Function for the uprising of Race

Dear brethren and sisters,

You must have seen the announcement that the inaugural function of the 100th year of the Dravidian movement will be held on 27.2.2012 at 5 pm at Kalaignar Arangam, Anna Arivalayam in Chennai on behalf our Party headquarters, under my presidentship and in the presence of Perasiriyar! In that inaugural function, younger Brother K.Veeramani, Retired Supreme Court judge Justice S.Mohan, Prof. Nannan and Prof. Suba Veerapandian are to deliver addresses. They are to explain the origin and greatness of the Dravidian movement.
Paavendar Bharathidasan said –
“As long as one is – till
The last drop of blood
No setback in struggle
For the rights of Dravidians!”
It was Linguistic scholar (Philologist) Robert Caldwell who wrote the rare book ‘Comparative Grammar of Dravidian languages’ in 1856, and who pointed out that people speaking Dravidian languages belong to one race. There are references that it was he who first used the nomenclature ‘Dravidar’ while writing about South Indian languages and people who speak them. It was during the DMK rule that on 9.2.2010 a government order was issued allocating Rs.18.50 lakh for converting the Idayangudi residence where Caldwell, who served Tamil and gave comparative grammar, lived and passed away, into a memorial. Accordingly that house was renovated, a bust size bronze statue of Caldwell was installed and unveiled by me through video conference on 17.2.2011.
In his lyric in ‘Manonmaniam’ written by Prof. Sundaram Pillai, has referred to ‘Dravida Nalthirunadu’ (Dravidian land), The Authentic English translation of the song is as follows: “Bharat is like the face beauteous of Earth clad in wavy seas; Deccan is her brow crescent-like on which the fragrant ‘Tilak’ is the blessed Dravidian land. Like the fragrance of that ‘Tilak’ plunging the world in joy supreme reigns Mother Tamil with renown spread far and wide. Praise unto You, Mother Tamil, whose majestic youthfulness, inspires awe and ecstasy.” The period of Prof. Sundaram Pillai was from 1855 to 1897.
When the first anniversary of Madras United League, inaugurated in 1912, was held in 1913 in the garden of Dr. Natesan’s hospital, as some said the nomenclature of the association didn’t reflect its aim and hence it should be changed, some opinions were put forward as to how to change it. It was only then Dr. Natesan asked, “Why should we refer to a caste called Brahmins and say we are not of caste? Don’t we have a race for ourselves? Is there no name for it?” and conveyed the decision, “We can change nomenclature as ‘Dravidar Sangam’, because we are all Dravidians.” The decision was unanimously accepted by all.
Those who attracted the attention of Dr. Natesan at that time were ‘Velludai Vendar’ Theagarayar and Dr. T.M.Nair. But hearing that both of them were out of contact differing over an issue in Madras Corporation, Dr. Natesan felt that they should be associated and functioned unitedly.
Sir Pitti Theagarayar had affection for Dravidian race. In the beginning Theagarayar was very much orthodox. He had an idol at his house itself and performing pujas with prohits. Such a person after his contact with Dr.Natesan, dissociated from orthodoxy and started showing intense opposition to Brahmin-domination. Such a person Theagarayar while delivering his speech at the first conference of the Justice Party held in 1917 thundered,
“To imply order (of higher and lower) order by birth is not Dravidian tradition. Dravidian leaders from Tiruvalluvar did not glorify themselves as born from the face of Brahma. It was Aryans who implied higher and lower by birth and established four varnams in this land. Buddha, born 2400 years ago, tried to demolish that varnasrama fortress but could not. Ramanujar also tried by all means to remove prohit atrocities, but met with failure. The hold of Brahmins were getting more and more tightened. Social ills like untouchability, unseeability and unapproachablity, gradually spread and grew. This is the apt time to demolish such a strong casteist fortress!”
A strike in B & C Mills in Madras was on then. Talks were held on then between Theagarayar and the then Governor Lord Wellington in which Theagarayar got angry and came out. On hearing Theagarayar’s walk out Rajah of Panagal who was then holding the post of Premier, immediately met the Governor and said to have told, “If you don’t apologise to our leader, our Ministry will resign”. The Governor also was said to have immediately given apology letter.
Another great man who assisted Dr. Natesan was Dr. T.M.Nair. He was such a speaker that when he began his speech from the arrival of Aryans he would tell puranic and epic stories in between and plunge people into the ocean of emotions. He would start saying,
“Except one or two, in all other posts Brahmins have taken seat. Out of the nine Indians appointed as judges of the Madras High Court, eight are Brahmins and one is Nair. Among 146 Assistant Collectors, 77 are Brahmins, Out of 125 District judges 93 are Brahmins. Brahmins who are 3 percent out 100 in population, have been appointed in so many jobs,” so he would go on giving statistics and roar, “Can such injustice be allowed to continue?”
The speech delivered by Dr. T.M.Nair on 7.10.1917 at a public meeting near Spur Tank Road in Chennai –
and the statement, “Explanation of Non-brahmin principle” released by Sir P Theagarayar on 20.12.1918 on behalf of the Justice Party -
are regarded as the earliest documents of Dravidians.
I want to repeat now what T.M.Nair thundered on that famous speech. “Brave Dravidians! Take myself. They say I am a famous doctor in London and Madras. I am an MD graduate. I get huge income. I am proud to spend all the remaining money of my income after my expenditure, for the growth of Justice Party awakening Dravidian people like you, as my dear leader Thiru Pitti Theagaraya Vallal. Dravidian comrades! All of you tell and explain to all your friends and relatives and colleagues and enroll them as members of the Justice Party! Read party journals! Only if our journals grew our people will get strength. Our opposition party-Brahmin gang will shiver. True people: rule will blossom.”
In the book ‘History of Dravidian movement’ written by Murasoli Maran, besides writing that once a Brahmin was appointed in a higher post immediately he brought his community people and filled up in other posts within the limits of his appointment authority and this is a practice since long, and also points out some instances. When an inspection was carried out by Revenue Board, it came to light that there were 49 persons in that department alone who were relatives and associates of a brahmin called G.Venkataramiah holding a higher post. Vembakkam Iyengar family (like the famous Sir Bashyam Iyengar) of Chengalput and Madras city enjoyed all jobs available under British rule. From 1861 to 1921, of those belonging to that family, five were Assembly members, two were Attorney Generals, three were High Court judges, three were judges of small cause courts, one was Home Minister in the rule that came into being  under Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, and three were deputy secretaries of the Provincial government. Many more were Tahsildars, Public Prosecutors and deputy collectors, noted Murasoli Maran in that book.
It is only to remind those true histories to Dravidians and Tamils, the inaugural function of the 100th year of Dravidian movement is to be held. In that function many scholars are to explain many details to know and to understand about ourselves. Don’t think that you may miss this inaugural function because we are going to celebrate the centenary of Dravidian movement all through the year! Because this is a function for the uprising of our race! Only two days in between! We’ll meet in person on 27th!
With affection,
M.K.

Centenary of the Dravidian Movement begins!

