Populist Mobilization, Role of Political Elites and Anti-Centre Campaign in Recent Tamil Politics in India Kunal Debnath Assistant Professor Department of Political Science Kazi Nazrul University Asansol 713340, West Bengal, INDIA Email – [email protected]; Mobile +919433673354 Kunal Debnath teaches political science in post graduate level at Kazi Nazrul University, India, since past three years. His research interest covers comparative politics, political sociology and political philosophy. Debnath is currently engaged with his doctoral research on the 'Nath Community' in India. Debnath published several research articles in several national and international peer-reviewed journals like Studies in Peoples History (Sage), Sexuality, Gender, and Policy (Policy Studies Organization, USA) on B.R. Ambedkar's ideas of nation-building in India, LGBT in India, etc. Page 1 of 19 Populist Mobilization, Role of Political Elites and Anti-Centre Campaign in Recent Tamil Politics in India ABSTRACT Tamil politics in India has an enduring characteristic of a sub-nationalist orientation which, sometimes, bares with the populist mobilization by the political parties of Tamil Nadu. Recently, the working president of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, one of the prominent political parties of Tamil Nadu, recycles the issue of Dravida Nadu, a hypothetical land for the Tamils own based on their ethnonational identity, which had been dropped almost 55 years ago. Dravida Nadu highlights the linguistic, cultural and ethnonational resistance against north-Indian dominated pan-Indian nationalism. Cauvery water dispute, debate over Jallikattu, anti-Hindi stance, and protest against the terms of reference of the Fifteenth Finance Commission are the signs of anti- centre campaign in Tamil politics and being used not only for upholding Tamil cultural nationalism but for mobilizing the people in electoral combat zone in Tamil Nadu. Keywords: Dravida Nadu, ethnonationalism, secessionism, cultural nationalism, populist mobilization, anti-centre campaign. Page 2 of 19 Prologue: On March 16, 2018, after almost 55 years of dropping the demand of Dravida Nadu, a hypothetical land for the Tamils own, M.K. Stalin, leader and the working president of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), raised the issue of Dravida Nadu again. At a press conference in Erode, in response to a question asked by a journalist on the possibility of Dravida Nadu, Stalin says ‘if it (such a situation) comes, it would be welcome. We hope that such a situation arises’ (Kolappan, 2018). Though within a few hours Stalin clarifies his aforesaid statement as ‘yes I had made remarks on Dravida Nadu but it was only after I was asked question on it but this does not mean that I am undertaking campaign for Dravida Nadu’ (Asian News International, 2018). However, whether the statement of Stalin was campaign or not, the demand for Dravida Nadu is nothing new but it has a prolonged history. It took place during 1910s by the Justice Party and reaccelerated during late 1940s to 1960s by the then DMK supremo C. N. Annadurai based on two principles – to protect Tamil interest and language, and second, Tamil Nadu was victimized by the North India dominated central government. But, after Sino-India war (1962), DMK gave up the demand for a separate state based on territorial nationalism in 1963. After 55 years of concentrating on their cultural nationalism, DMK calls for their territorial nationalism again. Stalin added, ‘as far as Dravida Nadu is concerned, Anna (former Chief Minister C. N. Annadurai), gave up the idea, but also made it clear that the reasons for [the demand] for its creation are very much there. Anna has been proved right, especially now that we see how the southern states are being ignored by the BJP government’ (The Hindu, 2018). Though it is not an extreme demand for separatism, but it hints at not only the fact that Centre has been trying to wrest states’ power violating the federal structure of the State, but also shows a resistance from Page 3 of 19 all the southern states against the saffronization of any institution, despite rest of the southern states (Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Kerala) turned down the issue raised by M. K. Stalin. Trajectories of Dravidian Movement – from territorial to cultural nationalism: Historically, the Dravidian movement, one of the ‘Asia’s oldest and most durable ethno- national movements’ (Subramanian, 1999, p. 15), was started on the basis of three separate issues and these issues were converged in a secessionist demand. The issues were: firstly, ethno- cultural issues – Dravidian culture were followed by the majority of the people in erstwhile Madras Province and Brahmins were regarded as cultural invaders came from north India. Traditional Dravidian culture seemed to be more