Wednesday, May 31, 2006
The Tamil Nadu Assembly Carnival
The last week has seen some stormy scenes in the Tamil Nadu State Assembly. With mike-hurling AIADMK members facing off with equally unruly members of the Congress and DMK, and also an iron-fisted Speaker of the House, utter chaos has marked the onset of the 13th State Assembly.
While we may consider it our holy duty, as politics-obsessed Indians, to criticize this sort of behaviour, it is also worthwhile to pause and reflect on whether there is anything positive about this charged atmosphere present in the state legislature.
Consider this, the 2006 State Assembly election in Tamil Nadu was a watershed in that for the first time in the history of the state, the margins of victory/defeat between the major Dravidian parties were not overwhelming. This development is a function of tectonic shifts in the political terrain of the state, as analysts have now clearly shown.
What has not changed in Tamil Nadu, however, is that political power has always been keenly contested, from the deep-South plains of Andipatti to the northern tracts of Dharmapuri, and Dalits, Thevars, Vanniyars, Mudaliars, Chettiars, Brahmins, Gounders, Christians, Muslims, Nadars, and hundreds more communities have always been relentlessly courted through innovative means, as potential supporters.
In other words, during and after elections, political parties whether in power or in the opposition, have consistently embarked on numerous campaigns and policy initiatives to capture the imaginations of communities at every point in the spectrum- whether poor, middle class or rich, women or men.
And all through, there has been a vibrant energy, even a festive sense, attached to political mobilization. The language agitations and secessionist demands of the DMK in the 1960s were part of a colourful (if at times parochial) and emotionally charged movement to turn the Nehruvian paradigm of industry-led development in the states on its head and thrust an alternative 'model' to the fore. MGR's meteoric rise to power in the 1970s represented an even more amazing cultural phenomenon, the ascendancy of a shrewd and even autocratic leader who nevertheless tapped into the mass hysteria that is the Tamilians' love of cinema.
So is it any wonder then, that with the boundless reservoirs of energy, capacity to innovate and deep emotional ties that Tamil politicians have to (what they perceive as) the various burning issues at hand, they tend to act silly, bordering on boorish?
Personally I would prefer this scheme of things to what one finds in some other states of India- cold transactional politics, elite pacts to retain control of the system, and a lack of genuine engagement with mass realities.
While we may consider it our holy duty, as politics-obsessed Indians, to criticize this sort of behaviour, it is also worthwhile to pause and reflect on whether there is anything positive about this charged atmosphere present in the state legislature.
Consider this, the 2006 State Assembly election in Tamil Nadu was a watershed in that for the first time in the history of the state, the margins of victory/defeat between the major Dravidian parties were not overwhelming. This development is a function of tectonic shifts in the political terrain of the state, as analysts have now clearly shown.
What has not changed in Tamil Nadu, however, is that political power has always been keenly contested, from the deep-South plains of Andipatti to the northern tracts of Dharmapuri, and Dalits, Thevars, Vanniyars, Mudaliars, Chettiars, Brahmins, Gounders, Christians, Muslims, Nadars, and hundreds more communities have always been relentlessly courted through innovative means, as potential supporters.
In other words, during and after elections, political parties whether in power or in the opposition, have consistently embarked on numerous campaigns and policy initiatives to capture the imaginations of communities at every point in the spectrum- whether poor, middle class or rich, women or men.
And all through, there has been a vibrant energy, even a festive sense, attached to political mobilization. The language agitations and secessionist demands of the DMK in the 1960s were part of a colourful (if at times parochial) and emotionally charged movement to turn the Nehruvian paradigm of industry-led development in the states on its head and thrust an alternative 'model' to the fore. MGR's meteoric rise to power in the 1970s represented an even more amazing cultural phenomenon, the ascendancy of a shrewd and even autocratic leader who nevertheless tapped into the mass hysteria that is the Tamilians' love of cinema.
So is it any wonder then, that with the boundless reservoirs of energy, capacity to innovate and deep emotional ties that Tamil politicians have to (what they perceive as) the various burning issues at hand, they tend to act silly, bordering on boorish?
Personally I would prefer this scheme of things to what one finds in some other states of India- cold transactional politics, elite pacts to retain control of the system, and a lack of genuine engagement with mass realities.
# posted by Narayan Lakshman @ 2:51 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
You raise a valid point, and it's pretty clear that between 1967 and 1977 the Brahmins were in fact marginalized by the state (during the relatively radical phase of the Dravidian movement). However in this post I was talking about the broadest sweep of history, including both pre- and post-DMK eras- i.e. TN under Congress and later under the AIADMK. If you look at these phases of state politics, you can find instances where Brahmins have at least not been targeted by political rhetoric and policies. I would cite the following examples of this:
1. Brahmins' occupancy of positions in government (e.g. C Rajagopalachari, TT Krishnamachari)
2. The moderation of the anti-Brahmin movement into a more populist, encompassing movement for state autonomy (under the AIADMK, led by a Brahmin lady)
But yes, it cannot be denied that they have been among the least politically supported groups in this state ever since 1967, so your point is appreciated.
Post a Comment
1. Brahmins' occupancy of positions in government (e.g. C Rajagopalachari, TT Krishnamachari)
2. The moderation of the anti-Brahmin movement into a more populist, encompassing movement for state autonomy (under the AIADMK, led by a Brahmin lady)
But yes, it cannot be denied that they have been among the least politically supported groups in this state ever since 1967, so your point is appreciated.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
