Home

Featured Articles

Apr 21, 2026
Siddhartha Dave

Gujarati Brought Up as Bengali: Can Dinesh Trivedi Re-script Bharat–Bangladesh Diplomacy?

At a time when the geopolitics of energy is once again redrawing fault lines across Asia, Bharat’s decision to nominate Dinesh Trivedi as High Commissioner to Bangladesh is far more than a routine diplomatic reshuffle. It is a calculated political signal—both to Dhaka and to the wider region—that New Delhi is willing to blend political instinct with diplomatic tradition. A Political Appointment in a Strategic Neighbourhood For over three decades, Bharat has largely relied on career diplomats from the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) to manage relations with its immediate neighbours. The last notable political appointment in the neighbourhood dates back to the early 1990s, when historian Bimal Prasad was sent to Kathmandu. Even in Dhaka—one of Bharat’s most sensitive and strategically vital postings—the tradition has been strictly bureaucratic. This makes Trivedi’s probable nomination a departure of consequence. Historically, political appointees have been reserved for key global capitals. The appointment of Vinay Kwatra to Washington after serving as Foreign Secretary, or earlier placements like RK Raghavan in Cyprus and Dalbir Singh Suhag in Seychelles, were exceptions rather than the rule. But Dhaka is neither Washington nor London—it is a neighbourhood capital with deep civilisational, political, and security linkages with Bharat. That New Delhi has chosen to send a politician here suggests that diplomacy with Bangladesh is entering a more political, personality-driven phase. Timing: Energy Crisis and Regional Flux The timing is not incidental. Bangladesh is currently grappling with an acute energy crisis, exacerbated by the ongoing tensions in West Asia, particularly the U.S.-Israel confrontation with Iran and the strategic chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz. For an energy-import dependent economy like Bangladesh, disruptions in supply chains translate quickly into domestic instability. In such a scenario, Bharat’s outreach—through a politically seasoned envoy—signals readiness to engage not just at the bureaucratic level, but through political understanding and negotiation. A career diplomat brings procedural finesse. A politician brings negotiation instincts, ideological clarity, and the ability to read political undercurrents. Dhaka, at this moment, requires both. The Man: Gujarati Roots, Bengali Soul Dinesh Trivedi’s personal journey is itself a metaphor for the layered identity that Bharat often embodies. Born into a Gujarati family that migrated from Karachi during Partition, Trivedi’s upbringing unfolded in Kolkata. His father’s professional journey with Hindustan Construction Company anchored the family in Bengal, shaping Trivedi’s cultural and linguistic sensibilities. Educated at St. Xavier’s College, Calcutta, and later at the University of Texas at Austin, he represents a blend of regional rootedness and global exposure. Fluent in Bangla, trained in classical music, and once even aspiring to join the Indian Air Force as a pilot, Trivedi defies the stereotype of a conventional politician. His Gujarati lineage gives him a trader’s instinct and pragmatism; his Bengali upbringing lends him cultural fluency in a region where identity and language matter deeply. In Dhaka, this duality could become a diplomatic asset. Political Trajectory: From TMC Insider to BJP Voice Trivedi’s political career has been equally layered. A long-time associate of Mamata Banerjee, he rose within the Trinamool Congress (TMC), serving as Railway Minister (2011–12) and Minister of State for Health (2009–11) in the UPA government. His shift to the BJP ahead of the 2021 West Bengal elections marked a significant ideological repositioning. This transition—from a regional party deeply embedded in Bengal’s politics to a national party with a strong central leadership—has equipped him with insights into both regional sensitivities and national strategic priorities. Such experience may prove crucial in Dhaka, where domestic politics often intersect with bilateral relations. Breaking the IFS Monopoly in Dhaka As former High Commissioner Veena Sikri has noted, Dhaka has historically remained the domain of seasoned IFS officers. Even the first envoy after Bangladesh’s creation in 1971, Subimal Dutt, though retired, came from a bureaucratic lineage. Trivedi’s appointment breaks that continuum. This development inevitably raises a set of critical questions about the evolving nature of Bharat’s foreign policy. Is New Delhi consciously moving towards a more politically agile and responsive diplomatic framework in its neighbourhood? Does this appointment signal a broader shift towards a leader-driven foreign policy, where political trust and alignment outweigh bureaucratic continuity? Or is it simply a pragmatic response to the increasingly political and personality-driven nature of regional engagements, especially in countries like Bangladesh, where domestic politics and foreign relations are deeply intertwined? In reality, the answer appears to lie in a combination of all three factors, reflecting both strategic intent and situational necessity. At the same time, the appointment of a political envoy brings with it a mix of opportunities and risks. On the positive side, such an envoy enjoys direct access to the political leadership in New Delhi, which can significantly expedite decision-making and enhance coordination. A seasoned politician is also better equipped to read, interpret, and respond swiftly to political signals, both overt and subtle, within the host country. Moreover, political figures often possess greater flexibility in conducting informal negotiations, building personal rapport, and navigating complex political landscapes beyond the rigid frameworks of traditional diplomacy. However, these advantages are accompanied by equally significant risks. A political appointee may lack the depth of training and experience in formal diplomatic protocols that career diplomats possess, which can sometimes lead to missteps in sensitive situations. There is also the danger of bilateral engagement becoming overly politicised, potentially complicating long-term institutional relationships. Additionally, perception challenges within the host country may arise, where such an appointment could be viewed through a political or ideological lens rather than as a purely diplomatic initiative. Balancing these opportunities and risks will ultimately determine the success of this unconventional but strategically significant move. A Civilisational Connect, Reimagined Bharat and Bangladesh share more than borders—they share history, culture, language, and civilisational memory. From the legacy of 1971 to contemporary economic interdependence, the relationship is layered and sensitive. In sending a “Gujarati brought up as Bengali,” New Delhi may be attempting to symbolically bridge identities—trader pragmatism with cultural empathy, national strategy with regional understanding. If leveraged well, this appointment could mark a new phase in neighbourhood diplomacy—one that is less rigid, more political, and deeply attuned to the realities of the region. If mishandled, it risks blurring the line between diplomacy and domestic politics. Either way, Dhaka just became one of the most closely watched diplomatic postings in Bharat’s foreign policy landscape. (PS: This article was first published in Organiser)

