Tamil Nadu’s ruling party DMK has raised a separatist demand for not giving autonomy to the state. In the presence of party MP A Raja, DMK President and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK StalinIn fact, warned the Center to give more powers to Tamil Nadu otherwise the next phase would be a fight for a separate nation.
According to PTI, Raja said, “I am saying to Amit Shah and the Prime Minister with utmost humility, I pray you on stage in the presence of (our) leaders, our Chief Minister Anna (CN Annadurai, CN Annadurai). traveling on the way. Former CM and founder of DMK), don’t push us on the path of Periyar. Don’t make us seek a different country. Give autonomy to the state and we will not rest till then.”
According to Raja, the DMK had so far put aside the demand for a separate nation, as envisioned by Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy, known as Periyar, the father of the Dravidian movement, but the party’s patience is running out. .
However, the truth is that the demand for a separate Tamil state was rejected long ago by both Periyar and Anna.
Dravidian pair
The Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu was led by Periyar and Anna. He opposed the imposition of Hindi, was against the influence of Brahmins in society, and wanted a separate nation for the Dravidian speaking region, called Dravida Nadu.
This demand began with the anti-Hindi agitation in Tamil Nadu in 1938. It peaked in the 1940s and 1950s. Periyar was demanding Dravidasthan or Dravida Nadu. He wanted a separate nation in the whole of South India. Their demand continued till 1956 when according to the States Reorganization Act, the states were divided on linguistic lines. Demand for a separate country has become futile periyari anymore. Instead, he now focused more on the demand for Tamil rights and Tamil Nadu Thamizharukke (Tamil Nadu is only for Tamils).
But his lieutenant, Anna, who later formed a separate party after differences with him, refused to budge. He was still raising the demand for a separate country and used to speak on it in the Indian Parliament as well.
Anna said this in the Rajya Sabha in 1962: “I claim, sir, to come from one country, a part in” India Right now, but what I think belongs to a different stock is not necessarily the antithesis. I belong to Dravid Stock. I am proud to call myself Dravid. It does not mean that I am against Bengali or Maharashtrian or Gujarati. As Robert Burns said, ‘A man is a man for all that’. I say that I belong to the Dravidian race and that is because I believe that Dravidians have something solid, something different, something different to offer to the whole country. It is therefore that we seek self-determination.”
Tamil Nadu politicians were not the only ones who raised this demand for a separate country. Separatist calls were also being made from Punjab and Nagaland. It was a real possibility that in the future, local and regional leaders of many other states, based on their cultural and linguistic differences, might make similar demands.
To control such separatist threats, through the 16th Amendment, the word “sovereignty and integrity of India” was added to Article 19(2) of the Constitution. After this amendment, raising such separatist threats became unconstitutional and illegal.
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution ensures freedom of speech and expression, but to prevent such separatist threats, a restriction was added through the 16th Amendment, as inserted in Article 19(2), ” Nothing….. shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred… and in the interest of the integrity, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign State, public order, decency or morality or contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
The 16th Amendment, also known as the Anti-Separatism Bill, banned separatist advocacy and was a clear warning to separatists like Anna, who had to shelve the demand for a separate country. The separatist movement of Tamil Nadu was actually the root cause of this. Some political sections of the state wanted to use the electoral process to demand a separate nation from India in the name of public opinion, something that was used by the Muslim League in colonial India to demand the partition of the country.
After the 16th Amendment, Anna had no choice but to continue with her demand for a separate nation and to follow through through protests and other political action meant that this would be an illegal activity, which, in turn, would have led to her He could have compromised his political career. He ended his separatist call by saying: “I have dropped the demand for Dravida Nadu. But there is no single reason for wanting Dravida Nadu.
legal implications
A Raja’s remarks seem to be of a political nature. The NDA rules the country and states ruled by non-NDA parties regularly complain that the Center discriminates against them. Raja’s statement reflects the Centre-states fight aligning with the DMK’s focus, “autonomy of states with a federal structure at the Centre”, which has been followed since the 1970s.
Also, as explained by the Supreme Court of India and several legal experts, verbally invoking “independence of a State/UT” is not an offense unless it is followed by violence and related action on the ground. .
read all breaking news, today’s fresh newswatch top videos And live TV Here.