Raising their voice

‘Liberty, equality and fraternity’: the Dravidian Movement in South India

“We are fit to think of ‘self-respect’ only when the notion of superior and inferior caste is banished from our land” — Periyar Ramasami.

I visited India last year in November as a Panos fellow. The trip was quite memorable in itself, but one thing that left a deep impact on me was our visit to Anna Arivalayam in Chennai, the official headquarters of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). DMK is the ruling party in Tamil Nadu. A permanent exhibition depicting the entire history of the Dravidian Movement has been installed in Anna Arivalayam. The exhibition includes portraits of Dravidian stalwarts, scholars and leaders who inculcated the spirit of Tamil language and Tamil culture into the minds of the people; drawings and photographs of significant events that took place during the evolution of the movement; a mini-theatre has been set up where documentary films of Dravidian leaders, namely Periyar Ramasami, C.N. Annadurai and M. Karunanidhi, are screened; a collection of articles, mementos, shields, statues and other works of art are also on display; and a bookstall has been set up with a rare collection of Dravidian writers. It was quite an experience to see all these historical things in one place and I could not agree more with what was written on the exhibition’s pamphlet. It said: “In toto, it is more a treasure house than an exhibition.”

The official website of the DMK gives a brief background of the party and the Dravidian Movement. It says, “Fed up with the domination of Brahmins and their religious fundamentalism, Periyar E.V. Ramasamy left the Congress in 1925 and formed the Self-Respect Movement which was later transformed into a liberation movement named Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) in 1944. C.N. Annadurai (better known as Dr Anna) and the other front line leaders took active role in spreading the ideals of DK. Due to differences with Periyar over certain policies and programmes, they left DK and formed DMK on September 17, 1949…[DMK was founded] to liberate the Dravidian race from the shackles of superstition and religious dogmas, to revive and restore the ancient heritage of Tamil and Tamil Nadu, and to protect Tamil language from Hindi imperialism.”

The Dravidian Movement advocated that India should have a social democracy instead of being a mere political democracy as the latter cannot last unless social democracy lies at the base of it. The movement recognised that all human beings are equal and it is the birthright of every individual to enjoy liberty, equality and fraternity. This movement was close to the precepts of equality and fraternity as espoused by the sufis of Islam. One significant aspect of this movement was its potential to raise a forceful voice for preserving Indian democracy, pluralism and egalitarianism.

The Justice Movement or the ‘Dravidian Movement’ actually began in December 1916 when the ‘Non-Brahmin Manifesto’ was released in Tamil Nadu. The manifesto argued for reservation in the provision of government jobs. It is said that around the time of the founding of the Justice Party, the Brahmins (who constituted only three percent of the population) dominated high-level positions in the government services. They occupied about 70 percent of the high-level posts. The Justice Party (DK) came to power in 1920 and reversed this trend by introducing reservation system. It allowed non-Brahmins to have high-level government positions in Madras Presidency. It is also significant to note that Madras was the first state in India where women were granted the right to vote in 1920.

The Justice Party was aggressively anti-religion, which is why the Dravidian Movement has consistently harboured and entertained secular credentials. The Dravidian Movement’s aim is to reconstruct society on an egalitarian basis and do away with the caste system. The title Shudras (untouchables) given to the Dravidians by the Brahmins means ‘menials’, which in itself is highly derogatory. “In Tamil country, the multi-layered ideology of Dravidianism emerged out of opposition to Brahmanism and Brahmin institutions of colonial rule, and in the hands of Periyar became associated with a vision of Dravidian and Shudra primacy against Aryan Brahmanism” (Hasan, Zoya, ‘The democratisation of politics’, Literary Review, The Hindu, February 2, 2003).

DK and its offshoot parties – the DMK and the AIADMK – came out of the anti-caste movement, where struggle for self-respect and dignity was first waged successfully in British India. This led to an attack on superstition, gender discrimination and caste discrimination. The Dravidian Movement opened up government services and other professions for millions of lower caste people who were denied entry into education and jobs due to the monopolistic control of the Brahmin community.

“The educated non-Brahmins by the beginning of the 20th century began to question the inferior position assigned to the Dravidian civilisation in history. Most of the non-Brahmin leaders in Madras city as well as in the districts hailed from the landowning and merchant castes and they began to aspire to political power and official influence commensurate with their wealth and status in society. The Brahmins hold a pre-eminent position in education especially the University, and, as a consequence, in the higher and clerical grades of government employment” (R. E. Frykenburg, ‘Elite formation in 19th Century South India: An Interpretative Analysis’, Proceedings of the First International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies, I, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1966, p. 573).

Tamil Nadu shows high Human Development Index (HID) rank compared to regions of North India, which did not have such a successful social reform, anti-religion, anti-caste movement. This is a legacy of the Dravidian Movement.

The case of Dravidians needs to be seen in the context of the fact that this part of the world saw many invasions and these invaders marred the original natives’ culture and civilisation, relegating them to a back seat in the process. In the US, the Red Indians and in Australia the Aborigines suffered the same fate. The so-called low caste system was also invented to keep the hold of the upper class, mostly aligned to power. In Pakistan, too, if not caste, minorities have suffered on account of discrimination in jobs and general social attitudes. In the matter of ethnicity the Urdu-speaking community known as the ‘mohajirs’ faced discrimination because of the quota system introduced by a so-called ‘political government’ in the 1970s. The uneven socio-economic system has affected the well being of the weaker communities. The religious factor in the perpetuation of injustice against the weak is also evident in Pakistan. The reign of pirs and fatwa-giving clerics, who are allied with the chaudhries and waderas, have kept the vast majority of illiterate population in Pakistan’s rural areas under their thumb.

In the absence of political development in Pakistan because of disruptions caused in democracy and subsequent suppression of weak classes, forceful voices have not emerged in the country. In the absence of political leadership with strong commitment to the causes of the weak and underprivileged and also due to lack of concept of community development, movements like the Dravidians have not taken root in Pakistan. The feeble but disorganised voices for share in jobs and other resources and also for preserving sub-cultures have not made an impact. One reason is of course lack of democracy and relative strict conditions for those trying to make their statement against injustice and atrocities related to power.