The Hindu : Opinion / Interviews : "It is a fact that the Tamil people are doing well"

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, May 07, 2007
ePaper

Opinion

Opinion - Interviews

"It is a fact that the Tamil people are doing well"

R.K. Radhakrishnan

Tamil Nadu Chief MinisterM. Karunanidhiis one of India's seniormost leaders. He completes half a century as a legislator this year. In this wide-ranging interview toThe Hindu, the five-time Chief Minister takes the long view on the defining issues and leading politicians of the State:

— FILE Photo: V.V. Krishnan

M. Karunanidhi: "Is it not the duty of the non-believer to drag in gods when talking about the good and the bad?"

When you entered the Assembly in 1957, it marked the beginning of a sea change in the social profile of members entering the Assembly — many from the backward communities with no higher educational qualifications entered the House in large numbers for the first time. How was this perceived by the people at large and Congressmen of that era? Was the change of the language of discussion to Tamil welcomed without resistance?

When I went to the Assembly in 1957 and when a majority belonging to the backward classes won and entered the Assembly, it could not be said that they did not possess higher educational qualifications. They had sufficient talent and competence to speak on people's issues in the Assembly. This change was welcomed to a great extent by the people and Congressmen. People were of the opinion that those they had chosen as their representatives were capable of highlighting their problems in the Assembly.

When the Assembly proceedings began mostly to be conducted in Tamil, all sections welcomed the move. There were protests over accepting a word here or there. The truth was that with the passage of time, Tamil established its complete sway over the debate.

You used Marshall Tito's 1959 Tiruchi visit to highlight in the Assembly the fact that the allocation for slum development was inadequate. You spoke about the government using the allocation to erect high scaffoldings on both sides of the road so that visiting foreign dignitaries did not see the slums. Was this the norm then? Did the Annadurai government change this norm?

When I was speaking on the budget debate for 1958-1959 in the Assembly, to point out the fact that the amount allotted for slum development was not adequate I recalled Marshall Tito's visit to Tiruchi and how the government had spent money on putting up high scaffoldings, half as high as a palm tree — so that Tito did not see the slums by the side of the road. 1959 was only 12 years after Independence. The development then was only to that extent. As a member of the opposition, I had only drawn attention to such acts, akin to us wearing washed but old clothes when a guest comes home.

Even then, the aim was to drive home the point that the allocation for slum development was inadequate. There was no intention of making fun of the functioning of the government. My government, which followed the path set by Anna [C.N. Annadurai, the first DMK Chief Minister] toiled hard [on slum development] and institutions such as the Slum Clearance Board and the many tenements it built were testimony to the victory of the efforts of the government.

Both inside and outside the Assembly, you have often dragged in gods to drive home a point. For instance, speaking on the Madras General Sales Tax Bill, 1958 in the Assembly in 1959, you likened sales tax officials to Lord Yama. Is the comparison relevant now? Also, as a declared non-believer, why do you invoke the gods so often?

I remember speaking on the General Sales Tax Bill in 1959. When some sales tax officials are on the prowl like Lord Yama in the epics, traders who are in the same state as Markandeya are forced to hug Lord Shiva in the form of bribes! On the comparison being relevant now, there have been very many changes in the Sales Tax law. Many schemes were drawn up for the benefit of traders. For instance, ahead of the preparation of each budget proposal, the government held extensive discussions with representatives of traders. Only after listening to them were tax restructuring proposals introduced. Hence I think the comparison is no longer relevant now.

You ask me why I, a non-believer, often drag in gods to drive home a point. Is it not the duty of the non-believer to drag in gods when talking about the good and the bad?

Even after the DMK accepted that Tamil Nadu should be part of India, you spoke for Dravida Naadu in the Assembly often when presented with a chance to speak. Looking back, do you think Tamils have been better off being part of the Indian Union?

I made the speech that you refer to in March 1961 while speaking on the budget proposals. I said: "Even [if we are] a small country the size of Sri Lanka — only if Tamizhagam is on its own, only if Dravida Naadu is a separate government, can the Tamil masses be protected." This is what I spoke in 1961. Anna gave up the Dravida Naadu policy in 1963. Hence this was a statement I made before the demand for Dravida Naadu was given up. Even after Anna gave up the policy of Dravida Naadu, I gave up only on the secessionism part but the reasons for making the call remained. He then unveiled the "State autonomy" policy. Since then, the DMK has stood steadfast on the "autonomy for the States and federalism at the Centre" policy.

You ask if the Tamil people are better off being part of India. It is a fact that the Tamil people are doing well. But since it is not possible to hypothesise what would have been the situation if Tamil Nadu were not part of India, it cannot be said with certainty that only because we are part of the Indian Union, we are better off. But I will accept that people of Tamil Nadu are being benefited.

