Remembering Tall Leadership of C.N.Annadurai

Remembering Tall Leadership of C.N.Annadurai

B.Chandrasekaran, interested in Indian Economic History

During the period of last century, Tamil Nadu always had tall leaders with vision for the development of people and protecting the interests of the State. Notably C.Rajagopalachari, Periyar E.V.Ramasamy, K.Kamaraj, M.Bakthavatsalam, C.N.Annadurai, M.Karunanidhi, M.G.Ramachandran and J.Jayalalithaa have all played a pivotal role in the politics of Tamil Nadu. These leaders have also possessed remarkable assertiveness and played a catalytic role at national level to get the demands of the State from Central government.

For the first time, there is an unprecedented vacuum in today’s Tamil Nadu politics without strong leadership especially after the demise of both J.Jayalalithaa and M.Karunanidhi in 2016 and 2018 respectively. Their mentor C.N.Annadurai’s fiftieth death anniversary marks this year. Annadurai was passed away on 3^rd February, 1969 at a midst of most active in politics and leaving a remarkable political career. He was born on 15^th September, 1909 at a place called Kancheepuram near Chennai to a weaving family. He rose to a tall formidable stature. He was called Bernard Shaw of South. He had many hats, a prolific writer, orator, publisher, editor, etc.

Tamil Nadu is now not only a leaderless State but leaders without vision and caliber to attract masses. The leaders who are at the helm of the affairs are neither clean image nor dutiful to the masses who voted them into power. Indeed, it is ironic that today’s political leaders are fumbling with Central government for favours without strong political leadership skills to represent the concerns of the people and demand what is due from the Central government in constitutional provisions.

While C.N.Annadurai had groomed next level of leadership to take over from him, but his admires both M.Karunanidhi and J.Jayalalithaa carefully avoided grooming the next level of leadership. As a result, the ability of Edappadi K.Palaniswami and O.Panneerselvam is not only clueless but appears deep-rooted lethargic attitude in government machineries. Also, these leaders have no credibility of any kind except the benami gangs and their own baggage of corruption charges. But one thing is common for all of them which is the lack of an assertive political leadership and decisive in matters of importance of the State’s interest.

Therefore, there is a lot to learn from CN.Annadurai’s strong leadership and his vision for the State. Despite his differences with Rajaji and Kamaraj on many aspects, he always maintained high regards to both of them for their knowledge and clean image of simplicity with which they served for the state and country.

Annadurai clearly emerged as tall leader who was admired by masses after Rajaji and Kamarai to take over the political leadership of the State in 1969. Both Rajaji and Kamaraj worked with Mahatma Gandhi for freedom movements. But Annadurai worked with Periyar E.V.Ramasamy for social reforms and parted with his own vision. Unlike Rajaji, Kamaraj, and Periyar what distinguishes Annadurai was that he had a vision for his people and the State to work with it and strived relentlessly till his last day.

Reading original works of Annadurai reveals sadly a big gap between what he envisioned for his people and the State and the parties which ruled the last fifty years in ignoring greatly. His concern for poor people’s suffering is something which was not followed in letter and spirit for bettering after his demise.

He founded the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in 1949 with his supporters after parted from his political guru Periyar. Its myth that Annadurai followed Periyar’s crude methods of social reforms, he actually had his own approach as moderate with adjustable temperament. Anna disagreed and condemned his political guru Periyar's fanatics about the burning of Hindu God's photos in public places and using vulgar languages in public meetings against Hindu God. He also understood the pitfalls of extremist’s ideas and current underpinnings of the social norms which are centuries old which cannot be eradicated through electoral politics or iconoclasm approach.

According to P.C.Ganesan, who wrote a biography of C.N. Annadurai (1982) under the serious of ‘Makers of Modern India’ published by The Publications Division of Government of India, Annadurai was never an “atheist” (page 108). 

In an interview which has been mentioned in the Ganesan’s book, Annadurai himself had said that “I was always pleading for real faith in god. I mean by real faith, prayer to God through service and work which will be related to the generating of faith in society. I have always tried to see that our people do not lose faith in god. At the same time, I had been anxious that they do not become hypocritical in their life”. Ganesan worked with Annadurai who edited an English Weekly “Homeland”.

