Roots of Tamil Nadu secessionism in India

By D.B.S. Jeyaraj

It was only a few months ago that the world witnessed the military defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) at the hands of Sri Lanka’s armed forces.The LTTE popularly known as tigers posed a threat to the unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka.

The tigers or LTTE espoused the creation of a separate state-Tamil Eelam-comprising the Northern and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka and launched an armed struggle to achieve this goal. For several decades the LTTE maintained territorial control over parts of the North and east and ran a parallel administration.

The military debacle of the LTTE is being viewed as the military defeat of Tamil separatism in Sri Lanka.There is an increasing tendency to perceive the rise and fall of the LTTE as a “terrorist” phenomenon alone and turn a blind eye to the underlying political causes which led to the evolution and growth of separatism among the Tamils of Sri Lanka.

Against this backdrop it would be interesting and illuminating into the rise and fall of a related development in neighbouring India. The years immediately before and after Independence from the British saw a Tamil separatist movement emerging in India too.

Unlike in Sri Lanka Tamil separatism in India did not result in organized armed violence against the state. It was basically non-violent and was confined within the parameters of democratic dissent.

Indian Tamil secessionism also did not reach the levels to which its counterpart in Sri Lanka did. The Indian central and state government writ ran at all times in all parts of lands inhabited by Tamils. Also unlike in Sri Lanka very little force and repression was used in India to suppress Tamil secessionism.

More importantly, the roots of Tamil secessionism in India and Sri Lanka were different. In India , the seeds of separatism were sown when a majority hemmed in by a minority sought to empower itself. In Sri Lanka, separatism grew gradually as a minority found itself being restricted and oppreseed by a majority.

ANNIVERSARIES

This column will therefore delve briefly into the decline and fall of Tamil secessionism in India. It would also be appropriate at this juncture as the past week records three significant anniversaries in the Tamil politics of India.

[Periyar E. V. Ramasamy with C. N. Annadurai]

September 15th is the birth centenary of CN Annadurai or Anna the founder of Tamil Nadu’s leading political party the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagham (DMK) or Dravidian progressive Association. September 17th is the 60th anniversary of the DMK.

September 17th is also the 130th birth anniversary of E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker or Eevera the founder of Dravida Kazhagham (DK) or Dravidian Association. The DMK was an off-shoot of the DK. It was the DK that pioneered secessionism in South India. The DMK followed in DK footsteps thereafter.

Arguably both modern India and Ceylon/Sri Lanka are colonial constructs. It was the British who unified their territorial conquests into a cohesive unit for administrative convenience. But the British also fostered divisions within their conquered subjects to facilitate governance.

Interestingly this unification and division paved the way for both greater and lesser identities. While an all-embracing “Indian” nationalism and identity began evolving a number of sub-nationalisms and multiple-identities also began flourishing.

India itself was an “idea” albeit a superior one but there were other competing ideas. Thus there emerged in South India the concept of an alternative, “Dravidian” identity. A short re-run of history is essential to understand this development.

GENESIS

This is of crucial importance as there can be no proper understanding of Tamil secessionism in India without analyzing its genesis. The roots of Tamil Ndu secessionism lie in the vibrant anti-Brahmin movement of the 20th century. This in turn led to the rise of a Dravidian ideology leading to a demand for a Dravidian state. Thereafter it metamorphosed into a demand for a separate Tamil state. It is necessary therefore to focus on events leading to direct Tamil secessionism.

In ancient times the Tamil country in India was ruled by the three great Chera, Chola and Pandya dynasties and to some extent the Pallava dynasty. There were also periodic conquests by the Hoysala, Rashtrakooda and Chalukya kings. Tiny principalities and vassal states under the suzerainty of powerful rulers also existed.

When European countries like England,France,Portugal, Holland and Denmark began setting foot in South India the older Tamil dynasties were no more. Three other powers namely the Mughals, Mahrattas and Vijayanagara Nayakkars had made their mark and as a result there was a proliferation of feudal rulers.

