Click here for MAIN INDEX to archived articles (main page)
www.tamiltribune.com

Definitions:

Hindians: People whose mother tongue is Hindi (similar to Tamil speakers are sometimes referred as Tamilans or Tamilians).

1. Introduction

In January-February 1965, people of Tamil Nadu rose up in protest against Hindi imposition. These protests, popularly known as the 1965 Anti-Hindi Agitation, were spearheaded by students. Indian security forces brutally put down the protests by shooting and killing unarmed demonstrators, sometimes using machine guns. The protests started on January 25, 1965 and were ended by mid-February; all told, well over a hundred unarmed protestors were killed and thousands injured, many maimed permanently. The way the government put down the protests by unarmed civilians was so ruthless, surpassing any human decency and international norms that even the United Nations discussed it.

In the next election, held in 1967, the Congress Party which was in power in 1965 both at the state (Tamil Nadu) and at the center (India) was thoroughly routed in Tamil Nadu. DMK, which opposed Hindi imposition vehemently for more than a quarter of a century, won the election handsomely. DMK General-Secretary C. N. Annadurai became Tamil Nadu Chief Minister. Sometime before transferring power to the new DMK government, the defeated Chief Minister Bakthavathsalam (Baktavatsalam or Bakthavatsalam) allegedly destroyed all government records relating to the 1965 shootings. Thus details of orders coming down from the Indian Government to the Tamil Nadu State Government, orders from the chief minister to Tamil Nadu police officials, orders to the Central Reserve Police and the Army (orders from whom? from the State Government or the Indian Government? who was in actual charge of these forces?) was destroyed. Also official details of the sequence of events in each of the many dozen shootings throughout Tamil Nadu and government records of the numbers killed in each shooting was lost with the destruction of the records (it is estimated that well over a hundred were killed in total between January 25 and February 13, 1965). Why were these records destroyed, if there was nothing to hide? 

2. Why no Judicial Enquiry into the 1965 Shootings?

Some people requested the new chief minister Annadurai to appoint a commission of enquiry to go into the 1965 shootings. Such a commission could compel the former chief minister and high state government, Indian government,  reserve police and army officials to testify under oath and reconstruct at least partially the official records. This would expose details of orders from the Indian Government to the Tamil Nadu Government relating to the shooting as well as to officially establish the sequence of events in the several dozen shootings, who ordered the Central Reserve Police and Army commanders to shoot and the number of deaths at each shooting. There have been many commissions of enquiry in India to investigate shootings (with far less casualties), major railway accidents and political scandals. But Annadurai did not order such an enquiry and never explained his reasons for not doing so. 

Some believed that Annadurai did not appoint a commission of enquiry because of the fear that the Indian Government might dismiss his new state government if he attempted to appoint such a commission that could expose secret decisions and orders of the Hindian dominated Indian Government in ruthlessly crushing the 1965 anti-Hindi agitation that challenged the very Hindian domination of India. Since there is no other reason provided by Annadurai or the DMK,  we tend to take this explanation seriously. Also Annadurai's past behavior in 1963 lends some credence to this school of thought. Annadurai and other DMK leaders used to thunder from public platform to public platform of their commitment to fight for an independent nation of Dravida Nadu (comprising of the four southern states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu). Then, in 1963, Indian Government passed a law that prohibited any party or person seeking independence for their region/state from contesting elections. Immediately DMK shed its "independence for Dravida Nadu" slogan lest it be banned from contesting elections. So it is not unreasonable to conclude that Annadurai did not order an enquiry into the 1965 shootings lest his government be dismissed.

Whatever the reason, the new DMK government did not order an enquiry into the 1965 shootings to uncover the behind-the-scene decisions and orders that resulted in the killing of well over a hundred Tamil civilians by Indian security forces. The only reason DMK won the 1967 election was the1965 anti-Hindi agitation, and it is sad that the new DMK government betrayed the fallen heroes of 1965 by not exposing the forces behind their tragic deaths (Even without the 1965 shootings, DMK might very well have increased its seats in the state assembly but most if not all political analysts concur that DMK would not have won a majority in the state assembly.).

3. We Need Answers

Later in this article we will describe briefly the sequence of events culled from newspaper reports. But first a few questions. Because the defeated chief minister allegedly destroyed the government records relating to the shootings and because the new DMK government did not order an enquiry into the shootings, we may never know for certain, answers to the following question:

1. Why were peaceful unarmed Annamalai University students going on a peaceful protest march were fired without any provocation on January 26, 1965? Was it a case of pre-meditated shooting on the part of the government Indian Government to terrorize the Tamil students and the Tamil people never again to rise up against Hindi imposition and Hindian hegemony? It could not be the decision of a local police officer. More discussion of this is provided in Sections 5 and 6.
2. Why were over a hundred Tamil civilians shot and killed in a three-week period in January-February 1965? Why were large numbers of Central Reserve Police and Army personnel, especially from northern states who are not opposed to Hindi imposition, rushed to Tamil Nadu to quell the anti-Hindi agitation instead of using personnel from the south who are also opposed to Hindi imposition? Southern police and army personnel might have been less hostile and brutal to the protesters and the loss of lives could have been reduced. (We remind readers that China brought in troops from Mongolia to crush the 1989 pro-democracy protests of the Peking students at the Tianamen square because Mongolian troops have less in common with the Peking Chinese. The same tactic was used here by the Indian Government too.)
3. Why less lethal methods of disbursing demonstrators, such as tear gas, water cannon or rubber bullets used? (These methods don't kill.) Instead, live ammunition was used. Was this a calculated move by the Indian Government to terrorize the Tamil people into accepting Hindi imposition and Hindian domination over Tamil Nadu? 

