![[Discussion] What was the “Dravidian movement” all about? Was it something that emerged all of a sudden with the DMK’s victory in 1967 TN elections - as an outcome of a mass outrage against “North Indian” hegemony and the imposition of Hindi? Read on](https://a.thumbs.redditmedia.com/-ehNzQRxdljZNyq4grcHVd35PJdb5hzwodMjW47fHb4.jpg "[Discussion] What was the “Dravidian movement” all about? Was it something that emerged all of a sudden with the DMK’s victory in 1967 TN elections - as an outcome of a mass outrage against “North Indian” hegemony and the imposition of Hindi? Read on")
Muthuvel Karunanidhi, the Chief Minister of the southern state of Tamil Nadu for 5 separate terms between 1969 and 2011, passed away on Aug 7th at the age of 94.
He was the most major and consequential face of the “Dravidian movement” since Annadurai’s death in 1969
A lot of obituaries will no doubt focus on his political career and his legacy. But in my view this is a good time to take a step back and better understand the “ideas” and prejudices that Karunanidhi championed.
"Views" that predate him by decades and that he did not originate. While it is all very well to focus on people, a discussion of ideas and their place in history is always more useful.
What was the “Dravidian movement” all about?
Was it something that emerged all of a sudden with the DMK’s victory in 1967 TN elections - as an outcome of a mass outrage against “North Indian” hegemony and the imposition of Hindi?
Or do we go further back and place its origins in the late 19th / early 20th century with the Justice Party and the Self-respect movement - a political assertion of the “non brahmin” tamil people against the perceived Brahmin dominance in Tamil Nadu during the British Raj?
But these are proximate ways of thinking about political movements. Which are not satisfactory. Why Tamil Nadu?
The Brahmins were arguably even more “dominant” (as measured by literacy rates and occupancy of government jobs) in Mysore than in Madras. Yet there was no “Dravidian movement” in Mysore / Karnataka.
The Brahmins were pretty “dominant” in Bombay Presidency as well, yet we didn’t see a “Non-Brahmin” maratha assertion in Maharashtra, until much later in the 20th century.
Why is it that this political movement rooted in
a. Tamil exceptionalism b. Dislike of the Brahmin c. Dislike of Northern cultural influences (Sanskrit, Hindi, “Brahminical” Hinduism)
Emerged ONLY in TN and not in other southern states, or in other non-Hindi parts of India?
These are questions that haven’t been asked enough by historians and discussed even less in media
This thread is a modest attempt to answer these qns, and examine briefly the political/social circumstances in Tamil Nadu over the past 1000 yrs, which help answer these questions
So let’s first try to understand the Tamil country. A land that has been extremely well integrated with “Aryavrata” for nearly 2000 years. In fact one can legitimately regard it as a part of “Aryavrata” starting with Pallava rule in the middle of the 1st millennium CE
The period from about 5th / 6th century CE to 13th century can be regarded as a “Golden age” for the Tamil country - a period when the land was first ruled by the Great Pallavas, and later the Cholas (with a brief Pandya revival in 13th cen)
It was a period when Tamil Nadu emerged arguably as the citadel of Hindu culture in all of subcontinent - a culture that enmeshed the great Sanskritic traditions of the north with the local Tamil traditions - and in the process enriching both
Now why do I regard the cosmopolitan Tamil culture of 6th to 13th centuries as the high point of Tamizh civilization? It is on account of its remarkable accomplishments
This period saw some of the greatest works in Tamil (and Hindu) literature - - The great Bhakti poetry of Azhwars and Nayanars (6th to 9th century CE) - Kamban’s Rama-avataram (12th century)
The period was also the emergence of the great Tamil empires - when Tamil maritime flourished like never before, and Tamil / Hindu influence extended into much of South East Asia
The Medieval Cholas were that rare Indian exception- an expansionist Indian Empire. An empire that defeated and subjugated the great Srivijaya kingdom of Indonesia, and also conquered much of Sri Lanka in 11th cen. Sri Lanka was under Chola rule for nearly all of 11th cen.
The period was also marked by great architectural innovation - all the great Chola and Pallava temples of Tamil Nadu - be it Brihadeeshwara & Airavateshwara (in Tanjore region) or Kailashnathar / Mahabalipuram (near Kanchi) date to this period of hectic architectural activity
Finally the period is most distinguished for its massive, I repeat massive, contribution to the Hindu religion. The Vaishnava and Shaiva faiths consolidated during this period.
The great Hindu theologians - Sankara and Ramanuja - belong to this period
It was also a period when Tamil devotional literature was integrated with the Sanskrit mainstream. The devotional literature gained intellectual legitimacy in temples across Tamil Nadu notwithstanding the low origins of many of the Tamil poets who wrote this literature.
So why are we discussing all this. The point to note here is that during this heyday of Tamil civilization, the Tamil country was arguably the shining light of India (esp given the decline that had set in much of the North after the fall of Harsha)
And this civilization was not marked by any “revolt” against brahmins or Sanskrit or northern influences. It was a confident Tamil culture that embraced northern influences as well as northern migrants.
One example of seamless migration from the north is that of the great Sanskrit writer Dandin, who was a part of the Pallava court in early 8th century. His family was one that had immigrated to Tamil Nadu from Vidarbha in the North in the 7th century
So it was a confident civilization, with none of the Tamizh insecurities that characterize the modern Dravidian movement.
So what changed?
Things began to change around the 14th cen, when Tamil Nadu gradually lost its political sovereignty. The Cholas faded. The Pandyas of Madurai were overthrown by Delhi Sultanate
The Madurai Sultanate’s rule of terror over southern Tamil Nadu in the 14th cen left tremendous scars
By the end of the 14th cen, all of the Tamil country was under Vijayanagar rule, which had its base in northern Deccan (Hampi). Following the fall of Vijayanagara, the Tamil territories came under the rule of the Nayakas - who were originally governors of Vijayanagara Empire
Post late 17th century the Nayaka influence also waned, and Maratha influence gradually increased. Thanjavur became a seat of Maratha power. Elsewhere in Northern Tamil country, the Muslim Nawabs established their rule centered in the town of Arcot (modern Vellore).
