Karunanidhi infused democracy, created awareness on state's rights, federalism

By D. Ravikumar 

During M. K. Stalin’s recent ‘Cauvery walk’ we visited his father Kalaignar’s ancestral home in Thirukkuvalai, near Tiruvarur. One look at his house and its surroundings, I was left wondering how such a big leader like Karunanidhi could have emerged from such a remote and backward village. 

Tiruvarur has been a very backward district with high poverty ratio and little development. Only now a central university has come up here. Geography determines a person’s life more than history and that is why there is hardly any opportunity for students from rural areas, even if there is talent to make a mark. The rural-urban divide is sharp even now. 

Fidel Castro used to say “history will absolve me”. In a country like ours, we are not sure whether geography will absolve us even if history does. Imagine how Thirukkuvalai must have been 100 years ago if it is so backward even today. That a person from such a village could determine the destiny of Tamil Nadu for nearly 50 years is itself a major achievement. Karunanidhi’s success is that something emerged out of this milieu, despite its desolate geography. 

Secondly, he has been the president of the DMK for 50 years. In Indian democracy, any elected government can be democratic only to the extent the parties in the electoral system are democratic. If power goes to a political party that is undemocratic, we cannot expect to have democratic governance.

Read: DMK chief Karunanidhi passes away at 94 in Chennai

The AIADMK has been an authoritarian party almost from the beginning, whether it was headed by MGR or Jayalalithaa. There were no norms for changing functionaries in the party and in the ministry; the ‘boss’ decided it all. 

So, this authoritarian streak was reflected in their governance also. In the garb of populism, they (AIADMK) gave only an authoritarian rule in Tamil Nadu. The roots of it were in the authoritarian structure of the party itself. They would try to run the government as they ran the party. Even bureaucrats were treated like party district secretaries who could be changed at will. 

From that standpoint, if you make a comparative study, Kalaignar’s second biggest achievement in these last 50 years is to run the DMK in a democratic manner. There is still inner party democracy in the DMK where elections are held for party posts. 

On several occasions, people whom Karunanidhi did not like have become district secretaries. They can contest in the internal party elections and occupy such positions. This is the case with influential ministers at the district level where candidates opposed to the choice of the local minister could win party positions through election. 

Read: Karunanidhi, DMK’s captain of 50 years returns to pavilion

Such a democratic practice has been there only in the DMK in Tamil Nadu. I wonder, whether even the Left parties have this level of inner party democracy. 

The relationship between the leader and the cadres is another aspect. Personality cult has been the bane of all major parties in India. They strictly maintain the hierarchy. The personality cult made the relationship between the leader and the cadre as one of deity-devotee. But as far as Karunanidhi was concerned, whether it was a district secretary or any other office bearer, they could even joke with him while in conversation. You can’t find this in any other leader today in India. 

Karunanidhi would also share a joke with his party men. He would listen to the opinion of party member, even if he was a first time MLA. Though Karunanidhi was himself a strong and charismatic leader, he never spoke down to his cadres and moved with them as an equal. This is his third most important achievement.

Karunanidhi was also a multi-faceted, talented personality among the political leaders of the country. He was a school dropout and yet he was well-versed with Tamil classical literature which even today’s Tamil professors may not be knowing. 

He has written commentaries for classical texts like ‘Tirukkural’. He had good knowledge and scholarship in all forms of Tamil literature from classical to modern times. This is a very important facet of the man for any political leader in Tamil Nadu today.

Kalaignar had a connect with the long tradition of Tamil culture. His government took steps to propagate ideals of Thiruvalluvar, as much as hold ‘Indra Vizha’ at Poompuhar to commemorate the Tamil epic ‘Silapathikaram’. 

All this was possible because of his deep understanding of Tamil culture which was also reflected in governance. His government celebrated Tamil scholars like Mu. Varadarasanar and Avvai Natarajan as Vice-Chancellors of universities, while Karunanidhi’s contribution to Tamil culture has even exceeded that of the Tamil scholars. 

He connected the power of the chief minister’s office creatively to enhance Tamil literature and culture. His contribution to Tamil is even greater than what a scholar like E. M. S. Namboodiripaad had done to Kerala’s culture when the latter was chief minister.

Karunanidhi’s perspective was so intertwined with political modernity that he could even use cinema creatively. His outlook as a rationalist also ensured he did not compromise with religious fundamental forces. He used to ask bold questions even when DMK was in alliance with the BJP. 

Next was his approach to the self-respect movement whose core idea was equality and social justice. He never cared for caste names. He tried to institutionalise the notion of equality through the establishment of ‘Samathuvapurams’ because of his deep commitment to that ideal as a rationalist. Even Mayawati, follower of Dr. Ambedkar, had become chief minister thrice but did little in bringing equality into governance.

Karunanidhi’s another very big achievement was in creating awareness about state’s rights and federalism at the national level which in turn should help strengthen the notion’s democratic framework.

(Writer is author, poet and general secretary of Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi)