The Dravidian movement, whose origin is
marked by the release of the Non-Brahmin Manifesto and the formation
of the Justice Party, is in the 90th year of its existence. Social
justice and linguistic nationalism were the major planks that saw
its phenomenal growth, which helped it capture power in Tamil Nadu
in 1967. The movement has not looked back since then, with the two
major Dravidian parties - the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All
India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam - ruling the State alternately
for about four decades now.
However, critics argue that the movement
is a pale shadow of its former self. Among other things, they argue
that though it facilitated the upward mobility of intermediate
castes, the Dravidian movement has not done justice to Dalits; that
it has not really contributed to the growth of Tamil as a modern
language; that the Tamil identity it has constructed has failed to
transcend caste identities, and so on.
In this interview conducted by R. Vijaya Sankar as part of a
research project under the Appan Menon Memorial Award, Sri Lankan
Tamil scholar Karthigesu Sivathamby explains the factors underlying
the transformation of the movement in its post-colonial phase.
Excerpts:
"Although the Dravidian movement has lost much
of its radical sheen and moved far away from its ideological
moorings, Dravidian parties remain an electoral force in Tamil
Nadu. Even about four decades after assuming power and suffering
a major and, several minor splits, they command 70 per cent or
more of the vote share in Tamil Nadu, leading to a virtual
two-party system in the State. What explains this situation? If
you take the all-India picture, you will see that in virtually
all States there is now an evenly poised balance between
regional or local politics and the so-called national parties.
State-level parties and politics have emerged in a big way. In
the case of Tamil Nadu, the rise of the DMK [Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam] came very significantly almost with the coming of
Independence. The fact that there was an assertion of the
cultural identity of this community was somehow or the other
overlooked by the Congress leaders of Tamil Nadu, especially in
the earlier era. And whatever Kamaraj did later was only to
reccognise that but he could not stand against the student
leader of the DMK. And taken along with the overall position
India took by way of reorganising the States on linguistic lines
in 1956, it was clear that the cultural linguistic appeal was
there. Then we thought, even [Jawaharlal] Nehru thought, this
was an unwelcome phenomenon. Now we find regional parties
everywhere. Whether it is Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh or
Bihar, that regional identity politics is there.
Also do not forget the type of politicisation that was taking
place through the Dravidian ideology. There was mobilisation of
the masses in terms of their own social and cultural identity
and social and cultural aspirations. And that was why, basically
speaking and also in caste terms, you saw the emergence of the
backward classes that formed nearly 80 per cent of the
population - a reality which the national parties, whether it
was the Communists or the Congress, were unable to comprehend.
In the case of the Congress I think the way it was handling the
issue was wrong. It realised its mistake at a very late stage
when it put up Kamaraj. Even then it did not work. In the case
of the Marxists, they were facing a lot of problems. It is only
now that they are trying to rediscover the Marxist traditions
from within the Tamil Nadu peasantry. Earlier they were thinking
in terms of workers. The continuance of the Dravidian movement
is because of that socio-cultural assertion which is the result
of the type of political mobilisation [E.V.R.] Periyar did; the
DMK did.
I find one more reason for the movement's relevance. I have had
the opportunity to be in touch with top professionals of Tamil
Nadu based in Chennai. Strangely I find all of them at heart
Periyarists. In fact, an engineer of international repute and a
great doctor by all-India standards told me that had it not been
for Periyar's inspiration, they would not have made it. This
type of cultural assertion and political mobilisation have given
the people a sense of power. The Dravidian movement was able to
mobilise people because it was able to speak in terms of these
people.
They had a sense of identity with the movement... The Dravidian
movement leaders made people conscious of that identity. In the
early days of [C.N.] Annadurai and [M.] Karunanidhi, it was felt
that this would run counter to all-India feelings. But today it
has been shown that it need not run counter to the all-India
current.
It can run parallel to that or coexist with that... Yes. Without
losing even a shred of your "Dravidianness" you are part of the
all-India framework. Whether it was Kalaignar Karunanidhi or MGR
[M.G. Ramachandran], they have done the same thing. I see it
more conspicuously or effectively in the case of Kalaignar
because he talks about Tamil and sangam literature and at the
same time he is also part of the all-India combination. His
family or the people who are associated with him have been able
to establish in terms of capitalistic expansion what I would
call, for want of a better phrase, a media empire, which covers
the entire South India and even diaspora Tamils.
