ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

M Karunanidhi: The Dravidian Sun Sets

A KALAIYARASAN
KARTHICK RAM MANOHARAN

A Kalaiyarasan ([email protected]) is at Madras Institute of Development Studies.

Karthick Ram Manoharan ([email protected]) is at the Centre for Studies in Social
Sciences, Calcutta. The authors would like to thank S Anandhi, Ezhilarasan, Jeyaranjan, V M
Subagunarajan and M Vijayabaskar for their inputs.
Vol. 53, Issue No. 31, 04 Aug, 2018

When Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam chief and five-time Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu
Muthuvel Karunanidhi passed away on 7 August 2018, he had outlived most of his friends
and all of his rivals. “Kalaignar,” as he was popularly known among the Tamil people, left
behind an active political life of 80 years, six decades of which were spent as a legislator.

Born on 3 June 1924 into a poor family from an extremely marginalised backward caste, M
Karunanidhi was witness to key events of the last century that shaped the world as we know
it today. He was also a key participant in events that radically shaped the nature of politics
in Tamil Nadu.

In an interview on 16 February 1965, a correspondent of Pravda, the official organ of the

Communist Party of the Soviet Union, asked Karunanidhi about the goals of the Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). Karunanidhi responded that the goals were social justice in
society, rationalism in culture, socialism in economy, and democracy in politics. The route to
achieve these goals, he said, was via the parliament. Hailing from a community that was
stigmatised by an oppressive feudal system in his hometown of Thiruvarur, he was drawn to
the radical anti-caste discourse of Periyar. His own experience of caste humiliation played a
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

significant role in his approach to politics. In an interview, he said “Only a person who is
subjected to humiliation can think of performing surgery to get rid of gangrene and not
indulge in a cosmetic cover-up” (Pannerselvam 2017).

As a teenager, he was an avid reader of Kudi Arasu, the Self-Respect movement’s

mouthpiece, and would later join its editorial team. He was 14 when he took part in the anti-
Hindi agitations, decrying the imposition of Hindi. At 15, he edited Manava Nesan, a
handwritten fortnightly newspaper that was circulated among his school mates and friends
in Thiruvarur from 1938. After this newspaper became defunct, he launched Murasoli, a
pamphlet publication in 1942. He endearingly referred to it as his first child and it later
became the official daily for the DMK. His flair for the Tamil language brought him to the
attention of the politically astute C N Annadurai, who saw in the young activist an able
lieutenant of the Dravidian movement. Karunanidhi would side with the pragmatist
Annadurai over the militant Periyar when the former made a decisive political break with
the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) to form the DMK in 1949.

M S S Pandian (2011) writes that the politics of the DMK was built around two major
ideological planks. The first was caste-based social justice; the second, Tamil identity. The
politics of social justice took the form of a critique of caste hierarchy and Brahminism
coupled with continuous improvisations in the reservation of government jobs and seats in
educational institutions for the lower castes. Tamil identity was more than a language.
Tamil, for Karunanidhi, was simultaneously anti-Sanskrit, anti-caste, and secular. It
produced horizontal solidarities among Tamils, contesting the politics of the mainstream
Indian nationalists to create congruence between Hindi, Hindu, and Hindustan.

The screenplays that Karunanidhi penned for popular films like Parasakthi (1952) and
Manohara (1954) took the DMK’s message to the masses, and cemented his position within
the party. Such was his influence within the party that Periyar acerbically referred to the
DMK as the “Thiruvarur Muthuvel Karunanidhi” party (corresponding to the Tamil acronym
for the DMK, Thi Mu Ka). Yet, the same Periyar would chide M G Ramachandran (MGR)
when the cine-star split from Karunanidhi to form the Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
(ADMK) in 1972.

Karunanidhi, who had played a key role in bringing the DMK to power, had a tougher time
maintaining that power after he took over from his mentor Annadurai following the latter’s
demise in 1969. Despite facing MGR’s split, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
(AIADMK) challenge, and the dismissal of the state government twice—once during the
Emergency under charges of corruption and the consequent imposition of the President’s
Rule, and the second time in 1991 by Chandra Shekhar's coalition under the dubious Article
356—the DMK managed to push forward schemes for social and economic justice.
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

Commitment to Social Justice

In 1969, the DMK set up a backward class commission, the first of its kind at the state level
in independent India, to identify and increase the provision of reservations for backward
castes in Tamil Nadu. Karunanidhi took a pro-Dalit stand. He increased the reservation for
Dalits from 15% to 18% as against the commissions’ recommendation of continuing it at the
pre-existing level of 15%. He increased the backward caste reservation from 25% to 31%
although the committee recommended it to be increased to 33%. Later, when the AIADMK
led by MGR flirted with the idea of reservations based on economic criteria, it was militantly
challenged by the DMK, leading to a rout of the former in the parliamentary elections of
1980. The discourse of social justice popularised by the DMK and the competitive electoral
compulsions led MGR to increase the reservations for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs)
to 50%.

