Dear Sir,
At the end of the day, it seems that you prefer your own undefended assertions to documentary evidence. If that is the way you wish to put forward a case or to defend one, that is entirely your business.
Your own attention and the attention of others, particularly those who are interested in the TNT and the way Jinnah used it to achieve autonomy for Indian Muslims, is drawn to the outstanding example you have given, inadvertently, during your laboured answers to the evidence produced. It is pure gold. I will highlight it when it occurs in the discussion.
Finally, I have a formulation for the situation at the very end. If you believe that Tamil honour will be better preserved by using that formulation, let us agree on it and move on.
Now please read on.
Dear Sir,
Your tenacity is admirable, but I regret greatly that the inconvenient facts simply refuse to go away. Wrong of them, extremely inconsiderate, but there you are!
i ll take it as a compliment.
Indeed you may. In fact, years ago, Goldsmith wrote a poem in which there are lines which describe your heroism!
It may help you to reconcile yourself to reading what I've written if I start by agreeing that majority opinion among the Tamils rejected a demand for independent Tamil Nadu.
Absolutely true...No one wanted a independent Tamil Nadu except for some loonies.
The loonies, of course, including the party that had won power in Tamil Nadu consistently during that period.
In 1920, it won the first direct elections in the presidency and formed the government. During 1920-37, it formed four out the five ministries constituted and was in power for thirteen out of the seventeen years.
Interesting. So the Tamils had these loonies governing them repeatedly, in government after government. No doubt wisdom dawned on them in 1938, and we are to ignore everything prior to that, everything inconvenient for your refreshing look at politics.
Again, I repeat, what is under discussion is not the loyalty of Tamils to India, but the existence of a minority psychology among them, among significant sections.
This is my bone of contention.There was never a minority psychology among the Tamils at any point of time.
I see that u have given the language protests as a sign of minority psychology..but to be true to history it was anything other than that.
If I had in fact done so, your criticism would have held water. In fact, my emphasis was on Periyar's and Annadurai's activities; this (language riots) happened at the fag end, after the practical death of separatism in 1956.
We had the language protests because we felt proud of our language which in any case was older than Hindi itself.
It would serve ur purpose to note that the protests were not against learning Hindi rather it was against substituting hindi in Tamil's place.
No, I did not say that the language protests are a sign of minority psychology. I said that the activities of the Justice Party, the Dravida Kazhagam, and then the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam are the symptoms. And I have given copious documentary evidence of that.
Do you have any counterbalancing evidence other than your unsupported assertion?
Having said which, there is a strange situation arising here. I don't know if you have noticed it.
In your anxiety to prove that there was no Tamil separatism before the 65 language riots, you have added more and more evidence, including a planned declaration of independence, of a minority feeling in 65. Suppose, for a moment, I were to be a wily debater, and were engaged in this discussion for the sake of scoring points: would I not shift ground subtly, and say,"All right, I accept that you are right about the older phases, but the language riots were separatist, but for Shastri's statesmanlike intervention."
Would that not have proved my point?
It is my case that the Tamils formed a 'minority' and that this minority articulated its discomfort and unease, to the extent that there were organised and serious demands for independence.
It would better serve ur point in saying Minority within the minority aspired for a Dravidistan as ur putting forth...not Minority per se.
The tamils as such as a single unit never felt as a minority either etnically ,religiously or linguistically.
I see no harm in accepting that formulation, nonsense in itself, if it assuages your feelings.
What is a single unit, for instance? One individual is a single unit; a whole state, today about 65 million people? With four very popular political parties? In your opinion, do all of them think alike?
Again, I fail to see how that affects the situation. At which point did the leadership, say, of the Scheduled Castes amount to more than a minuscule fraction of the whole? Does it mean that the views formulated by this leadership are invalid, because they are a minority within the minority?
Regarding your views on the Tamils never feeling like a minority, I have introduced contrary documentation; have you, again, anything but your own assertions?
Against this, you have suggested that only one individual, Periyar,wanted this. Even allowing for exaggeration, this is inaccurate.
I believe that the excerpts below, taken from my broader response to one of your earlier posts, may help you understand the reality. These are all available in the Wikipedia article on Dravidistan; I have avoided quoting from other available material since that may not be accessible universally.
1. The movement for Dravidistan was at its height from 1940s to 1960s, but failed to find any support outside Tamil Nadu.
References:
Thapar, Romesh (1978). Change and Conflict in India. Macmillan. p. 75. ISBN 0836402227.
Rao, C Rajeswara (1973). Defeat Separatist Conspiracy in Andhra. Communist Party of India. p. 28. OCLC 814926.
