One of the most significant political personalities in the Medieval Indian history is Aditha Karikalan. Why was he so important that he is spoken about in inscriptions culminating into the core plot of a ‘five-volume’ novel made into a ‘two-part’ film, ‘Ponniyin Selvan’ while he was not even the emperor? Many a prince had died in wars and political slugfest throughout history and not much is spoken about them. Therefore, it was not merely because he belonged to the royal blue blood of the Chola dynasty.
Aditha Karikalan had been appointed as the ‘co-regent’ of the Chola dynasty in 966 CE, 5 years before he is believed to have died. He was not merely a crown prince or the heir apparent waiting in anticipation, but his anointment as the co-regent was a formal declaration by the Emperor Parantaka II that Aditha was the co-ruler entitled to reign the empire alongside the emperor himself. This meant that the emperor could sit back and relax in his chambers as the titular ruler laying down the final diktats. That is why, Aditha’s life gains significance despite not being the emperor himself.
Ancient medieval monarchs were politically structured in such a way that only heirs of the ruler could reign the people unless they abdicated or were over thrown by political opponents within and outside the royal family. Particularly, in the Indian social set up, with caste system deeply rooted, this structure was further constricted to mean only the heir apparent belonging to the select few castes (families) could rise to the position of political power. When kingdoms went to war, it was not due to the people’s mandate or in their best interest but it was mostly royal families satisfying their egos for their territorial expansion and for plundering the wealth of the competing dynasty. That is why, in most cases the scale of measuring the greatness of a medieval Indian empire is about the number of wars won, annexation of geographical territories and plunder of wealth of a neighbouring kingdom and not always about raising the standard of living of the citizens, feeding the downtrodden or keeping the people happy. While the royal families lived a pompous life, the upper castes guided the royal family, protected them or strived to create wealth for the family but the commoners were often ignored or oppressed with no means to climb the social ladder or to attain political freedom/power.
With the advent of Indian independence struggle and the subsequent political transition of India into a republic, tall political leaders like Ambedkar and Nehru burnt their mid night oil to build institutions which were above and beyond political leaders, just to ensure that the political power in India did not continue to be vested in a few families and individuals. Fitting into modern democracy from being a conventional monarchy was quite a struggle, particularly with princely States merging with the young Indian ‘Nation State’. The high ideals of universal adult franchise, one man-one vote, right to register political parties/contest elections and to choose the leaders were incorporated in the political and constitutional scheme to ensure that everyone, including the conventionally downtrodden, had the socio-political means to achieve political liberty and power.
With deep-rooted caste mania prevailing among the people, the stiffest resistance to political hegemony running down the social lineage within families and castes came from the ‘Dravidian movement’ spear headed by Periyar E.V. Ramasamy. Periyar was afraid that mere transfer of political power from British to Indians without bringing about a change in the social structure, would result in individuals claiming political power by ‘birth in a family’. This was why, after independence, vociferous protests from Periyar and his followers against implementation of ‘Madras Scheme of Elementary Education’ otherwise termed as the Kula Kalvi Thittam encouraging caste-based avocation resulted in replacement of Rajaji with Karma Veerar Kamarajar. Periyar had the back of Kamaraj because the former believed that vesting of political power in a leader from a humble social background would result in schemes directed at upliftment of the downtrodden, socially and politically. This political support was deep-rooted so much so that even Arignar Anna, who called himself a disciple of Periyar did not receive similar patronage from the latter.
Today the only political party in India that boasts of administering the State keeping in mind the high ideals of social justice taught by the Dravidian ideology is the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), in which unfortunately a person can rise to ranks and lead the government only by ‘the birth in the royal family’ as the crown prince, later with his anointment as the co-regent and ultimately as the regent himself. Can high ideals of Periyar and ideas of social justice be upheld by a party which cannot promote a person outside the ‘royal family’ as the leader of the State even in a democracy? Only time should answer.
This Article was originally published at the Author’s own blog: nirmalkumarmohandoss.com