Dear brethren and sisters,
I am accustomed to wake up from the bed along with the rising sun; today also I woke up like that. The voice of brother Suba Veerapandian speaking on Kalaignar TV was heard. In his speech under the caption, ‘Ondre Sol – Nandre Sol’ after mentioning about the history of the Dravidian movement, when he pointed out that the centenary year of the Dravidian Sangam begins from February this year and get completed in 2013, as I was reminded of the books on ‘The History of the Dravidian Movement’ written by late Murasoli Maran, late K.G.Radha Manalan and another Brother K.Thirunavukkarasu, I went through them to find out whether there are any references on years for this year to be treated as the Centenary year of the Dravidian movement.
When I read the first chapter of the Introduction to the book ‘The History of the Dravidian Movement’ written by Murasoli Maran under the sub-heading ‘Birth of the Dravidian Movement’, I write this epistle appending it, as it is, without missing a word, so as to remind you:-
“Beginning of the 20 th century....
Precisely to say in the year 1912”!
Some government employees working in Chennai city, realising that they were ignored in employment for the only reason that they were non-Brahmins and refused justful opportunities for promotions etc., formed a forum called ‘Madras United League’ in the year 1912 to discuss, work together and jointly put forward their grievances.
The person who was guiding and assisting this forum was one of the best doctors in Chennai, Dr. Natesan. He was the founder of the Dravidian movement. He was also the Secretary of the forum and rendered yeoman service. Within a year the membership of that forum rose to 300. The meetings of the ‘League’ were held at the residence of Dr. Natesan situated in Big Street, Triplicane.
Certain non-Brahmins, who in later days accepted bigger assignments, like Thiru. Saravana Pillai (later became Deputy Collector of Thanjavur), Thiru G.Veerasamy, Thiru Duraisamy Mudaliar (belonged to Engineering department), Thiru S.Narayanasamy Naidu (served as Sheriff of Revenue Board), worked for forming ‘Madras United League’, says Thiru Rangasamy Naidu.
The very first social work they undertook was adult education. Government employees, who were members of it, spent their evening rest time for this work. One among the works of that forum was holding a reception to young non-Brahmin graduates getting university degrees every year, introducing them among themselves and reminding their social task. As the number of non-Brahmin students getting university degrees were very least this was possible.
Once such reception meeting was held under the presidentship of Diwan Bahadur P.Kesava Pillai, (Sir) Pitti Theagarayar, Rajah of Panagal et al attended that function. A youth who proposed vote of thanks on behalf of the graduates attracted the hearts of all by his oratorical skills. It was he who later became a functionary of the Justice Party and the first Finance Minister of India, (Sir) R.K. Shanmugam (Chettiar).
In 1913, the first anniversary meeting of the Madras United League was held at the garden of the hospital of Dr. Natesan. The resolution moved and adopted there then, was the one which found out the exclusive nature of a race as named the movement itself. That was the resolution to change the nomenclature of ‘Madras United League’! Everybody conceded that the nomenclature of the association did not reflect its aims and a discussion for giving a correct nomenclature was held.
There was an opinion that it could be named as ‘Non-Brahmins Association’. As it was a negative nomenclature stiff opposition was raised and finally the resolution to change the nomenclature of ‘Madras United League’ as ‘Dravidian Association’ was unanimously adopted. From that day the consciousness propelled by that Association acquired the name of the Dravidian movement.
After changing the name its membership raised to 500.
The anniversary valedictory function of the Dravidian Association was held at a hall in the upstairs of a high school in Triplicane in 1914. Along with the function a reception for non-Brahmin graduates was also arranged.
Rajah of Venkatagiri, who had accepted to preside over the function, could not attend the function due to illness. Then, C.Krishnan, who was Chief Judge of Small Cause Courts and later promoted as Judge of the Madras High Court, presided over that function. On that day, special address was given by Dr. T.M.Nair. He delivered a rare speech befitting recall by students and government employees who had gathered there. He urged the youth to get courageous, boldly put forward their grievances and work for strengthening the organisation so that people realise its needs.
If he completed his speech saying, ‘Awake, Arise or be forever fallen’, we can understand what a rousing speech he delivered among non-Brahmin younger generation.
With no sufficient funds, the Dravidian Association published two explanatory books on views in 1915, notable among which was ‘Non-Brahmin Letters’, 21 letters explaining the backwardness of non-Brahmins in the then Madras Presidency were contained in those publications.
It was written in the pseudonym N.S.K. and another book was ‘Dravidian Worthies’ written by Sir C.Sankaran Nair.
v Non-Brahmins remain strews over disunited like a bag of amla untied and dropped.
v Not only refusing to unite; they also remain divided even among themselves.
v Without paying attention to education, carrying on their hereditary jobs, their aim does not go beyond becoming, at the most ‘Dubashis’.
v Even by non-Brahmin proprietors their non-Brahmin brother-workers are treated meanly.
v For this mean status of non-Brahmins they should accuse themselves
v Because they have failed to use job opportunities in government
v At the same time look at Brahmins! How unitedly they work using education realising its importance.
v But non-Brahmins immersing in the fallacy of ‘Manusmruthi’ are themselves the reason for their backwardness.
v If non-Brahmin community people have to get their due place in the public life of Madras Presidency, all Dravidians have to be brought together organisationally; ‘national’ colleges teaching Dravidian languages should be started.
Such publications portraying truth created awakening among educated non-Brahmins.
***
Brothers and sisters,
From this book of Murasoli Maran and the speech of brother Suba Veerapandian, it can be understood that it is that ‘Dravidar Sangam’ started by Natesan is like the foundation for the linguistic affinity, rationalist consciousness and social justice that had developed today. All Tamils, Dravidians are bound to celebrate for this whole year the centenary of Dravidian movement creating such feelings. Hence all efforts have to be taken for grandly celebrating the centenary of the Dravidian movement from 2012 to 2013 on behalf of our Party. We should speak about the greatness of veterans who nurtured the Dravidian movement, in those centenary functions. Let us bear in mind that the centenary of Dravidian movement adds glory to every Tamil.  Let us conduct functions throughout the state. The centenary of Dravidian movement is a self respect rights festival that we have to celebrate! Without specifying days let us try to celebrate the centenary function all through the year – for which let us bang the drum from today – let the slogan begin today, on Feb.18. Later, beginning in district headquarters, let the centenary function conducted, in a rousing manner!
Let it be conducted everywhere!
With affection,
M.K.t

Can A Congenital Misuser complain against others?

Joining the group of eight non-Congress Chief Ministers in opposing the Centre’s ambitious plan to create a National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), ADMK Chief Minister Jayalalitha had also shared the concerns. Under the headline, ‘Power to arrest and sieze can be misused’, the daily ‘The Hindu’ on Feb.18 had published the news of a letter written by Jayalalitha to the Prime Minister, which said,

“Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha on Friday branded the provisions of the Home Ministry's order on National Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC) as those smacking of a tendency to abrogate power with no attendant responsibility.

The Chief Minister, in a letter to the Prime Minister, referred essentially to broad provisions concerning the NCTC — the power to arrest, the power to search, the power to set up Inter-State Intelligence Support Teams and the power to seek information from any agency.

The letter was in response to an office memorandum of the Home Ministry of February 3, referring to the setting up of NCTC under the Intelligence Bureau from March 1.

Jayalalitha said the power to arrest and seize, vested with the Joint Secretary in the Home Ministry and the State Home Secretary, was now sought to be transferred to IB officers in the NCTC. “This is highly objectionable and can be misused to suit ends that are motivated by reasons other than fighting terror. Moreover, setting up of inter-State intelligence teams is tantamount to usurping legitimate rights of the States.”

The Chief Minister noted that the State could pride itself on an excellent track record with regard to counter-terror measures. Her government had always taken a firm stand vis-a-vis terrorist organisations, she pointed out.