So what do we gather about this long period from 14th century to 19th century? It was a period of Non-Tamil rule in Tamil Nadu. Starting with Vijayanagara, then Nayaks, then the Marathas, the Nawabs, and finally the British.
Quite naturally it was also a period of Tamizh decline. Vast populations of non-Tamil origin (particularly from Andhra) moved into Tamil Nadu during this period, especially due to Vijayanagara patronage So Telugu (and to a lesser extent Sanskrit) became very dominant languages in the corridors of power. Tamil receded.
Telugu was perceived as the language with some class! The language used by respectable people. Tamil - the language of the masses and the subjects.
To me this phase of Telugu’s rise and Tamil’s decline cannot be over-emphasized. It is very important to understand the roots of Tamil rage and Tamil insecurities
One way to understand the predominance of Telugu in Tamil country is to examine Carnatic Music - an art form whose formal development was primarily in Tamil Nadu in late 18th / early 19th century
The three giants of this art form in late 18th century were - Tyagaraja, Shama Sastri and Muthuswami Dikshitar. Atleast two of them, we are sure, had Telugu as their mother tongue
But where did they live? In Andhra? No . They lived in the vicinity of Tanjore - the Tamil heartland
How about their compositions? - Well the compositions were primarily in Telugu, and some in Sanskrit. Hardly any in Tamil, the language spoken by the masses around them
So we have this long long period of Tamil decline, which no doubt hurt Tamil pride a lot. This is after all the land of Silappadikaram and Tirukkural. The land of Rajaraja Chola and Kamban
But by 19th century, the language and culture had been reduced to a second rate status thanks to the remarkable growth of Telugu - an upstart language which barely even existed in literary form back in the 1st millennium CE when Tamil was the pre-eminent southern language
There was a lot of frustration of course. And it needed venting. It also needed a scapegoat. Who to blame? You can’t blame old and bygone kings, nor can you blame “Telugu” people who were too numerous, and well integrated into Tamil society.
The scapegoat was the Brahmin and also his “Sanskritic” ways.
But why was the “Brahmin” singled out? Now to understand this we need to change our tracks a bit and now switch our focus to the British Raj
Let’s go the 1820s - a period when Thomas Munro reigned as Madras Governor. It still marked the initial phase of British rule over Southern India in its entirety
Munro undertook a survey to assess the educational conditions in the Presidency - the results of which are revealing
Does the survey suggest a very high degree of Brahmin dominance in education?
Let’s pick two districts in the Tamil country where the Brahmins were most numerous back then (> 5% of pop). These were also temple towns where much of the “brahmin cultural capital” was concentrated
Here’s the caste distribution of Male school going students in these 2 districts b/w 1822 and 1825
https://preview.redd.it/46gwajrslwe11.jpg?width=591&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb3e93b7d4130c23b4f8e2c6f9701723747c4427
What do we notice -
Sure, there is some over-representation of Brahmins ( a share of 10-15% suggests a 2x over-indexing relative to their share in population - around 5% or more in these districts)
But this is far from the stereotypical view of education being denied to the non-twice born castes.
A very vast majority of students in both these districts were “Shudras” (which in the south is a blanket term covering over three quarters of the population)
So the educational reality of the 1820s did not warrant any grudge against the “Brahmins” as a class in society that monopolizes education
The data on schools back then was only indicative, as a very large section of kids used to be home-schooled. As per Munro’s own report, in the city of Madras, 26,446 boys were being schooled at home, in contrast to only 5,523 boys who were attending the Patha-shalas
We have these numbers thanks to Dharampal’s painstaking research whose book “The Beautiful Tree” demolished many myths about late medieval / early modern India, at the time of the British encounter
However as the 19th century proceeded, there was considerable social change. Firstly it was a period of relative economic stagnation / decline (a process that had started much earlier in 17th century), causing many traditional pathashalas to close down.
Secondly with the formal establishment of British Raj, and the new opportunities in the bureaucracy, and in urban professions, the Brahmin ascendancy began. An ascendancy without a precedent for the community in Indian history. Nowhere was this ascendancy more marked than in TN
By 1912, the Brahmin dominance was very real particularly in the British bureaucracy. Here’s a table from that year -
https://preview.redd.it/sci3i896mwe11.jpg?width=584&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=559feb7a2cd75f534aa675f287089b29a5a4c6f8
What is more likely is that Brahmins embraced the change in climate better, and took to English education in a big way - unlike a lot of other communities
One way to understand the “Brahmin rise” is to look at specific cases of Brahmins whose lives were transformed during this period of late 19th century.
Take two famous instances - VS Srinivasa Sastri (1869 - 1946), Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar (1883-1953)
The former became a famous Indian politician, diplomat and administrator. A famed “Moderate” leader of the Gokhale wing within Congress.
The latter was a famous lawyer and member of the Drafting committee and Constituent assembly which framed the Indian Constitution
Now why am I picking these two names? There is a common thread. Both were born in villages, and were sons of temple priests! They were not well-connected aristocrats. They came out of nowhere.
So in the 1820 setup, kids like these were no different from a thousand other kids (Brahmin or Non Brahmin) leading a mediocre existence in small towns. But the British Raj provided opportunities for several such “outliers” (incidentally Brahmin) to max out their potential
So this was the story of the 19th cen. A century during which there was considerable change in the economy. More opportunities than ever before for the creme-de-la-creme. But stagnation for everyone else
This meant greater social inequality, and a widening rift between castes. This was also coupled, if you remember, by the larger story of Tamil decline we discussed earlier.
But then 19th century changed the language equations for the first time in 500 years. Tamil made a comeback!
And this comeback was partly because of the rise of the professional middle class (mostly Tamil speaking Brahmin) without any “connections” in the old Telugu set-up. A lot of these new kids on the block were key in reviving the Tamil language
Take a couple of names -
Even the current obsession with Lemuria / Kumari Kandam among Dravidian chauvinists in our times actually dates back to the late 19th century - a period of Tamil revival
Lemuria interestingly was the speculation of a submerged continent connecting Australia and India - it was originally a theory suggested by 19thc European / American scholars - now a discredited theory ofcourse.
In the heady days of Tamil revival of late 19th century, connections were drawn between Lemuria and Kumari Khandam (a lost continent of Tamil civilization) which ironically first finds mention in a 15th century Tamil adaptation of Skanda Purana (titled Kanda Puranam).
