DMK has been two-faced in commitment towards social justice, Dalit rights A critique of the Dravidian movement largely focusing on DMK and particularly on Karunanidhi's regime from a Dalit perspective
It is quite common to read and listen to hagiographies when a prominent leader passes away. Given Karunanidhi’s stature as a leader who has been in public life for more than 60 years, it is fitting that there has been an outpouring of comment since his demise. Referred to as Kalaignar (artiste), he was a multifaceted personality who had a strong political acumen and possessed an incomparable rhetorical and oratory flourish that was autodidactic. Karunanidhi was a highly skilled administrator and a fierce political competitor who stood his ground even after suffering numerous setbacks and succeeded in making several comebacks.
All the above is unmistakably true and there is a ready consensus on his political acumen and standing. However, what is somewhat questionable is the glorification of him as an uncompromising champion of social justice. There is no denial that, as a legatee of Periyar E.V. Ramasamy, he was committed towards social justice but to address him as a lieutenant of the icon of equality B. R. Ambedkar is quite unwarranted. This essay looks at Karunanidhi’s and the DMK’s commitment towards social justice and Dalit rights to offer a more rounded evaluation of his time in office.After capitalising on the anti-Hindi agitations, the DMK swept to power in the 1967 elections promising the creation of a new social order with commitments towards social justice, democracy and devolution of power to the subaltern classes. C.N. Annadurai, DMK’s first chief minister, among various achievements, amended the law to permit self-respect and reformist marriages, provided gold medals to encourage inter-caste marriage, successfully renamed Madras State as Tamil Nadu and also organised the second International Tamil Conference. However his tenure was tarnished by the infamous Kilvenmani massacre where 44 agricultural labourers belonging to the Scheduled Caste were burnt to death over wage struggles.It is not that the DMK played an active role in the slaughter so much as its reaction to it that is telling. What irked activists of that time was the callous attitude of the government and its representatives who had come to power promising to be a voice of the subaltern. Women’s rights activist and writer Mythily Sivaraman’s accounts compiled in a volume Haunted By Fire tell us how the ruling DMK downplayed the incident and tried to erase it from public memory. Fearful of alienating Backward Caste (BC) votes, condemnations were conspicuous by their absence and it was left to the Communist movement in Tamil Nadu to commemorate and memorialise the event. Following Annadurai’s demise, M. Karunanidhi became the chief minister in 1969 and numerous schemes aimed towards the upliftment of BC and SC were implemented during this time. Prominent among them were the free concrete houses for SCs under the slum clearance board, the increase in the percentage of reservation from 16% to 18% for SCs and from 25% to 31% for BCs. This was remarkable insofar as the first BC (A. N. Sattanathan) Commission appointed by DMK in 1969 actually recommended 33% for BCs and the continuation of 16% for SCs, but Karunanidhi increased reservation for SCs to 18%.It was during Karunanidhi’s second term as chief minister from 1971 to 1976, that the influential senior DMK Dalit woman leader and the then minister for Harijan welfare, Sathyavani Muthu resigned from the ministry in 1974 accusing Karunanidhi of being prejudiced against Dalits. In her words “After Dr. Ambedkar, nobody has taken the cudgels in real earnest … We will form a new party, sit on the opposition benches, and fight for the rights of Schedules Castes. We will not let them be exploited and humiliated endlessly.” Later, she formed her own party Thazthapattor Munnetra Kazhagam (Federation for the Progress of the Depressed Classes) before merging it with MGR’s AIADMK in 1977. It is certainly instructive that a politician of her stature and ability was pigeon-holed as Dalit and never accorded more prominent cabinet portfolios.