She adverted to her “strong commitment” to supporting all measures and efforts taken to strengthen the unity and integrity of the country and for upholding its sovereignty.

“I share the concerns of other State Chief Ministers who have expressed reservations against the attitude of certain Ministries in the Government of India acting in a high-handed manner without due consultation with the States. Matters of Public Order and Police are in the State List of the Constitution of India and is it unreasonable to expect that when a major initiative such as a national counter-terrorism mechanism is sought to be established, the States should be taken into confidence?”

Of course, ‘law and order’ is a subject per se under the powers of the State government vide the Constitution and federal principles and ‘the power to arrest, the power to search, the power to intelligence agency to seek any information from any agency’ are exclusively States’ authority in governance. However, given the transnational operations of Terrorist forces and the speed with which they communicate and strike in this age of information and global village, effective counter-intelligence and counter-terrorist operations may at times require quick spot assessment and strike in order to avoid huge losses. Even sharing of certain crucial intelligence inputs with all states in the routine manner may prove costly and disastrous. However, all these matters have to be dispassionately and thoroughly discussed by the Central and State governments and such knee-jerk reactions to seek political scores should be avoided by the incumbents in power at the Centre and States.

Leaving aside such matters of principles, for which of all the people, Jayalalitha cares two hoots, what is her locus-standi to complain against others of ‘misuse of power to arrest, to search, to sieze’ and ‘acting in a high-handed manner’. We are not concerned with her personal life, in which there are number of stories of her reckless and merciless use/ misuse of persons in positions and her own position, for her ends. But in her public life, her rise in her party hierarchy and through that capturing and sustaining power, rests mainly on her use/ misuse of people including her professed ‘mentor’ MGR. The list of people she deviously used for her career elevation and then disowned and dumped is quite long, the last being her former aide for 30 years, Sasikala and her relative.

As Chief Minister, Jayalalitha was notorious and continue to be notorious for blatant misuse of power against her political rivals. Her vindictive actions of foisting false cases against DMK functionaries and former ministers and incarcerating them since her return to power in May last is well known to the people. But this is not a new trend now during her third tenure as Chief Minister. She had been accustomed to use the police administration into serving her needs. Jayalalitha uses the following:

•           Intimidation: This is her favorite tool. ADMK Goons would assualt anyone the party leader wants. Their house would be ransacked. The police officials will be instructed to conveniently turn a blind eye to it.

•           Protection: In all Goonda Raj systems, with intimidation comes protection. In the olden days, it used to be payment of money in return for protection. Today, Police Officals and party members are protected, promoted and pampered in return for servicing illegal goals.

•           Foisting false cases: This is a method that Jayalalitha seems to be perfecting with every passing day. There is no other chief minister using this so expertly as Jayalalitha does. Lots of people are under the misunderstanding that the police need evidence to arrest you. WRONG. They don't need evidence to arrest anybody, they only need to produce the evidence partially during bail hearings and completely under Trial hearings. Here is how the law works against an accused during ADMK regimes.

         The police don't need evidence to arrest. The discussion of evidence is done only at the trial stage which will be many years /months away.

         Arrests are often done on a Friday week-end. The reason is that the judiciary does not operate on the weekend and this means that you cannot apply for bail. Many Higher court have passed restrictions to stop the Friday week-end arrest, but the police always find ways to work around the restrictions.

         A warrant is not needed for cognizable offences like murder. So the police try to arrest you only for these kinds of offences.

         No discussion of evidence and no cross-questioning of the police is ever done. Since it is the prerogative of the government to transfer magistrates, they rarely act in a neutral way and are overwhelmingly biased towards the police.

         The bail application can be easily delayed by the prosecution team. Some standard excuses are that the senior prosecutor is busy with something else, the papers are not ready, investigation has turned up new evidence etc. Each time a bail application is delayed, the case is postponed by the courts by 2 or more weeks.

         The Police demolish your reputation by saying whatever they want in courts, in press meetings and by leaking to the press. They can say anything they want without fear of consequences such as you have confessed or incriminating documents have been found in your house or they have proof that other women have confessed to having a relationship with you etc. Please note here that proof need not be shown. The mere statement by the police has a devastating effect on the individual and his family.

         They can invoke Goondas Law if they feel the courts will release you on bail. The law is written in such a way that it is highly slanted against the accused. You will have to represent your case by yourself. All of this makes your chance of being freed remote.

         The police will apply arrest warrants on you on a staggered basis, very slowly, one at a time. If you are freed on bail in one case, you will be served with an arrest warrant on the second case. You cannot come out of jail until you get bail on all your arrests. This is yet another commonly used strategy to prolong your stay in jail.

         The prosecution can send complaint letters to professional bodies like ICAI asking them to revoke your professional licence.

         They can call you / your friends / relatives for questioning at any time of the day, at any police station they want without providing reasons. They can arrest / threaten to arrest (even under a non-bailable section of the law) claiming that you have withheld evidence during questioning.

         Delay your case in trial by deliberately increasing the witness list. This requires more time to cross-question each witness thus prolonging the case and your misery.

         The prosecution could appeal in higher courts any lower court judgement in your favor thus prolonging your case even further.

         The police can plant evidence and tamper with evidence. They can claim that they the murder weapon along with the accused' fingerprint in your house. They retrieved wads of money from your house etc etc. It would be the job of the defence to disprove such claims and you will need to have a top class law team to be able to do that.

         As you can see, the case will go on for decades. In the meantime, the judge may retire or be retired or even pass away in which case, the whole case will be tried again from scratch further prolonging the judgement.

         Fighting the police requires lot of money, time and patience. Each bail application costs Rs.25,000 with 2 sureties. Filing anticipatory bail requires similar amounts of money. Your travel will become highly restricted. You must present yourself for every court hearing. If you miss even one hearing, the prosecution could demand for cancellation of your bail. The bail restrictions will be stifling. You will be asked to present yourself in front of a police station every week. The police could insult you, taunt you and treat you like dirt. However, If you make the mistake of losing your temper, a case of misdemeanour will be slapped on you.

•           The Dharmapuri bus burning case is a classic case to examine misuse of power. In 2000, three girls were killed when an angry mob comprising of ADMK workers set ablaze a Coimbatore Agriculture University bus near Dharmapuri. Since this involved her party members, Jayalalitha did everything under her control to save the guilty after her return to power in 2001. The government threatened and forced the witness to turn hostile (retract their confessions). On Sep 2003, the Madras High Court Judge, Justice V Kanakaraj ordered the retrial of the Dharmapuri bus burning case . The government conveniently ignored the order and never appointed a prosecutor. The entire case was delayed and frozen for over 5 years. Jayalalitha by not appointing a prosecutor was behaving a leech. She gets happiness out of other people's miseries. In this sad tragedy, it was happiness of the three girls’ parents she was sucking every day.

•           Selvi Murugesan, former ADMK MLA from Kangeyam , was an accused in an FIR in a murder case and was not arrested. Her party MLA was involved in a murder case and naturally Jayalalitha government did everything in her power to let her escape the lawful consequences. 

•           S. Kanitha Sampath, former ADMK MLA from Tirupporur, was an accused in an FIR in a murder case and was never arrested.

•           M K Balan was an ADMK MLA from Saidapet during 1991-96. In 1996 after DMK came to power he joined to DMK. After 2001, the Police were reported to have picked him and he had not returned. The High Court ordered the Police to produce him and yet this was not done. Obviously, he is no more! A case of missing person or a case of missing truth?!