This connection of Kumari Kandam with Lemuria was actually first made by a Brahmin young man named VG Suryanarayana Sastri - who died at 33
To him, Kumari Khandam was a part of Brahmanic lore, which he was indiscreet enough to connect with Lemuria -a discredited 19th c construct
Little did the young lad know that his fanciful speculations would capture the movement of the Dravidian movement in the decades to follow
So let’s get back on track on where Tamil Nadu stood at the beginning of 20th century -
On one hand, there was this increasing rift between Brahmin and Non Brahmin driven by education and the English language. On the other, we had a revival of Tamil consciousness
Both very much key to the emergence of the Dravidian movement. And not surprisingly this movement did not work out too well for the Brahmin. He was the scapegoat for 500 years of Tamil decline.
The earliest manifestation of this movement was not particularly rabid or secessionistic. It was in the form of a party called the “Justice Party” founded in 1916 by Sir Thyagaraja Chetty and TM Nair.
A point to note that the leaders of this non brahmin Justice Party - were by no means “low caste”. These were typically upper caste non brahmins - who resented the brahmin ascendance the most
This was also the period of Morley Minto reforms (1909) which had greatly increased Indian participation in provincial govt. So populism was very much in the air
A characteristic of Justice Party was that it combined anti-Brahminism with a hostility towards Home rule (Annie Besant and her friends were not viewed positively). It was also opposed to Gandhi and his noncooperation movement
Its stance was that home rule meant “Brahmin rule" So while it was radical in its anti-brahminism, it was oddly a conservative party in the way it stood right behind the British like a loyal bulldog
The Justice Party was no minor fish. It was the major political alternative to Congress in Madras Presidency and dominated power for 14 of the 17 years from 1920 to 37
Some of its prominent leaders included Subbarayulu Reddiar, Munuswamy Naidu, and the Raja of Bobbili
The Justice Party when in power, had some firsts under its name. It was the first govt in India to introduce caste-based reservations back in 1921 for certain govt jobs. A legacy that we are left with to this day.
To its credit, it did make voter-qualifications gender neutral and also allowed women to become legislators in 1921 (reversing a Govt of India Act policy from 1919)
In 1925 it passed an act which brought for the first time many temples under the direct control of state govt.
State meddling in temples is something that bothers conservatives to this day. The genesis for this lies in this act passed by the Justice Party govt back in 1925
The party leaders were drawn from the great landed castes. Given the dominance of zamindars in the party, it often supported the harsh measures of the British govt. An example being its refusal to support reduction in taxation in non-zamindari areas leading to peasant protests
It was a not a surprise then that this party of the elites united on a casteist plank of anti-Brahminism suffered a massive defeat in the provincial elections of 1937 - when the Franchise was much wider than in previous elections
The Congress under the leadership of the brahmin and Gandhian leader Rajaji assumed power in 1937. But the new Congress govt in its nationalist zeal, did a mistake, Rajaji introduced compulsory Hindi education in all schools in the Presidency in 1937 sparking great protests from ’37 to 40. An awful mistake by a wise politician
This was capitalized by an emergent face on the Dravidian front - EV Ramaswamy Naicker (also known as Periyar)
Periyar has to rank among the half-a-dozen most influential politicians in Indian history. Whether one likes him or despises him.
Now who was he? And where did he come from? He was born in 1879 in the town of Erode in Coimbatore district in a very rich Balija Naicker family of Kannada antecedents. It is even claimed that his mother tongue was Kannada not Tamil!
It was by no means a humble beginning Unlike Justice party leaders, Periyar has a Congress past. He had joined the Party back in 1919, and worked with Rajaji in organizing the non-cooperation movement.
But when he did not find enough support for his reservation campaigns, he left the party in a huff in 1925 He was a major figure in the Vaikom Satyagraha, a movement against untouchability circa '24-25
But Vaikom was a mainstream movement supported even by upper caste men like Gandhi as well as the regent of Travancore kingdom. So Periyar hardly was unique for his participation there.
But it was after the Justice party’s thumping defeat that Periyar found his big opportunity. There was a power vacuum in the party. In 1938 he took over as the President of the party.
And it was the Hindi imposition issue of 1937 - which gave him a big voice!
Under his leadership the Justice Party was transformed from a party of rich non brahmin landlords serving their own interests, to a populist, often rabble rousing outfit.
The fear of Hindi among the Tamils was exploited fully by Periyar in his rhetoric. He somehow succeeded in blending the Tamil fear of Hindi with the dislike of Brahmins and the “Sanskritic value system” more broadly.
It was a heady mix that was bound to work. In 1944, he renamed the party to Dravidar Kazhagam.
The DK employed the methods used by RSS in the north - volunteer efforts positioned as “social reform” that campaigned aggressively against the Hindu religion, brahmin priesthood, and so-called religious “superstitions”
While the DK did engage in some positive constructive measures like opposing untouchability, working for women’s education etc, this hardly distinguished it from the much maligned “brahminical” Congress (which also fought against the said evils).
What distinguished DK was its negative plank built on a dislike of brahmins and “Northern influences” but disguised very well under the garb of “rationalism” / “reason”
The Dravidar Kazhagam was also secessionist in its demand for a separate “Tamil nation”. This led to a split within the party in 1949 when Periyar’s disciple CN Annadurai left him to form “Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam” (Munnetra interestingly means “Progressive” in Tamil)
Anna sought a compromise with the Central Govt and Congress, where the Tamil country remains a part of the Indian Union albeit with greater autonomy
There was also a great deal of unrest within Dravidar Kazhagam against Periyar and his ways. In 1948 at the age of 70 the man married a 32 year old - a move that drew the ire of many of his own party members, causing the split
So while DMK tried to gain respectability to contest elections competitively in a post-independence India, Periyar and his DK continued with their extreme, often rabble-rousing positions against Brahminism, Theism among other things
While Periyar remained an important voice in Tamil Nadu, he was not in active electoral politics post split. He died in 1973 at the age of 94
CN Annadurai on the other hand, was the leading electoral leader for the DMK for much of the 50s and 60s. As we discussed, he was not always explicit and aggressive in pushing for the claim for secession. But he never abandoned the goal until the 60s. Nor did the DMK
In 1963, the 16th amendment to the Constitution was passed, which basically banned any party that is contesting elections from espousing secessionist principles. Annadurai actually debated against this amendment but could not prevent its passage!