2. At the 14th Confederation of the Justice Party held in Madras in 1938, rules and regulations, or precursors of a Dravida Nadu were adopted. The objectives were defined as:
to attain Purna Swaraj {emphasis added: JS}and complete control for Dravida Nadu in social, economic and industrial, and commercial fields; to liberate Dravida Nadu and Dravidians from exploitation and domination by non-Dravidian foreigners; to acquire for the citizens of Dravida Nadu without discrimination on account of caste and class and inequalities arising there from, in law and society, equal rights and equal opportunities; to remove from the Dravidian people the sense of difference and superstitious beliefs existing in the name of religion, customs, and traditions and unite them as a society of people with a liberal outlook and intellectual development, and to get proportionate representation in all fields till the achievement of these objectives and until the people who have a sense of caste, religious and class differences cooperate with the party in full confidence and goodwill.
References:
Arooran, K. Nambi (1980). "Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism - The Demand for Dravida Nadu". TamilNation.org.
Saraswathi. Towards Self-Respect, p. 87.
The significance of this last excerpt is two-fold. Please read this carefully, to avoid tilting at windmills later.
The Justice Party was in power for 13 out of 17 years from 1920 until 1937. It was the main opposition to the Indian National Congress, and was formed on an anti-Brahmin plank. It was elected again and again; it had no lack of popular support. It was not Periyar's party, and he did not join it until 1938. So this demand cannot be dismissed as a one-man show.
On the other hand, it was not until Periyar joined and influenced it significantly that it took up the demand for Dravidian independence.{emphasis added: JS}
3. In August 1944, Periyar created a new party called Dravidar Kazhagam out of the Justice Party, at the Salem Provincial Conference. The creation of a separate non-Brahmin Dravidian nation was a central aim of the party.
References:
Dirks, Nicholas B. (2001). Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton University Press. p. 263.
I hope you see the thread between the Dravidistan movement and the later language riots emerging.
4. Annadurai was initially more radical than Periyar in his demand for a separate Dravidistan.
References:
Jaffrelot, Christophe (2003). India's silent revolution: the rise of the low castes in North Indian politics. Orient Longman. p. 244.
If you read the reference I have suggested, you will find all these in there, along with the supporting authorities. Once I am able to format my reply properly, you will find that these are four out of ten citations reproduced. It would be possible to reproduce several score, but not feasible; I request you to look up the original sources yourself from the references given in that longer note.
Appreciate ur effort in trying to prove a point....but I think my one quote "In a period of free for all,its nothing surprising that anyone can aspire for anything under the holy sun" answers ur questions in a short but a crisp way.
And I appreciate your hard work in reading it! Now, if you would only take the one short step to finding out the correct facts and documents, and building your arguments on those, rather than on your self-declarations, we would make enormous progress.
Apparently your preferred argument is your own statement, a personal opinion. Short and crisp, but an opinion, not evidence. You called it a quotation, a quote; it is a quotation from yourself. If you were an authority on the subject, I would accept it. Your quote by itself has no weight as evidence, not even as eye-witness evidence.
Please produce the statements of leaders of the Tamils, or produce extracts from their own books or writings, or produce the views of scholars, and you might have credibility.
Most certainly I am not! The Muslim demand originated much earlier than the 40s, they rose to a peak around then, and the implications of the TNT took decades to work itself out.
If you had followed my arguments at all, instead of concluding, wrongly as it happens, that they constituted an attack on present-day or even past Tamil loyalty to India, you would find that the TNT has to be understood and recognised in its completeness, with its flaws and its strong points.
It was weak when it was interpreted to mean that religious practice alone constituted an identity differentiator, and other factors could be ignored for ever. It makes sense, either in its original form, or in modified form, when it is recognised that many factors, including religious identity, go into forming an identity.
Dear sir im not here to debate on the pros and the cons of the TNT.
Most certainly it had its ills and i agree with u on the point that religion alone cant be a sufficient differentiator in a land of myriad ethnicities.
Astonishing. Have you looked at the title of the thread?
Now for your contention that it is illogical to link events which happened 15 years apart.
That understanding is unfortunately incorrect, because the minority feeling that Tamil should not be suppressed, and another language imposed, was part and parcel of the demands of the independence movement for a Dravidistan right from 1938. The demand itself was abandoned in 1956, by most, but not all. Some tall leaders continued to demand this.
In 1962, as you have noted, Annadurai stood up and asked for Tamil independence on the floor of Parliament. Part of this demand for independence was based on a sensitivity regarding Tamil culture and identity which included a demand for the preservation of the Tamil language.
Three years later, the language riots, driven very largely by the DMK party, broke out. The DMK was not then in power; it was a Congress regime in office at the time.
In 1962, the Tamil people rose to the occasion and donated generously to the national cause.
In 1965, they agitated against imposition of Hindi, and this agitation was powered by the DMK, led by Annadurai.
Do you see any contradiction here? I don't.
Even that i have clarified in the post # 235,244.I think u have not read that entirely.But i shall repeat it.