South India was under a mixed bag of rulers reigning over both big as well as small states. They ranged from powerful kings like the Nizam of Hydrebad to the insignificant Rajah of Pudukkottai. The British assiduously practiced their divide and rule approach to acquire most South Indian territory through conquest and compromise.

MADRASI

To this day many people of North India refer to South Indians as “Madrasi” or from Madras. This reference was not due to the city of Madras (Now Chennai) but originated as a result of what was once the province of Madras encompassing the greater part of South India.

The Madras province of British India known officially as the Presidency of Fort St.George (in Madras city) included at its heyday much of South India. The present day Tamil Nadu state,the Malabar region of Kerala state,the coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions of Andhra Pradesh state, the Tulu Nadu region and Bellary districts of Karnataka state, the Brahmapur and Ganjam districts of Orissa state and the Lakshadweep Islands comprised the Madras presidency.

Speakers of Tamil were the single-largest linguistic group in the Madras province. Telugu speakers were a close second. Together Tamils and Telugus formed 78 % of what was then the Madras presidency. Malayalee, Kannada, Tulu ,Urdu and Oriya speakers comprised the rest

With English being the official language linguistic tensions were virtually absent. The great divide was in terms of caste. The Brahmin caste was upper-most due to cultural, social, economic and religious factors.

The Hindu religion’s “Varnashrama dharma” caste concept afforded a privileged position to Brahmins. The Brahmin monopoly on Sanskrit language used for Hindu worship enhanced their position further. Under the British they learnt English and were miles ahead of other castes in English literacy.

BRAHMINS

With a penchant for learning the Brahmins took to education under the British in a big way. Brahmins began filling up official positions and teaching jobs under the British rule.They took to law, medicine and accounts.Brahmins also served the feudal rulers well and obtained grants of lands to administer. There was also Brahminic control of assets bestowed to temples.

Thus the numerically tiny Brahmins (around 4%) were entrenched as a privileged minority in the Madras presidency. They dominated most government jobs, professions and teaching , owned lands and estates and managed properties of temples.They also had much influence over media and the arts.

While the oppressed castes at the bottom rungs of Hindu society continued to languish the other castes regarded as forward also began climbing the socio-economic mobility ladder under the British. These included the Tamil speaking Vellalas and Mudaliyars, Chetties, Nadars, the Malayalee Nayars, Nambiyars and Krupps and Telugu speaking Reddys and Khammas etc.

In a bid to counter Brahmin domination the upper crust leaders of these castes began grouping together. Since these groups came from different ethnicities a non-linguistic identity was sought. Their resentment of Brahmin domination and common interest brought about an overarching non-Brahmin group identity.

A non-Brahmin or anti-Brahmin consciousness evolved.This was transformed into a “Dravidian” consciousness and articulated as such. Dravidian was fundamentally a linguistic term revived by the western scholar Robert Caldwell.

DRAVIDA

Dravida itself was derived from Sanskrit.A Sanskrit scholar Kumarila had used the term “Dravidabhasa” (Dravidian languages) in 8th century AD to denote the Tamil and Telugu languages.The term Dravida was used in Sanskrit literature to describe the lands south of the Vindyas (South India) and inhabitants.

Caldwell’s revival of the term was in reference to the principal languages of South India-Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada and Tulu.They were considered as “springing from a common origin and as forming a distinct family of tongues”.

This term was most suitable for the emerging non –Brahmin , South Indian elite to identify themselves. A movement for social reform was formed as Madras Dravidian Association (Different to DK) in 1912. This opened the floodgates. Several “Dravidian associations” followed in its wake illustrating the yearning and despair among non-Brahmin communities for progress and emancipation.

The growing Dravidian consciousness saw some respected Non-Brahmins form an association called South Indian Peoples Association as an advocacy group.This in turn formed a political party called South Indian Liberal Federation. Membership was open to all non-Brahmins.

An English newspaper “Justice” was started. Eventually this led to the organization being known as the Justice party. The nationalist Congress party was leading the struggle for Independence from the British.Many of the Congress leaders were educated Brahmins.

