Dravida Nadu
Dravida Nadu ( Tamil : திராவிட நாடு Tirāviṭa Nāṭu "Dravidisches Land"), Dravidasthan or Dravidistan (cf. -stan ) is the name for a state called for by supporters of the Dravidian movement , which should include the settlement area of the " Dravids " of southern India. The Dravidian movement emerged in the Tamil areas of India at the beginning of the 20th century and postulated an independent identity of the “Dravids” in contrast to the “ Aryans ” of northern India. From the finding of an ethnic, cultural and historical independence of the Dravids, the idea of an independent Dravid state was finally derived.
The call for an independent Dravida Nadu was first made in 1938 by EV Ramasami (Periyar), the pioneer of the Dravidian movement. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, which split off from EV Ramasamis Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) under CN Annadurai in 1949 and became an important political force in the state of Madras , also took on the demand for secession. The enthusiasm for an independent Dravida Nadu remained limited to the Tamil areas of India, which is why the demand was limited to an independent Tamil state in the 1950s. The secessionist efforts never took concrete form. When it became clear that Dravida Nadu was politically unenforceable, the DMK finally gave up the demand for statehood in 1962/63 and focused on the demand for greater state autonomy.
prehistory
The terms "Aryan" and "Dravidian" were coined by Western science after the existence of the Indo-European and the Dravidian language families had been discovered in the late 18th and early 19th centuries . The first includes most of the languages of Europe as well as the north of India, the last includes Tamil and the other languages of south India. From these findings of comparative linguistics it was concluded that Indo-European tribes, who called themselves “Aryans”, immigrated to India from outside and subjugated the native “Dravids”. Racially reinterpreted, these theories in Europe ultimately led to the Aryan ideology of the National Socialists .
In South India, on the other hand, the Dravidian Movement adopted a "Dravidian" identity. The “Dravidian” culture was seen as independent compared to the “Aryan”, the “Dravids” with reference to the Aryan immigration theory as the indigenous population of India and the “Aryans” as foreigners who had come from outside. In the Telugu , Kannada and Malayalam- speaking areas, where Dravidian languages are also spoken, the Dravidian ideology found little support, so that the Dravidian movement was essentially limited to the Tamil-speaking areas.
Development of the secession demand
EV Ramasami and the DK
EV Ramasami (Periyar), the most important pioneer of the Dravidian movement, first formulated the demand for an independent Dravidian state in 1938 in connection with the protests that followed the planned introduction of Hindi as a compulsory subject in schools in Madras state. Ramasami's self-respect movement and the Justice Party , which he also led, took over the demand for independence. The Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) organization, which was formed in 1944 under the leadership of Ramasami through the merger of the self-respect movement with the Justice Party, committed itself to the Dravida Nadu secession as one of its most important political goals.
EV Ramasami's demand for independence was closely linked to his radical rejection of the caste system and the opposition he postulated between "Aryans" and "Dravids". For him the caste system represented an instrument that the caste of the Brahmins (from his point of view members of the "Aryan" peoples) had devised to suppress the "Dravids". They would be supported by the "Aryans" in the politically dominant North India. Only in a sovereign state could the “Dravids” smash the caste system and live in freedom.
The British supremacy did not initially contest EV Ramasami, who was critical of the Indian independence movement, but only demanded that the state should be subordinate to the British Secretary of State separately from British India (similarly, Burma in 1937 from British -India solved). It was not until 1944, when the independence of British India began to emerge towards the end of the World War, that Ramasami began to demand a completely sovereign Dravida Nadu. In 1939 Ramasami met with the British politician Stafford Cripps , but otherwise the colonial power largely ignored the Dravida Nadu agitations. At the same time, EV Ramasami supported the efforts of the Muslim League , which in 1940 demanded the establishment of Pakistan as a state for Indian Muslims in the Lahore resolution . In return, Ramasami hoped to gain support from Muslims for the Dravidian secession. Muhammad Ali Jinnah , the leader of the Muslim League, whom Ramasami met in 1943, showed no interest in supporting the Dravida Nadu demand.
CN Annadurai and the DMK
CN Annadurai , who had become the second man behind EV Ramasami in the DK, was also an ardent supporter of the demand for secession at the beginning. In 1942 he founded a weekly magazine with the programmatic title Dravida Nadu . In 1949, after internal quarrels between Annadurai and Ramasami, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party split from the DK under the leadership of Annadurai . The DMK was to move into the parliament of the state of Madras (now Tamil Nadu) for the first time in 1957 and finally to take power in the state in 1967.
