu going back to separatism. History will not permit it. Tamil
consciousness emerged when it could not express itself within
India.
It took about 10 years for independent India to recognise the
importance of regional languages and reorganise the States on a
linguistic basis. Now one sees oneself not just as a Tamil but
as an Indian Tamil. Young students and their parents see
themselves and their upward mobility in terms of entire India.
Employability is no longer confined to Tamil Nadu. Also in
matters of demand and supply, the all-India market is a major
consideration. As things stand, the average enterprising
non-Brahmin Tamil (Nadu) parents feel that education in the
English medium is, ironically, the only deterrent against
Brahmanism, which would give them a place in the all-India
market; in such a situation, separatism cannot find a place.
|