Many academics believe that the first 25 years of the Tamil Nadu Assembly were its best. The quality of discussions set standards the rest of the country could look up to. Do you agree with this assessment?

This assessment has to be accepted to some extent. Even though there were many political parties then, they were not antagonistic to one another. Politics was conducted on the basis of issues. There was mutual respect. Regardless of the extent to which a person opposed another inside the Assembly, once they were outside they forgot the differences and enquired after each other. There was no feeling of hostility between the ruling and opposition parties. Humanitarian values were not polluted then.

Do you think the DMK's decision to make the Dravidian movement a political movement and not just a social reform movement has yielded the desired results?

Yes, contrary to expectations enormous transformations have taken place. Many social restructuring projects could be continuously done for the people of Tamil Nadu because the Dravidian movement was converted into a political movement and did not merely remain a social reform movement.

For instance, it was during Anna's time that self-respect marriages got legal sanction. After I came to power, to uphold social justice it was possible to increase the quantum of reservations. Equal property rights was given to women. The marriage assistance scheme was launched. We could encourage inter-caste marriages. A law was enacted to enable persons from all castes to become priests. In the name of Periyar samathuvapuram, we were able to make people of all castes live as part of the same community. We could do a lot for the backward, most backward, and Adi Dravidar and Tribal communities. Many such schemes can be listed.

1989 marked the lowest point in Tamil Nadu's legislative history. I am referring to the budget papers being seized from your hand and Ms. Jayalalithaa being the target of an attack. Do you regret the behaviour of your Ministers and MLAs? Have the DMK and the AIADMK learnt anything from this incident?

I will not accept that the Assembly was sub-standard through the year in 1989. The incident of just one day — planned by Jayalalithaa from her house that the Assembly should not be allowed to function. If this happened, then the government would be dismissed and she could come to power. With this in mind, she called a meeting of her senior partymen to rehearse her plan to be enacted later. This was recorded later in Assembly records by S. Thirunavukkarasar, who came out of that party later.

The next part of your question pertains to the attempted attack on Ms. Jayalalithaa. One cannot expect Ministers and ruling party MLAs to keep quiet like Lord Buddha when an attempt was made by one woman to snatch the budget papers from the hands of a Chief Minister and also after she ordered her party members to attack the Chief Minister. It is true that majority of the dailies were conducting themselves on communal lines. There is nothing to be learnt from the incident.

Relations between the ruling and the main opposition party in Tamil Nadu are strained to the extent that even on issues of common interest all parties in Tamil Nadu refuse to come together. Is there scope for any improvement in the relationship?

To clap, both hands need to come together! Even if the ruling party came forward with the objective that all parties should work together, what can be done if the main opposition party, with its inimical attitude, thinks that the ruling party will corner the glory? For instance, the main opposition party said that we should approach the Supreme Court on the Cauvery issue. All the other parties wanted the State to file a petition with the [Cauvery Water Disputes] Tribunal first. At that time, to arrive at a consensus, I incorporated both suggestions, wrote a resolution with my own hand, and read it out to all [at the all party meeting]. I mentioned that I was doing this so as to incorporate the suggestion of the main opposition party and even read out the resolution. Even after all this, if the leader of the main opposition party — who did not come to the meeting — says that no resolution was adopted at the meeting, how can one think that the ruling and main opposition parties come together on common issues?

Do you consider revival of the Legislative Council wasteful expenditure? What are the chances of the council being revived?

I will not say that reviving the Legislative Council is wasteful expenditure. Because many good qualities of the Council have been extensively spoken about. Even the DMK's election manifesto spoke about the [revival of the] Council. But the time is not yet ripe for the revival of the Council.

If you had the opportunity to rate Chief Ministers from the 1950s to the 1980s in relation to their contribution to the State's development and their commitment to the downtrodden, who would top your list? Why? Who, in your opinion, was the most effective Chief Minister in the Assembly?

If asked to list Chief Ministers on the basis of ability, in my opinion Anna would top the list. But since his rule lasted only two years, there was not much chance to derive benefit from his tenure. On the basis of contribution to development of the State and commitment to the downtrodden, Kamarajar who ruled for nine years would be the one.

Many big names of the 1950s and 1960s, including R. Venkatraman and C. Subramaniam, never became Chief Ministers. How would you rate their contribution to the State?

Both of them were brilliant in administration but they did not move closely with the people. They worked independently of people and senior leaders. No one who had not moved closely with the people could become a Chief Minister. On their role in [the development of] the State, it could be said that they administered the government machinery in a proper manner.

What do you think of the quality of debates now in the House?

You should comment on this.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Labour in deeper trouble

Ending the war on the roads

Key issues in the Sohrabuddin case

Global takeovers hit £1 trillion

Colby Buzzell, a king among blookers

Travel as the new tobacco-like curse

"It is a fact that the Tamil people are doing well"