KS
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 12,528
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is not my case that the Tamil 'nation' was unanimously bent on independence.
It is not my case even that a workable majority of the Tamil 'nation' was supportive of independence.
True.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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." .
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.
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.
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.
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...
Dear Sir,
Very curious behaviour; why should some foreigner comment on an Indian minority, after all, even in a discussion on minorities, even in a discussion on a country constituted by former members of an Indian minority? No accounting for some people!
Who were these curious Pakistanis, btw?
Sincerely,
'Joe Shearer'
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.