Rama and Dravidian politics

Tamilnadu CM Karunanidhi’s remarks against Rama and Ramayana should be seen in the backdrop of the Dravidian Movement’s opposition to cultural invasion from the ‘Aryan’ in North India. DMK CHIEF AND Tamilnadu CM M.Karunanidhi’s views that Rama is a fictitious creation and might not have existed should be seen in the light of the Dravidian politics of Tamilnadu and should not be blown out of proportion. The origin of Dravidian movement and Dravidian parties can be traced to the Self Respect Movement (Suya Mariyadhai Iyakkam) founded in 1925 by EV Ramasamy Naicker (popularly known as Periyar) in Tamilnadu. The major objective of the self-respect movement was the removal of caste inequalities from the society and creation of self-respect among the socially backward sections. Periyar held the Tamil Brahmins responsible for the plight of the backward castes and scheduled castes and tribes in Tamilnadu and elsewhere. Consequently, the self-respect movement soon morphed into anti-Brahminism and there were sporadic attacks on Brahmins of Tamilnadu, this despite Periyar’s opposition to violence as a means of setting social and political differences. The Tamil Renaissance began roughly around the time when the Nationalist Movement started in the country, and the starting of Self Respect Movement by Periyar soon led to the rise of Dravidian nationalism. The establishment of Annamalai University in Chidambaram and the Tamil Isai Sangam (Tamil Music Society) in the erstwhile Madras also contributed to the growth of the Tamil ‘identity’ as a distinct one. However, it was not the Dravidian movement that raised the issue of separate nationhood for the Dravidian region. In 1926, Sankaran Nair, a nominated member of the Council of State in Delhi, put up a demand for self-government for the ten Tamil districts of the then Madras Presidency, with its own army, navy and air force. In 1929, Tamil scholar V. Kalyanasundarar wrote that Tamil land or nadu constituted a nation within the Indian nation. (It is important to remember here that the erstwhile Madras Presidency comprised of much of the south India: the present state of Tamilnadu, Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra regions of Andhra Pradesh, Udupi, Dakshina Kannada and Bellary districts of Karnataka, the Malabar regions of Kerala, and the Lakshadweep Islands.) And once, Periyar became the chief of the Justice Party (also known as “South Indian Liberal Federation) in 1937, the very next year (1938) he raised the demand for a separate “Dravida Nadu”. Interestingly, this was two years before Mohammed Ali Jinnah came up with his formal demand for a Muslim land or Pakistan at the Lahore Conference. The Justice Party re-christened itself as Dravida Kazhagam (DK) in 1944. However, Periyar could not sell his idea of separate Dravida Nadu to the British, as Jinnah successfully could for a separate Muslim land. Some of the reasons could be: with his atheistic views, Periyar ended up alienating a majority of the Hindus of the region. Also, while it was easy for Jinnah to mobilise Muslims and make them identify with the demand for a separate Muslim land, it was not easy for Periyar to mobilise such disparate linguistic groups as Tamils, Telugus, Kannadigas and Malayalees under the banner of “Dravida”. After independence in 1947, the Dravida Movement fizzled out in the erstwhile Madras Presidency, and once the States reorganisation Committee reorganised the states along linguistic lines, the Dravida identity was swamped by the local linguistic identity. The definition of the word ‘Dravidian’, as used in Tamilnadu today, is in order here. From a linguistic or philological point of view “Dravidian” refers to the people of South India who speak Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam – the languages that originated from the same source. However, in the political lexicon of Tamilnadu, the term ‘Dravidian’ is associated exclusively with the Tamil-speaking people. In other words, after the reorganisation of the states, what Periyar and his Dravida Kazhagam were left with was only the present Tamilnadu. Unfortunately, Periyar’s noble ideology soon became a victim of its own shortsightedness. While Periyar was, in a way, right in finding fault with the Brahmins for the caste differences in the society, he failed to address the caste discrimination and atrocities perpetrated by non-Brahmins within the Hindu fold. His ‘thanmaanam’ (self-respect) and ‘Pahuthu arivu’ (rationalism) led