4. Events of January 25, 1965

Tamil Nadu (at that time called Madras State) had two universities in 1965--Annamalai University and University of Madras. Annamalai University, a private university founded by late Annamalai Chettiar, was located in Chidamparam (Chithamparam or Chidhamparam) and all colleges in that town were affiliated with it. University of Madras, headquartered in Chennai (at that time called Madras), had all other colleges in Tamil Nadu affiliated with it. 

University of Madras students organized a one-day strike and protest against Hindi imposition throughout Tamil Nadu (with the exception of Chidamparam) on January 25, 1965. Protest processions in every college city and town in Tamil Nadu were massive and spectacular by any standard. The general public enthusiastically supported the student agitation against Hindi imposition. In spite of the massive processions through the busy streets of the cities and towns, January 25 was entirely peaceful except for an incidence in Madurai. Some miscreants at the ruling Congress Party affiliated trade union attacked some students and they retaliated. Though there was much Tamil Nadu police presence along the routes of the processions, there was a cordial atmosphere between students and the police. Often they talked, laughed and joked.

The massive, spectacular processions and the almost total support of the people of Tamil Nadu against Hindi imposition was noticed not only in Tamil Nadu, not only in the other states of India but also worldwide. Newspapers in Tokyo, New York, Washington, Moscow, London, Paris and every major city around the world carried the news and the opposition to Hindi imposition in Tamil Nadu. Hindian politicians who dominate the Indian Parliament and thus control the Indian Government saw this and it scared them because it challenged the very foundation of Hindian domination of the non-Hindi peoples of India.

Having demonstrated their opposition to Hindi imposition on January 25, University of Madras students planned to return to classes on January 27 (26-th being a holiday). But the events of January 26 changed all that. 

5. Events of January 26, 1965 and the First Killing 

Annamalai University students scheduled their demonstrations against Hindi imposition on January 26, 1965. The morning started peacefully. Students assembled peacefully at university grounds. They proceeded to march into the streets of the town (Chidamparam). Were they allowed to march shouting slogans and displaying placards, as their counterparts from University of Madras did the previous day, the whole thing would have ended with no trouble. Instead police prohibited  the students from entering town and ordered them to turn back. When the students refused, police fired at the students. One student, Rajendran, died and another, Nedumaran, was seriously injured. This was the first death of 1965 (there were previous shootings and deaths during anti-Hindi agitations dating back to 1938). This much we know. What we do not know is the behind-the-scene activities, decisions and orders. A judicial enquiry would have revealed this crucial information.

The decision to fire on peaceful, unarmed Annamalai University students merely because they wanted to march through the streets of Chadamparam (in the same way as their counterparts from University of Madras did peacefully the previous day) could not have come from a local police officer on site without a prior standing order or direct orders that day from higher ups. Such an order could not have come from district level police officers either. The decision permitting police to fire at the students if they attempted to march through the streets of Chidamparam in violation of the police prohibition must have been made at the highest level; that is from the state chief minister's office itself. Government records pertaining to this were supposedly destroyed. Why were the records destroyed?

6. Why did the Police Fire on Students on January 26, 1965?

Many believed that the decision to prevent Annamalai University students' anti-Hindi imposition demonstrations at any cost, including firing at the peaceful demonstrators, would have been made at the Indian Government level in New Delhi and passed on to the subservient Tamil Nadu chief minister. Why did the Tamil Nadu State Government that allowed the January 25 demonstrations throughout Tamil Nadu to proceed without police interference decided to stop the January 26 demonstrations using lethal force? After all, the January 25 demonstrations that were many times bigger than that expected on January 26 went smoothly without any incidence between police and students. Police were present in large numbers along the procession routes but the interaction between students and police were friendly. Police did not interfere with the demonstrations, and students did not interfere with the police duties. Given those peaceful demonstrations on January 25, why did the Tamil Nadu Government decide to fire at the students on January 26 merely because they wanted to do what happened the previous day? One school of thought gives the following reason and it seems to be the only rational explanation: As we discussed in Section 4, the January 25 demonstrations were so impressive that other Indian states as well as foreign countries took notice of the strong feelings of Tamil Nadu against Hindi imposition and Hindian hegemony. Unlike the protests of earlier years organized by political parties like the DMK, this demonstration cut across party lines, this was truly a popular peoples' uprising. Another such massive, popular demonstration the next day would further reinforce the worldview that Tamil Nadu was not happy with Hindian domination of the Indian Government. Other non-Hindi states may question Hindian domination also. This could undermine the hold Hindians had over all of India ever since the British colonial rulers left India in 1947. This scared the Indian Government that was dominated and controlled by Hindian politicians. So the Indian Government decided to nip these anti-Hindi demonstrations in the bud and determined that the January 26 demonstrations would be stopped at any cost. Fire at the student if necessary and terrorize the uppity Tamils never again to put up such demonstrations against Hindi imposition and Hindian hegemony. Indian Government's wish was communicated to the subservient Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and thus the order to shoot at Annamalai University students merely because they wanted to take out a procession against Hindi imposition. Other than this, there is no reason to use lethal force to stop the students from going on a protest march. There was no other explanation as to why the Tamil Nadu State Government that allowed the January 25 demonstrations throughout Tamil Nadu to proceed without police interference decided to stop the January 26 demonstrations using lethal force.

