COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Interview/J Jeyaranjan

'The failure of the Dravidian movement is responsible for the rise of Hindu fundamentalism'

The recent bomb blasts in Tamil Nadu have highlighted the grim communal equation in the state. On the premise that the DMK's soft line on the minorities has resulted in the rise in communalism, AIADMK general secretary J Jayalalitha's demand for Chief Minister M Karunanidhi's dismissal has received fresh impetus.

Is the DMK responsible for the growth in Islamic fundamentalism? Or is the AIADMK itself to blame? Dr J Jeyaranjan, social scientist at the Madras Institute of Development Studies, spoke to Shobha Warrier about the rise of fundamentalism in the state.

Contrary to popular belief that the DMK was responsible for the rise of Muslim fundamentalism in Tamil Nadu, you wrote in The Hindu recently that it was the AIADMK which was responsible for this phenomenon. Why do you say so?

I don't agree with your statement that the DMK was responsible for the rise of Muslim fundamentalism in Tamil Nadu. I do not know how people came to such a conclusion. It is not true at all. You may know the earlier Dravidian leaders like C N Annadurai or Karunanidhi maintained a secular face. They were not identified with any particular religion. They never participated in any religious functions personally. That did not mean they neglected these areas. Whatever had to be done was done through various departments. MGR was the first person to openly say he was an ardent devotee of Mookambika. Later on Jayalalitha followed the same thing, she went to Kancheepuram to get the blessings of the Sankaracharya.

But the DMK says it is soft on minorities. What is your opinion about this?

Secularism means they will be and they have to be soft on minorities and backward classes. They have to be a bit more accommodative. When you say you are a secular state, then the minorities have certain rights. Our Constitution has mentioned many concessions for the betterment of the dalits and tribals, but that does not mean they are fundamentalists.

Let me say, this is not the case in India alone. There is affirmative action for blacks in the United States because they found that blacks cannot compete with whites because they are historically disadvantaged. So, when you say you are secular and democratic, it automatically means we need to have special provisions for those who have been suppressed for a long time or those who are disadvantaged.

By being soft on the minorities, are they not alienating the majority? Is that not the reason for the rise of Hindu fundamentalism?

I will not say that. You can't alienate the majority. Alienation is a repressive act, which can be exercised only by the majority on the minority. You can't imagine 3% of the people alienating the rest of the population.

What according to you can be attributed to the rise of Hindu fundamentalism in Tamil Nadu?

I think the failure of the Dravidian movement is the reason for the rise of Hindu fundamentalism. Till the early eighties, however hard they tried, they could not set foot in this part of the country. The emphasis on the cultural aspects of Tamilness lost its cutting edge with the expansion in the market. Earlier, you needed such an identity, the Tamil identity, to acquire a space within the system. The other classes, the backward classes have acquired enough resources now and what they want now is a bigger market.

So, you can't talk in terms of Tamilian and Tamilness now. The pan Indian identity is more important to these people. Simultaneously, if you take the case of Brahmins who have moved up much faster and much higher, they are no longer bothered about the pan Indian identity. The globe is their market now. So, they don't want to get restricted by a particular identity.

So, Muslim fundamentalism started in the eighties.

Yes, in the early eighties. Except for a brief stint by the DMK in the late eighties, the state was ruled by the AIADMK, that is either by MGR or Jayalalitha.

You said the changes began with MGR openly talking about his personal devotion to Mookambika. Does the personal beliefs of the chief minister affect the mindset of the people so much as to give rise to fundamentalism?

You have to understand Dravidian politics to understand that.

Yes, I know they are atheists. But what I asked was, how could the personal beliefs of the chief minister have a larger impact on the state as a whole?

That alone is not the reason. But that shows basically the attitude of the person who sits there. That will lead to other things too. For example, R M Veerappan, the Hindu Religious Endowment Board Minister, used to openly say he was an ardent devotee of Sankaracharya. So, the entire department was shown, as an army, which will work for the Sankaracharya of Kanchi Mutt which, is not right at all.

Yes, personal belief should not interfere with work.

When you become a minister, you can't say this is my personal belief.

The former Kerala chief minister, K Karunakaran, openly spoke about his devotion to Guruvayoorappan and visited the temple on the first of every month which was a much publicised affair. But it did not affect his image or that of the Congress.

That was what I was saying. The way you construct your identity is very important. For the last sixty or seventy years, the Dravidian movement has constructed an identity. When you move away from the identity, people get shocked. First of all, you need some time to make people understand what the change is and why it has taken place. In this case, not enough time was given and unfortunately so many other things too happened.

So many other things?

Yes, like the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Tamil Nadu was the only state which did not have much trouble during that period. The media wrote that the secular fabric was strongest in this part of the country where Dravidian movement had deep roots. But they did not notice the undercurrents then, like how these people felt alienated because of the particular act. They did not feel comfortable with the ruling party at the time.