The Justice party on the other hand did not want independence from the British until social justice prevailed. In other words the Justice party wanted independence to be delayed until social reform displaced Brahmin dominance. It depicted the Congress as a Brahmin party.

JUSTICE

As a result the Justice party participated in the limited governance provided by the British and ran several administrations in the Madras province from 1921.This co-operation has stigmatized the Justice party as collaborators of colonialism.

Gradually it became obvious that the non-Tamil linguistic groups were becoming less enamoured of “Dravidian nationalism”. Comparatively the Tamil speaking on-Brahmin elite was better off than others. This led to some heartburn and non-Tamil associations were formed to promote non-Tamil interests.

The Tamils were also at the forefront of Dravidianism as their language was the oldest and most developed of the Dravidian languages. Some regarded the other Dravidian languages as being derived from Tamil. Sundarampillai sang of them as “children” from the Tamil mothers “womb.” This also caused resentment.

More importantly this led to a situation where the non-Tamil groups began moving away from the Dravidian consciousness. Dravidian was now being seen as co-terminous with Tamil. Thus the non-Tamils were reluctant to be identified as Dravidians though Scholars accepted the Dravidian linguistic label.

In that respect one must note that the “official” reference to Tamil in Sinhala is Dravida. The Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) is called Eksath Dravida Vimukthi Peramuna. Tamil as “Demala” is regarded as being somewhat colloquial.

INVASION

If the South Indian languages were Dravidian most North Indian languages were classified as Aryan or Indo-Aryan. Sanskrit was regarded as the mother of Indo-Aryan languages. Sanskrit unlike Tamil had gone out of usage but had spawned several numerically preponderant linguistic groups like Hindi.

The anthropological and archaeological wisdom propounded by the Dravidian school of thought at that time was that a pre-Aryan Dravidian civilization had existed in India before Aryan invasion (This theory is strongly disputed now).

The Dravidian construct was that the Dravidians had a glorious civilization before being overrun by the Aryans. With the Brahmins retaining exclusive “ownership” of Sanskrit they were seen as Aryan “aliens” who were interlopers into Dravidian country.

Citing the classical “Sangam” literature where people were classified in terms of territory (Anbinainthinai) rather than occupation it was argued that casteism did not exist among Tamils until the Aryans invaded. They had introduced caste with the Brahmins (Aryan) at the top and reduced the original inhabitants to inferior “Shudra” status. The vehicle for this was Hinduism.

PERIYAR

It was around this time that one of the greatest progressives and original thinkers of India made his impact on the South Indian political scene. This was “Eevera” or EV Ramswamy Naicker whose 130th birthday was on September 17th. “Periyar” (great person) Eevera as he was called by his followers was originally a Congress party stalwart who organized the successful satyagraha at Vaikom in present day Kerala.

Disgruntled at casteism practiced by some Brahmin Congressmen, Periyar broke ranks and left the party. He also began enunciating radical thoughts dislodging Brahmin dominance, rationalism, atheism , North Indian hegemony, Caste oppression, equality of sexes etc.

Periyar himself was not Tamil though hailing from Erode in the Salem district of Tamil Nadu.Though fluent in Tamil Ramaswamy belonged to a Kannada speaking Naicker family.

In 1925 Periyar formed the “Suyamariyadhai Iyakkam” or Self-respect movement. Arguing that the Hindu religion provided the basis for Brahmin superiority and that it kept the Dravidians in bondage to the Aryans , Periyar called for Atheism on the basis of rationalism or “pahutharivu”.

“Kadavul Illai. Kadavulai vanangubavan Muttaal” (There is no God. Those who worship God are fools)the outspoken Periyar would assert.He denied God saying-If there was no God there could be no religion. If there was no (Hindu)religion there could not be caste oppression.

Periyar condemned Brahmin Caste superiority as an affront to the self-respect and dignity of non-Brahmins and so formed the self-respect movement.