Post this amendment, DMK had no choice but to give up entirely on the claim for Dravida Nadu. It was an ideal they had cherished, but gave it up in order to remain in the electoral game. The prospect of power was too attractive
For the period between 1952 and 1967, DMK gained in popularity in TN with every passing election.
But the Congress remained firmly in Power. Rajaji was the chief minister till 1954, to be succeeded by Kamaraj from '54 to '63, and Bhaktavatsalam from 63 to 67
The Congress was too strong to be uprooted throughout the 50s and early 60s. But again it was Hindi that did the trick for DMK. Things materialized In 1967
We have already discussed the first anti-Hindi agitation of 1937. In 1965, there was originally a plan laid out in the Constitution to make Hindi the sole official language of the country - a very impractical somewhat hare brained idea to begin with
As 1965 approached, the anti-Hindi sentiment rose by the day, Full-scale riots broke out in many parts of TN. The death toll was in several hundreds. Eventually the PM LB Shastri pacified the state by assuring that English would continue as the official language along with Hindi
But the anti-Hindi movement had done the trick for DMK - something that years and years of anti-brahmin and “rationalist” rhetoric had not managed to do
In 1967, when the assembly as well as general elections were held, the unpopular Congress govt headed by Bhaktavatsalam was trounced and Anna-led DMK stormed to power.
The Dravidian movement had triumphed
Since 1967 Tamil Nadu has been ruled by Dravidian parties. By DMK for much of the 70s, ADMK for much of the 80s, and then alternating between the two parties since. The national parties have not stood a chance in any election
From 67 to 69 - Anna was the CM. But in 69, he succumbed to cancer. The reins of the party now moved to M Karunanidhi, who we mentioned at the start of the thread
Karunanidhi, like his one-time friend, MG Ramachandran (MGR) came from the movie industry. He started his career as a screenwriter for Tamil cinema in the late 40s / early 50s and was an enormously successful figure
The DMK had started leveraging movie guys like Karunanidhi, MGR, Kannadasan, and others starting from the 50s, to increase its popularity in a state where Congress reigned supreme. Leveraging movie men has always been the tactic used by the Dravidian parties since independence
Karunanidhi became CM pretty early in his life. At the age of 45 in 1969. And he remained the Chief Minister of the state till 1976, when Indira Gandhi dismissed his govt during the Emergency
Post Anna’s demise , Karunanidhi had to contend with MGR, arguably a more popular leader with the masses. In 1972, MGR was expelled from the party. Which was inevitable, given Karunanidhi’s ambitions for his own family, as well as MGR’s discomfort with DMK’s explicit atheism
MGR was a Malayali Nair by origin, and was a devout man. He neither shared Karunanidhi’s anti-brahminism, nor his atheism. While very much a Dravidian populist, he felt he had a better chance in politics with his own front that was formed in 1972
It called itself Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam - invoking itself to be the true heir of Anna’s legacy - a legacy that Karunanidhi had purportedly betrayed with his corruption and nepotism
But Populism remained a feature of Dravidian politics in both parties right from 1967. Anna himself was the first politician in India to use a promise of “rice subsidy” to secure the win in '67
His election slogan was “rubaikku moonu padi arisi” (3 measures of rice for a rupee)
Karunanidhi continued in the same vein. He lifted Prohibition in 1971, not unexpected, as DMK’s materialist philosophy has always struck a contrast to the high Gandhian moralism of the high-minded Congress leaders like Rajaji and Kamaraj
In 1977, MGR led ADMK trounced Karuna’s DMK, and MGR became the CM of the state - a post he held from '77 till his death in '87 MGR was succeeded by his brahmin wife Janaki (who was CM briefly) and later by his protege J Jayalalitha (a cine-star of repute and also a Brahmin)
The two parties have established a more or less bi-polar set-up in TN with the Congress vote share waning with every passing election
Jayalalitha emerged as a worthy successor and a worthy rival to Karunanidhi, and was CM from 1991 to 96, 2001 to 2006 and then from 2011 till 2016 - though she was often made to step down for brief periods due to corruption allegations and arrests
Karunanidhi was CM during the late 90s (96-2001), and again the late 2000s (2006-11). Basically during the intervals when Jayalalitha was out of power
But broadly the two parties have contested on a plank of populism. There has been little to distinguish the two parties ideologically.
While DMK still retains an “anti-hindu” / “anti-brahmin” edge to its rhetoric - that flavor is increasingly irrelevant in a vastly different state where a good chunk of brahmins have bolted in search of jobs elsewhere
Tamil Nadu remains a deeply religious state and DMK’s atheistic rhetoric is now more of a liability than an asset.
The ADMK has always been without that edge to its rhetoric, while it has competed nonetheless with DMK when it comes to placating religious minorities for votes
Jayalalitha died in 2016 and Karunanidhi now in 2018. With the demise of the two great leaders, is there a vacuum that can be filled by the national parties - the BJP in particular?
Perhaps, but the national parties need to be mindful of the Tamil exceptionalism we have discussed in many parts of this thread. They need to groom leaders attuned to the Tamil psyche in order to succeed.
Something that they have traditionally failed to do. Tamil Nadu, notwithstanding the populism of its politics, has been one of the more successful states in the Indian union. It’’s PPP adjusted per-capita income of around $10.5K is well in excess of the national average of $7K.
Who should we credit for this?
The Dravidian parties will of course be glad to accept credit, by talking up their “social empowerment” as an enabler of economic success The truth however is more nuanced.
Maybe Tamil Nadu was always a “better than average” state in Indian history. Going all the way back to Pallava heyday. So it is not a surprise it is doing well
Populism still needs to be resisted. We must not fall prey to the post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and give credit to “Dravidian politics” for TN’s relative success
Tamil Nadu has done well despite its politicians and not because of them. If anything we must credit its people
Post-script : Thanks for reading, if you got this far!
Would like to acknowledge @entropied - my many conversations with him helped clarify some thoughts, and also thanks to his pointer to Dharampal's research on 1820 Madras school data - something that I was unaware of.