Apr 20, 2026
YagnaSri

The Dravidian Deception: Birth of DMK, Dynastic Consolidation and Competitive Communalism Part 4

Part A From Dravida Nadu to Delhi's doorstep — how a separatist party reinvented itself as a nationalist force while never abandoning its anti-Hindu core The Split from Periyar: Annadurai Founds the DMK The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam was born on September 17, 1949, out of the wreckage of a personal falling-out between Periyar and his most brilliant lieutenant, Conjeevaram Natarajan Annadurai. The proximate cause was Periyar's controversial marriage to the much younger Maniammai and the question of organisational succession. But the deeper differences were political and temperamental. Annadurai — a gifted writer, orator, and dramatist — understood that Periyar's maximalist anti-Hindu programme and his opposition to participation in democratic institutions had no future in independent India. The constitution was a reality; elections were a reality; the Indian republic was a reality. A political party that refused to engage with these realities would remain permanently marginal. Annadurai was also more tactically astute than his mentor. He recognised that the demand for a separate Dravida Nadu — which Periyar had championed and which had been one of the DMK's founding aspirations — was both constitutionally impossible and politically damaging. He would eventually drop it, but not before using it as an emotional mobilising tool in the party's early years. The Separatist Phase: Dravida Nadu and the Two-Nation Logic In its early years, the DMK was unequivocal about its separatist goals. Annadurai demanded a separate Tamil state to be called Dravida Nadu — encompassing Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Kerala — free from the Indian Union. DMK party literature and speeches in the 1950s openly questioned Tamil Nadu's place within India and cast the Indian Constitution as an Aryan-North Indian imposition. DMK members participated in processions carrying black flags on Indian Independence and Republic Day, expressing contempt for the national celebration. The DMK's separatism was not a fringe position — it was party policy through much of the 1950s. Its leaders made speeches questioning the sovereignty of the Indian Union over Tamil Nadu, distributed literature calling for a separate Dravidian state, and celebrated Periyar's framing of Independence Day as a day of mourning. This separatist phase was also accompanied by intense anti-Brahmin rhetoric. The DMK institutionalised what Periyar had pioneered: the systematic targeting of Tamil Brahmin communities as a social and political category. Brahmin-owned businesses were boycotted, Brahmin professionals were targeted for exclusion from public institutions, and the party's cultural messaging portrayed Brahminism as the enemy of Tamil identity. Thousands of Tamil Brahmin families emigrated from Tamil Nadu during this period, a demographic displacement whose scale and significance are rarely acknowledged in mainstream historical accounts. The Anti-Hindi Agitation of 1965: Legitimate Grievance, Illegitimate Exploitation The single most consequential event in DMK's rise to power was the anti-Hindi agitation of 1965. The Government of India's policy of making Hindi the sole official language of the Union — set to take effect on January 26, 1965, under the terms of the Official Languages Act of 1963 — generated genuine anxiety among Tamil speakers about the implications for their educational and professional opportunities. The Dravidian parties, led by the DMK, channelled this anxiety into a mass movement of protests, hartals, and violent clashes that resulted in approximately 70 deaths across Tamil Nadu. The Congress government in Tamil Nadu and the Nehru-Shastri administrations at the Centre handled the situation with a combination of firmness and accommodation. Prime Minister Shastri ultimately gave assurances that English would continue as an associate official language and that no state would be forced to adopt Hindi against its will, effectively addressing the core grievances. These assurances were later enshrined in subsequent amendments to the Official Languages Act. The legitimate grievance at the heart of the agitation — the genuine fear of linguistic discrimination — deserved and received a constitutional remedy. But the DMK's exploitation of this agitation was far from purely linguistic. The party's leadership used the agitation to mobilise anti-national sentiment, to attack symbols of Indian unity, and to strengthen the DMK's political position against the Congress. The violence of 1965 — including attacks on government buildings, the harassment of North Indian traders, and the burning of buses — went far beyond legitimate protest. The anti-Hindi agitation was the DMK's moment of national breakthrough, but it was built on a political lie: that the Congress government intended to destroy Tamil. This fear was