In many regions, language is associated with pride and prestige, often rooted in conservatism. This is where Periyar, CN Annadurai, and the Dravidian movement diverged. They saw language as a means of modernisation and social equality rather than a relic of past glory.
Published Mar 07, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Mar 16, 2025 | 6:09 PM
KA Mathialagan, CN Annadurai, Rajaji and M Karunanidhi. (Front row, left to right)
Synopsis: The Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu has long resisted Hindi imposition, advocating linguistic equality as a pillar of federalism and social justice. Unlike language movements in other Indian states, which were often linked to administrative or ethnic concerns, Tamil Nadu’s struggle integrated language with political empowerment and cultural dignity.
“India is a federal state. Indian society is pluralistic, and our political system is composite. In such a diverse society, advocating for a single common language would, perhaps unknowingly, create injustice and impose disadvantages on certain sections of society.
“India is not a singular entity; rather, it comprises various ethnic and linguistic groups. It has rightly been termed a subcontinent, which is why establishing a common working medium as an official language remains a challenge.”
These were the words of CN Annadurai, Tamil Nadu’s first non-Congress chief minister and the founder of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). It was delivered in a speech at the Rajya Sabha in May 1963 during a debate on the Official Languages Bill.
That year, a proposal to make Hindi the sole official language of India faced strong opposition, particularly from South Indian states.
Members of Parliament from Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh objected, fearing that the imposition of Hindi would marginalise their native languages and cultures.
Their opposition stemmed from the belief that linguistic diversity was fundamental to India’s federal structure.
But according to Prof Karunanathan, the language struggle in Tamil Nadu is deeply intertwined with the social justice movement.
The earliest awareness of language rights in India emerged in Bengal, where figures like Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar worked to free the Bengali language from the dominance of Sanskrit.
However, these efforts were largely limited to education and did not evolve into a broader social movement.
In contrast, Tamil Nadu’s language struggle was connected to multiple transformative forces, including culture, social justice, and political equality, giving it much greater strength.
Even in Karnataka, language-related struggles were not tied to broader social movements. In Kerala, while some activists advocate for reviving Malayalam in its classical form, their demands lean towards conservatism rather than progressive change.
In North India, language revival or rights movements never gained momentum. There were no significant efforts to reclaim languages like Maithili or Bhojpuri. In fact, linguistic discourse in the region has been minimal compared to Tamil Nadu.
Tamil Nadu, according to Professor Karunanathan, exhibits a heightened sense of linguistic awareness compared to other states, linking language to social equality.
Even during the anti-Hindi agitations of the ’60s, language became a topic of discussion in Bengal, but it did not develop into a mass movement. There, struggles were primarily focused on resisting political and economic discrimination rather than asserting linguistic rights.
However, in Tamil Nadu, the language struggle became inseparable from social justice, Tamil cultural identity, and the dignity of Tamil people.
Some linguistic purists insist on keeping Tamil untouched by external influences, as seen in the Thani Tamil Movement.
In contrast, the Dravidian movement modernised Tamil and integrated language into the broader struggle for social justice. Unlike Sanskrit and Hindi, which were imposed in the name of national unity, English was embraced as an ally because it provided access to global scientific advancements.
A common criticism of Periyar is that he referred to Tamil as a “barbarian language.” However, his followers argue that he modernised Tamil. What was Periyar’s true perspective?
“Periyar did not view language rigidly or with purism. He saw language as a tool for social progress and modernisation,” Karunanathan explains.
“This is why he criticised literary traditions that promoted cultural stagnation. Culture, by definition, evolves over time. If we limit Tamil culture only to Bhakti literature and ancient epics, we risk being trapped in conservatism.”
He adds, “Periyar believed language and literature should serve the purpose of social progress. Bhakti literature and mythological texts, in his view, promoted blind faith and kept people in a state of servitude. The Dravidian movement, therefore, viewed language through the lens of progress and reform.”
In many regions, language is associated with pride and prestige, often rooted in conservatism. This is where Periyar, CN Annadurai, and the Dravidian movement diverged. They saw language as a means of modernisation and social equality rather than a relic of past glory, says Prof Karunanathan.