The entire thread can be found here - https://twitter.com/shrikanth_krish/status/1026967892125003776
@shrikanth_krish
Data scientist. NYC-based. Writes on Politics, Economics, Religion, Classics and Intellectual History
submitted by Orwellisright to IndiaSpeaks [link] [comments] He was the most major and consequential face of the “Dravidian movement” since Annadurai’s death in 1969
A lot of obituaries will no doubt focus on his political career and his legacy. But in my view this is a good time to take a step back and better understand the “ideas” and prejudices that Karunanidhi championed.
"Views" that predate him by decades and that he did not originate. While it is all very well to focus on people, a discussion of ideas and their place in history is always more useful.
What was the “Dravidian movement” all about?
Was it something that emerged all of a sudden with the DMK’s victory in 1967 TN elections - as an outcome of a mass outrage against “North Indian” hegemony and the imposition of Hindi?
Or do we go further back and place its origins in the late 19th / early 20th century with the Justice Party and the Self-respect movement - a political assertion of the “non brahmin” tamil people against the perceived Brahmin dominance in Tamil Nadu during the British Raj?
But these are proximate ways of thinking about political movements. Which are not satisfactory. Why Tamil Nadu?
The Brahmins were arguably even more “dominant” (as measured by literacy rates and occupancy of government jobs) in Mysore than in Madras. Yet there was no “Dravidian movement” in Mysore / Karnataka.
The Brahmins were pretty “dominant” in Bombay Presidency as well, yet we didn’t see a “Non-Brahmin” maratha assertion in Maharashtra, until much later in the 20th century.
Why is it that this political movement rooted in
a. Tamil exceptionalism b. Dislike of the Brahmin c. Dislike of Northern cultural influences (Sanskrit, Hindi, “Brahminical” Hinduism)
Emerged ONLY in TN and not in other southern states, or in other non-Hindi parts of India?
These are questions that haven’t been asked enough by historians and discussed even less in media
This thread is a modest attempt to answer these qns, and examine briefly the political/social circumstances in Tamil Nadu over the past 1000 yrs, which help answer these questions
So let’s first try to understand the Tamil country. A land that has been extremely well integrated with “Aryavrata” for nearly 2000 years. In fact one can legitimately regard it as a part of “Aryavrata” starting with Pallava rule in the middle of the 1st millennium CE
The period from about 5th / 6th century CE to 13th century can be regarded as a “Golden age” for the Tamil country - a period when the land was first ruled by the Great Pallavas, and later the Cholas (with a brief Pandya revival in 13th cen)
It was a period when Tamil Nadu emerged arguably as the citadel of Hindu culture in all of subcontinent - a culture that enmeshed the great Sanskritic traditions of the north with the local Tamil traditions - and in the process enriching both
Now why do I regard the cosmopolitan Tamil culture of 6th to 13th centuries as the high point of Tamizh civilization? It is on account of its remarkable accomplishments
This period saw some of the greatest works in Tamil (and Hindu) literature - - The great Bhakti poetry of Azhwars and Nayanars (6th to 9th century CE) - Kamban’s Rama-avataram (12th century)
The period was also the emergence of the great Tamil empires - when Tamil maritime flourished like never before, and Tamil / Hindu influence extended into much of South East Asia
The Medieval Cholas were that rare Indian exception- an expansionist Indian Empire. An empire that defeated and subjugated the great Srivijaya kingdom of Indonesia, and also conquered much of Sri Lanka in 11th cen. Sri Lanka was under Chola rule for nearly all of 11th cen.
The period was also marked by great architectural innovation - all the great Chola and Pallava temples of Tamil Nadu - be it Brihadeeshwara & Airavateshwara (in Tanjore region) or Kailashnathar / Mahabalipuram (near Kanchi) date to this period of hectic architectural activity
Finally the period is most distinguished for its massive, I repeat massive, contribution to the Hindu religion. The Vaishnava and Shaiva faiths consolidated during this period.
The great Hindu theologians - Sankara and Ramanuja - belong to this period
It was also a period when Tamil devotional literature was integrated with the Sanskrit mainstream. The devotional literature gained intellectual legitimacy in temples across Tamil Nadu notwithstanding the low origins of many of the Tamil poets who wrote this literature.
So why are we discussing all this. The point to note here is that during this heyday of Tamil civilization, the Tamil country was arguably the shining light of India (esp given the decline that had set in much of the North after the fall of Harsha)
And this civilization was not marked by any “revolt” against brahmins or Sanskrit or northern influences. It was a confident Tamil culture that embraced northern influences as well as northern migrants.
One example of seamless migration from the north is that of the great Sanskrit writer Dandin, who was a part of the Pallava court in early 8th century. His family was one that had immigrated to Tamil Nadu from Vidarbha in the North in the 7th century
So it was a confident civilization, with none of the Tamizh insecurities that characterize the modern Dravidian movement.
So what changed?
Things began to change around the 14th cen, when Tamil Nadu gradually lost its political sovereignty. The Cholas faded. The Pandyas of Madurai were overthrown by Delhi Sultanate
The Madurai Sultanate’s rule of terror over southern Tamil Nadu in the 14th cen left tremendous scars
By the end of the 14th cen, all of the Tamil country was under Vijayanagar rule, which had its base in northern Deccan (Hampi). Following the fall of Vijayanagara, the Tamil territories came under the rule of the Nayakas - who were originally governors of Vijayanagara Empire
Post late 17th century the Nayaka influence also waned, and Maratha influence gradually increased. Thanjavur became a seat of Maratha power. Elsewhere in Northern Tamil country, the Muslim Nawabs established their rule centered in the town of Arcot (modern Vellore).
So what do we gather about this long period from 14th century to 19th century? It was a period of Non-Tamil rule in Tamil Nadu. Starting with Vijayanagara, then Nayaks, then the Marathas, the Nawabs, and finally the British.
Quite naturally it was also a period of Tamizh decline. Vast populations of non-Tamil origin (particularly from Andhra) moved into Tamil Nadu during this period, especially due to Vijayanagara patronage So Telugu (and to a lesser extent Sanskrit) became very dominant languages in the corridors of power. Tamil receded.
Telugu was perceived as the language with some class! The language used by respectable people. Tamil - the language of the masses and the subjects.