manufactured and amplified by the DMK for electoral advantage. The linguistic protections that Tamil actually needed were achieved through constitutional negotiation — not through the street violence that the DMK orchestrated. The Fall of Congress Rule and DMK's 1967 Victory The anti-Hindi agitation permanently damaged Congress's standing in Tamil Nadu. The state Congress leadership was seen as having failed to protect Tamil interests, while the Centre was blamed for the provocative language policy. In the 1967 assembly elections, the DMK under Annadurai won a landslide victory, ending over two decades of Congress dominance in Tamil Nadu. This was a watershed moment — the first time a regional party had defeated the Congress in a state assembly election in independent India. The DMK's victory owed more to the Congress's missteps and to Annadurai's personal charisma than to any ideological mandate for Dravidian separatism. Significantly, the party had by this time officially dropped its demand for a separate Dravida Nadu — partly under pressure from the constitutional amendment of 1963 that made it a criminal offence to advocate secession, but also because Annadurai recognised that moderate Tamil pride was a more electorally viable position than outright separatism. The fall of Congress in Tamil Nadu was not, as DMK mythology claims, a liberation of Tamil people from Brahminical domination. It was the beginning of a new era of political corruption, dynastic consolidation, and competitive communalism that has profoundly damaged Tamil Nadu's public institutions and administrative capacity. The Congress era, for all its limitations, had produced Kamaraj's school-building mission and a relatively clean administrative tradition. What replaced it was something considerably less edifying. The Dropping of Separatism: Tactical Retreat, Not Ideological Conversion When Annadurai and the DMK dropped the demand for Dravida Nadu, it was a tactical adjustment — not a genuine embrace of Indian nationhood. The anti-national DNA of the movement remained intact. The hostility to Hindu civilisation, the suspicion of the national mainstream, the periodic flirtation with Tamil separatism during moments of political stress — all of these continued. The DMK's subsequent support for Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka was the most visible expression of this latent separatist impulse surviving its formal renunciation. The party's approach to national issues consistently placed Tamil regional sentiment ahead of national interest. Its opposition to the Emergency was principled but was also coloured by anti-Congress opportunism. Its periodic alliances with the BJP in later decades were marriages of convenience that dissolved when electoral calculations shifted. The DMK has never been a genuinely pro-national party — it has been a regional party that makes occasional tactical accommodations with national frameworks while preserving its anti-Hindu, anti-national civilisational core. Part B Annadurai to Karunanidhi: Power, Betrayal, and the MGR Split How a poet-politician's death opened the door to decades of dynastic corruption — and how Tamil cinema became the battleground for Tamil Nadu's political soul Annadurai: The Reluctant Moderate C.N. Annadurai served as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for less than two years before his death from cancer in February 1969. In that brief tenure, he left a more positive mark than any subsequent Dravidian chief minister. His administration was characterised by relative probity, a focus on administrative efficiency, and a governing style that emphasised Tamil cultural pride without the virulent anti-Hindu excess of Periyar's programme. Annadurai was personally a man of simple habits, considerable learning, and genuine political vision. His most significant governance decisions included the renaming of Madras State to Tamil Nadu in 1969 and a symbolic but meaningful recognition of Tamil identity with an emphasis on the development and promotion of the Tamil language. He maintained working relationships with the Central government, demonstrating that a Dravidian chief minister could govern effectively within the constitutional framework rather than constantly seeking confrontation with Delhi. His death was a genuine loss — not merely for his party but for Tamil Nadu's political culture. What came after was demonstrably worse in every dimension of public life. Karunanidhi's Machinations: The Ascent to Power Muthuvel Karunanidhi — who served as party treasurer and chief ministerial aspirant during Annadurai's tenure — positioned himself brilliantly to succeed his mentor. Born in 1924 to a poor family in Tirukkuvalai, Karunanidhi had risen through the Dravidian movement's cultural wing as a playwright, screenwriter, and lyricist before entering formal politics. His literary talent was genuine, and his organisational skills within the party were considerable. But Karunanidhi's