Annamalai K has joined TN BJP, and emphatically states that BJP will win in TN, and will purge it.
Dravidian Politics began with introduction of Dyarchy via Government of India Act, 1919. The etymological break up of the word 'dyarchy' is
Di - two
Arkhia - rule (greek)
Di-archy, as opposed to mono-archy.
20th century saw the system of monarchy collapse all over the world. Stirrings of this happened right from 1905 Russian revolution. The first world war led to collapse of monarchical systems in both Russia and Germany, leading to formation of the USSR, and the Weimar Republic, respectively. Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler were both dictators, but the clear fact was that power could no longer remain concentrated in a few hands. The British Empire, which brought India under direct rule of the crown only in 1858, was quick to realize that its already excellent stroke of luck in Human history could not last very long. It had been only taking advantage of the disorganized state of a vast region full of "a beastly people with a beastly religion" with a sprinkling of white European men. It only ruled via the existing local power structures. A colonial remote rule is different from a monarch ruling over his/her land. The ratio of population of Britishers to Indians in India during colonial rule was typically 1:3000. They only took advantage of existing power structures, benefiting from the lack of unity, and the incapacity of those weak powers to revolt or break free.
Dyarchy was one step away from monarchy, and one step towards democracy. Instead of a Mono-archia from London, there was to be an additional 'archia' now. A lower, local one. An elected one. The most important change that introduction of dyarchy implied was - introduction of democratic elections.
The root of the word 'caste' is 'casta', meaning - lineage, in Spanish. Before Dyarchy, it was the Kings and Queens of Britain ruling India, but the various 'casta's of India knew their own history very well. The ones among them which had probable history of having been the rulers of their home regions remembered it very well indeed. As a whole, tamilnadu has not been under an empire of any sort for many centuries now. But, periyar's casta, Balija Naidus, were supposed to have been the Naickers who ruled Tamilagam. British entered India as traders, and other groups had long associations with the British through trade.
Now, Dravidian Politics starts with Dyarchy. Formation of an elected government of sorts. Even though both the franchise, and the powers of the elected politicians were limited, it was a fundamental change. It was that paradigm shift that the British calculated would keep their empire from collapsing like German or Russian empires. But of course it was not just Dyarchy. They had other tricks up their sleeve. Many, many tricks. India was very unlike the lands that the German or Russian empires ruled, and the British had vast knowledge and experience in India. Much more so than Indians themselves. This period also saw the rise of a new consciousness in India. This was the consciousness of another class of elites and middle classes that would agitate for freedom struggle. As can be expected of attitudes and behavior typical of the bourgeois, the freedom struggle of this new consciousness eulogized 'non-violence' and 'non-cooperation'. There was no 'India' at that time. There was no common thing each group could fight for.
So, IMO, Dravidam happened at the confluence of these two forces. One, that clamored against the British, in what way it could. And the other, was the group that sold a certain fisher-village to Sir Francis Day in 1639, and was hugely benefiting from British Trade (Exports, Industry). These are the two main, broad lines. Brahmins in Congress on one hand, and the Elites, the "Sat-Shudras", who tended to be from the castes of Balija Naidus, Nairs, Sengundhar/Kaikolar/Tuluva Mudaliars, Beri/Nattukottai Chettis and elite vellalars, on the other hand.
Ironically, Brahmins were aplenty in British Administration, and Dravidam "fought for" places in Government for non-brahmins. Nobody wonders "If Brahmins/Congress were fighting AGAINST British, they were fighting against the owner of that very government that they were employed in". The Madras Province Swarajya Party (a Branch of the main Congress) refused to form government in 1926 and 1934, despite winning the elections!!! (3rd Communal G.O. for reservations was brought in 1927/28, not in JP rule. Why?)
The Congress Brahmins probably realized that only their jobs would be lost if they quit their government jobs and hit the streets. Nobody would join them. The elites were making huge sums of money through British trade. The chettiars, for instance, were carrying out lucrative trade everywhere in the British Empire. This was the reason why the non-cooperation movement failed, as well. There needed to be a force strong enough to paralyze the empire. The most fundamental ingredient for this jolt to happen was - the feeling of 'swarajya'. Without developing that feeling, it was impossible to gather everybody for the freedom struggle. That simple feeling of Swarajya had to developed as an intellectual abstraction first, then passed on to people. Or rather, people were to be invited onto its boat. It failed to gather momentum because it was led by the bourgeois and a few elites.
