Was the dravidian movement a result of the British Divide and Rule policy?

Rishi wrote:KV,

Do you use another handle here on SUCH?

Rishi wrote:KV,

Do you use another handle here on SUCH?

Kayalvizhi wrote:

Rishi wrote:KV,

Do you use another handle here on SUCH?

 no

The chain of events, leading to the 15th Republic Day of India being burdened with a significance that extended well beyond the idea of national pride and extending to include the ghastly violence that occurred subsequently, can be traced back to 1937. The first anti-Hindi agitation took place that year, in response to the introduction of Hindi as a compulsory subject in the schools of the Madras Presidency by the first Indian National Congress government led by C. Rajagopalachari.

The move to make Hindi compulsory was later withdrawn by Lord Erskine, the Governor of Madras, in February 1940, a development that was sparked off by resignation of the Congress Government in October 1939 protesting the involvement of India in World War II.

Rashmun wrote:Reading this article made me aware of the fact that hindi imposition in Tamil Nadu started during british days. Made me wonder whether the basis of the dravidian movement was a result of the british policy of divide and rule.

http://srirammohan.tumblr.com/post/40256093490/the-memories-of-a-spark

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Reading this article made me aware of the fact that hindi imposition in Tamil Nadu started during british days. Made me wonder whether the basis of the dravidian movement was a result of the british policy of divide and rule.

http://srirammohan.tumblr.com/post/40256093490/the-memories-of-a-spark

the answer to

>>>I didn't read the article, but I don't believe that is the case, even in a behind-the -scenes kind of way. Any 'divide and rule' strategies had already paid off and the brits were firmly in the driver's seat way before this. The politicization of the language issue evolved strictly out of local circumstances.

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Reading this article made me aware of the fact that hindi imposition in Tamil Nadu started during british days. Made me wonder whether the basis of the dravidian movement was a result of the british policy of divide and rule.

http://srirammohan.tumblr.com/post/40256093490/the-memories-of-a-spark

the answer to

>>>I didn't read the article, but I don't believe that is the case, even in a behind-the -scenes kind of way. Any 'divide and rule' strategies had already paid off and the brits were firmly in the driver's seat way before this. The politicization of the language issue evolved strictly out of local circumstances.

What do you think of the following?

DRAVIDA

Dravida itself was derived from Sanskrit.A Sanskrit scholar Kumarila had used the term “Dravidabhasa” (Dravidian languages) in 8th century AD to denote the Tamil and Telugu languages.The term Dravida was used in Sanskrit literature to describe the lands south of the Vindyas (South India) and inhabitants.

Caldwell’s revival of the term was in reference to the principal languages of South India-Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada and Tulu.They were considered as “springing from a common origin and as forming a distinct family of tongues”.

This term was most suitable for the emerging non –Brahmin , South Indian elite to identify themselves. A movement for social reform was formed as Madras Dravidian Association (Different to DK) in 1912. This opened the floodgates. Several “Dravidian associations” followed in its wake illustrating the yearning and despair among non-Brahmin communities for progress and emancipation.

The growing Dravidian consciousness saw some respected Non-Brahmins form an association called South Indian Peoples Association as an advocacy group.This in turn formed a political party called South Indian Liberal Federation. Membership was open to all non-Brahmins.

An English newspaper “Justice” was started. Eventually this led to the organization being known as the Justice party. The nationalist Congress party was leading the struggle for Independence from the British.Many of the Congress leaders were educated Brahmins.

The Justice party on the other hand did not want independence from the British until social justice prevailed. In other words the Justice party wanted independence to be delayed until social reform displaced Brahmin dominance. It depicted the Congress as a Brahmin party.

JUSTICE

As a result the Justice party participated in the limited governance provided by the British and ran several administrations in the Madras province from 1921.This co-operation has stigmatized the Justice party as collaborators of colonialism.

Gradually it became obvious that the non-Tamil linguistic groups were becoming less enamoured of “Dravidian nationalism”. Comparatively the Tamil speaking non-Brahmin elite was better off than others. This led to some heartburn and non-Tamil associations were formed to promote non-Tamil interests.

The Tamils were also at the forefront of Dravidianism as their language was the oldest and most developed of the Dravidian languages. Some regarded the other Dravidian languages as being derived from Tamil. Sundarampillai sang of them as “children” from the Tamil mothers “womb.” This also caused resentment.

More importantly this led to a situation where the non-Tamil groups began moving away from the Dravidian consciousness. Dravidian was now being seen as co-terminous with Tamil. Thus the non-Tamils were reluctant to be identified as Dravidians though Scholars accepted the Dravidian linguistic label.

http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1076

Kris wrote:. i the

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Reading this article made me aware of the fact that hindi imposition in Tamil Nadu started during british days. Made me wonder whether the basis of the dravidian movement was a result of the british policy of divide and rule.

http://srirammohan.tumblr.com/post/40256093490/the-memories-of-a-spark

the answer to

>>>I didn't read the article, but I don't believe that is the case, even in a behind-the -scenes kind of way. Any 'divide and rule' strategies had already paid off and the brits were firmly in the driver's seat way before this. The politicization of the language issue evolved strictly out of local circumstances.

What do you think of the following?

DRAVIDA

Dravida itself was derived from Sanskrit.A Sanskrit scholar Kumarila had used the term “Dravidabhasa” (Dravidian languages) in 8th century AD to denote the Tamil and Telugu languages.The term Dravida was used in Sanskrit literature to describe the lands south of the Vindyas (South India) and inhabitants.

Caldwell’s revival of the term was in reference to the principal languages of South India-Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada and Tulu.They were considered as “springing from a common origin and as forming a distinct family of tongues”.