On the contrary, I have; all my posts are read through carefully, both outgoing and incoming.
After an exhaustive and divisive debate, Hindi was adopted as the official language of India with English continuing as an associate official language for a period of fifteen years, after which Hindi would become the sole official language. The new Constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. Efforts by the Indian Government to make Hindi the sole official language after 1965 were not acceptable to many non-Hindi Indian states, who wanted the continued use of English.
As the day (26 January 1965) of switching over to Hindi as sole official language approached, the anti-Hindi movement gained momentum in Madras State with increased support from college students. On 25 January, a full-scale riot broke out in the southern city of Madurai, sparked off by a minor altercation between agitating students and Congress party members.
To calm the situation, Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri gave assurances that English would continue to be used as the official language as long the non-Hindi speaking states wanted. The riots subsided after Shastri's assurance, as did the student agitation.
And yes it was the DMK that was involved in the anti-hindi agitation that quicly de-generated into riots.And mind u
the demand of Independence was to be raised if Hindi was forcibly thrust on us...it was not thrust and hence the demand just remained a hypothesis.
Stress is on the word "to be".
Now if u properly understand the above paras...u can see that the the imposition of Hindi was to be done in 1965 and if u understand the undercurrents of Indian politics it u would realise that demand in parliament was rather a psychological threat of secession if Hindi was implemented forcefully thereby forcing the Congress leaders at the centre to backtrack on that ...
If i may put in a more crude yet simple way..."It was a bluff by Anna that was luckily not called by the Congress at the centre."
Do you realize what an excellent job you have done? I can forgive you everything else for this and this alone. Now and I address this to those following the TNT thread, and to those interested in interpreting Jinnahs actions this is precisely Ayesha Jalals analysis, taken up and expanded with more emotion but less learning by Jaswant Singh. While your example is a lame one, it throws valuable light on the thinking that could well have produced Jinnahs actions, exactly the way they were.
Secondly, how would you describe the state of affairs when a linguistic minority was willing to declare independence to protect its language? In what way is this different from Bangladesh?
The same DMK led by C. N. Annadurai or some other one? The same Annadurai who in 1962 raised the demand for independence in Parliament or some other one? Please look at the records of his speech; did he link it to the imposition of Hindi, if Hindi was forcibly thrust on Tamil Nadu?
When you say the demand remained a hypothesis, what do you mean? Was it made or not made? Three years earlier than the riots to which you have linked it?
Surely this is not the same Karthic Sri who protested that the riots of 65 could not be linked to the Muslim minority rising for a homeland of their own in the 30s and 40s? :-D
Sir ..sadly in ur attempt at sarcasm u have forgot one important thing nor u have fully understand what im trying to tel.
It seems rather than concentrating on formatting u should concentrate on my posts..
Ok lemme explain with the timeline the bolded part.
1950 26 th Jan - the new constitution stipulating that Hindi will become the sole official language after 15 years comes into effect.
There were immediately an uproar Not only in Tamil Nadu..but almost in all non-Hindi speaking states of which Tamil Nadu was singled out due to the ferocity.
Around 1958 - The issue was largely forgotten an business was going as usual.
1962 - This was the time that DMK wanted to come to power and since 1965 (the year of Hindi imposition) was nearing Anna saw a huge oppurtunity in using this plank and capturing power in Tamil Nadu ..which he did sucessfully later.
It will serve my purpose to highlight that the real motive behind all these hoopla was capturing power and not any genuine concern for anyone.
1965 - Now central govt still dilly dallying on the Language proposal Anna realised that organising protests and stirring up the emotive issue of language will serve his purpose of DMK capturing power and with Lal Bahadur Shastri agreeing on the proposal the English will continue as the official lang Anna obtained two mangoes in one throw - rallying the Tamils under the banner of DMK and hence capturing power in Tamil Nadu.
I hope i have now clarified ur doubt regarding timelines.
I will not irritate you by explaining which is more interesting, formatting or reading your posts, especially since i punish myself by reading every post.
That would be a reasonable explanation, void of external evidence though it is, but for two awkward facts;
The Dravidistan demand, and the reasons for Tamil minority feeling, were both based partly on the fear of the suppression of the Tamil language. If this was a feature of the earlier programmes and campaigns, and the demand for Dravidistan was only sought by loonies, how did it become a mass movement? That feeling must have existed within Tamilians to have been exploited by a wily politician!
Annadurai was, as has been shown repeatedly by the evidence, a more rabid Tamil separatist than Periyar. Was he bluffing from the very beginning?
ur notion abt how the majority of the Tamils wanted independence
I had this notion? Silly me!
Er, just to be kind to the old, could you remind me where I said this?
As far as I remember, this interesting sub-thread started based on the following:
The Tamils deserve special mention. At one stage, they seemed far more affected by centrifugal forces than any other nation within India. Their strong sense of identity equipped them, above all other Dravidian groups, to seek a greater place under the Sun for themselves.That they have stayed on peacefully is due to the compromise that has evolved, whereby the Dravidian parties rule supreme, only alternating power among themselves. I have no explanation for this alternation; only a Cho can tell us, and Cho has sold out.
Have u heard of a word in English called "inference".??
I hope so..cos this word comes into play here.
When u put forth the feelings that the Tamils felt in the Anti-Hindi riots of 1965 in a post that was concerned with the TNT feelings of 1940's it is bound to raise some heckles and it would have been discretionary on ur part to have taken care of that.
Second objection was for lumpin the Tamils as minority.
Again it would have served ur intended pupose if u had said "A tiny minority among the Tamils" instead of saying Tamil Minority.
Hope u get the difference among the two.
Ah, so you take it upon yourself to tell us that the Dravidistan movement of 1938 to 1965 did not involve any feeling of minority suppression, but the language riots of 1965 did.
Did this feeling of minority suppression spring up out of a void? And if it existed during the riots of 65, contrary to my analysis, does that not bear out the minority reference?
As for your casuistry about minority within a minority, that would apply to every single political leadership vis-à-vis their constituency. I have already mentioned the Scheduled Castes; others are obvious candidates.
If I have any regrets about this post, it is not recognising that the Nagas were a far greater threat to India during some period. My justification is that Tamil separatist feeling was at its height between 1938 and 1956, whereas the Indian Army was called into what later became Nagaland in 1955, and a general peace kind of settled in around 1975: therefore, two fairly distinct periods.
But ur point is...? Again there was no such thing as separatism in Tamil Nadu.
By saying Tamil Separatism ur doing injustince to both the Tamil Freedom movement and to the word Separatism.
Wat we had in Nagaland is separatism...wat we had in tamil Nadu was a separatist feeling among a tiny minority that had no followers among the common mass.
A separatist feeling among a tiny minority<>separatism.
How do you describe political movements seeking independence other than separatist? It may be among a minority, but it was among an influential minority which included the heads of government and ministers.
How many people, what percentage of the concerned population does it take for a movement to be defined as separatist?
And how do you gloss over your own statement that the Tamil Dravidian leadership were ready to declare independence if Hindi had indeed become the national language?
However, I agree that the Naga rebellion and the Tamil Dravidistan were significantly different in degree. Having said that, I fail to see how the word minority plays a part.
Dear Mr. Kartic Sri,
If I swear before a notary public that I did not say that a majority of the Tamils wanted independence, will you go away and play with your grenades somewhere else? You can leave the pins behind; I will return them whenever you ask politely.
Thank you.
U better do it my friend because many people here are not of ur intellectual level and hence will pounce upon how Tamils are being suppressed,prepressed by evil India and yes i have seen my fair share of loonies doing so here.
Thanx...
Guarding against fanboys attacking Tamils or Indians using this is not good enough reason to hide the truth or to obscure history. That was the mistake made by Shining India, that is a mistake that I believe India is too strong to need. Please dont quote that as a reason for fudging history, or suggesting that we deal in propaganda.
Leave that to others.
I know this was not directed at me...but as a Tamil i request u not to again use the word minorities for Tamils as a whole.
U can very well use them for indicating the tiny minority that had separatist aspiration at that time...even though the common man did not want it.
I am not objecting to your holding up a contrary view, but I cant change the meanings of words just to suit a faction. I am sorry, but you have to defend Tamil loyalty some other way than by defining Tamils as a non-minority; the idea is ridiculous, the grammar as well as the etymology is worse.
This is my formulation:
Tamil minority feeling crystallised in the activities of Periyar and his associates. They joined the Justice Party after it had lost power, and used it as a vehicle to agitate for Dravidistan. Subsequently, Periyar and his Dravidian followers left the Justice Party and started the Dravida Kazhagam. He and his followers kept up their agitation but received no mass support. His even more extremist follower, Annadurai, broke away from him and the DK, and formed the DMK. In 1962, he gave a fiery speech in the Indian Parliament, asking for Tamil independence. In 1965, he saw an opportunity in the coming imposition of Hindi, and mobilised the masses against that move. This brought the DMK into the public eye, they defeated the Congress, and dominated Tamil politics in one way or the other thereafter. Separatism died away with that.
Since it is clear that your objective is not comparison of evidence, I do not see any point in continuing. You are afraid that what I say will be misused. Anything that anyone says can be misused; we can neither stop articulating our views, or distorting what we think simply to present a united semantic front. In any case, what are you afraid of: do the opinions of fanboys and lunatics matter?
There are other, better ways of defending India. I personally prefer to try logic and reason.
Thank you very much for an interesting diversion into the semantics of fanboy antics on the net.