One strategy of the British was to isolate the enemies, and focus their attacks on them. As mentioned, they had vast knowledge and experience of the land. The had been drawing big, translucent circles for a long time. It was time to draw smaller, opaquer circles and carry out pin pointed attacks. They realized that the Brahmins of Madras State *had* to be dealt with. Even though Brahmins of Bombay state and Savarnas in Bengal were much more militant in action, there were many other factors which made Madras State special. In Madras, Brahmins were the ones pressing freedom struggle. Plotting against the crown. The British had already been studying and talking and writing about 'casta's for a long time. This was a pan-european phenomenon. Every one studied India and formed theories about Indian society. Dr. Ambedkar already drew from a huge body of colonial writers.
Madras and Bombay, were the two main centers of Congress Activity. Bombay was the first, main one. And Bal Gangadhar Tilal, the father of the Indian Unrest, was one of the main figures in it. The pin-pointed attack of the British on the enemies of the crown happened in Bombay first and much later, in Madras. Satya Shodak Samaj was started by Jyotirao Phule in 1873. And unlike the Dravidarrrrr Kazhagam, it included Brahmins too. Phule died in 1890, and even in his time, SSS didn't cause much of a practical impact. However, the SSS that Shahu Maharaj took over in 20th century was a totally different one, for a totally different cause. The freedom movement was growing stronger in Bombay. Bombay was the center of the congress. Pin pointed attack. The center, or source for both the Congress, as well as anti-brahmin propaganda, was Bombay. As mentioned, the very purpose of this British project was to attack Brahmins, and weaken them. Individually. Personally. To thwart the congress. The source for the anti-brahmin propaganda in Madras State was Bombay.
Dyarchy lasted 15 years. GOI Act 1935 brought a provincial government, and this time, the Congress won and formed government. British had to gear up their act. War was also coming. They needed India's support. They sensed that the freedom-organizers sensed that this was their time to pressurize the british. This was around the time Ramasamy Naicker was named "Periyar" by Saminathan Dharmambal Chettiar, in 1938. This "Periyar" would mold politics in Tamilnadu till he died in 1973, and his legacy would live on for 80+ years after this naming event.
These are the larger forces that caused dravidam. The major tectonic plates. Im worried about the minor/micro plates. One hundred years of institutionalized visceral, vitriolic, venomous hatred and propaganda against the brahmins in Tamil Nadu. Let me be clear. I think the Dravidian Movement is unique in world history. In intensity and tenacity of propagandizing about a select bunch of people, and duration.
That hatred was not a natural uprising. It was a deliberate, targeted hatred rising from certain powerful, most powerful quarters of the society. It was institutionalized by them as Dravidian Politics + Propaganda. DK states that in 1910's the Madras United League had brahmin-opposition as its only purpose. They simply wanted to call themselves the 'Non-Brahmin Association'. But, they did not want to give Brahmins so much importance so as to name themselves such. So, they called themselves the 'Madras Dravidian Association' or something. Point is... "Dravidam" is all about Brahmin. Anti-Brahmin, to be precise. Period. Like Sisupala of Mahabharata, they have been consumed by their hatred for the brahmin, and the USP or identity of their politics was simply the institutionalized form of this hatred.
What made me investigate their politics and history was this hatred that I had to encounter wherever i turned my head. The vitriol of hatred that seeps into you no matter how much tightly you close your eyes and ears to it. No matter how much you laugh it off, and sometimes secretly feel pride in being an object of attention, + or - vely. The fact that Brahmins have never been summoned to provide their POV and their answers to the questions, was so by design. It was meant to be so. DK and its ideologues cant afford to encounter actual facts and logic. Their castle would crumble. The castle of dravidam was simply the worldview of those lords in whom the British placed trust. The ones who sold their villages to them, the ones who acted as their trusted bankers wherever they went, the ones who exported leather and textiles to them. That worldview was a very precious thing. There are very few ones who carry that scent. To me, the most important change post dravidam would be the absence of this scent of dravidam, the vitriol of hatred. Absence of the hatred itself, but the very much present, harrowing, and real sense of pain. What I am most scared of is the fact that when we tell our side of the story, the real events, nobody would be interested in them!!! Its already happening.
Or, it would be a relic of the past. People would detachedly listen to it like listening to a piece of history or some folklore. The vitriol of dravidam was a very real thing, and lasted a hundred years. It roused real hatred in a section of listeners every time the 'parappurai' (big or small) was done. But the explanations and the truth of that hundred years of hate will not 'move' anybody. It wouldnt rouse any emotion. It wouldnt cause anybody (least of all, all tamils. Never) to feel any little feeling of guilt. That's what scares me the most. That one hundred years of pain and hatred would be totally forgotten. Or, given a proxy-label, like having been an "anti-hindu/missionary conspiracy". That's even more dangerous than indifference/ignorance because that seals off any little chance of the real, full story coming out.
To be continued...
