After the Tamil archana, it is now the tilak. It is never a dull moment on the Dravidian front. In fairness to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, it must be conceded that the successive controversies have not been of his making alone. Those who swore by Sanskrit as the exclusively divine speech, for example, did not appear unduly accommodating either.The state BJP and the Hindu Munnani have been quick to take unwarranted offence at the words of the DMK chief addressed to the party's youth wing. He does have a point when he protests that he has a right to appeal for the party cadre's commitment to the `Dravidian' ideology, with particular emphasis in this case on the preachings of Periyar E.V.R. Ramasamy Naicker.No official war, after all, was being waged on the tilak as one of the targets of the Periyar-bequeathed `rationalism'. The Chief Minister can claim that the campaign against the forehead mark was only a continuation of his earlier admonition to a minister caught`fire-walking' to get the gods on the side of the government under an unbeliever. The issue cannot be dismissed as purely an inner-party affair.It cannot be, for the simple reason that it stems from the public statements of a Chief Minister. The DMK leader's declarations even to `Dravidianised' audiences do send out signals which it is his duty, as chief minister, to recognise and own responsibility for. Some restraint on his part in this regard would surely be called for in today's context where the state is no longer free from the threat of communalism. Karunandihi has acknowledged the presence of believers in the DMK's ranks (who include such a prominent member as the Speaker of the State Assembly).This is traceable to the time of party founder C. N. Annadurai who abandoned the Periyar plank of militant atheism in his successful attempt to make the DMK a mass movement. If EVR's iconoclasm had to be rejected by a party going electoral, the luxury of displaying his legacy in a provocative manner mayhave to be given up if the needs of governance appear to demand it, as they now do.All this, of course, is on the assumption of the `rationalist' rhetoric being really meant. The assumption, alas, is open to question. It is not merely the Chief Minister's participation in Iftar parties and Christmas celebrations that challenges the premise: his defenders can counter that the `Dravidian' tenets have not come in the way of Tamil archana.Nor is the stand against the tilak marred by sexism alone. Karunanidhi's taunt and caution to young men against starting a race with women by sporting the mark and "ending up in saris" is truly unsavoury, but that is not the argument against tilak-busting. What makes this and other attempts at an alleged ideological revival objectionable is the attendant hypocrisy.The kind that is comparable to the same quality so conspicuous in the Angrezi hatao campaign conducted by politicians sending their own children to English-medium public schools. The recurring controversiesover `Dravidianism' are also objectionable as irrelevances, if not deliberate attempts at diverting popular attention from real issues. The tilak question is not likely to figure among anyone's list of priorities.