To me this phase of Telugu’s rise and Tamil’s decline cannot be over-emphasized. It is very important to understand the roots of Tamil rage and Tamil insecurities
One way to understand the predominance of Telugu in Tamil country is to examine Carnatic Music - an art form whose formal development was primarily in Tamil Nadu in late 18th / early 19th century
The three giants of this art form in late 18th century were - Tyagaraja, Shama Sastri and Muthuswami Dikshitar. Atleast two of them, we are sure, had Telugu as their mother tongue
But where did they live? In Andhra? No . They lived in the vicinity of Tanjore - the Tamil heartland
How about their compositions? - Well the compositions were primarily in Telugu, and some in Sanskrit. Hardly any in Tamil, the language spoken by the masses around them
So we have this long long period of Tamil decline, which no doubt hurt Tamil pride a lot. This is after all the land of Silappadikaram and Tirukkural. The land of Rajaraja Chola and Kamban
But by 19th century, the language and culture had been reduced to a second rate status thanks to the remarkable growth of Telugu - an upstart language which barely even existed in literary form back in the 1st millennium CE when Tamil was the pre-eminent southern language
There was a lot of frustration of course. And it needed venting. It also needed a scapegoat. Who to blame? You can’t blame old and bygone kings, nor can you blame “Telugu” people who were too numerous, and well integrated into Tamil society.
The scapegoat was the Brahmin and also his “Sanskritic” ways.
But why was the “Brahmin” singled out? Now to understand this we need to change our tracks a bit and now switch our focus to the British Raj
Let’s go the 1820s - a period when Thomas Munro reigned as Madras Governor. It still marked the initial phase of British rule over Southern India in its entirety
Munro undertook a survey to assess the educational conditions in the Presidency - the results of which are revealing
Does the survey suggest a very high degree of Brahmin dominance in education?
Let’s pick two districts in the Tamil country where the Brahmins were most numerous back then (> 5% of pop). These were also temple towns where much of the “brahmin cultural capital” was concentrated
Here’s the caste distribution of Male school going students in these 2 districts b/w 1822 and 1825
https://preview.redd.it/46gwajrslwe11.jpg?width=591&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb3e93b7d4130c23b4f8e2c6f9701723747c4427
What do we notice -
Sure, there is some over-representation of Brahmins ( a share of 10-15% suggests a 2x over-indexing relative to their share in population - around 5% or more in these districts)
But this is far from the stereotypical view of education being denied to the non-twice born castes.
A very vast majority of students in both these districts were “Shudras” (which in the south is a blanket term covering over three quarters of the population)
So the educational reality of the 1820s did not warrant any grudge against the “Brahmins” as a class in society that monopolizes education
The data on schools back then was only indicative, as a very large section of kids used to be home-schooled. As per Munro’s own report, in the city of Madras, 26,446 boys were being schooled at home, in contrast to only 5,523 boys who were attending the Patha-shalas
We have these numbers thanks to Dharampal’s painstaking research whose book “The Beautiful Tree” demolished many myths about late medieval / early modern India, at the time of the British encounter
However as the 19th century proceeded, there was considerable social change. Firstly it was a period of relative economic stagnation / decline (a process that had started much earlier in 17th century), causing many traditional pathashalas to close down.
Secondly with the formal establishment of British Raj, and the new opportunities in the bureaucracy, and in urban professions, the Brahmin ascendancy began. An ascendancy without a precedent for the community in Indian history. Nowhere was this ascendancy more marked than in TN
By 1912, the Brahmin dominance was very real particularly in the British bureaucracy. Here’s a table from that year -
https://preview.redd.it/sci3i896mwe11.jpg?width=584&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=559feb7a2cd75f534aa675f287089b29a5a4c6f8
- So what had changed between 1820 and 1912?
- And who was to blame for this remarkable change in social equations?
- That is a puzzle for which there are no simple answers
What is more likely is that Brahmins embraced the change in climate better, and took to English education in a big way - unlike a lot of other communities
One way to understand the “Brahmin rise” is to look at specific cases of Brahmins whose lives were transformed during this period of late 19th century.
Take two famous instances - VS Srinivasa Sastri (1869 - 1946), Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar (1883-1953)
The former became a famous Indian politician, diplomat and administrator. A famed “Moderate” leader of the Gokhale wing within Congress.
The latter was a famous lawyer and member of the Drafting committee and Constituent assembly which framed the Indian Constitution
Now why am I picking these two names? There is a common thread. Both were born in villages, and were sons of temple priests! They were not well-connected aristocrats. They came out of nowhere.
So in the 1820 setup, kids like these were no different from a thousand other kids (Brahmin or Non Brahmin) leading a mediocre existence in small towns. But the British Raj provided opportunities for several such “outliers” (incidentally Brahmin) to max out their potential
So this was the story of the 19th cen. A century during which there was considerable change in the economy. More opportunities than ever before for the creme-de-la-creme. But stagnation for everyone else
This meant greater social inequality, and a widening rift between castes. This was also coupled, if you remember, by the larger story of Tamil decline we discussed earlier.
But then 19th century changed the language equations for the first time in 500 years. Tamil made a comeback!
And this comeback was partly because of the rise of the professional middle class (mostly Tamil speaking Brahmin) without any “connections” in the old Telugu set-up. A lot of these new kids on the block were key in reviving the Tamil language
Take a couple of names -
- UV Swaminatha Iyer - instrumental in the rediscovery of several Tamil Sangam texts
- Subramania Bharati - a great Tamil poet, who was key in creating a Tamil consciousness that had been dormant for several centuries.
Even the current obsession with Lemuria / Kumari Kandam among Dravidian chauvinists in our times actually dates back to the late 19th century - a period of Tamil revival
Lemuria interestingly was the speculation of a submerged continent connecting Australia and India - it was originally a theory suggested by 19thc European / American scholars - now a discredited theory ofcourse.
In the heady days of Tamil revival of late 19th century, connections were drawn between Lemuria and Kumari Khandam (a lost continent of Tamil civilization) which ironically first finds mention in a 15th century Tamil adaptation of Skanda Purana (titled Kanda Puranam).