Her regime has a fair number of False foisting of cases which the courts ultimately throw out . Here are some of them in the past :

•           TV actress Bhuvaneswari, reported to be friendly with Sudhakaran, was booked under SITA, later acquitted by the Court.

•           She arrested Muthu, a former MGR assistant, placed illegally under arrest for carrying drugs until court acquitted him . The false case against Muthu was foisted on him because he gave some recommendation to MGR against Jayalalitha. That was more than sufficient provocation for her to take revenge when she got to power.

•           Film actress Vinitha, reportedly refused to entertain the guests of powers that be and she was booked under SITA. She was later acquitted by the Court.

•           B. Thameen Ansari was illegally placed under Goondas act until HC acquitted him .

•           Acid was thrown at the face of K.K.S.S.R Ramachandran for not toeing her line.

•           Since Advocate Muthuvijayan of ‘Voice Consumer Forum' filed public interest litigations in Chennai High Court against her misdeeds, he was attacked by auto-bound gangs, causing 27 fractures to him.

•           Since Advocate Shanmugasundaram was preparing the petition on behalf of the then Alandur Municipal Chairman R S Bharathi against the purchase of TANSI land by Jayalalitha and Sasikala, auto-bound gangs caused grievous hurt to him, including 9 punctures in his lungs. Her henchman Adhi Rajaram was rewarded with Rajya Sabha seat and after public protest, the move was given up. He was the South Chennai District Secretary of ADMK. Since the then Chief Election Commissioner T.N.Seshan, was not abetting her anti-democratic methods in the poll process, he was refused room in the State Guest House and Taj Coromandel Hotel was ransacked by her auto-bound hooligans, just because Taj allotted him room to stay!

•           As Chief Election Commissioner Seshan visited Chennai despite her warnings to him, the entire GST Road in front of the Chennai Airport was blocked by thousands of her party men virtually laying a siege of the Airport. The Chief Secretary and the DGP refused to clear them from the Road, even when the Chief Election Commissioner told them to clear! The people from various parts of the State who were on the way to Chennai could not enter Chennai for five hours, because of this!! She did not hesitate to put her own citizens to hardship and miseries, just because T N Seshan was firm in the performance of his duties!!!

•           She approved the S P I C divestment, much against the advice of the then Industries Secretary, Chandralekha. Chandralekha was transferred as Archives Commissioner. That was not enough. Jayalalitha hired hooligans and acid was thrown at Chandralekha's face! Surla of Mumbai who was accused, allegedly died of Aids inside the prison?

•           At the inauguration of the Coimbatore New Air terminal, the then Coimbatore M.P. (Congress-I) C.K.Kuppuswamy in his speech, first addressed the President of the said function and then only uttered the words "Chief minister Ms.Jayalalitha". She felt ‘humiliated’ by this ‘sinful' act because her name was not mentioned first. So her men attacked the M.P even as he was returning home from the very same function.

•           P.Chidambaram was way laid and attacked by more than six MLAs of ADMK at Tiruchy as he had opposed Jayalalitha in 1996 elections, as TMC functionary.

•           Three Coimbatore Agricultural College girls were burnt to death inside their bus in Dharmapuri, as fallout of her conviction in the Pleasant Stay Hotel case.

•           She has the dubious distinction of arresting even the Union Cabinet ministers. Her Police arrested Kalaignar (then 79 years old) in the dead of night, dragged through the stair case as he was not walking as fast as the agile Policemen in his own residence! Justice Ashok kumar (then Principal Sessions Judge) questioned the prosecution on the methods of arrest of Kalaignar, Union Ministers Maran and T R Baalu and he was threatened with death.

•           The DMK procession to condemn the arrest of Kalaignar was brutally attacked by organised goondas, with the full aid and abetment of the Police, but she meticulously planned a judicial enquiry and cleared all her misdeeds of any legal allegations. Curiously, none of the hooligans who caused death and grievous injury to hundreds of DMK men was ever booked under Goondas Act!

•           VN Sudhakaran, her foster son was booked under Narcotics Act as he went against her with lot of money.

•           Two Muslim brothers (Jalaluddin and Ziauddin of Silicon Valley Company, 14 Jagannathan Street, Nungambakkam) were booked under Narcotics Act as they were friendly with Sudhakaran.

•           Serena Banu of Madurai, reported to be friendly with Natarajan, was booked under Narcotics Act.

•           Vaiko was incarcerated for over eighteen months under POTA, on the charge that he spoke in favour of banned LTTE. Even as the Review Committee ruled that there was no ground under law that would be attracted by the said speech, she took every step under her powers to stall his release, that he ultimately was released only after one and half years.

•           Mani Shankar Iyer differed with Jayalalitha's views on Sonia Gandhi at a Government function to commence certain welfare schemes in Nagapattinam, he was waylaid as he was returning from the function, by her men led by the ADMK's Organising Secretary.

•           Her auditor Rajashekar was attacked severely inside Poes Garden premises itself because of difference of opinion amongst them. What takes the cake is after viciously attacking him, she sent him a bouquet of flowers and a get-well-soon card. She also released an ironic statement that is characteristic of her: 'I am too cultured to indulge in such an uncivilised act”!!! That is vintage Jayalalitha. First commit the crime, then blame it on your opponents, then boast about yourself sky high. This pattern can be seen repeatedly over and over.

•           Attempt to use the parliament to arrest the editors of the "Hindu".

•           An old couple in Dr. Rangachari Road, Alwarpet were attacked by goondas in their house because they refused to sell their house to her

•           Gangai Amaran had to sell his ‘Paiyanoor farm house’ because she took a fancy to that .

•           Since Justice A R Lakshmanan (then Madras High Court) gave judgments uncomfortable to her Government, she arrested his Son-in-law Kumar under Narcotics Act.

•           Since Justice M Srinivasan (Madras High Court) was not inclined to give judgments as she wanted, his house was attacked by auto-bound hooligans; electricity and water supply to his house were disconnected.

•           The Amrutanjan Residence in Nageswara Rao Park Road, Mylapore was forcibly taken possession by her men.

•           The Kodai International School was forcibly occupied by her men, throwing out school children at the dead of night. It was Justice Ashok Kumar (then District Judge, Dindigul) who restored it to the School by judicial intervention. For this reason he was transferred to Dharmapuri and Tiruvannamalai, to cause personal inconvenience to him. He faced physical threats too.

•           The notorious wedding of that paralysed the City of Chennai for over a week

•           She dismissed at one stroke, over 1,50,000 striking Government employees and teachers, their protest was not for any increase in wages but because their present benefits were cut. She went up to Supreme Court to prove her powers to so dismiss, got a three member judges panel constituted and held enquiries for nearly nine months and finally reinstated all but about 9000 employees. After the 2004 parliamentary elections, she reinstated all of them, What happened to all the judicial exercise that went through even postponing many other cases pending before various courts and the costs involved in the three member judicial panel exercise? Does not the State lose money for the whims and fancies of a CM? Is she above law and justice?

Wild-allegations

•           As soon as MGR died, she publicly accused that Janaki Ramachandran administered poison in buttermilk and murdered MGR.

•           In May 1991, as soon as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated, she accused that it was Kalaignar who organised the assassination. She organised, through her ADMK party, attacks on all DMK offices and party men's residences so as to create terror in their minds and thereby prevented them to effectively canvass in the elections and manage the booths. The insinuation she made to her party cadres at the time of Rajiv's death is very much recorded in the print media, the statement she released on the occasion (nearly three-fourth of a page in Dina Thanthi) contained the word "Blood" more than few hundred times! Her first poll victory was only on this platform and for this purpose she did not even bother about basic human decency and printed life size posters of Rajiv Gandhi's body with his entire torso and back fully exposed. This we state here to show as to what indecent extent she will go to secure political victory.