What about the economic grievances? What has been done to the
people they mobilised in terms of Tamil identity? I mean those
at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. This is the exact
problem. When the independence movement was on, the Congress
mobilised and activated a particular section of society. They
did not go beyond that. The Dravidian movement activated the
backward castes or the intermediate level of people. It is only
now we know that they too did not go further down. In spite of
one Satyavani Muthu here and/or someone else there, it did not
work at all. There has been an effort to hold the power among
themselves. And parliamentary politics gave them power. I will
also make bold to make this statement. If you analyse the class
character of the MLAs and MPs who have come from the Dravidian
movement, you will see that in terms of economic interests they
were not the people who believe in the type of sharing that the
ideology of Annadurai stood for. This economic interest... that
was the contradiction. The Dravidian movement had no major
economic plan and programme to take forward. That was seen even
in their own policies. They go for a sort of welfarist budget.
But has there been any plan from 1967 till now, a definitive
plan, a radical plan? Has there been any major measures in
relation to the problem of land tenure and distribution in these
areas? The whole countryside is prone to floods even now as in
the days of Manikkavasagar.
But people still vote for the Dravidian parties... That is the
result of cultural assertion. This movement can speak to them in
their own terms. Sometimes in their own caste idioms. Above all,
one should not forget that the Dravidian movement as developed
by Periyar and Annadurai brought in a sense of self-esteem among
the Tamils which was virtually kept low. The Self-Respect
Movement raised a sense of self-esteem among the Tamils, as a
community at that point. It cut across caste barriers. This
perhaps lingers even today. Now, of course, the position of
Tamil within Indian culture is better recognised even though it
is not fully valued.
As you have been saying, the convergence of the streams of
social justice and linguistic nationalism created a strong base
for the upsurge of Dravidian politics in the 1940s and 1950s. In
the post-colonial period, the Dravidian movement attained
ideological hegemony and surged past the Congress and the Left.
What made this possible? Could this be explained in terms of
Gramscian political discourse? That is exactly what has
happened. The greatness of Annadurai depended on the fact that
he was able to turn the tables on the Communists. He said:
Uzhavar Dhinam [Pongal or Peasants' Day] is the May Day of the
Tamils. He got all their sources and turned the tables
wonderfully well. And of course the Communist Party also was
facing some problems in that period.
He really broke away from Periyar when Periyar made the fatal
mistake of trying to marry the Self-Respect Movement with the
Justice Party by creating a new formation [Dravidar Kazhagam] in
1944. That marriage need not have taken place and it was a
divorce even before the thaali was tied. The Self-Respect
Movement and the Justice Party remained separate. This after
having created aspirations in the people. With the coming of
Independence, unfortunately, again Periyar took a harsh view.
This Anna thought was the opportune moment. What did he use? He
used the linguistic-cultural identity and worked on the
socio-economic grievances of the people. Please read Anna. I
remember as a young man reading [Annadurai's] Panaththottam. It
was a call for a sort of equality which we could never imagine.
It was anti-Brahmin, it was about equality, it was
egalitarian... . So there was a call for not only social
equality but also economic equality. That was the plank on which
Annadurai appealed...
In this connection, it is worth recollecting the dialogue
Karunanidhi wrote for the film Parasakthi. The protagonist says
in fiery Tamil: "We are not against temples. But we are against
temples becoming the den of the wicked." Also there is a scene
where the protagonist, driven to despair by hunger, says, again
in alliterative Tamil, "Why did not that God teach us to cook
stones and sand and eat them." It was an expression of the pangs
of poverty in their own language... Also, remember this famous
sequence in Parasakthi when it is discovered, as in a Roman
play, that this poverty-stricken boy belongs to a great family
and the family asks him to return to its fold. "No, I want to be
with them [poor]. I belong to them."
I remember, back in Ceylon [now Sri Lanka], people clapping
their hands at this scene. You must read Panaththottam.
Annadurai was a post-graduate and he knew his economics. And
there he went for a type of socialism, not even socialism, a
type of equalisation. And people thought that they were getting
it.