7. Shootings after January 26

Because of the police shooting on January 26, 1965 and the death of Rajendran and wounding of Nedumaran, what would have been a one-day strike by University of Madras students (January 25) and Annamalai University students (January 26) was extended as an indefinite strike by the students. There followed protest marches and demonstrations before Indian Government offices. Again, instead of talking with the students to resolve the issues, government decided to use brutal force to end the demonstrations. Though Tamil Nadu police fired at some places and, in fact acted brutally in a few places, usually they were reluctant to use force on students many of whom had brothers, sisters, daughters, sons or close relatives at schools and colleges. The Indian Government rushed thousands of army and Central Reserve Police (CRP) personnel into Tamil Nadu to put an end to the demonstrations against Hindi imposition. 

Almost invariably, everywhere throughout the state, demonstrations started peacefully. Security forces ask the demonstrators to disburse and when they refuse, security forces fire into the demonstrators with no regard for casualties. Less lethal methods such as tear gas, water cannons and rubber bullets could have been used effectively to disburse the unarmed demonstrators. But the governments seemed to want to terrorize the Tamil people into submission as much as to disburse the demonstrators. When the security forces fire, demonstrators disburse (those not dead or injured) and go on burning and damaging government properties in anger. This results in more firings and deaths. But everywhere the provocation was from the security forces and what would have been peaceful demonstrations of the Tamil opposition to Hindi imposition turned into death and destruction. Records of where the orders to shoot in each of the dozens of shootings came from were supposedly destroyed and a judicial enquiry could have exposed the details. Were out-of-state army and central reserve police officers given a free hand to fire at demonstrators? Some believe, with good reason, that the records were destroyed to cover up such information. The new DMK Chief Minister could have got to the bottom of this by a judicial enquiry. He did not. 

8. Proper Perspective

In 1970, four Kent State University students were shot and killed by National Guards during an anti-Vietnam-war demonstration in America. A judicial enquiry was ordered to uncover the sequence of events leading to the shooting and fix the responsibility wherever it may fall. Here, in Tamil Nadu, over a hundred civilians (many of them students) were killed and no judicial enquiry! Is Tamil life cheap?

Many judicial enquiries by commissions headed by former judges have been held in India to uncover negligence, misdeeds or crimes of governments. There have been dozens of such enquiries. Just a few years ago there was an enquiry into the shooting and killing of a dozen or so people in Tamil Nadu. 

In 1967, soon after becoming chief minister, Annadurai should have set up a commission of enquiry headed by a former High Court judge to look into the 1965 shootings. He did not, for fear of the Indian Government dismissing his state government in order to prevent such a commission of enquiry. While the former chief minister Bakthavathsalam and his party lost the election in Tamil Nadu in 1965, the people who headed the Indian Government in 1965, namely, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, Home Minister Gulzarilal Nanda and their party was still in power at the Indian Government. They may not want the full extent of their role in the 1965 shootings revealed. So they might dismiss the Tamil Nadu state government of Annadurai. That would explain why Annadurai did not conduct an enquiry. In a similar circumstance in 1963,  he chose to abandon his party's long-held goal of an independent Dravida Nadu rather than risk losing the right to contest elections (see Section 2).

9. The Second Death was even More Painful

The Tamil martyrs of 1965 died the first time in 1965 at the hands of Hindians and their surrogate Chief Minister in Tamil Nadu. They met yet a second death in 1967 at the hands of the new DMK Chief Minister Annadurai when he would not unearth the hidden truths behind the shootings that took their lives, seemingly to protect his government from dismissal. The second death was even more painful than the first because the first was at the hands of Hindians and their surrogate chief minister in Tamil Nadu whereas the second death was at the hands of a man who professed love for Tamil (and did love Tamil), opposed Hindi imposition, used their names during the election campaigns and came to power primarily because of the 1965 Anti-Hindi Imposition Agitation, yet betrayed those fallen heroes of the agitation--the Tamil Martyrs of 1965--to protect his government from dismissal.

FIS100129 - 2001-a1d

Your comments on this article or any other matter relating to Tamil are welcome