INTRODUCTION
The political landscape of Tamil Nadu today has its roots in the emerging consciousness of a novel Tamil identity and the emergence of several organizations such as the Non-Brahmin Movement, the South Indian Liberal Federation (popularly known as the Justice Party), the Self-Respect Movement and the Dravida Kazhagam (DK) associated with what is generally referred to as the Dravidian Movement.[1] The DK, a social movement led by Periyar E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker, in particular, would prove to be a fundamental brick in the future development of Tamil Nadu politics. C.N. Annadurai, a major leader within the folds of DK, would lead a breakaway faction that formed the political party of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (Dravidian Progress Party) in 1949. Following his death, there was yet another split between the DMK itself, due to a dispute between the 2 potential successor leaders. M.G. Ramachandran decided to create his own party, the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), leaving the DMK under the leadership of M. Karunanidhi. Present-day Tamil Nadu politics is dominated by an informal two-party system, with these 2 parties at the forefront. The last time a party other than these 2 was able to win the state legislative elections was in 1967.
THE ORIGIN
Most of the Indian population was classified during the British colonial rule into 2 major racial sects: Aryans and Dravidians. Although genetic analysis has questioned the reliability of the racial aspect of this classification, it still stands valid on the basis of language families. Most northern Indian languages are classified as Aryan, whereas the 4 southern Indian languages of Tamil, Telugu, Kannada & Malayalam are Dravidian languages.[2] Protestant Scottish missionary Robert Caldwell wrote the book “A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian family of languages” in 1858, where he argued that the languages of the 4 major ethno-linguistic groups in South India descended from a common ancestor.
The divide in South India became particularly stark in the context of Brahminical dominance within the colonial administrative structure. Although Brahmins constituted only around 3% of the population in the Madras Presidency, they occupied a disproportionately high share, ranging from 60% to 79%, of key positions in government departments during the early twentieth century. This imbalance prompted criticism from emerging non-Brahmin leaders, who argued that Brahmins, viewed as Aryan outsiders, had monopolized public offices that ought to have been accessible to the region’s native communities. The resentment towards this socio-political hierarchy, coupled with opposition to the privileged status of Sanskrit in education and official discourse, further exacerbated the divide, contributing significantly to the ideological foundations and eventual ascendancy of Dravidian political movements in the region.[3] The eventual creation of a Dravidian ideology would be based on ideals derived from these past experiences, including the dismantling of Brahmin hegemony, the revitalization of the “Pure Tamil Language”, social reform by abolition of existing caste systems, religious practices, and recasting women’s equal position in society.[4]
THE INITIAL STAGES
Prominent thinkers such as Iyothee Thass, Maraimalai Adigal, and ‘Periyar’ E.V. Ramasamy advanced reformist ideologies rooted in a common historical narrative. This narrative portrayed the subjugation of an ancient, rational, and egalitarian Dravidian—or specifically Tamil—civilization by Aryan or Brahminical forces. Alongside these figures, a wide array of influential intellectuals, organizers, and political leaders, including Rettamalai Srinivasan, T.M. Nair, the Raja of Panagal, Neelambikai Ammaiyar, Moovalur Ramamritham Ammaiyar, Kaivalyam Swamigal, C.N. Annadurai, and M. Karunanidhi, played key roles in shaping both the ideological foundations and organizational structure of the Dravidian movement.[5]
The early stages of the movement demanded an independent Dravidian state under the British Raj, comprising the 4 major regions of Southern India that spoke the Dravidian languages. They currently consist of the present-day states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Telangana, and Karnataka. On the eve of independence, E. V. Ramaswami Naicker, the leader of the newly established Dravida Kazhagam in the Madras Presidency, voiced strong opposition to what he perceived as an impending transfer of colonial authority from British rulers to the so-called Aryan-dominated political elite. Concerned about the potential for Brahminical hegemony under the guise of Aryan ‘imperialism,’ Naicker advocated for the creation of a sovereign state in South India—Dravidasthan. He urged his followers to formally commit to the cause by signing a pledge in support of complete secession from the Indian Union.[6] This phase of the movement’s ideology struggled to garner substantial support from the other populations and had to confine itself to Tamil nationalism.[7]
THE DIVISIONS, POLITICIZATION, AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