In 1989, when Karunanidhi returned to power, he responded to the Vanniyar agitations and
provided 20% separate reservation within the OBC quota for the most backward castes,
including denotified communities in order to check the over-influence of a few dominant
backward castes. He welcomed the implementation of Mandal Commission at a time when
the north saw huge protests against the same. By passing a unanimous resolution in the
assembly in support of V P Singh, he made the Mandal commission implementation a
moment of jubilation in the state. Likewise, in 2007, the DMK also provided 3.5% quota each
for Muslims and Christians within the OBC share of 30%. In 2009, Karunanidhi introduced
the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions
including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services
under the State within the Reservation for the Scheduled Castes) Act to ensure
representation for the most marginalised among the Scheduled Castes (SCs), providing
them a sub-quota of 3% within the SC. When taunted by the AIADMK for being a “minority
government” during the 2006–2011 tenure, Karunanidhi responded with characteristic wit
that his was a government for the minorities.

The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 was amended during
the Karunanidhi government in 1970, and the ceiling area fixed earlier at 30 standard acres
was reduced to 15 standard acres. His government distributed the acquired surplus land to
landless peasants. An ex-bureaucrat who worked closely with Karunanidhi recalls an
incident from 1969, when the poor peasantry was fighting for landholding rights in
Pudukkottai, and Karunanidhi joined them and travelled the entire region, addressing 19
meetings in a day. To his critics from the left, he asked “what do you know about
deprivation that I do not know?” (Narayan 2018).

Defending the “Region”, Defying the Centre

During his first visit to New Delhi as Chief Minister in March 1969, Karunanidhi responded
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

to questions regarding state autonomy at a press meet. He said,

“A committee would be constituted to look into sharing of powers between

centre and the state. Tamil Nadu government has decided to constitute the
committee. Giving more powers to the states would not affect the unity of the
country” (Karunanidhi 2008: 73).

In this spirit, the Rajamannar committee was formed and a resolution for state’s rights was
passed in the state assembly. In the National Development Council meeting held on 18 April
1969, Karunanidhi participated and spoke in Tamil. He emphasised on reviewing the
centre–state relations and demanded for the arrangement of a chief ministers’ meeting to
discuss this further. Based on the observations submitted by Justice Rajamannar on state
autonomy, a detailed report was prepared including the suggestions by a committee that
involved leaders like Murasoli Maran and R Sezhiyan. The report was discussed in the
ministerial meeting and subsequently a resolution on regional autonomy was passed in the
state assembly in 1974. This was the first resolution of its kind to be passed in a state
assembly in India.

Tabling the resolution that emphasised the autonomy of the states in the Tamil Nadu
assembly on 16 April 1974, Karunanidhi said,

“A person was released from the prison but his hands and legs were still
bound. Because of that he could not embrace his child though he was out of
jail. In the happiness of leaving jail, he forgot to remove the chains when he
came out. Similarly, India attained independence. But the states are still bound
by unnecessary concentration of powers at the centre.” (2008: 435)

He said that this resolution had invited angst from the centre. His government was
dismissed two years later.

When Indira Gandhi declared the Emergency on 26 June 1975, the very next day,
Karunanidhi convened DMK’s chief executive meeting and passed a resolution demanding
Gandhi to withdraw it. This was the first formal opposition put forward by any party in the
country against the Emergency. Along with the dismissal of the DMK government, several
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

hundreds of party functionaries (including Karunanidhi’s son M K Stalin) were arrested

under the notorious Maintenance of Internal Security Act across the state. Murasoli Maran,
Karunanidhi’s nephew, was also arrested because he published a cartoon in Murasoli
depicting Gandhi as Adolf Hitler. The DMK’s slogan of “collective rule at the centre,
autonomous rule at the state” and Karunanidhi’s attempts to build a coalition of regional
parties to take on Gandhi are very relevant in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) era today.

Despite the rather opportunistic and uneasy alliance with the BJP, Karunanidhi was still the
preferred leader for religious minorities in Tamil Nadu. Not only did he challenge the Ram
Janmabhoomi verdict as unconstitutional and against the secular ethos, he also earned the
ire of Hindu communalist groups when he questioned the historical existence of Ram in the
controversy around the Sethusamudram project. On 15 September 2007, he said,

“Some say there was a person over 17 lakh years ago. His name was Ram. Do
not touch the bridge (Ramar Sethu) constructed by him. Who is this Ram?
From which engineering college he graduated? Is there any proof for this?”
(Singh 2007)

This led to death threats being issued against him.