•           In the 1996 assembly elections, as G.K. Mooppanar aligned with DMK, she accused Mooppanar of conspiring in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination.

•           In the 2004 parliamentary elections, as Congress(I) formed an alliance with DMK, she questioned the ‘Pathi Bhakthi' of Tmt. Sonia Gandhi since she is hobnobbing with the assassins of Rajiv Gandhi.

•           On 25 January 1989, she masterminded the ‘war' inside the Assembly premises. She accused and made the whole world believe, ably supported by the gullible media, that it was Durai Murugan who pulled her Sari inside the Assembly premises, whereas in fact it was she who threw the Budget Speech at the then CM Kalaignar and in the melee that followed, Durai Murugan just stamped on the Sari that was left to flow on the floor! The entire show was preplanned.

•           In the floor of the Assembly, she accused the then Governor Channa Reddy of misbehaving with her during a meeting in Raj Bhavan.

•           During S P I C divestment trial proceedings in the Court, she denied her own signature in the Government files in approval!

•           During the wealth case trial proceedings in the Court, she stated that the Maharaja of Mysore out of love and affection gifted the jewels to her mother! It is another matter that she declared in the floor of the Legislative Assembly that she was a Brahmin (Naan Paapaathithaan)!! Ironically both the platforms were constitutionally honourable ones!!!

•           After the 2004 parliamentary elections, she reversed every one of her controversial decisions taken before the elections, including the Anti-conversion law and Prohibition of animal offerings at the altar of temples.

This being her record while in power, Jayalalitha should ponder over several times before affixing her signature in letters to Prime Minister, drafted by some officials assuming her as a protagonist of State autonomy and ‘rule of law’!

Channelising the Potential of Student Community

The headline of an English daily on Feb.10 read as “Over 200 students throw stones at policemen – Third such incident this month – Seven people injured in violence - Campus Rogues on the Loose.” The Report goes on to state: “Denied permission to celebrate ‘Bus Day’, nearly 200 students of Pachaiyappa’s College on Thursday afternoon went on the rampage from inside their campus after locking the gate. They pelted stones at police, injuring seven people, including six policemen. Finally, police entered the college and dispersed the mob. Twelve students of the college as well as a class 11 student and a plumber who indulged in the violence were arrested, police said. The college management declared Friday as a holiday.

Two MTC Buses, a police vehicle and a private car were damaged. Sub-inspectors Duraipandian, 47, of the Chetpet police and Mohanasundaram, 52, Gangachalam, 54, Raman, 51, and Rengasamy, 45, of the Kilpauk police and armed reserve constable Selvakumar suffered injuries along with MTC driver V Gencilin, 28. This is the third instance of violence related to ‘bus day in the city this month after incidents involving students of Government Arts College, Nandanam and those of New College.”

It was only last month that the city witnessed two gangs of the historic Presidency college clashing inside the college campus and outside with deadly weapons following enmity between two groups travelling in two bus routes. People cannot forget for ever the gruesome attacks of a section of Law College students on another group, three years back.
The daily in its view said: “Enough is enough. Chennai for long has been enduring these unruly gangs of college students holding public transport buses to ransom. Now they seem to have graduated to a level of violence that seriously endangers the lives of citizens. Despite Madras high court making harsh observations against the ‘bus day’ practice, which some students like to call a ‘celebration,’ police have not been able to put an end to it. Filing vaguely-worded cases which fail to name the individuals who smash bus window panes and pelt stones at commuters is not enough. It’s high time the law enforcers named the perpetrators behind this culture of street violence and brought them to book under stringent sections of law.”

Indeed the police did following strict orders of the Madras High Court. The Chennai Police slapped attempt to murder charges on the Pachayappa’s college students who stoned buses and injured commuters. Armed with legal provisions and HC’s observations made in the wake of the campus violence at the TN Dr. Ambedkar Govt Law College three years ago, the police entered the college premises and brought the student unrest to an end and arrested 14 persons including 12 students and manhunt is on for two more students.

It is not uncommon for the people of Chennai and elsewhere in the State to witness the ravings and riotous behaviour of students in buses and public places and grumbling and cursing in silence.

But why the youth of this country and student community, the cream of younger generation, should go awry like this, more particularly at a time when the days ahead of them are highly competitive, whichever way they want to proceed or destined to. Though various reasons are attributed by those who matter, what if everyone miss, or possibly consciously avoid telling is – apoliticisation of the student community and its leadership, unlike in the past - prior to and after Independence of the country.

There are conflicting views regarding students’ participation in politics. There are people who always want to keep students very far from the politics. There are others who hold opposite view. They think that students ought to be well versed in politics because they are the future leaders of the country.
The most progressive, articulate, inspired and dynamic segment of the country’s population is the student’s community. The formative period of student’s life should be utilized for an all round balanced development of his/her personality. Political experience constitutes an essential part of this learning experience. This period prepares one to face the challenges better and enables one to succeed in life. The much hyped dirty murky nature notwithstanding Politics has the potential to inculcate qualities like general awareness, keeping abreast with current happenings and above all leadership qualities in an individual. Student’s who join politics are good orators. They become assertive by shedding their timidness and shyness. Tackling problems and solving disputes and handling crisis situations however small or big they may be, infuses confidence in them. It helps in developing skills to deal with people from all backgrounds and of all shades of opinion.

Moreover, politics cannot be divorced from a student’s life as he continuously interacts with the society and people from all walks of life and moreover when voting age has been brought down to 18 years. Students also have a great deal of exposure to mediums like the press, television, cinema, etc. which are important agents of political expression. Political science is a vital part of the syllabi both at the school and college level. This underlines the role that politics plays in various stages of a person’s life. Hence, it is futile to shut out students from politics.

While he is not expected to remain passive in the face of criminalization of politics, dismantling of democratic organizations, corruption, communalism and casteism, he should not indulge in communal or casteist politics, or give into the unjust directions of such party leaders.

The question has always been open to criticism whether students should be kept at arms length from politics or they should be allowed to take an active part in politics. In this age of political advancement and awakening, the students’ life in itself has been a politics for the last many years.

Moreover, every young man has some inspirations and some sentiments. These inspirations and sentiments can only be given a practical shape if they are allowed to enter politics. The question that remains unsettled is the shape and kind of politics.

The students must be allowed to understand their problems and they should have a full say in making those prob­lems solved in the right way. If they are debarred from doing so, it would mean nipping in bud the political awakening that is natural in every heart.
Students and youth are the backbone of the society and if they are not brought up properly, the future of the society will be darkened.

Modern critics who are of opinion that students should be kept away from politics forget that our society within organic concepts can only advance. The students are also a part of our society that is our body. Any organ of the body which is undeveloped makes the body cripple and infirm.
Thus we can assume that for the betterment of the society, of the welfare of the student community, for the prosperity of the country and for ever lasting peace and amity in society, the students should be allowed to have their say in all matters, which concern them.

The students are the future leaders of our country. If during their college days, the students do not learn the intricacies of politics, they would fail to become astute politicians in their future lives. They further argue that education would be incomplete without a good dose of politics.