Subsequently Periyar joined the Justice party and became one of its prominent leaders.A large number of non-Brahmin Tamils began gathering around Periyar over the years.

They were called “suyamariyathaikkaran” (self – respect adherent)or “Pahutharivaalan” (rastionalist) and subscribed to Periyar’s views. The most educated of these at that time was CN Annadurai an MA Graduate. Annadurai known as Anna was born on September 15th 1909 . He became Periyar’s disciple in 1935.

By the late thirties/early forties of the previous century both Periyar and Anna took up the stance that the Madras presidency should not form part of India and that it should be a separate state called Dravidastan. Being a part of “Hindu” India would only lead to permanent enthronement of Aryanism, Brahminism and North Indian hegemony it was argued.

Prior to this both Guru and Sishya had wanted a Tamil state on the basis of the “Tamil Nadu for Tamils” demand. Within a short time they changed position and wanted a Dravida state on the basis of the “Dravida Nadu for Dravidians” demand.

HINDI

Two factors brought about this political change for Periyar and Anna. One was the attempt to impose Hindi upon non-Hindi students by making the learning of Hindi a compulsory subject for all students.The other was the demand by Mohammed Ali Jinna for a theocratic state of Pakistan.

In 1937 the Congress party extended limited cooperation to the British and contested local elections. The Congress formed the administration in Madras presidency and Chakravarthy. Rajagopalachariyar or Rajaji became chief minister. In 1938 Rajaji introduced legislation to make Hindi a compulsory language. It was argued that India needed a single language to unite all its people.

This was resented by the non-Hindi people of Madras province. The Tamil people are very proud and fond of their language elevating it to the status of a mother (Thamil Thai) It is a highly emotive issue and any attempt to belittle or demean Tamil was to be opposed. Hindi compulsion was an affront. It was described as a “victory” of Sanskrit over Tamil,Aryan over Dravidian and Brahmin over non-Brahmin.

An anti-Hindi agitation was launched.Widespread protest demonstrations took place particularly in the Tamil speaking places of the presidency.. There was police firing and two Tamils Thalamuthu and Nadarajan were killed. There were attempts of self-immolation also. Around 1200 persons were brought to court and sentenced to jail. Among these were Periyar and Anna.

PAKISTAN

In 1939 the Congress withdrew from office and the Hindi imposition issue went away. But Periyar and Anna felt that a separate country was required to protect Dravidian languages in general and Tamil in particular. The danger of Hindi being imposed in an Independent India was there.

Subsequent events in post-Independence India proved that these fears were not liars. The anti-Hindi agitation also made many Tamils including the present Tamil Nadu chief minister Muttuvel Karunanidhi (who was fourteen years old then) more conscious of their language and heritage.

The second factor was the demonstration effect of the Muslim League and its demand for the creation of an Independent Islamic state of Pakistan. Periyar supported Jinna’s demand for a territorially non-contiguous state of Pakistan comprising Muslim majority regions in the east and west of India.

Periyar then embarked on a tour of north India and met Jinna in person.Anna did the interpreting.He argued for a Dravida state on the lines of an Islamic state. Jinna was assured that the 7% Muslims in the envisaged state would enjoy full rights.

As a result Jinna began referring to a Pakistan for Muslims, a Hindustan for Aryans s, a Dravidastan for Dravidians and a Bengalistan for Bengalis. Whenever he spoke of Pakistan Jinna also referred briefly to Dravidastan during the second world war.

After the war when the prospect of partition became a possibility Jinna abandoned support fror Dravidastan. It was only a two-nation theory-Hindu and Islam-thereafter.

The initial support by Jinna however boosted Periyar’s thoughts on a separate state. The envisaged Dravidian state was referred to as both Dravidastan (Jinna inspired) and Dravida Nadu in Tamil.

The support for a Dravida state was predominantly extended by Tamils alone. Apart from brief mention in English media the non-Tamil South Indians were lukewarm, to this concept.

