There is nothing wrong in the usage of the term “Union Government”. Even the Centre itself uses the term “Union Government” in all its press releases.
But, those who use it and their indirect motives need to be discussed. The word ‘union’ in the Indian constitution is used in the context of unity or cohesiveness. However, it is doubtful if the word is indeed employed in its original sense today by the DMK.
MK Stalin, the DMK President, used the term “Central” Government in many press statements before DMK came to power. But after coming to power, MK Stalin began using the term ‘Union Government’, particularly in a Twitter message he made shortly after his inauguration. Later, the pro-DMK media began to focus more on the use of the word ‘Union.’ Earlier this month, Finance Minister Palanivel Thiagarajan remarked, “Without states, there is no union,” during a video conference of the 43rd GST Council meeting. Udhayanidhi Stalin, Stalin’s son and Chepauk-Tiruvallikeni MLA, who is the party’s new power center, is now using the term “Union Government” in his Twitter tweets. This isn’t the first time they’ve used the term “union” to refer to the “central” government. This is something MDMK leader Vaiko has been emphasizing for a long time.
Indeed, none of the DMK’s leaders or allies will have the courage to declare publicly that they do not want to remain a part of India.
But there is a slew of questions focused around a single word, ‘Union,’ because of the DMK’s past. The DMK, which advocated for secession after India’s independence, is well-known for renouncing it at one time. The demand for a ‘Dravidian state’ was made by the DMK’s parent organization, Dravidar Kazhagam.
The DMK has previously used the slogan “Dravida Nadu belongs to Dravidars” to promote separatist ideas. “Dravidian Liberation Day” was also observed on a particular day. Mr. Murasoli Maran, a late former Union Minister, made this argument in his 1956 book “Why We Need Dravidam.”
The idea of a separate ‘Dravida Nadu’ proposed by Dravidar Kazhagam was rejected by states in the ostensible Dravida Nadu; It was dismissed even inside Tamil Nadu. This is disclosed in a dialogue between late Chief Minister Annadurai and Gandhian Vinobabave, which Anna himself publicized. Vinobabave met Anna when he arrived in Tamil Nadu as part of his nationwide Boodhan Movement.
During the conversation, Anna told Vinobabave that they couldn’t stay with India and that Dravida Nadu would be made up of four states: Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Kerala, with its own army and police force. Vinobabave interrupted and said that there was no support among Telugus in Andhra Pradesh for forming a government with Tamils. Thus, in the early days of the DMK, its only aim was to break the Indian nation and form a separate state. But in 1963, based on the recommendation of the National Integration Council, the Parliament passed the ‘Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution’ which made secessionist tendency in the country engendered by regional and linguistic loyalties illegal. It was only after that Anna changed the rules of the DMK and dropped its demand for separate Dravida Nadu.
The DMK in its early days spoke of secession without accepting India as one nation. The DMK’s first election manifesto emphasized secession and called for the constitution to be amended to provide for the right of states to secede. All of the aforementioned issues lead to skepticism of DMK.
Speaking for state rights is different and hiding behind those demands and talking separatism is different. The line dividing separatism and state rights is so thin that if state parties start playing a political game, it might open a pandora’s box.
From Kashmir to Kanyakumari, our country should be one nation, and there is nothing to be gained by splitting apart; unity is power. It is our responsibility to nip the bud of any secessionist tendencies.
Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.