Following the wedge between C.N. Annadurai and Periyar (E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker), Anna, as the former was endearingly called by the masses, created the DMK as a political facet of the Dravidian movement to oppose the central nationalist party, the Indian National Congress. The DMK eventually captured the forefront of the Dravidian movement, sidelining the Justice Party & the DK. A disgruntled Periyar gathered his followers and pledged support to the newly formed Congress ministry under Kamaraj Nadar, solely to reclaim the position that DK had overthrown DK from. The Congress party, under K. Kamaraj, became increasingly popular, leading the Tamil-speaking diaspora in the Madras Presidency region to eventually become well-integrated within the national structure of the Indian state. The DMK, too, started focusing more on the development of Tamil Nadu within the United India. This was most evident in the 1962 General Elections, where the party’s campaign centered on the issues of bread-and-butter politics with its election manifesto prioritizing urgent economic concerns, while effectively sidelining the earlier ideological demand for a separate and sovereign Dravidasthan state. In the 1962 General Elections, the DMK emerged as the strongest Opposition party ever to challenge the dominance of the Congress Party in Madras, managing to capture fifty seats in the Legislative Assembly and seven in the Lok Sabha (the Union Parliament). However, in its climb to the top, the DMK ignored its roots. At the height of its power, the secessionist calls for Dravidasthan were virtually dead, despite the fact that DMK still stood on the foundations of the Dravidian movement. Through a combination of social mobilization and strategic accommodation by the government, the movement evolved from its earlier secessionist roots—grounded in nostalgic ideals of a glorious past and an impractical vision of resurrecting the past for the future—into a political party that began to articulate more concrete interests and gradually embraced the principles and processes of democratic, electoral, and parliamentary politics.[8]
The evolution of Dravidian politics in Tamil Nadu reflects a significant shift in ideological focus over time. The Dravida Kazhagam (DK) began with a distinctly atheistic and strongly anti-Brahmin stance, which was central to its critique of caste-based hierarchies. As the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) emerged from this movement, it initially embraced a broad Dravidian ethnic identity, which later narrowed into a more specific and inclusive Tamil identity, centered around the figure of the “common Tamil.”[9]
In contrast, the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), while ideologically descended from the Dravidian movement, diverged significantly from the DK and DMK by rejecting both anti-Brahmin rhetoric and ethnic exclusivity. The AIADMK adopted a more inclusive approach, evidenced by its leadership dynamics. Following the death of its founder, M.G. Ramachandran (a Malayali Nair, not ethnically Tamil), a leadership contest emerged between Janaki Ramachandran and J. Jayalalithaa, both of Brahmin origin. Jayalalithaa would later go on to become the party’s most prominent leader.[10]
Despite these ideological differences, particularly in relation to caste and religious identity, the AIADMK has largely aligned with the broader Dravidian parties on key policy issues such as affirmative action, opposition to the imposition of Hindi, advocacy for federalism, and support for Sri Lankan Tamils.[11]
CONCLUSION
The trajectory of Dravidian politics in Tamil Nadu underscores a distinctive and enduring political phenomenon within India’s federal framework. From its origins in the anti-caste reform movements of the early 20th century and Tamil linguistic nationalism to its transformation into a mainstream democratic force, the Dravidian movement has continually adapted to shifting socio-political contexts. The Dravidian movement has evolved from radical calls for secession into a constitutional force grounded in democratic participation. The transformation of social movements like the Justice Party, Self-Respect Movement, and Dravida Kazhagam into mass-based political parties like the DMK and AIADMK reflects a shift from ideological resistance to pragmatic governance. The DMK and AIADMK, though ideologically divergent in some respects, have successfully institutionalized the core tenets of Dravidian thought—social justice, linguistic identity, and regional autonomy—within the boundaries of constitutional democracy, while simultaneously establishing a system of alternating dominance since 1967, effectively marginalizing national parties in the state’s electoral landscape.
Author(s) Name: M Pranav Mruthyunjay (National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi)
References:
[1] Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr., The Dravidian Movement (first published by Bombay Popular Prakashan in 1965, Routledge, 2022) 2
[2] A. Jayan, A STUDY ON DRAVIDIANISM (Research Journal of Kings University, Vol. 2, No. 1, March 2017) 32
[3] A. Jayan, A STUDY ON DRAVIDIANISM (Research Journal of Kings University, Vol. 2, No. 1, March 2017) 33
[4] Ibid
[5] Collin Michael Sibley, Dravidianism: Theorizing Identity, Religion, Culture, and Society in Modern Tamil Reformist Thought (University of California, 2018) 2-3
[6] Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr., The Dravidian Movement (first published by Bombay Popular Prakashan in 1965, Routledge, 2022) 12
[7] A. Jayan, A STUDY ON DRAVIDIANISM (Research Journal of Kings University, Vol. 2, No. 1, March 2017) 32-33
[8] Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr., The Dravidian Movement (first published by Bombay Popular Prakashan in 1965, Routledge, 2022) 12-13
[9] A. Jayan, A STUDY ON DRAVIDIANISM (Research Journal of Kings University, Vol. 2, No. 1, March 2017) 34
[10] Ibid
[11] Ibid