The DMK took over from the DK the demand for the independence of Dravida Nadu as a central political postulate . In contrast to Ramasami, Annadurai argued less with caste and race than with economic and cultural arguments: he complained that the north was exploiting the south and hindering its economic development. He also emphasized the cultural and historical independence of South India and tried to legitimize the demand for secession by resorting to the medieval Tamil kingdoms of the Chola , Chera and Pandya .
From Dravida Nadu to Tamil Nadu
According to the slogan “Dravida Nadu den Draviden”, the planned Dravida Nadu should originally include all “Dravidian” areas of South India from the point of view of its advocates. The terms “Dravide” and “Tamile” were often used interchangeably. It was assumed that the Tamils were the Dravidian "indigenous people" and would therefore hold the leading role in the new state. Obviously, the speakers of the other Dravida languages Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam rejected the Tamils' claim to leadership, so that the demand for Dravida Nadu found almost no acceptance with them. The Telugus in particular insisted on their independence and demanded their own federal state (but without ever developing demands for secession). In 1953 they pushed through that the Telugu-speaking northern part was detached from the state of Madras and the state of Andhra was founded.
As it became clear that Dravida Nadu would not be enforceable in the other Dravidian-speaking areas, secession advocates turned to the vision of an independent Tamil state, Tamil Nadu. EV Ramasami had still resolutely rejected the secession of Andhras in 1953 because, in his opinion, this undermined the unity of the Dravids, but soon turned around: in 1955 he protested violently against plans by the Indian central government to found a state of Dakshina Pradesh , which would encompass all of southern India should. This time he explicitly argued that the Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam speakers were not true Dravids and would only oppress the Tamils in a common federal state. CN Annadurai was more level-headed and warned against making enemies of the other Dravids by emphasizing Tamil leadership. In 1953 he even congratulated the Telugus on founding Andhra, but for him this only represented the “beginning of the path of the Dravidian liberation”. Annadurai advocated that the southern states should develop separately, only then could they possibly become one To merge federation .
The We Tamils ( Nam Tamilar ) party, founded in 1958 by the publisher SB Adithan , advocated an explicitly Tamil state more clearly than the DK and DMK . Adithan called for an independent Tamil Nadu that should also include the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka . However, the We Tamils party did not achieve any greater importance and was absorbed into the DMK in 1967. Although it never played a significant political role, the We Tamils party served Sinhalese nationalists in Sri Lanka as evidence of the existential danger that the united Tamils posed for the state of Sri Lanka.
In 1956, the States Reorganization Act reorganized the states of India along the language borders. The Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada speakers were given their own state in Andhra Pradesh , Kerala and Mysore (now Karnataka ), while the state of Madras (now Tamil Nadu ) was now limited to the Tamil areas. Even if Dravida Nadu was still adhered to on the rhetorical level, the idea of an overarching Dravida state was history at the latest with the reorganization of the federal states. In place of the demand for Dravidian unity, there were now quarrels over the demarcation of the boundaries between the states, in which EV Ramasami and CN Annadurai also vehemently advocated incorporating disputed areas such as the city of Madras (Chennai), Tirupati or Kanyakumari into the state of Madras. At the same time, a campaign was launched to rename the state of Madras, which was now only inhabited by Tamils, to Tamil Nadu.
Abandonment of the secession demands
The DMK first took part in elections in the newly designed state of Madras in 1957 and soon developed into an important opposition force in the state. In doing so, she continued to adhere to the demand for independence. In 1961, DMK politician EVK Sampath left the party on the charge that CN Annadurai was insincere in his demand for Dravida Nadu's independence and that in reality he had long since given up on Dravida Nadu and founded the short-lived Tamil National Party , which advocated an independent Tamil Nadu . At this point, Annadurai firmly denied Sampath's allegations and reiterated his adherence to Dravida Nadu.