History is replete with examples of students students playing a vital role in overthrowing corrupt dictatorial regimes, freeing their people from foreign yoke and launching relentless crusades against social injustice and exploitation. Majority of the great leaders entered politics during their student life. Therefore, political education or training during student life is important for success in life. Many students’ organizations were big and powerful. Their clout is so great that they could even go against the decision of the governments. Where others fail, they succeed easily. The power of the youth is a mighty river, waiting to be channelized. The politics of a particular system determines whether this happens in a constructive or destructive manner.
 

Tamil Nadu is known for Language struggles opposing the imposition of Hindi.

The Anti-Hindi agitation of 1965 are a series of agitations that happened in Tamil Nadu (formerly Madras State) in 1965. The agitations involved several mass protests, riots, student and political movements in Tamil Nadu, and concerned the official status of Hindi in the state and in the Indian Republic.

Adoption of an official language for the Indian Republic was a hotly debated issue during the framing of the Indian Constitution after India’s independence from Britain. After an exhaustive and divisive debate, Hindi was adopted as the official language of India with English continuing as an associate official language for a period of fifteen years, after which Hindi would become the sole official language. The new Constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. Efforts by the Indian Government to make Hindi the sole official language after 1965 were not acceptable to many non-Hindi Indian states, who wanted the continued use of English. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led the opposition to Hindi. To allay the fears of the opposition, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru enacted the Official Languages Act in 1963 to ensure the continuing use of English beyond 1965. The text of the Act did not satisfy the DMK and increased their skepticism that his assurances might not be honoured by future administrations.

As the day (26 January 1965) of switching over to Hindi as sole official language approached, the anti-Hindi movement gained momentum in Madras State with increased support from college students. On 25 January, a full-scale riot broke out in the southern city of Madurai, sparked off by a minor altercation between agitating students and ruling party members. The riots spread all over Madras State, continued unabated for the next two months, and were marked by acts of violence, arson, looting, police firing and lathi charges. The Congress Government of the Madras State, called in paramilitary forces to quell the agitation; their involvement resulted in the deaths of about seventy persons (by official estimates) including two police men. To calm the situation, the then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri gave assurances that English would continue to be used as the official language as long the non-Hindi speaking states wanted. The riots subsided after Shastri’s assurance, as did the student agitation.

The agitations of 1965 led to major political changes in the state. The DMK won the 1967 Assembly election and the Congress Party never managed to recapture power in the state since then. The Official Languages Act was eventually amended in 1967 by the Congress Government headed by Indira Gandhi to guarantee the indefinite use of Hindi and English as official languages. This effectively ensured the current “virtual indefinite policy of bilingualism” of the Indian Republic.

India has hundreds of languages. According to the Census of 2001, there are 1,635 rationalized mother tongues and 122 languages with more than 10,000 speakers. During the British Raj, English was the official language. When the Indian Independence Movement gained momentum in the early part of the 20th Century, efforts were undertaken to make Hindustani as a common language “to unite various linguistic groups against the British Government.” As early as 1918, Mahatma Gandhi established the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Institution for the Propagation of Hindi in South India). In 1925, the Indian National Congress switched to Hindustani from English for conducting its proceedings. Both Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were supporters of Hindustani and Congress wanted to propagate the learning of Hindustani in non-Hindi speaking Provinces of India. The idea of making Hindustani or Hindi the common language, was not acceptable to Thanthai Periyar, who viewed it as an attempt to make Tamils subordinate to North Indians.

The Indian Constituent Assembly was established on 9 December 1946, for drafting a Constitution when India became independent. The Constituent Assembly witnessed fierce debates on the language issue. The adoption of a “National Language”, the language in which the constitution was to be written in and the language in which the proceedings of the Assembly were to be conducted were the main linguistic questions debated by the framers of the Constitution. On one side were the members from the Hindi speaking provinces like Algu Rai Sastri, R.V. Dhulekar, Balkrishna Sharma, Purushottam Das Tandon, (all from United Provinces), Babunath Gupta (Bihar), Hari Vinayak Pataskar (Bombay) and Seth Govind Das (Central Provinces and Berar). They moved a large number of pro-Hindi amendments and argued for adopting Hindi as the sole National Language. On 10 December 1946, Dhulekar declared “People who do not know Hindustani have no right to stay in India. People who are present in the House to fashion a constitution for India and do not know Hindustani are not worthy to be members of this assembly. They had better leave.”

The pro-Hindi block was further divided into two camps: 1) the Hindi faction comprising Tandon, Govind Das, Sampurnanand, Ravishankar Shukla and K. M. Munshi and 2) the Hindustani faction represented by Jawaharlal Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad. The adoption of Hindi as the national language was opposed by members from South India like T.T. Krishnamachari, G. Durgabai, T. A. Ramalingam Chettiar, N. G. Ranga, N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar (all belonging to Madras) and S. V. Krishnamurthy Rao (Mysore). This anti-Hindi block favoured retaining English as official language. Their views were reflected in the following pronouncement of Krishnamachari:

    We disliked the English language in the past. I disliked it because I was forced to learn Shakespeare and Milton, for which I had no taste at all. If we are going to be compelled to learn Hindi, I would perhaps not be able to learn it because of my age, and perhaps I would not be willing to do it because of the amount of constraint you put on me. This kind of intolerance makes us fear that the strong Centre which we need, a strong Centre which is necessary will also mean the enslavement of people who do not speak the language at the centre. I would, Sir, convey a warning on behalf of people of the South for the reason that there are already elements in South India who want separation..., and my honourable friends in U.P. do not help us in any way by flogging their idea of “Hindi Imperialism” to the maximum extent possible. So, it is up to my friends in Uttar Pradesh to have a whole India; it is up to them to have a Hindi-India. The choice is theirs.”

After three years of debate, the assembly arrived at a compromise at the end of 1949. It was called the Munshi-Ayyangar formula (after K.M. Munshi and Gopalaswamy Ayyangar) and it struck a balance between the demands of all groups. Part XVII of the Indian Constitution was drafted according to this compromise. It did not have any mention of a “National Language”. Instead, it defined only the “Official Languages” of the Union:

Hindi in Devanagari script would be the official language of the Indian Union. For fifteen years, English would also be used for all official purposes (Article 343). A language commission could be convened after five years to recommend ways to promote Hindi as the sole official language and to phase out the use of English (Article 344). Official communication between states and between states and the Union would be in the official language of the union (Article 345).English would be used for all legal purposes - in court proceedings, bills, laws, rules and other regulations (Article 348).The Union was duty bound to promote the spread and usage of Hindi (Article 351).

India became independent on 15 August 1947 and the Constitution was adopted on 26 January 1950.

