Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism

Title: Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism 1905 – 1944

Author: K Nambi Aarooran

Publisher: Aarooran Pathippagam, 2008 (First published 1980)

ISBN: Nil

Pages: 474

 

India is constituted on the federal principle – even though you may not find it written as such in the Constitution – with several linguistically and culturally self-sustained states which are indivisible parts of the Indian whole. The state of Tamil Nadu is a really good example of how a state can develop its language and culture without feeling suffocated by the national language and ethos and without any sentiment of separation operating underneath. Tamil boasts of a lineage comparable to classical languages like Sanskrit and Greek. Besides, the people deem themselves to belong to the Dravidian race, even though scholars have convincingly proved that the appellation is applicable only to the body of languages spoken in south India. This book explains the birth and growth of Dravidian nationalism and the renaissance of the Tamil language. The time period of the work starts in 1905 when the partition of Bengal and the opposition to it provided an impetus for Swadeshi culture which in turn helped awaken the national spirit. The curtain falls in 1944 with the formation of the Dravidar Kazhagam which was fathered by E V Ramaswamy Naicker. This transformed version of the Justice Party thereafter became the vehicle of Tamil nationalism. Nambi Aarooran was the former professor and HOD of the Institute of Correspondence Courses at the Madurai Kamaraj University. This book is a thoroughly researched work with implacable objectivity.

 

Strange it may seem, but the term ‘Dravida’ itself is of Sanskritic origin. Kumarila, an eighth century CE scholar, had used the term ‘Andhra dravida bhasha’ to denote the languages of the Tamil and Telugu countries. Robert Caldwell also used it in the modern times to denote the four principal south Indian languages. The westerners – many of them Christian missionaries engaged in open proselytization work – contributed a lot to the development of Tamil, but have not spared any trick up their sleeves to sow dissent and strife among their students. Gustav Opert, a German philologist, and Herbert Risley, a British ethnographer, first used the term ‘Dravidian’ to denote a group of people. Their theory claimed that Indian society consisted of two major races – the Aryans and Dravidians. Caldwell and G U Pope – both of them Christian missionaries – hypothesized Tamils’ original religion as a modified form of Saivism where the central deity Siva differed significantly from his Hindu counterpart. The book does not specify that both were missionaries. With active British support, the missionaries tried to occupy all seats where new knowledge was being created or collected. When a committee of five scholars was constituted in 1913 for publishing a Tamil lexicon, it contained two missionaries representing India and Ceylon. They were the object of severe criticism for poor performance and more members had to be later added to the committee to make up for the loss in quality.

 

Around the beginning of the twentieth century, a strong anti-Brahmin lobby rose up in various Hindu castes which did not include Dalits. Most of them were upper castes including large zamindars holding the title of Raja, wealthy merchants, affluent lawyers and government officials retired from very high positions. This non-Brahmin movement metamorphosed over the years to become the Dravidian political movement. Tamil non-Brahmins described the Aryan civilization as caste-ridden and the Dravidian civilization as egalitarian and democratic. Aarooran proves that this was a pious wish having no relation to reality. In the Sangam literary works themselves, one finds the mention of several social divisions which became the basis of caste organisation in later times (p. 22). The earliest Tamil work Tolkappiyam speaks of the four varnas as antanar (Brahmins), aracar (rulers), vanikar (traders) and vellalas (cultivators).

 

This book beautifully catalogues the rise of non-Brahmin movement from the start and the reasons behind it. The Brahmins had occupied the lion’s share of government jobs because of their better proficiency in English. The Madras Dravidian Association was established in 1916 which started a newspaper named ‘Justice’. When this association turned into a political party, the paper’s name was co-opted as the party’s. They opposed the Home Rule Movement of the Indian National Congress, fearing that Brahmins would occupy the major share of power and sided with the British. They demanded communally separate electorates like the Muslims but were successful only in getting reserved seats within a general electorate. 28 out of the 63 seats were reserved for the non-Brahmins who enjoyed eager support from the Muslims and Christians. In return, the Justice Party supported the Khilafat Movement. At this stage, the Telugu non-Brahmins opted out of being labelled Dravidians. Kannadigas and Malayalis soon followed suit and Dravidianism has remained a Tamil fad ever since. The Dravidians’ hatred of Brahmins was legendary and showed symptoms similar to antisemitism in nature. When Annamalai University retrenched 7 out of 84 teachers during World War II as an economy measure, all of them were Brahmins. The Dravidian leaders openly justified it in public saying that it was ‘a small step in the direction of reducing their number permanently’.