In May 1962, after his election to the Rajya Sabha (the upper house of the all-India parliament) , CN Annadurai reiterated the demand for an independent Dravida Nadu in his highly acclaimed inaugural address and complained that the central government was neglecting the economic development of the south. A little later, however, the DMK moved away from the demand for secession. When the Indo-Chinese War broke out in October 1962 , Annadurai stood behind the central government, arguing that he wanted Dravida Nadu from Prime Minister Nehru and not from the Chinese. The DMK finally gave up the demand for an independent Dravida Nadu in 1963. In doing so, the DMK avoided the threat of being banned by the Indian central government because of its secessionist efforts, thus paving the way for government. In 1967 the DMK won the elections in the state of Madras and to this day alternates in power in the state with the AIADMK , which was split off from it in 1972.
After giving up the demand for secession, the DMK concentrated on the demand for political and cultural autonomy of the federal states within India. This was evident in the violent protests that broke out in 1965 when the Indian central government tried to make Hindi the sole official language of India. After their election victory, the DMK government initiated the renaming of the state of Madras to Tamil Nadu in 1969. The question of secession was now replaced by the evocation of the greatness of Tamil culture and language. Symptomatic of the departure from Dravida Nadu was the renaming of the magazine Dravida Nadu to Kanchi (after Annadurai's birthplace Kanchipuram ) in 1963.
EV Ramasami, on the other hand, held on to the demand for secession until his death in 1973. Even after that, the DK officially did not withdraw the claim. In the political discourse of Tamil Nadu, the Dravida Nadu question hardly plays a role anymore.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Michael Bergunder: "Contested past. Anti-Brahmanic and Hindu-nationalist reconstructions of the early Indian religious history", in: Michael Bergunder, Rahul Peter Das (ed.): "Arier" and "Draviden". Constructions of the past as the basis for self and other perceptions of South Asia ; Halle: Publishing house of the Francke Foundations in Halle, 2002; Pp. 135-138 ( doi: 10.11588 / xabooks.379.539 ).
- ^ Eugene F. Irschick: Politics and Social Conflict in South India. The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929 ; Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969; P. 275 f.
- ^ Marguerite Ross Barnett: The Politics of Cultural Nationalism in South India, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1976, p. 53.
- ^ Robert L. Hardgrave Jr .: "The Dravidian Movement". In: Essays in the Political Sociology of South India, New Delhi, Usha Publications: 1979, p. 28.
- ↑ Dagmar Hellmann Rayanayagam: Tamil. Language as a political symbol, Wiesbaden: Verlag Franz Steiner, 1984, p. 126 f.
- ↑ Hellmann-Rajanayagam 1984, p. 123 ff.
- ↑ Barnett 1976, p. 67, Hardgrave 1979, p. 32.
- ↑ Hellmann-Rajanayagam 1984, p. 127.
- ↑ Hardgrave 1979, p. 32.
- ↑ Hellmann-Rajanayagam 1984, p. 131 ff.
- ↑ Hellmann-Rajanayagam 1984, p. 78.
- ↑ Hellmann-Rajanayagam 1984, p. 139 f.
- ↑ Hellmann-Rajanayagam 1984, p. 141 f.
- ↑ Hellmann-Rajanayagam 1984, p. 143 f.
- ↑ Sumathi Ramaswamy: Passions of the Tongue. Language Devotion in Tamil India, 1891–1970, Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997, p. 155 and p. 266, note 34.
- ↑ Jakob Rösel: Shape and emergence of Tamil nationalism, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1997, p. 78, note 35.
- ↑ Hellmann-Rajanayagam 1984, p. 146.
- ↑ Ramaswamy 1997, pp. 154-161.
- ↑ Hellmann-Rajanayagam 1984, p. 136 f.
- ↑ R. Kannan: Anna. The Life and Times of CN Annadurai, New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2010, p. 263.
- ↑ Kannan 2010, p. 265.
- ↑ Hellmann-Rajanayagam 1984, p. 134 f.
- ↑ Hellmann-Rajanayagam 1984, p. 144.
- ↑ Hellmann-Rajanayagam 1984, p. 122.
literature
- Marguerite Ross Barnett: The Politics of Cultural Nationalism in South India. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1976.
- Dagmar Hellmann-Rayanayagam: Tamil. Language as a political symbol. Wiesbaden: Verlag Franz Steiner, 1984.
- Eugene F. Irschick: Politics and Social Conflict in South India. The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969.
- R. Kannan: Anna. The Life and Times of CN Annadurai. New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2010.