Do you feel Jayalalitha's support for the demolition may have added fuel to the fire?

That was possible. But I cannot tell you if this is the reason and that is the reason. It has been happening for a long time. What I am trying to do is, reconstruct the whole thing, the reasons that might have lead to the minorities feeling alienated.

What surprises one is that neighbouring Kerala is ruled alternately by the Communists who call themselves atheists and the Congress which has the secular label. But there too, Muslim fundamentalism is on the rise. What do you say about that?

If you take Kerala, just two per cent of the voters decide which combination is to rule the state. But that is not the case in Tamil Nadu. Here the Dravidian parties are in power from 1967 and their brand of politics is secular. The clear divide within this time span is the AIADMK time and the pre-AIADMK time.

So, you are saying that MGR's open devotion to Hinduism is the reason for the rise of Muslim fundamentalism here.

That is the not the single reason. For the Dravidian party, the chief minister openly identifying with a particular religion was one step down from what it had been following till then. When he said he was a devotee of Mookambika, it showed clear deviation from the party's ideology.

So, that was definitely a change. For the minority whether he was a Muslim, Christian or a secular person, it was a deviation. How could you identify with a chief minister of the state who belonged to a party which believed in a particular kind of ideology to openly declare his closeness to a religion?

Yes, you can compare this situation with the then President Shankar Dayal Sharma. He used to fly from Delhi to Tirupati quite often. But that did not create any problem. I do not know how can people justify his act of taking the IAF plane to Tirupati! You can have personal beliefs, but that should not affect his public image.

Do you mean to say that a person in public life should suppress his personal beliefs?

No, what I am saying is, you have to be very careful about it. When you represent the people of the state, you cannot do this or that which will have different repercussions. Just because ours is a Hindu majority state, you can't blatantly say that I am a Hindu and I will behave in the way my religion tells me to.

Do you attribute the rise of Hindu fundamentalism to the deviation of Dravidian leaders from the party's earlier image and ideology?

Yes.

Do you feel these leaders helped these fundamentalist organisations grow?

They helped them grow, but not by funding it. That they did not do. But if you soft pedal it, it is bound to help. The Hindu Munnani and Ramagopalan's proximity to Jayalalitha suggest what soft pedaling is. Vinayaka Chaturthi processions are completely new to Tamil Nadu. It was introduced here by Ramagopalan. Vinayaka Chaturthi was a very private festival here and not an occasion to show your strength. They choose those places where Muslims and Christians live for processions. Ramagopalan's argument is how does it matter to the Muslims and Christians. That is fine, but we have to be sensitive to other's problems too.

Once these processions started, for a few years we had recurrent clashes between the Hindus and Muslims. So, many people demanded that there should not be any procession. Then, Jayalalitha convened a meeting and later on the Milab Nabi people decided against any procession. But Ramagopalan wanted to go ahead with the procession and Jayalalitha conceded his demand. She even gave them police protection.

Your argument was that as many Muslim fundamentalists are in their late teens and early twenties, the beginning could only be in the early eighties, that is, during MGR's time. But what about their leaders? What about those who train them? They are all older people.

Yes, they are all elderly people and most of them are just preachers. They started pigmenting their religious positions whenever they were threatened by the literature provided by the RSS or the VHP. I am not saying that they should have taken this extreme position. What I am trying to do is, analyse the problem and not defend anybody.

Like it has happened in many places like Punjab or Kashmir, are these people not using the youngsters at their vulnerable age?

Yes, they are vulnerable. But why are they vulnerable? Most of us are also gullible.

But youngsters are more vulnerable.

Even old people are. You just look at various advertisements.

Students were used by people wherever there were revolutions.

I will not say they were used. These are all social processes. I would like to look at it that way rather than imagine that somebody is manipulating the youngsters.

Do you feel Muslim youth in India are insecure and scared now?

I don't know. I have not spoken to any of them. I am just trying to find out the reasons.

So you feel the DMK is wrongly accused for the rise of Muslim fundamentalism in this state.

Yes, that is what I feel. The party has been out of power for such a long time and to say that they have created this militancy is nonsense. It makes no sense. No sensible person will buy that line.

Why is the DMK on the defensive? They could have argued the way you did. But the AIADMK behaves as if they have an upper hand in this situation and they are asking for the government's dismissal.

Yes, the DMK is on the defensive. I don't know why. Maybe the power the government at the Centre has is more and hence it is intimidating to the state. Another thing I have noticed is, Karunanidhi does not have the same militancy which he had in the early sixties or the seventies. Now he is much more mellowed. He is more administrative. He feels problems can be solved administratively, which is not true.

The Rediff Interviews