 

Aarooran convincingly explains the renaissance of the Tamil language around this time. As the term implies, renaissance involves the recognition of a glorious past and its re-evaluation in consonance with the modern spirit. In the period 1905-20, archeological and epigraphical evidence provided details of the ancient kingdoms of south India which rose in fame in its heyday across the entire Southeast Asia. The Tamil language’s antiquity was also widely accepted. Politicians began to make Tamil the medium of public speech. But Tamil writers like the legendary C. Subramania Bharati took pride in the heritage of India as well as that of Tamil language and culture. Bharati was as much Tamil as he was Indian. He was very proud of the state he belonged to, but saw Tamil Nadu as an integral part of India. His outlook was nationalistic in scope. At the same time, there also arose a separatist ‘Pure Tamil’ movement which sought to dispel Sanskrit vocabulary from the language. The book also provides a very detailed story of the efforts to bring out a Tamil lexicon and establish a Tamil university.

 

The Dravidian Movement took on an anti-Hindu façade right from the start. The Self-Respect Movement of E V Ramaswamy Naicker was launched in 1925 and sought to restore the self-esteem of non-Brahmins alleged to have been denied by Brahmins. A fanatic sense of pride was cultivated in the volunteers. The British government exploited this chance to meddle in Hindu religious affairs by promulgating the Hindu Religious Endowments Act which confiscated surplus temple funds to use for public purposes benefiting all religious communities. Hindu religious texts were also criticized for supposedly discriminatory content. The monkey force in Ramayana was taken to be referring to Dravidians and the epic was alleged to contain racial insult. Self-Respect writers re-wrote the Ramayana to depict Ravana as a Dravidian hero repelling Rama. The anti-Brahmin rhetoric of EVR smacked of xenophobia which closely resembled antisemitism. EVR even opposed Brahmins joining his movement. This attitude gradually mellowed when the Self-Respect Movement made a foray into politics with the refurbished Justice Party. The political arm arranged its young members to form groups in 1935 to work under the direct leadership of the Raja of Bobbili and is reported to have derived inspiration from the Hitler Youth in Germany. EVR said the Aryans, like the Jews, came to Tamil Nadu only to exploit the Dravidians. The Dravidian Movement was anti-national too. EVR denied the applicability of the political concept of ‘nation’ to the whole of India and wanted a Tamil nation called Dravidastan to be carved out of India. He declared unconditional support to the British Raj and claimed it to be better than Brahmin Raj. He unashamedly joined hands with Mohammed Ali Jinnah and supported the demand for Pakistan. As a quid pro quo, Jinnah attended a meeting in Madras in 1941 and supported the demand for Dravidastan. Sensing that EVR had no mass support on this issue, Jinnah stayed aloof from Dravidian leaders thereafter so as not to complicate his own case. Anna Durai characterized Quit India campaign as a ‘huge hoax’ and threatened to start a Quit Aryan program.

 

The book also deals with the anti-Hindi agitation of the 1930s. Provincial elections were held in 1937 and Congress formed the ministry in Madras. With the entry of Congress, Justice Party which had won earlier elections to the provincial legislature, was wiped out electorally. The Rajaji government made Hindi a compulsory subject in the first three forms of high school in May 1938. This came at a time when even Tamil was not a compulsory subject. The Justice Party under EVR protested but their demand and agitation did not have popular support. The author claims that some of the protestors were paid cash for participation. The teaching of Hindi continued. However, the Congress ministries suddenly resigned to mark their disapproval of the government’s decision to involve India in the Second World War without consulting Indian leaders. After the native ministry resigned, the British government stepped in and stopped the teaching of Hindi. All agitators who were detained for illegal activities were also released.

 

This book is a well-balanced piece of fine research that should be a model for pure, objective analysis. In fact, I have a confession to make here. When I took this book, I was expecting it to be a collection of silly arguments of Dravidian ‘greatness’ or stupid claims about a submerged continent called Kumarikandam where Tamil reigned supreme. Instead, I found Nambi Aarooran to be an intellectually well-heeled scholar with a nice diction and an impartial observer and recorder of events related to the topic of concern. The author’s style and choice of material is highly relevant and amazingly precise without any trace of subscribing to any propaganda. It has captured the locus of Justice Party from a British stooge to an EVR-prop and shows the poor popular support it enjoyed. It also contains several chapters on Maraimalai Atikal’s religious and social thoughts. At the end of the book, the readers feel regret that the author abruptly stopped the narrative in the year 1944. He should have continued it till the ascent of the Dravidian parties to power.

 

The book is highly recommended.

 

Rating: 4 Star