Podhuvudaimai Poonga [Garden of Socialism]... Yes. Podhuvudaimai
Poonga. We are better than them [Communists]... They hold the
umbrellas here when it rains in Moscow... . Through such
expressions he tried to discredit them. But there was an element
of economic equality [in their thinking], which unfortunately
they were not able to implement when they came to power. But
they did it in bits and pieces... giving pots and pans... giving
rice for one rupee. That type of populist actions. But in terms
of concrete planning for the State... no. By the time,
parliamentary power was already in the hands of an emerging
power group, which wanted to hold the power to itself... It was
accused of amassing wealth.
Not only in Tamil Nadu but in other parts of India too you find
this a particular feature. This was a country which had waged
its independence struggle, to the amazement of the entire world,
adopting tactics that were never known in history earlier. In
this country, tell me, how do we have this type of corruption,
large-scale corruption, where even parliamentarians are accused
of accepting bribes for asking questions. Where did this slip
occur? This is the question which we have to analyse in all
earnestness. Where did it go wrong?
What do you think? At present it is an open question and I don't
want to make any guesses. But we know that it is a reality. Of
course, corruption is a part of our social life. I accept that.
But the larger question is we - that is Sri Lanka, India,
Pakistan, Burma or Bangladesh - we who claim a civilisational
past, glorious linguistic and religious heritages, how are we
now reconciling ourselves to this political corruption. And it
has become part and parcel of our life. Coming to Tamil Nadu in
particular, as you said, in the 1950s there was this very
populist way of asking for economic equality. And Anna used to
say that he himself was an economist and that he knew his
economics. I have great regard for Anna for his responses when
he was Chief Minister. When he was in office he sincerely made
an effort to achieve this. But unfortunately the dissensions
within the party were so much that he could not hold it
together. And he told [CPI(M) leader] P. Ramamurthi that the DMK
had come to power much earlier than it expected.
I would put it in another way. I had to write a small piece in
English to my Sinhala friends on what the Dravidian movement
meant. They think that we are trying to create a Tamil movement
in a jingoistic sense. I told them no. It was a movement for the
amelioration of the political injustices, of the neglect this
Tamil culture suffered.
But the other cultures also suffered because of uneven
development and the kind of nationalism the Congress sought to
construct. But as a Sri Lankan I tell you, over and above all
these things, there has been some inbuilt mechanism within the
Indian setup, which went for a Constituent Assembly immediately
after 1947. And no less a person than [B.R.] Ambedkar who
challenged Gandhi in a different sense was Minister of Law. And
in 1956 the Panikkar Commission prepared the States
Reorganisation Report, which today I think is holding India
together.
Identity is neither static nor one-dimensional. Has the
Dravidian movement adapted itself to the changing Tamil
identity, the transformation brought about by socio-economic
changes? A new class has emerged. The continued relevance of the
Dravidian movement may be because of that. The ability to
adapt... I think there is a misplacement of the cause and effect
in the way you have raised the question. I don't think that the
Dravidian movement of Periyar or the Dravidar Kazhagam went in
for the type of Tamil identity as Anna did. With Periyar, the
emphasis was on the non-Brahmin Tamil tradition. In fact the way
Anna and his followers constructed the identity of the Tamils is
quite interesting because the Pallava period, the Chola period
came into the picture. The so-called achievements in terms of
art and architecture, sculpture, the bronzes, even the Bhakti
literature... none of these was brought in. They went back to
sangam literature, which was secular. There was the highlighting
of the Tamil tradition in terms of its secularism. And there was
a focus on the so-called pre-Sanskritic Tamil culture which they
thought Thirukkural was and Sangam literature was. That was the
type of identity. In fact, if you are very sensitive to the use
of language, you would notice that there was a slide. And there
was an observable distinction between what was Tamil and
Tamilian. That was the type of identity. And over the years that
identity began to sort of get diluted. And this was the question
I raised in an earlier interview (Frontline, November 8, 2002).
The question of religion. And the other one was that except for
its platform rhetoric and perhaps its contribution to the types
of dialogue in plays and in cinema in a way, what was the
contribution of the Dravidian movement writers in terms of
creative literature? I don't think up to date they have produced
a famous short story writer like Jayakanthan, Sundara Ramaswamy
or La. Sa. Ra. [Ramamirtham] or the great Pudumaipithhan. There
were short story writers no doubt but not of a class...
Maybe the last one was Annadurai... stories like "Sevvazhai"...