PRESIDENT

Shortly after the anti-Hindi agitation , Periyar was elected president of the Justice Party. With this the anti-Brahmin self-respect movement and anti-Brahmin Justice party or South Indian Liberal Federation, experienced some form of fusion in practice.

By this time the Justice party was practically a Tamil party with most non-Tamils dropping out. There were however a few well-known non-Tamil leaders in the party but practically no support from the Telugu, Malayalee, Kannada masses.

Interestingly Periyar and Anna toyed briefly with Tamil secessionism and called for a Tamil state , before opting formally for greater Dravidian separatism and a Dravidian state. The reasons for this interlude is rather intriguing.

The growing anti-Hindi consciousness among non-Brahmin Tamils was manifesting itself in many ways.

In August 1938 a prominent Justice party leader TP Vedachalam from Trichy formed the Tamil Thesa Viduthalai Sangam (Tamil Nation Liberation Society) and began demanding the creation of a separate state for the Tamils.

At the second session of the Ramnad District Tamilians Conference at Karaikudi it was resolved ” to work for the formation of a separate Tamil province, exclusively for Tamilians, and the use of Tamil as the administrative language”.

A series of small meetings were held at various places in Tamil Nadu. These were attended by nondescript Tamils and presided over by little known personalities.

OPINION

But almost all these meetings passed resolutions calling for a separate Tamil state. “Thamizh Nadu Thamizharukke” (Tamil Nadu is for Tamils) was the catchy slogan

This groundswell of opinion was something that Periyar and Anna could not ignore. The growing sentiments of Tamils in Madras state had to be addressed. So both adopted the “Tamil State” cry instead of the “dravida state” demand briefly .

At a meeting held at Salem in October 1938 Periyar for the first time called for a Tamil state. He said that” if the Congress permitted the exploitation of Tamils by Brahmins and Northern Indians, the best way to preserve the liberty of Tamils was to agitate for separation from the rest of India and the proposed All-India Federation, just as Ceylon and Burma had chosen to stand aloof from India”, and ” urged the need for the ‘Tamilnadu for the Tamils’ campaign to be fought to the finish.”

Annadurai followed suit by speaking at several “Tamil Nadu for the Tamils” meetingswhere he eloquently appealed for the creation of a separate state for the Tamils of India.

The “Tamil Nadu for Tamils” demand began to gather momentum slowly . The imposition of Hindi as compulsory in schools and consequent protests enhanced support for this demand.

The need for an autonomous Tamil state under British rule as well as an Independent Tamil Country in the future was discussed and debated at local levels.

The “Tamil Nadu for Tamils” demand was suspended before it could capture popular imagination. This was because Periyar and Anna did a volte-face and re-activated the Dravida Nadu state demand.

POLICY

In a speech made on December 17th 1939 Periyar who earlier raised the demand “Tamil Nadu for Tamils” amended his stance to that of “Dravida Nadu for Dravidians”. This heralded the shift in policy but there was much confusion. The ensuing months saw people advocating both a Tamil state and a Dravidian state. To many Tamils there was no difference in both.

Finally the Justice party of which Periyar was president held its state conference at Thiruvaaroor on August 24th 1940 and formally adopted a resolution. The resolution stated that in order to protect Dravidian culture, arts and economy, the Dravidian homeland of Madras province should be separated from the rest of the Indian Sub-continent and ruled as a separate unit until the British left. Thereafter the Madras province would be an Independent country.

With the wisdom of hindsight it appears that to both Periyar and Anna the demand for a Dravidian state and Tamil state was synonymous. The core of both demands was the existing Madras province. It also appears that most advocates of South Indian secessionism also failed to draw a distinction between both demands.

In any event the short flirtation with a Tamil Nadu secession demand was over. The focus now was on greater Dravidian nationalism. The “Tamil Nadu for Tamils” demand had been subsumed by the “Dravida Nadu for Dravidians” political demand. It was doomed for several reasons.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ig4aTZikoMQJ:dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1076+Tamilnadu+will+not+prosper+under+dravidian+rule&hl=en&gl=in&strip=1