The Gokak agitation of 1980s was one of Karnataka’s major language movements. It demanded that Kannada be the primary medium of instruction in schools instead of Sanskrit or English.
Led by poets, artists, writers, and activists, the movement garnered massive public participation, eventually resulting in Kannada being prioritised in education and administration.
The Karnataka government has also promoted Kannada language pride, enforcing policies to ensure job reservations for Kannada speakers and imposing language regulations in institutions.
The Telugu language movement of the 1950s led to the creation of Andhra Pradesh from the erstwhile Madras State and eventually influenced the States Reorganisation Act of 1956. But, unlike in Tamil Nadu, where language struggles were tied to social justice, they focus of the movement was administrative and political independence.
Similarly, while linguistic and cultural identity played a role in the demand for a separate Telangana state from Andhra Pradesh, the movement’s eventual success in 2014 was primarily driven by concerns over economic independence and the political and economic domination of Telangana by the dominant Seemandhra communities.
In Punjab, efforts to protect Gurmukhi were primarily tied to Sikh religious identity, according to Prof Karunanathan. The Punjabi Suba Movement (1955–1966) demanded a separate Punjabi-speaking state, ultimately leading to the creation of Punjab and Haryana in 1966.
Similarly, the Assam Movement (1979–1985) was primarily focused on illegal immigration but had linguistic undertones advocating for Assamese identity. However, it was largely shaped by ethnic and political concerns rather than social justice.
In Maharashtra, the Samyukta Maharashtra Movement (1956–1960) demanded a Marathi-speaking state, leading to the creation of Maharashtra and Gujarat.
The Dravidian movement has long championed linguistic equality as a core principle of federalism.
Unlike nationalist ideologies that equate a common language with unity, the movement argues that linguistic diversity strengthens democracy. Karunananthan highlights this distinction, explaining that language should be rooted in the people rather than imposed as a tool of nationalism.
“Many associate language with nationalism. However, nationalism should be rooted in the people of a nation, and language is the closest identity marker for them. Imposing a language creates divisions instead of unity. The Dravidian movement’s approach has always been federal, advocating for linguistic equality rather than the dominance of one language over others.”
He further points out that the movement does not promote linguistic isolationism but instead seeks a balance between tradition and progress. While Tamil pride is a key aspect of the movement, it does not mean rejecting linguistic evolution or modernisation.
“For Tamil speakers to progress through Tamil, it must break free from stagnation. Romanticising the past hinders modernisation. This is why Periyar’s philosophy emphasised practical modernisation. However, this does not mean disregarding Sangam literature. Instead, we must recognise it within its historical context while ensuring that it does not become our sole guiding principle.”
The fight for linguistic equality, Karunananthan stresses, is not just about Tamil but about the larger principles of democracy and inclusivity in India. He warns against policies that elevate one language over others, arguing that such actions weaken the democratic fabric of the nation.
“True linguistic equality is essential for India to function as an inclusive nation. Declaring one language as the national language while relegating others to secondary status undermines democracy. Without equality, democracy itself is compromised. Those who promote language imposition through religious or political lenses fail to understand the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution.”
Karunanathan asserts that Tamil Nadu’s linguistic consciousness, deeply intertwined with the ideals of social justice, has ensured that the movement remains alive and relevant.
Driven by the Dravidian movement, this unwavering commitment has fuelled continuous resistance against Hindi imposition and policies like the three-language policy.
The protests, debates, and advocacy for linguistic equality are not mere acts of defiance but expressions of a fundamental belief in federalism and cultural dignity.
He further emphasises that every national party will eventually be compelled to acknowledge this linguistic reality. The Congress, much like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) today, once attempted to impose Hindi as the sole national language.
However, under Jawaharlal Nehru’s leadership, the party eventually recognised the importance of linguistic federalism, allowing English to continue as an official language alongside Hindi.
This course correction prevented national linguistic homogenisation and ensured the survival of linguistic diversity in India.
Even leaders like Rahul Gandhi have begun to recognise this shift, understanding the necessity of embracing linguistic equality. For national parties, acknowledging this reality is no longer a matter of political convenience but a necessity dictated by India’s diverse socio-political landscape.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