Yes. The last one perhaps was Anna. He was very effective. So
the identity which the Dravidian movement had created in the
late 1940s and early1950s to serve a particular purpose was not
in a position to be sustained when the country, and Tamil Nadu
as a whole, began to respond to this new development. This is
very important because from Rajaji [C. Rajagopalachari] we come
to Kamaraj. That was very great. The Congress really became
alive to the situation and they find that Rajaji or people of
that type could no longer be the representatives of the Tamil
image... the Tamil psyche. And they had to go for Kamaraj. Take
the press... it was pattuvada, zilla - that type of language was
being used. And there was the coming in of the Tamilian
sentiment. But the question was, did the Tamil identity have all
the creative capacities, propensities within it to confront or
face the subsequent changes and challenges. Society is dynamic,
dialectical. As new things were coming in and when sangam
literature really began to be studied deeply, it also brought in
a new sense of poetics, depicting human experiences
situationally and in a very direct manner. This in a way ran
counter to the post-Bharati poetic rhetoric.
More important, there was the question of the theatre. The type
of theatre that was used for political propaganda did not arise
from within the Tamil tradition of Koothu, whereas in Kerala and
Karnataka there was social identification of Kathakali and
Yakshagana. In Tamil Nadu the Therukkoothu was never tapped, it
had to wait till about the mid-1970s. And the contradiction was
that the cultural assertion which had such a political clout did
not tap the non-Sanskritic Tamil cultural tradition of the
villages.
But why did it appeal to people then? It was a real contrast.
The intellectual leaders of the time did not speak of sangam
poetry. Nor did they realise the value of Thirukkural. Nobody
spoke about the special identity of Tamil literature as part of
Indian literature.
Which Tamils were proud of... Yes. There was no non-Brahminism,
anti-Brahminism there. [U.V.] Swaminatha Iyer was equally proud
of sangam literature as was Damodaram Pillai. So this had an
appeal. That was why they went for a secular tradition. They
went for a literary tradition. But unfortunately it lacked all
these things mentioned above. And subsequently, politicisation
took a different turn with MGR. The pattern of politicisation
definitely changed then. Annadurai and Karunanidhi gave a
populist turn to politics. It may also be intellectual populism
if I may be allowed to use the term. MGR, who made no claims
about all these things, went for mass populism. And that holds
good even today because it means votes.
Another question relating to identity. Why has
not the Tamil identity been able to transcend caste and Dalit
identities? The formation of parties like the Pattali Makkal
Katchi, which have a social base among particular castes, is a
manifestation of this. This exactly is the tragedy of the way
the Dravidian ideology was handled. The anti-Brahmin,
anti-Congress ideology should have extended to a sense of
egalitarianism of all non-Brahmin castes. This contradiction was
not resolved. The Justice Party never resolved it. In fact, they
were only unhappy that Brahmins did not share power with them.
But they were not prepared to share it with people down below.
Periyar too did not go beyond a point... . Periyar was more an
ideologue. In his own way he was an idealist. He was trying to
live as an idealist. Within the framework it was well and good.
Periyar is basically a social reformer. And the problem that
Periyar faced was that he had no political agenda. Otherwise he
was a wonderful social reformist. He stood for social assertion.
Social awakening... . But he had no planned political agenda.
The main problem was that the Justice Party and its non-Brahmin
movement dictated the economic outlook of the Dravidian
movement. Under Anna also the movement was fostering this
economic line.
They did not go in for land reforms, which would have benefited
large sections of Tamils... Yes. They were only worried about
the caste benefits. You can see the irony of the entire
situation. The Dravidian movement, which was so careful about
caste benefits, group benefits, community benefits, has nothing
to say against privatisation. In fact, if the public sector is
weakened, the entire base crumbles. They are unable to see the
ill-effects of globalisation. This is the contradiction within
the Dravidiam movement. There has been no progressive
carry-forward of that ideology.
Is it because of the class character of the leadership? Actually
it is not the class character. They started from quite humble
positions and graduated to positions of power. You cannot say
that basically Kalaignar was a capitalist. He comes from a poor
family in Thirukkuvalai. His having reached this stature is
marvellous... stupendous. But for them political equality did
not imply economic equality. And they were subsumed later under
class interests. So this factor of the class taking over, they
did not recognise. This is a larger question that scholars like
Gail Omvedt have discussed in detail... The caste-class
continuum... the caste-class conflict. Where is the blending?
