IT has been suggested that the DMK-TMC debacle in Tamil Nadu was the result of communal riots on poll-eve in Coimbatore. Even if that is true, it does not explain why the ruling combine was so fragile that the riots acted like the last straw that broke the camel's back. So, was the DMK-TMC rout a freak or an accident waiting to happen?
For decades, Tamil Nadu has exhibited a peculiar schism between its cultural values and its political populism. In no other state can one see such an effusion of magnificent temples. In no other state do
. Hindus flaunt their religious faith the way Tamilians do with their caste marks. Yet, for years, the politics of Tamil Nadu has been dominated by atheism, which specifically targeted Hinduism. In a democracy, such schism between popular culture and populist politics cannot continue forever. Either the society has to change its ways and give up religious faith, or the polity has to fracture and surrender its atheism.
It appears that religion has won. The reason is not far to seek. So long as Brahmins dominated both religion and government, atheism had economic value. Now that the backbone of the Brahmins has been broken decisively, atheism no longer offers that utility. In short, atheist politics has become the victim of its own success. That is where the BJP comes in.
For quite some time now, there have been indications that in Tamil Nadu, the BJP is no longer the untouchable it used to be. My contacts have been only with the educated middle class. At least within this group, more and more people have been openly expressing a feeling that the BJP deserves to be given a chance. That is not necessarily a vote in favour of the BJP; most probably, that is an expression of disillusionment with increasing contradictions within the atheist movement.
In principle, atheism implied rejection of caste. In practice, it operated entirely on the basis of caste-based patronage. No doubt, caste-based patronage was a potent weapon in destroying upper caste hegemony but it has proved a handicap when it came to distributing the spoils of that victory. Caste-based discrimination works well so long as the enemy is numerically small, and aspirants are few. Thus, the small minority of Brahmins (and a few upper castes) could be held up as the enemy and discriminated against without losing many votes. Till recently the space so vacated was enough to meet the demands of the faithful.
In recent years, however, the situation has changed drastically. Education among backward castes has increased (and improved) by leaps and bounds. So, aspirants have become many, much more than the space vacated by upper castes. That has created a supply-demand gap. Now, it is no longer a question of fairer distribution of government jobs but one of creating many more jobs, both inside the government and outside. Thus, the political ambience has changed fundamentally but politicians have not. Mr Chidambaram appears to be the only politician who is alive to this problem. Others are yet to shed old shibboleths.
In sticking to outdated caste-based reservation, Tamil Nadu politicians (like their counterparts elsewhere) divided and sub-divided the polity into smaller and smaller caste groups. As a result, Dravidian parties have splintered along sub-caste lines and, in the process, removed the stigma attached to communalism. That has benefited the BJP in two ways. One, people see no reason to single out the BJP for communalism. Two, as the non-Brahmin base has splintered, the government has found it expedient to go soft on non-Hindus.
As a reaction, Hindus now find the BJP brand of communalism desirable. Thus, the BJP was a fruit ready to be plucked and the DMK left it to Jayalalitha to do so. In the bargain, Jayalalitha propagated the BJP seed; in return, the BJP provided Jayalalitha much-needed nourishment—she secured a substantial, but dormant, votebank.
Will the BJP take root in Tamil Nadu? That is not easy to answer. For one, Jayalalitha's support can never be taken for granted. The alliance she has cobbled up is fragile. The MDMK, the PMK and the like are united only in their animosity towards Mr Karunanidhi and do not have any other viable common agenda. In acquiring power, the BJP too may generate its own handicap of incumbency.
It is also a fact that the DMK has fared creditably in assembly byelections in precisely the places where it has lost badly in the parliamentary contest. So, it looks as though the public mood was not strictly against the DMK but in favour of testing out the BJP—giving the BJP a chance. So, in the next assembly elections, there is no reason why the DMK cannot win.
At the same time, the DMK would do well to indulge in deep introspection. Traditionally, Dravidian parties have prided themselves on their revolutionary zeal. Jayalalitha has hijacked that agenda by the simple tactic of calling herself puratchi thalaivi—the revolutionary leader. While the DMK has got stuck in a groove, she has engineered a minor revolution of sorts by boldly aligning Tamil Nadu politics with its traditional culture. So, AIADMK followers do not have to visit temples furtively like DMK activists.
The question now is what new revolution will the DMK offer in response to Jayalalitha's onslaught? The DMK is yet to realise that once a revolution succeeds, it is vital to move on to a different one. So, the future of the DMK lies in projecting a new vision for Tamil Nadu, a vision that will integrate rather than set one sub-caste against another.
There is one other peculiar reason why the DMK needs to propagate a new glamorous vision much more than Jayalalitha has to. When a reporter asked a voter why he preferred Jayalalitha, he burst out, "Saar! Avo rosa anna, rosa saar! (Sir! A rose means she is a rose, sir!)" Ostensibly, all Dravidian parties are proud of their dark complexions. Actually, their hearts palpitate at the sight of a fair one. That advantage, nobody can take away from Jayalalitha; that handicap the DMK will ever have to bear. n
(The writer is former director, IIT, Madras)