This term was most suitable for the emerging non –Brahmin , South Indian elite to identify themselves. A movement for social reform was formed as Madras Dravidian Association (Different to DK) in 1912. This opened the floodgates. Several “Dravidian associations” followed in its wake illustrating the yearning and despair among non-Brahmin communities for progress and emancipation.

The growing Dravidian consciousness saw some respected Non-Brahmins form an association called South Indian Peoples Association as an advocacy group.This in turn formed a political party called South Indian Liberal Federation. Membership was open to all non-Brahmins.

An English newspaper “Justice” was started. Eventually this led to the organization being known as the Justice party. The nationalist Congress party was leading the struggle for Independence from the British.Many of the Congress leaders were educated Brahmins.

The Justice party on the other hand did not want independence from the British until social justice prevailed. In other words the Justice party wanted independence to be delayed until social reform displaced Brahmin dominance. It depicted the Congress as a Brahmin party.

JUSTICE

As a result the Justice party participated in the limited governance provided by the British and ran several administrations in the Madras province from 1921.This co-operation has stigmatized the Justice party as collaborators of colonialism.

Gradually it became obvious that the non-Tamil linguistic groups were becoming less enamoured of “Dravidian nationalism”. Comparatively the Tamil speaking non-Brahmin elite was better off than others. This led to some heartburn and non-Tamil associations were formed to promote non-Tamil interests.

The Tamils were also at the forefront of Dravidianism as their language was the oldest and most developed of the Dravidian languages. Some regarded the other Dravidian languages as being derived from Tamil. Sundarampillai sang of them as “children” from the Tamil mothers “womb.” This also caused resentment.

More importantly this led to a situation where the non-Tamil groups began moving away from the Dravidian consciousness. Dravidian was now being seen as co-terminous with Tamil. Thus the non-Tamils were reluctant to be identified as Dravidians though Scholars accepted the Dravidian linguistic label.

http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1076

>>>I read through it rather quickly and may have missed something. I am sure there were caste and linguistic political movements that evolved, but the brits happened  to be in power and the politics got intertwined with the power structure issues. However, they were not the pirme movers in these  developments.

Kayalvizhi wrote:<<  allowed the Justice Party (which claimed to represent the dravidian movement) to form several administrations in Madras province

Justice Party won the election

Kayalvizhi wrote:do you have proof election was riged? stop the nonsense. then won the election.

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:. i the

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Reading this article made me aware of the fact that hindi imposition in Tamil Nadu started during british days. Made me wonder whether the basis of the dravidian movement was a result of the british policy of divide and rule.

http://srirammohan.tumblr.com/post/40256093490/the-memories-of-a-spark

the answer to

>>>I didn't read the article, but I don't believe that is the case, even in a behind-the -scenes kind of way. Any 'divide and rule' strategies had already paid off and the brits were firmly in the driver's seat way before this. The politicization of the language issue evolved strictly out of local circumstances.

What do you think of the following?

DRAVIDA

Dravida itself was derived from Sanskrit.A Sanskrit scholar Kumarila had used the term “Dravidabhasa” (Dravidian languages) in 8th century AD to denote the Tamil and Telugu languages.The term Dravida was used in Sanskrit literature to describe the lands south of the Vindyas (South India) and inhabitants.

Caldwell’s revival of the term was in reference to the principal languages of South India-Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada and Tulu.They were considered as “springing from a common origin and as forming a distinct family of tongues”.

This term was most suitable for the emerging non –Brahmin , South Indian elite to identify themselves. A movement for social reform was formed as Madras Dravidian Association (Different to DK) in 1912. This opened the floodgates. Several “Dravidian associations” followed in its wake illustrating the yearning and despair among non-Brahmin communities for progress and emancipation.

The growing Dravidian consciousness saw some respected Non-Brahmins form an association called South Indian Peoples Association as an advocacy group.This in turn formed a political party called South Indian Liberal Federation. Membership was open to all non-Brahmins.

An English newspaper “Justice” was started. Eventually this led to the organization being known as the Justice party. The nationalist Congress party was leading the struggle for Independence from the British.Many of the Congress leaders were educated Brahmins.

The Justice party on the other hand did not want independence from the British until social justice prevailed. In other words the Justice party wanted independence to be delayed until social reform displaced Brahmin dominance. It depicted the Congress as a Brahmin party.

JUSTICE

As a result the Justice party participated in the limited governance provided by the British and ran several administrations in the Madras province from 1921.This co-operation has stigmatized the Justice party as collaborators of colonialism.

Gradually it became obvious that the non-Tamil linguistic groups were becoming less enamoured of “Dravidian nationalism”. Comparatively the Tamil speaking non-Brahmin elite was better off than others. This led to some heartburn and non-Tamil associations were formed to promote non-Tamil interests.

The Tamils were also at the forefront of Dravidianism as their language was the oldest and most developed of the Dravidian languages. Some regarded the other Dravidian languages as being derived from Tamil. Sundarampillai sang of them as “children” from the Tamil mothers “womb.” This also caused resentment.

More importantly this led to a situation where the non-Tamil groups began moving away from the Dravidian consciousness. Dravidian was now being seen as co-terminous with Tamil. Thus the non-Tamils were reluctant to be identified as Dravidians though Scholars accepted the Dravidian linguistic label.

http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1076

>>>I read through it rather quickly and may have missed something. I am sure there were caste and linguistic political movements that evolved, but the brits happened  to be in power and the politics got intertwined with the power structure issues. However, they were not the pirme movers in these  developments.

The fact that the british allowed the Justice Party (which claimed to represent the dravidian movement) to form several administrations in Madras province (and the Justice Party in turn declared they were not for immediate independence) seems to suggest that these guys were british puppets.