Which is the blending point? It is slender. They went straight
into the class character where caste is being used for class
interests. Discussing this question, we should realise that ours
is basically a hierarchical society. The hierarchy at the start
was based on caste. But modernisation takes the hierarchy to an
economic level. Thus for those who go up the ladder, social and
economic power becomes very very important. No wonder a great
anthropologist has used the term homo hierarchicus.
The newly emerging classes within these castes. You cannot blame
them. For them social mobility means getting on to the other
class. They never thought about it. They have automatically
become not so much landowners but entrepreneurs. And as they
changed, the caste mythology also changed. The entire media are
in their hands now. This is class interest. The moment you
become a person of that class, then your whole attitude changes.
The question of communal representation came up when the state
apparatus was expanding under British rule and there was this
race to be part of the administration. But in the neoliberal
context of today, where the state is shrinking in terms of jobs,
how does the concept of social justice operate? Is there a need
to redefine social justice in this context? The struggle for
social justice now has to be a struggle against neoliberalism.
What is the future of Tamil nationalism in an increasingly
globalised world? We have not had an ideologue to mediate Tamil
nationalism in the new context. Within an all-India framework
that mediation was possible and for this we can fall back on a
man like Bharati. Or even some of our Congress desi leaders. But
in the context of globalisation, nobody has done that sort of
mediation of Tamil nationalism (by Tamil nationalism I mean the
assertion of the socio-political identity of the Tamils as a
political community).
This I think is a bit of a problem. I have not
found an answer for it. But I have been thinking of the problem
in a slightly different way. In the whole discourse of the
Dravidian movement in the 1960s and 1970s they have not brought
in the concept of colonialism and post-colonialism. In terms of
colonialism, even the upsurge of the Dravidian movement and the
need for a Dravidian identity were a colonial necessity. And
there was also a sort of a Protestant Christian movement, which
was really westernising our society for the needs of British
rule. The type of social mobility that was promised to us, that
we wished to aspire for... there was a colonialist necessity. We
have imbibed the colonialist tradition and we have never gone
out of it. Even in the post-colonial situation, Tamil Nadu has
not begun to realise this. See the way they cling on to English
as a medium of education in spite of all their Tamilness, in
spite of all their claims about Tiruvalluvar and others. The
Kannadiga teaches his child Kannada up to a particular standard.
And the Malayalee can do it. Why can't at least primary
education be had in Tamil in Tamil Nadu?
There was a big protest in Tamil Nadu when Tamil was introduced
as the medium of education in the primary sections. Even
intellectuals and topmost officials are for it. This shows the
colonialist character of your disposition towards your identity.
You want to be a Tamil within the English world. So much so that
you do not even want to teach Tamil to your child. That is why I
want this paradigm to be brought in. That of colonialism and
post-colonialism. Then you will see that in terms of
post-colonialism to what extent have we decolonised Tamil
society? We have only been talking about decolonising Tamil
society from Sanskrit hegemony. If we have started decolonising
from British rule, then in a sense bureaucracy will not be as
powerful as now. Today what we have in a post-colonial India is
a colonial bureaucracy, which is not at all sensitive to the
needs of the people. It is again part of the South Asian
situation.
They do not have any problem adjusting to the demands of
globalisation... We feel very happy about being outsourced. But
we don't realise that outsourcing means that they have all the
technological advantages and we are only a sort of low-down the
ladder. We are not looking at the problem from this perspective.
The role of the bureaucracy in many of the South Asian countries
shows there has been no decolonisation. This adds to our
problems.
Please do not confine your analysis of the Dravidian movement
within the framework of Tamil nationalism, within the framework
even of Indian nationalism. See it in the larger context of how
the movement was the child of colonialism and how it has been
faring during the post-colonial situation, how it has
contributed to post-colonial life in Tamil Nadu. Then you will
see that not a single Chief Minster from 1967 has been for
bringing in Tamil as the medium of education. The gap in
society, the gap between the lower and upper rungs, was never
breached and the Dalit movement comes from that.
And Vanniyars... These are the internal contradictions and
inconsistencies that ultimately led to the loosening of the
strength of the so-called Dravidian fabric. So much so that the
Dravidian movement today keeps the Tamil man and the Tamil woman
as important because they have votes in their hands."
|