The adoption of English as official language along with Hindi was heavily criticized by pro-Hindi politicians like Jana Sangh’s founder Syama Prasad Mukerjee, who demanded that Hindi should be made National language. Soon after the Constitution was adopted on 26 January 1950, efforts were made to propagate Hindi for official usage. In 1952, the Ministry of Education launched a voluntary Hindi teaching scheme. On 27 May 1952, use of Hindi was introduced in warrants for judicial appointments. In 1955, in-house Hindi training was started for all ministries and departments of the central government. On 3 December 1955, the government started using Hindi (along with English) for “specific purposes of the Union”

As provided for by Article 343, Nehru appointed the First Official Language Commission under the chairmanship of B. G. Kher on 7 June 1955. The commission delivered its report on 31 July 1956. It recommended a number of steps to eventually replace English with Hindi (The report had dissenting notes from two non-Hindi members - P. Subbarayan from Madras State and Suniti Kumar Chatterji from West Bengal. The Parliamentary Committee on Official Language, chaired by Govind Ballabh Pant was constituted in September 1957 to review the Kher commission report. After two years of deliberations, the Pant Committee submitted its recommendations to the President on 8 February 1959. It recommended that Hindi should be made the primary official language with English as the subsidiary one. The Kher Commission and the Pant Committee recommendations were condemned and opposed by non Hindi politicians like Suniti Kumar Chatterji, Frank Anthony and P. Subbarayan. The Academy of Telugu opposed the switch from English to Hindi in a convention held in 1956. Rajaji, once a staunch supporter of Hindi, organised an All India Language Conference (attended by representatives of Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, Assamese, Oriya, Marathi, Kannada and Bengali languages) on 8 March 1958 to oppose the switch and declared “Hindi is as much foreign to non-Hindi speaking people as English is to the protagonists of Hindi.”

As the opposition to Hindi grew stronger, Nehru tried to reassure the concerns of non-Hindi speakers. Speaking in the parliamentary debate on a bill introduced by Anthony to include English in the Eighth Schedule, Nehru gave an assurance to them (on 7 August 1959):

“I believe also two things. As I just said, there must be no imposition. Secondly, for an indefinite period - I do not know how long - I should have, I would have English as an associate, additional language which can be used not because of facilities and all that... but because I do not wish the people of Non-Hindi areas to feel that certain doors of advance are closed to them because they are forced to correspond with the Government, I mean - in the Hindi language. They can correspond in English. So I could have it as an alternate language as long as people require it and the decision for that - I would leave not to the Hindi-knowing people, but to the non Hindi-knowing people.

This assurance momentarily allayed the fears of the South Indians. But the Hindi proponents were dismayed and Pant remarked “Whatever I achieved in two years, the prime minister destroyed in less than two minutes”.

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) which broke away from the Dravidar Kazhagam in 1949, inherited the anti-Hindi policies of its parent - Dravidar Kazhagam. DMK’s founder Anna had earlier participated in the anti-Hindi agitations during 1938-40 and in the 1940s. In July 1953, the DMK launched an agitation for changing the name of a town - Dalmiapuram - to Kallakudi. They claimed that the town’s name (after Ramkrishna Dalmia) symbolised the exploitation of South India by the North. On 15 July 1953, Kalaignar M.Karunanidhi (later Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu) and other DMK members erased the Hindi name in Dalmiapuram railway station’s name board and lay down on the tracks. In the altercation with the Police that followed the protests, two DMK members lost their lives and several others including Kalaignar were arrested.

In the 1950s DMK continued its anti-Hindi policies. On 28 January 1956, Anna along with Periyar and Rajaji signed a resolution passed by the Academy of Tamil Culture endorsing the continuation of English as the official language. On 21 September 1957 the DMK convened an anti-Hindi Conference to protest against the imposition of Hindi. It observed 13 October 1957 as “anti-Hindi Day”. On 31 July 1960, another open air anti-Hindi conference was held at Kodambakkam, Madras. But the anti-Hindi stance remained and hardened with the passage of Official Languages Act of 1963. The DMK’s view on Hindi’s qualifications for official language status were reflected in Anna’s response to the “numerical superiority of Hindi” argument: “If we had to accept the principle of numerical superiority while selecting our national bird, the choice would have fallen not on the peacock but on the common crow.”

As the deadline stipulated in Part XVII of the Constitution for switching to Hindi as primary official language approached, the central government stepped up its efforts to spread Hindi’s official usage. In 1960, compulsory training for Hindi typing and stenography was started. The same year, the then President Rajendra Prasad acted on the Pant Committee’s recommendations and issued orders for preparation of Hindi glossaries, translating procedural literature and legal codes to Hindi, imparting Hindi education to government employees and other efforts for propagating Hindi.

To give legal status to Nehru’s assurance of 1959, the Official Languages Act was passed in 1963.
In Nehru’s own words:

“This is a Bill, in continuation of what has happened in the past, to remove a restriction which had been placed by the Constitution on the use of English after a certain date i.e. 1965. It is just to remove that restriction that this is placed.”

The Bill was introduced in Parliament on 21 January 1963. Opposition to the Bill came from DMK members who objected to the usage of the word “may” instead of “shall” in section 3 of the Bill. That section read: “the English language may...continue to be used in addition to Hindi”. The DMK argued that the term “may” could be interpreted as “may not” by future administrations. They feared that minority opinion will not be considered and non Hindi speakers’ views would be ignored. On 22 April, Nehru assured the parliamentarians that, for that particular case “may” had the same meaning as “shall”. The DMK then demanded, if that was the case why “shall” was not used instead of “may”. Leading the opposition to the Bill was Annadurai (then a Member of the Rajya Sabha). He pleaded for an indefinite continuation of the status quo and argued that continued use of English as official language would “distribute advantages or disadvantages evenly” among Hindi and non-Hindi speakers. The Bill was passed on 27 April without any change in the wording. As he had warned earlier, Annadurai launched state wide protests against Hindi. In November 1963, Annadurai was arrested along with 500 DMK members for burning part XVII of the Constitution at an anti-Hindi Conference. He was sentenced to six months in prison. On 25 January 1964, a DMK member - Chinnasamy committed suicide at Trichy by self immolation, to protest the “imposition of Hindi”. He was claimed as the first “language martyr” of the second round of the anti-Hindi struggle by the DMK.

Nehru died in May 1964 and Lal Bahadur Shastri became Prime Minister of India. Shastri and his senior cabinet members Morarji Desai and Gulzari Lal Nanda were strong supporters of Hindi being the sole official language. This increased the apprehension that Nehru’s assurances of 1959 and 1963 will not be kept despite Shastri’s assurances to the contrary. Concerns over the preference of Hindi in central government Jobs, civil service examinations and the fear that English will be replaced with Hindi as medium of instruction brought students into the anti-Hindi Agitation camp in large numbers. On 7 March 1964, the the Chief Minister of Madras State, M. Bhaktavatsalam at a session of the Madras Legislative Assembly recommended the introduction of Three-language formula (English, Hindi and Tamil) in the state. Apprehension over the Three-language formula increased student support for the anti-Hindi cause.

As January 26, 1965 approached, the anti-Hindi agitation in Madras State grew in numbers and urgency. The Tamil Nadu Students Anti Hindi Agitation Council was formed in January as an umbrella student organisation to coordinate the anti-Hindi efforts. The office bearers of the council were student union leaders from all over Madras State, many of whom later became ministers and political functionaries. Explaining the anxiety of the students, The Indian Express noted in its editorial on 6 February 1965:

“It was inevitable that the Madras students should have taken the lead in opposing the elevation of Hindi. After all a decision whether Hindi or English is to be the official language of the country affects them much more than any other section of the population. It is the students of the South who stand to lose most, when Hindi alone becomes the official language.”