This connection of Kumari Kandam with Lemuria was actually first made by a Brahmin young man named VG Suryanarayana Sastri - who died at 33
To him, Kumari Khandam was a part of Brahmanic lore, which he was indiscreet enough to connect with Lemuria -a discredited 19th c construct
Little did the young lad know that his fanciful speculations would capture the movement of the Dravidian movement in the decades to follow
So let’s get back on track on where Tamil Nadu stood at the beginning of 20th century -
On one hand, there was this increasing rift between Brahmin and Non Brahmin driven by education and the English language. On the other, we had a revival of Tamil consciousness
Both very much key to the emergence of the Dravidian movement. And not surprisingly this movement did not work out too well for the Brahmin. He was the scapegoat for 500 years of Tamil decline.
The earliest manifestation of this movement was not particularly rabid or secessionistic. It was in the form of a party called the “Justice Party” founded in 1916 by Sir Thyagaraja Chetty and TM Nair.
A point to note that the leaders of this non brahmin Justice Party - were by no means “low caste”. These were typically upper caste non brahmins - who resented the brahmin ascendance the most
This was also the period of Morley Minto reforms (1909) which had greatly increased Indian participation in provincial govt. So populism was very much in the air
A characteristic of Justice Party was that it combined anti-Brahminism with a hostility towards Home rule (Annie Besant and her friends were not viewed positively). It was also opposed to Gandhi and his noncooperation movement
Its stance was that home rule meant “Brahmin rule" So while it was radical in its anti-brahminism, it was oddly a conservative party in the way it stood right behind the British like a loyal bulldog
The Justice Party was no minor fish. It was the major political alternative to Congress in Madras Presidency and dominated power for 14 of the 17 years from 1920 to 37
Some of its prominent leaders included Subbarayulu Reddiar, Munuswamy Naidu, and the Raja of Bobbili
The Justice Party when in power, had some firsts under its name. It was the first govt in India to introduce caste-based reservations back in 1921 for certain govt jobs. A legacy that we are left with to this day.
To its credit, it did make voter-qualifications gender neutral and also allowed women to become legislators in 1921 (reversing a Govt of India Act policy from 1919)
In 1925 it passed an act which brought for the first time many temples under the direct control of state govt.
State meddling in temples is something that bothers conservatives to this day. The genesis for this lies in this act passed by the Justice Party govt back in 1925
The party leaders were drawn from the great landed castes. Given the dominance of zamindars in the party, it often supported the harsh measures of the British govt. An example being its refusal to support reduction in taxation in non-zamindari areas leading to peasant protests
It was a not a surprise then that this party of the elites united on a casteist plank of anti-Brahminism suffered a massive defeat in the provincial elections of 1937 - when the Franchise was much wider than in previous elections
The Congress under the leadership of the brahmin and Gandhian leader Rajaji assumed power in 1937. But the new Congress govt in its nationalist zeal, did a mistake, Rajaji introduced compulsory Hindi education in all schools in the Presidency in 1937 sparking great protests from ’37 to 40. An awful mistake by a wise politician
This was capitalized by an emergent face on the Dravidian front - EV Ramaswamy Naicker (also known as Periyar)
Periyar has to rank among the half-a-dozen most influential politicians in Indian history. Whether one likes him or despises him.
Now who was he? And where did he come from? He was born in 1879 in the town of Erode in Coimbatore district in a very rich Balija Naicker family of Kannada antecedents. It is even claimed that his mother tongue was Kannada not Tamil!
It was by no means a humble beginning Unlike Justice party leaders, Periyar has a Congress past. He had joined the Party back in 1919, and worked with Rajaji in organizing the non-cooperation movement.
But when he did not find enough support for his reservation campaigns, he left the party in a huff in 1925 He was a major figure in the Vaikom Satyagraha, a movement against untouchability circa '24-25
But Vaikom was a mainstream movement supported even by upper caste men like Gandhi as well as the regent of Travancore kingdom. So Periyar hardly was unique for his participation there.
But it was after the Justice party’s thumping defeat that Periyar found his big opportunity. There was a power vacuum in the party. In 1938 he took over as the President of the party.
And it was the Hindi imposition issue of 1937 - which gave him a big voice!
Under his leadership the Justice Party was transformed from a party of rich non brahmin landlords serving their own interests, to a populist, often rabble rousing outfit.
The fear of Hindi among the Tamils was exploited fully by Periyar in his rhetoric. He somehow succeeded in blending the Tamil fear of Hindi with the dislike of Brahmins and the “Sanskritic value system” more broadly.
It was a heady mix that was bound to work. In 1944, he renamed the party to Dravidar Kazhagam.
The DK employed the methods used by RSS in the north - volunteer efforts positioned as “social reform” that campaigned aggressively against the Hindu religion, brahmin priesthood, and so-called religious “superstitions”
While the DK did engage in some positive constructive measures like opposing untouchability, working for women’s education etc, this hardly distinguished it from the much maligned “brahminical” Congress (which also fought against the said evils).
What distinguished DK was its negative plank built on a dislike of brahmins and “Northern influences” but disguised very well under the garb of “rationalism” / “reason”
The Dravidar Kazhagam was also secessionist in its demand for a separate “Tamil nation”. This led to a split within the party in 1949 when Periyar’s disciple CN Annadurai left him to form “Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam” (Munnetra interestingly means “Progressive” in Tamil)
Anna sought a compromise with the Central Govt and Congress, where the Tamil country remains a part of the Indian Union albeit with greater autonomy
There was also a great deal of unrest within Dravidar Kazhagam against Periyar and his ways. In 1948 at the age of 70 the man married a 32 year old - a move that drew the ire of many of his own party members, causing the split
So while DMK tried to gain respectability to contest elections competitively in a post-independence India, Periyar and his DK continued with their extreme, often rabble-rousing positions against Brahminism, Theism among other things
While Periyar remained an important voice in Tamil Nadu, he was not in active electoral politics post split. He died in 1973 at the age of 94
CN Annadurai on the other hand, was the leading electoral leader for the DMK for much of the 50s and 60s. As we discussed, he was not always explicit and aggressive in pushing for the claim for secession. But he never abandoned the goal until the 60s. Nor did the DMK
In 1963, the 16th amendment to the Constitution was passed, which basically banned any party that is contesting elections from espousing secessionist principles. Annadurai actually debated against this amendment but could not prevent its passage!