egalitarian than north Indian version of Hindu culture imposed upon the Dravidians by the Brahmins. It was primarily an anti-Brahmin nationalist movement. Secondly, language – more than 90% of the population spoke Dravidian family language (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam) in the last decade of the British Raj. Dravidianism opposed politically dominant language Hindi. Entire south India was trembled by anti-Hindi agitation in 1965. Lastly, Religious impulse – early Dravidian movement had promoted atheism which supposed as the Dravidianist response to the humiliations imposed upon the lower castes by the Brahmanical Hinduism (Ziegfeld, 2003, p. 282). Based on this religious philosophy, early activists of the Dravidian movement publicly destroyed considerable amount of statues of Hindu deities and also organized self-respect marriage, ‘wedding ceremonies conducted in Dravidianist families ritually validated by the speeches of political leaders rather than religious rituals performed by priests’ (Subramanian, 1999, p. 108) with Sanskrit Mantras. However, this version of religious response never gained wide acceptance in Tamil Nadu (Ziegfeld, 2013, p. 283). Page 4 of 19 The root of Dravidian politics dates back to pre-independence period when this part was known as Madras Presidency under the British Raj. Dravidian movement was initiated with a militant demand for secession and it opposed the Brahmin caste. First initiative was taken by the Justice Party, officially known as South Indian Liberal Federation, founded in 1916 by T. M. Nair, Theagaroya Chetty and C. Natesa Mudaliar and it was primarily elite non-Brahmin upper castes controlled political party. The Justice Party led Tamil movement opposed Brahmin supremacy in colonial Indian Civil Services. Another organization was also devoted to the Dravidian movement that was the Self-Respect Association founded in 1925 by E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker alias Periyar (aslo Periar). The Justice Party was primarily non-Brahmin elite based organization. For intensifying the movement, Periyar formed a mass based political party Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) in 1944. The DK was a merged form of Justice Party and Self- Respect Association. Journey of DK started from an elite based to mass oriented party with a new strategy of populist mobilization. Periyar identified Tamil Brahmins as cultural outsider came from northern part of India. For protecting the cultural purity as well as the interest of ‘native’ Dalits, Periyar called for the creation of a separate country in which the Dravidian-as- Sudra would enjoy prevalence. After independence of India, another party emerged in 1949 splitting DK by C. N. Annadurai, popularly known as ‘Anna' or 'Elder Brother', who was much closed to Periyar in his early political career. C. N. Annadurai founded Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which portrayed itself as the defender of Tamil interest and language. Tamil Nadu was dubbed victimized By the DMK as having been culturally hegemonized by the central government having a task of promoting north Indian interests. Annadurai led DMK had a strong demand for Dravida Nadu which implies a territorial nationalist impulse of the Dravidian movement. Annadurai and his associates gave first a full version of nationalist dimension to the Page 5 of 19 Dravidianism with a ‘territorially rooted nation’ while DK looked for the ‘aggregate of megacastes’ (Subramanian, 1999, p. 142). Transformation of the ideological differences between DK and DMK can be highlighted by the English translation of both the parties’ name. Dravidar Kazhagam means ‘Party of the Dravidians’. It highlights a group of people known as Dravidians. On the other hand, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam means ‘Party for the Progress of the Dravidam’. It refers to a land or country that is Dravidam. DMK was the first which specified the territorial boundary for a separate country supposed as Dravida Nadu, the place for Dravidians. For Annadurai, Dravida Nadu and Tamil Nadu were synonymous because all the Dravidians (south Indians) speak the language of Dravida language family. (Subramanian, 1999, p. 142). Then, ‘Tamil Nadu [was] the first Indian state in which separatist/autonomist impulses developed despite initial enthusiasm about the creation of the Indian Union’ (Subramanian, 1999, p. 131). But, since late 1960s and 1970s, all the potential issues for a secessionist movement in Tamil Nadu became non-issues through Indian typical model of federalism. Reasons laid on the rejection of a unitary state, the acceptance of multiple but complementary identities, the upholding of regional languages, maintenance of English as a ‘link language’, and the creation of mutually beneficial alliances between polity-wide and centric-regional