Developing an Effective Welfare System

Amartya Sen and Jean Drèze (2011) argue that Tamil Nadu has seen a gradual consolidation
of universalistic social policies and has built an extensive network of “lively and effective
healthcare centres” offering access to people from across social groups. Part of the credit
for this goes to Karunanidhi. The history of public distribution system (PDS) in the state is
closely linked with the DMK assuming power in 1967. The DMK came into office with the
promise of supplying three measures of rice per rupee. Thanks to Karunanidhi, by 1976, the
entire state was covered by the PDS. Since then, Tamil Nadu has been maintaining
universal PDS while most other states in India have implemented targeted PDS since 1997.
The coverage of different caste groups by the PDS also shows that caste groups that are
placed at the bottom in social hierarchy have better access to the PDS in the state than their
counterparts in other states.

Narayan (2018) observes that it was Karunanidhi who built the basic infrastructure like the
Small Industries Development Corporation and State Industries Promotion Corporation of
Tamil Nadu which became the basis for industrialisation in the state. The establishment of
the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and a range of welfare boards enabled the state
to achieve a model of fairly inclusive development.
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

Future of Politics in Tamil Nadu

Criticisms of Karunanidhi are aplenty. While Hindu nationalists accuse him of being anti-
Hindu, the mainstream media has generally portrayed the DMK as corrupt and inefficient.
Indeed, Karunanidhi saw the hostility towards him among both the elite national media and
the national parties as emanating from a deep-rooted caste prejudice as well as a general
contempt for south Indians. It is not uncommon in Tamil Nadu to find liberal elites, caste-
based outfits, Hindu communalists, and Tamil chauvinists parrot strikingly similar criticisms
of Karunanidhi. Ironically, many of these groups have little qualms about hobnobbing with
the AIADMK.

Of course, Karunanidhi’s rule was anything but flawless. The July 1999 Manjolai massacre of
17 Dalit labourers protesting for better wages in tea-estates drew considerable flak from
Dalit, left, and civil rights groups in the state. Likewise, the DMK government’s failure to
take a decisive stand against the genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka in 2009 brought much
criticism, even from intellectuals and academics sympathetic to their politics. Many Tamil
nationalists view it as an unforgivable act of betrayal by Karunanidhi. Other critics of the
DMK have also decried Karunanidhi’s nepotism and his tendency to favour family members
over veteran leaders.

The demise of the last key leader of the Dravidian movement is nevertheless significant not
only for the history of his contributions, but also for what it means for the future of politics
in Tamil Nadu. The ruling AIADMK government has functioned more or less as the proxy of
the BJP, and has been ruthless in curbing and crushing democratic protests. Caste groups
practice an unwinnable form of identity politics, making solidarities impossible. The left has
always been clueless about the specific character of Tamil polity, while the Congress is a
meager force in the state. Only two political formations seem to be ascendant: the Hindu
communalist BJP and a particularly chauvinistic form of Tamil nationalism.

While the DMK appears to be losing its radical ideological edge, recent years have seen a
resurgence of interest among youth groups in the works of Periyar and the Dravidian
legacy. The DMK also needs to re-invent itself. Deprived of its patriarch, it needs the robust
spirit, the political agility, and intellectual dexterity of Karunanidhi from the 1940s to the
early 1970s. The later Karunanidhi, as critics may legitimately accuse, acted much in self-
interest. Then again, if social and economic indicators are anything to go by, his
contributions to the state were historically significant. In the famous courtroom scene in
Parasakthi, the lead played by Sivaji Ganesan rhetorically says, “In my self-interest, there is
public interest as well.” That would be ideal as Karunanidhi’s epitaph.

References:
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

Drèze, Jean and Amartya Sen (2011): “Putting Growth in Its Place”, Outlook, 14 November,
https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/putting-growth-in-its-place/278843.

Karunanidhi, M (2008): Nenjukku Neethi Vol 11, Chennai: Thirumal Nilayam.

Narayan, S (2018): The Dravidian Years: Politics and Welfare in Tamil Nadu, New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.

Pandian, M S S (2011): “New Times in Tamil Nadu,” Seminar, Vol 620,

http://www.india-seminar.com/2011/620.htm.

Pannerselvam, A S (2017): “Relentless Legislator,” Frontline, 23 June,

https://www.frontline.in/the-nation/relentless-legislator/article9719331.ece.

Singh, Onkar (2007): “Karuna Earns BJP’s Wrath For Comments On Lord Ram,” Rediff, 17
September, http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/sep/17sethu2.htm.

Image-Credit/Misc:

Image Courtesy: Modified. Wikimedia Commons/ By Press Information Bureau, Government

of India [GODL]