Post this amendment, DMK had no choice but to give up entirely on the claim for Dravida Nadu. It was an ideal they had cherished, but gave it up in order to remain in the electoral game. The prospect of power was too attractive
For the period between 1952 and 1967, DMK gained in popularity in TN with every passing election.
But the Congress remained firmly in Power. Rajaji was the chief minister till 1954, to be succeeded by Kamaraj from '54 to '63, and Bhaktavatsalam from 63 to 67
The Congress was too strong to be uprooted throughout the 50s and early 60s. But again it was Hindi that did the trick for DMK. Things materialized In 1967
We have already discussed the first anti-Hindi agitation of 1937. In 1965, there was originally a plan laid out in the Constitution to make Hindi the sole official language of the country - a very impractical somewhat hare brained idea to begin with
As 1965 approached, the anti-Hindi sentiment rose by the day, Full-scale riots broke out in many parts of TN. The death toll was in several hundreds. Eventually the PM LB Shastri pacified the state by assuring that English would continue as the official language along with Hindi
But the anti-Hindi movement had done the trick for DMK - something that years and years of anti-brahmin and “rationalist” rhetoric had not managed to do
In 1967, when the assembly as well as general elections were held, the unpopular Congress govt headed by Bhaktavatsalam was trounced and Anna-led DMK stormed to power.
The Dravidian movement had triumphed
Since 1967 Tamil Nadu has been ruled by Dravidian parties. By DMK for much of the 70s, ADMK for much of the 80s, and then alternating between the two parties since. The national parties have not stood a chance in any election
From 67 to 69 - Anna was the CM. But in 69, he succumbed to cancer. The reins of the party now moved to M Karunanidhi, who we mentioned at the start of the thread
Karunanidhi, like his one-time friend, MG Ramachandran (MGR) came from the movie industry. He started his career as a screenwriter for Tamil cinema in the late 40s / early 50s and was an enormously successful figure
The DMK had started leveraging movie guys like Karunanidhi, MGR, Kannadasan, and others starting from the 50s, to increase its popularity in a state where Congress reigned supreme. Leveraging movie men has always been the tactic used by the Dravidian parties since independence
Karunanidhi became CM pretty early in his life. At the age of 45 in 1969. And he remained the Chief Minister of the state till 1976, when Indira Gandhi dismissed his govt during the Emergency
Post Anna’s demise , Karunanidhi had to contend with MGR, arguably a more popular leader with the masses. In 1972, MGR was expelled from the party. Which was inevitable, given Karunanidhi’s ambitions for his own family, as well as MGR’s discomfort with DMK’s explicit atheism
MGR was a Malayali Nair by origin, and was a devout man. He neither shared Karunanidhi’s anti-brahminism, nor his atheism. While very much a Dravidian populist, he felt he had a better chance in politics with his own front that was formed in 1972
It called itself Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam - invoking itself to be the true heir of Anna’s legacy - a legacy that Karunanidhi had purportedly betrayed with his corruption and nepotism
But Populism remained a feature of Dravidian politics in both parties right from 1967. Anna himself was the first politician in India to use a promise of “rice subsidy” to secure the win in '67
His election slogan was “rubaikku moonu padi arisi” (3 measures of rice for a rupee)
Karunanidhi continued in the same vein. He lifted Prohibition in 1971, not unexpected, as DMK’s materialist philosophy has always struck a contrast to the high Gandhian moralism of the high-minded Congress leaders like Rajaji and Kamaraj
In 1977, MGR led ADMK trounced Karuna’s DMK, and MGR became the CM of the state - a post he held from '77 till his death in '87 MGR was succeeded by his brahmin wife Janaki (who was CM briefly) and later by his protege J Jayalalitha (a cine-star of repute and also a Brahmin)
The two parties have established a more or less bi-polar set-up in TN with the Congress vote share waning with every passing election
Jayalalitha emerged as a worthy successor and a worthy rival to Karunanidhi, and was CM from 1991 to 96, 2001 to 2006 and then from 2011 till 2016 - though she was often made to step down for brief periods due to corruption allegations and arrests
Karunanidhi was CM during the late 90s (96-2001), and again the late 2000s (2006-11). Basically during the intervals when Jayalalitha was out of power
But broadly the two parties have contested on a plank of populism. There has been little to distinguish the two parties ideologically.
While DMK still retains an “anti-hindu” / “anti-brahmin” edge to its rhetoric - that flavor is increasingly irrelevant in a vastly different state where a good chunk of brahmins have bolted in search of jobs elsewhere
Tamil Nadu remains a deeply religious state and DMK’s atheistic rhetoric is now more of a liability than an asset.
The ADMK has always been without that edge to its rhetoric, while it has competed nonetheless with DMK when it comes to placating religious minorities for votes
Jayalalitha died in 2016 and Karunanidhi now in 2018. With the demise of the two great leaders, is there a vacuum that can be filled by the national parties - the BJP in particular?
Perhaps, but the national parties need to be mindful of the Tamil exceptionalism we have discussed in many parts of this thread. They need to groom leaders attuned to the Tamil psyche in order to succeed.
Something that they have traditionally failed to do. Tamil Nadu, notwithstanding the populism of its politics, has been one of the more successful states in the Indian union. It’’s PPP adjusted per-capita income of around $10.5K is well in excess of the national average of $7K.
Who should we credit for this?
The Dravidian parties will of course be glad to accept credit, by talking up their “social empowerment” as an enabler of economic success The truth however is more nuanced.
Maybe Tamil Nadu was always a “better than average” state in Indian history. Going all the way back to Pallava heyday. So it is not a surprise it is doing well
Populism still needs to be resisted. We must not fall prey to the post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and give credit to “Dravidian politics” for TN’s relative success
Tamil Nadu has done well despite its politicians and not because of them. If anything we must credit its people
Post-script : Thanks for reading, if you got this far!
Would like to acknowledge @entropied - my many conversations with him helped clarify some thoughts, and also thanks to his pointer to Dharampal's research on 1820 Madras school data - something that I was unaware of.
The entire thread can be found here - https://twitter.com/shrikanth_krish/status/1026967892125003776
@shrikanth_krish
Data scientist. NYC-based. Writes on Politics, Economics, Religion, Classics and Intellectual History