ascent to the Chief Ministership after Annadurai's death was not without controversy. He faced competition from within the party, most notably from the charismatic actor-politician M.G. Ramachandran, who had a far larger popular following but less organisational clout within the party machinery. Karunanidhi used his control of the party apparatus to outmanoeuvre his rivals, and he became Chief Minister in 1969. Karunanidhi's political genius was organisational and literary — he knew how to write dialogues that moved masses and how to build party networks that delivered votes. But governance was not his strength. His terms in office were consistently marked by corruption, caste calculations, and family enrichment rather than administrative achievement. The Karunanidhi-MGR Conflict: Ego, Cinema, and Power The relationship between Karunanidhi and M.G. Ramachandran is one of the most dramatic personal and political conflicts in modern Indian regional politics. MGR — Maruthur Gopalan Ramachandran — was the most beloved Tamil film star of his generation, a larger-than-life figure whose screen persona as the incorruptible hero who fought for the poor had an almost religious following among Tamil Nadu's working-class audiences. His connection to the DMK went back to the party's earliest days, and his star power was instrumental in the party's electoral successes. The relationship between the two men deteriorated through the early 1970s as MGR's independent political ambitions became apparent and as Karunanidhi's management of the state government attracted growing criticism on corruption grounds. The first DMK government under Karunanidhi (1969-76) was characterised by significant expansion of patronage networks, appointments of party loyalists to public institutions, and the beginning of what would become the hallmark of Dravidian governance: the use of state resources for competitive populism funded by institutional decay. In 1972, following a public dispute that included MGR's expulsion from the DMK's general council, MGR was shot by a rival DMK leader — an incident widely believed to have been connected to the internal power struggle, though the full truth was never legally established. The assassination attempt transformed MGR from a political aspirant into a martyr figure, dramatically increasing his popular standing. In 1972, he formally broke from the DMK to found the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), named in honour of Annadurai. The First Dismissal: Emergency, Corruption, and Federal Politics Karunanidhi's first term in office ended ignominiously in 1976 when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, during the Emergency, dismissed the DMK government in Tamil Nadu and imposed President's Rule. The dismissal was ostensibly on grounds of breakdown of constitutional machinery, but its primary driver was Gandhi's desire to install Congress-aligned governments across key states during the Emergency period. While the dismissal was politically motivated and represented an abuse of Emergency powers, the grounds cited were not without substance. The DMK government's record on law and order, administrative functioning, and — most damagingly — corruption had generated significant public discontent. Later, the Sarkaria Commission's examination of cases of Central dismissal of state governments noted the pattern of political motivation in such dismissals, but also the genuine governance failures that provided the political cover. The DMK's experience of the Emergency was complex. Karunanidhi was initially sympathetic to Indira Gandhi and then became a target of Emergency excess — a trajectory that led the party toward the Janata coalition in 1977, alongside the BJP's predecessor, the Jana Sangh, a tactical alignment that the DMK's ideological heirs have since preferred to forget.

The Dravidian Deception: Periyar’s Poisonous Legacy Masks Racism, Anti-Hinduism and Anti-National Politics Part 3

Akshaya Tritiya: Reclaiming a Dharmic Tradition Beyond Consumerism

The Shadow of 'Corporate Jihad': Deepening Allegations of Religious Coercion in India's Corporate World

Featured Articles

Gujarati Brought Up as Bengali: Can Dinesh Trivedi Re-script Bharat–Bangladesh Diplomacy?

The Dravidian Deception: Birth of DMK, Dynastic Consolidation and Competitive Communalism Part 4

Reports View All

India pushes pipeline plan as China expands energy footprint in Sri Lanka

Rajnath Singh promises Durga squad for women’s protection if BJP wins

I-PAC stops Bengal campaign for 20 days amid legal concerns, TMC downplays impact

India-South Korea relationship enters futuristic phase as leaders target $50 billion trade by 2030

Bulgaria’s former euro-sceptic president Rumen Radev set for a landslide victory

NSA Doval holds high-level meetings in Riyadh to strengthen bilateral ties

Search

Top Authors

Archives

Featured Articles

Reports View All

Search

Podcast / Videos

Popular Posts

Top Authors

Archives