Several student conferences (sponsored by industrialists like G. D. Naidu and Karumuthu Thiagarajan Chettiar) were organised throughout the state to protest against Hindi imposition. On 17 January, the Madras State Anti-Hindi Conference was convened in Trichy. Participants included Rajaji (Swatantara Party), V. R. Nedunchezhiyan (DMK), P. T. Rajan (Justice Party), G. D. Naidu, Karumuthu Thyagaraja Chettiar, S. B. Adithan (We Tamils Party), Muhammad Ismail (Muslim League) and 700 other delegates from Madras, Maharashtra, Kerala and Mysore. They called for the indefinite suspension of Part XVII of the constitution. In the Conference Rajaji declared that the Part XVII should “be heaved and thrown into the Arabian Sea.” The Home and Information & Broadcasting ministries of the central government (headed by Gulzarilal Nanda and Indira Gandhi respectively) upped the ante and issued circulars for replacing English with Hindi from 26 January. On 16 January, Anna announced that 26 January (also the Republic Day of India) would be observed as a day of mourning. He wrote to Shastri asking for the language transition to be postponed by a week so that Tamils could celebrate Republic Day with the rest of the country. Shastri refused and the stage was set for the confrontation.
 

Madras State’s Chief Minister Bhaktavatsalam warned that the state government would not tolerate the sanctity of the Republic day blasphemed and threatened the students with “stern action” if they participated in politics. The DMK advanced the “Day of Mourning” by a day. On 25 January, Anna was taken into preventive custody along with 3000 DMK members to forestall the agitations planned for the next day. On 26 January, 50,000 students from Madras city’s colleges marched from Napier park to the Government secretariat at Fort St. George to present a petition to Bhaktavatsalam. But he refused to meet the students saying “Why should I see the students?” The students viewed his refusal as an insult and were further enraged.

In the morning of 25 January, students in Madurai took out a procession toward the Thilagar thidal  at the centre of the city. Their intention was to stage a public burning of Part XVII of the constitution. They burned a huge effigy of “Hindi Demoness” and shouted slogans against Hindi like “Down with Hindi” and “Hindi Never, English Ever”. As the procession approached the Congress Party district office at North Masi Street, some Congress “volunteers” who had arrived in a Jeep shouted insults and obscenities at the students. A volley of sandals from the students returned the insult. The provoked Congress volunteers, who ran back into the Party’s office, returned with knives and attacked students, wounding seven. As the riot broke out, students set fire to the pandal in the Congress office, constructed for the Republic day celebrations. When news of the attack spread riots broke out in Madurai and other parts of the State. In retaliation for the attack, students cut down flag poles of the Congress party all over Madurai.
 

As the riots spread, police responded with lathi charges and firing on student processions. This further inflamed the situation. Acts of arson, looting and damage to public property became common. Railway cars and Hindi name boards at railway stations were burned down; telegraph poles were cut and railway tracks displaced. The Bhaktavatsalam Government considered the situation as a law and order problem and brought in para military forces to quell the agitation. Incensed by police action, violent mobs killed two police men. Five agitators (Sivalingam, Aranganathan, Veerappan, Muthu, and Sarangapani) committed suicide by pouring gasoline and setting themselves on fire and three more (Dandapani, Muthu, and Shanmugam) died by consuming poison. (a sixth suicide by self immolatation - by Sarangapani of Mayavaram occurred two weeks later). In two weeks of riots, around 70 people were killed (by official estimates). Some unofficial reports put the death toll as high as 500. A large number of students were arrested. The damage to property was assessed as one crore Rupees.
 

On 28 January, classes in Madras University, Annamalai University and other colleges and schools in the state were suspended indefinitely. Within the Congress, opinion was divided - On 31 January, a group of Congress leaders including Mysore Chief minister S.Nijalingappa, Bengal Congress leader Atulya Ghosh, Union Minister Sanjeeva Reddy and Congress president K. Kamaraj met in Bangalore and issued an appeal not to force Hindi on non-Hindi speaking areas as they believed it might endanger the unity of the country. Morarji Desai refused their demands regretting that Hindi was not made official before the anti-Hindi protests crystallized. He said Congress leaders in Madras should convince people there and no regional sentiments should come in the move to forge the integration of the country. Union Home Minister Gulzari Lal Nanda agreed with Bhaktavatsalam’s handling of the agitation and commended him for standing “hard as a rock”.
 

Rioting continued throughout the first week of February. On February 6, student representatives met Bhaktavatsalam to find a compromise. But the talks failed and violence continued unabated. Processions, fasts, general strikes, burning of Hindi books, destruction of Hindi name boards, agitations in front of Post offices became commonplace. By the second week of February the students had lost control of protests. Anna (who had been released on 1 February) condemned the violence and asked the students to suspend the movement. But violence continued unabated. Efforts were made by both sides to find a compromise - Indira Gandhi visited Madras to try and reconcile the situation, while Bhaktavatsalam toned down his stance and started advocating “permanent bilingualism”. In a Union cabinet meeting on 11 February, C. Subramaniam, the Minister for Food, demanded statutory recognition for English as official Language. When he was voted down, he resigned along with another minister from Madras State (O. V. Alagesan).
 

Faced with open revolt in his cabinet, Shastri remained unfazed. He recommended the acceptance of their resignations to the Indian president Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. Radhakrishnan refused his recommendations by saying “Do you want to lose Tamil Nadu from India?. If not, kindly take back your recommendation”. Shastri backed down and made a broadcast through All India Radio on February 11. Expressing shock over the riots, he promised to honour Nehru’s assurances. Further he made four assurances on his own:
Every state will have complete and unfettered freedom to continue to transact its own business in the language of its own choice, which may be the regional language or English. Communications between one State to another will either be in English or will be accompanied by authentic English translation. The non-Hindi states will be free to correspond with the Central Government in English and no change will be made in this arrangement without the consent of the non-Hindi States. In the transaction of business at the Central level, English will continue to be used.
 

Later he added a fifth assurance: The All India Civil Services examination would continue to be conducted in English rather than in Hindi alone.
 

Shastri’s assurances calmed down the volatile situation. On 12 February, the students council postponed the agitation indefinitely and on 16 February, C. Subramaniam and O. V. Alagesan withdrew their resignations. Sporadic acts of protests and violence continued to happen throughout February and early March. On 7 March, the administration withdrew all the cases filed against the student leaders and on 14 March, the Anti-Hindi Agitation Council dropped the agitation. Shastri’s climbdown angered the pro-Hindi activists in North India. Members of Jan Sangh went about the streets of New Delhi, blackening out English signs with tar.
 

After dropping the agitation in March 1965, the Tamil Nadu Students Anti-Hindi Agitation council continued to push for the scrapping of the Three Language formula and for a constitutional amendment to drop part XVII. On 11 May, a three-person delegation of the student council met with Prime minister Shastri to press their demands. The anti-Hindi agitation slowly changed into a general anti-Congress organisation with the goal of defeating the congress in the 1967 election. On 20 February 1966, the first statewide conference of the council was held. It was attended by Rajaji, who asked the students to work toward defeating the Congress. In the 1967 elections, student leader P. Seenivasan contested against Kamarajar in the Virudunagar constituency. A large number of students from all over the state campaigned for him and ensured his victory: the Congress party was defeated and DMK came to power for the first time in Madras State.
 

After losing the 1967 elections Congress Party never managed to recapture power in the state. The agitations also ensured the passage of Official Languages Act of 1963 and its amendment in 1967, thus ensuring the continued use of English as an official language of India. They effectively brought about the “virtual indefinite policy of bilingualism” of the Indian Republic. Such was the significant and most important role of students and youth in bringing about this decisive change.
 

And this tradition of the youth and students of Tamil Nadu, that the DMK Treasurer Thalapathi M.K.Stalin is invoking in his speeches to the aspirants for positions in the Party’s Youth Wing in districts. His impassioned appeal for restoring the ideal and spirit of those days among the youth and students of the day. That is the time-tested channelisation of the power of the youth in a laudable and constructive manner!