Annadurai admired Mahatma Gandhi for his simplicity and his vision for the country. Anna stood by Gandhi for the prohibition of liquor in Tamil Nadu throughout his life but M.Karunanidhi lifted the prohibition after his demise. Both Rajaji and Kamaraj pleaded to Karunanithi not to lift the prohibition but he did not agree on the ground of revenues. Similarly, M.G.Ramachandran who came to power after split from DMK by forming All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam also followed the same as Karunanithi. J. Jayalalithaa promised for total prohibition both in power and when not in power but gigantically failed by blaming the DMK!

Moreover, Annadurai strongly believed and stood by it throughout his political career that there should be a considerable distance between the political leader who is having a higher position in government and their family to serve the people impartially without nepotism and despotism. He also believed that there should be a considerable distance between the ruling party in government and the party affairs to serve equally, the concerns of all sections of people represented by different political parties.

Both DMK and AIADMK did not follow these aspects in the last fifty years of ruling Tamil Nadu. Indeed, there was no difference between the DMK’s past President M Karunanithi and his family. If DMK voted to power only Karunanithi would become Chief Minister and it was ruled out long back that he can only be the party Chief also. But Anna did not encourage the policy of one person having both CM and Party Chief.  The party and political power were enormously glowing with each other paving all kinds of nepotism. Anna’s true Dravidian principles were put into a vain soon after his death but carefully used for vote motives.

In the case of AIADMK, it was few families who did the same kinds of nepotism practiced by the DMK. The democratic values propounded by Annadaurai were in vain soon after his passing away in both the parties which also applies to all other parties in Tamil Nadu. This is not something which Annadurai could have expected from his trusted lieutenants. Tamil Nadu was once cherished with tall political leaders who adhered to political principles without expecting favours of any kind. Now, it is daunting quite dangerously that the mighty power and money become a rule book for entry into politics.  

The current Dravidian polity becomes a too tangled with either in Tamil language or the most paralyzed identity of Tamil culture. Both are deeply rooted with vested interests of the political establishments which invariably either polarize or bipolarize the vote banks. At times, it looks even too circumvention when both DMK and AIADMK followers paint with block colour on the names written in Hindi at national highways/railways/central government offices in Tamil Nadu. It’s ridiculous but that these parties have indoctrinated their cadre with chauvinism. It’s nothing but anti-national.

Ironically, the Dravidian parties which hate Hindi language but a large number of Hindi speaking labourers have been employed in industries run by Tamil people who do not like the Hindi. It is a mockery, nowhere in the world is seen a situation like this. Moreover, there are all kinds of Hindi speaking traders from north India who are ranging from tiny Paani Puriwala to big shopkeepers and mall owners in all across Tamil Nadu.

I have come crossed many children of northern Indian families studying in government schools in Erode learning not only Tamil language but studying other subjects in Tamil too. If Annadurai is alive today, according to his biographer R.Kannan “Anna would have treated the question of language as a personal one, leaving the choice in the individual's hands.” Therefore, learning Hindi in Tamil Nadu as an optional subject would not harm Tamil language rather it would aid greatly to strengthen the Tamil language market to rest of India. Also, the States in North should not hesitate to introduce Tamil as optional subject in their schools.

Ideology does not matter to him always but yet Annadurai was an independent thinker and writer who genuinely concerned about the welfare of people. He was very much conscious of an active political career not having enmity in any manner with other leaders. He also did not hate or poke with lose languages on anyone in the political arena and that is what everybody admires him even after fifty years of demise. His life and works have great lessons to contemporary politicians who are aiming to capture the power. Their understanding of the State’s core challenges is very poor.  Thus, these leaders neither have leadership caliber nor clear vision for the State.

Annadurai always believed that a leader has to be genuinely concerned about people's plights rather than aiming to capture the political power within a year of founding a party. He also strongly believed that founding a political party is quite different from coming to power with the trusts of people. He called this as mature politics should always venture in contributing to the challenges of the State and concerns of people. DMK came to power only after matured politics of 18 years with genuine concerns over issues and challenges of the State. He did not oppose anything blindly but invited openly others to convince him with facts and arguments to serve better in the interests of common people needs. Will our politicians learn from Anna or for that matter what is good from both Karunanithi and Jayalalithaa? Only time will tell us the truth.