The egalitarian nature of the Union of India has always been a volatile topic, both for political parties and separationist interests alike. And against the background of this major picture are the hidden agendas of regionalism – with each region, barring their capitals, clamouring for a so-called equality of status within the states.
The southern states of India, led by the enigmatic Tamil Nadu (as enigmatic as its illustrious leaders), have especially complained of repeatedly being ignored by those in power. Ever since the language debate in the Constituent Assembly, a feeling of neglect has spread over the southern states, especially of those in the so-called ‘privileged North’. And political parties, namely the DMK, have been more than happy to play along with this issue, more for political gains than for the betterment of the situation.
With the current government in power, the issue of a separate Dravidian state, comprising of all of the southern states, has come to light, again. Exactly 55 years since the DMK propagated the idea in 1963, and despite C.N. Annadurai’s famous statement, “the reasons for creation of the Dravida Nadu continue to hold good”, MK Stalin has again raised the issue. But this no longer remains the ‘alienation issue’ due to which the first Dravida Nadu was proposed.
There are various aspects to this issue, in the present day.
Firstly, the central government’s continuous ignorance of delegations from the DMK and other southern parties has left a void in the ground realities in the South and what the Centre envisions it to be. As MK Stalin, the acting President of the DMK, recently said, “As far as Dravida Nadu is concerned, Anna (C.N. Annadurai), gave up the idea, but also made it clear that the reasons for the demand for its creation are very much there. Anna has been proven right, especially now that we see how the southern states are being ignored by the BJP government.”
Hidden in this resentment is a far greater issue – that of regional dominance. Dravida Nadu was to be led by Tamil Nadu, and that itself defeats the cause for the other douthern states. Also, in the contemporary sense, the Dravidian identity has been transformed, from a congregation of southern states as one (having similar demands) to that of separate nationalities based on language. Add to that the egoistic clashes among the states, with water issues being a culminating point, and the result is a cauldron of confusion.
There is a question of Tamilians being ashamed of the demand of a Dravida Nadu from their leaders, believing that the strand of talk would be misleading. Why? Because, in the same way as Sikhs aren’t ashamed of the idea of Khalistan, or Hyderabadis who aren’t ashamed of the Nizam’s decision to remain independent, the idea of the ‘Dravida Nadu’ holds firm – in that its ideals are identified with by the common masses.
The issue of a separate Dravidian state is a utopian idea, but the projection of national politics and the direction in which the Centre-State relations are heading, that utopia might be a sooner-than-ever reality.