to blind opposition to anything and everything related to Hinduism, which cut no ice with even the people whose cause he was championing. His tirade against ‘mooda nambikai’ (superstition) and the novel protests that his cadre indulged in only served to alienate many Hindu believers. CN Annadurai (popularly known as ‘Anna’), who joined the DK in 1934, had become the most popular leader in the party. His charisma, his inspired pieces of writings and his famed oratorical skills contributed a lot to the awakening of Tamil consciousness and won him a huge following. He was in the forefront of many anti-Hindi agitations in the 1940s. However, he fell out with his mentor Periyar in 1949 following their differences on converting DK into a political outfit. Annadurai was of the opinion that only democratic power, achieved through elections, can help in bringing about a change in the society. Periyar was not interested in the political process. This resulted in Annadurai’s breaking away from the parent outfit and starting a political party of his own named ‘Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’ (DMK) in 1949. However, the Annadurai-led DMK continued following almost all the ideologies of its parent outfit. The DMK now spearheaded the anti-Hindi agitation and the campaign against ‘Aryan’ cultural invasion from the north India. Annadurai also believed in mass reservation for the backward sections of the society and considered Tamil Brahmins Aryans. In the 1967 general elections to the Tamilnadu assembly, Annadurai led his party to a historical victory and became the first non-Congress Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. The untimely death of Annadurai in 1969, led to the emergence of M Karunanidhi as the leader of the party with the backing of his friend actor MG Ramachandran (MGR). However, MGR’s popularity made Karunanidhi distrust him. And, in 1972, when MGR, who was the treasurer of DMK, demanded that the financial details of the party be publicised, Karunanidhi expelled MGR from the party for indulging in what he called anti-party activities. MGR formed his own party named Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (ADMK) which was later renamed All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). Coming back to the Dravidian parties’ brand of atheism, while Periyar was a diehard atheist, Annadurai replaced that extreme stance with his slogan ‘Onre kulam Oruvane devan’ (One Community, One God). While Karunanidhi has all along remained seemingly an atheist, MGR and his protégé Jayalalithaa have never tried to hide their faith in god and religious rituals. Karnandihi’s recent remarks questioning the existence of Rama should be seen in the backdrop of the Dravidian ideology. Though Tamil poet Kampa, who lived around 9th Century AD, wrote the ‘Kampa Ramayana’ (a Tamil version of Ramayana that is largely based on Valmiki’s version), Rama is more or less regarded as a north Indian import. In other words, Lord Rama never strikes an emotional chord with a majority in Tamilnadu, as say, Goddess Maariyamman (Durga) or Lord Murugan (Subrahmanya) does. Though Rama was said to be kshatriya, he is seen as an Aryan or Brahminical god in Tamilnadu. Hence, expecting that a majority of Tamils would be up in arms over Karunanidhi’s snide remarks against Rama and Ramayana is to expect the impossible. Karunanidhi knows this only too well. He wouldn’t mind needling the BJP and the Sangh Parivar some more with his own brand of sarcastic remarks against Rama. For, he has nothing to lose electorally by denigrating Rama. However, at the same time, he wouldn’t think of questioning the authenticity of Lord Murugan or Maariyamman because that would be akin to inviting trouble on the home turf and committing political hara-kiri. However, Karunanidhi should be careful not to stretch things too far. The sequence of events that began with ASI’s affidavit, his remark against Rama, the ransacking of his daughter’s house in Bangalore by Sangh Parivar activists, the reported ‘fatwa’ by Vedanti, the attack on the BJP party office in Chennai by the DMK cadre, the reported attack on DMK workers in Mumbai could spiral out of control and give an opportunity to a party like Shiv Sena to revive its anti-Tamil campaign in Mumbai. Hence, the focus of Karunanidhi and his dispensation should be on the Sethu Samudhram project and finding a way out of the imbroglio and not on the authenticity of the Ramayana. Source: http://sethusamudram.info/content/view/58/36/