IOTL, the southern Indians, known as dravidians, have developed as a relatively distinct ethnicity (or, more accurately, conjunction of ethnicities) from the northern, indo-european speaking indians. In the last years of the British Raj, a complex identitarian situation arose which allowed states such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Burma to become independent of India proper.
The dravidians, however, chose to stay in India and instead bargain for a fair position and autonomy within the indian state, rather than go independent. There were certain "dravidianist" figures such as Periyar Ramasamy, who even managed to become quite famous among the Tamil populace. But, for reasons out of my knowlege, their ideals didn't translate into dravidian independence.
So, i ask: is there any way for dravidian nationalism to grow large and separatist enough for India (or the british decolonization council) to decide giving independence to southern India?
If an independent Dravidia is possible, then how does it affect the situation of tamils in Sri Lanka?
 
In the first half of the twentieth century, towards the close of the British period there was a Dravidian movement in the Madras Presidency, especially in the Tamil areas. The term "Dravidians" include the inhabitants of the four South Indian states speaking the Dravidian languages namely, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam. Just before independence when the Muslim League demanded Pakistan, a separate country for Muslims, there were a few who thought about a Dravidanadu in South India. But the Dravidian movement had some support only in the Tamil areas and others never supported it. When the states were organised on the basis of language, the Dravidian movement was confined to Tamilnadu.
There the Dravida Kazhakam which spearheaded the movement formed a political party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam, which captured power in 1967 displacing the Indian National Congress. Later the D.M.K. split into A.I.A.D.M.K, M.D.M.K etc. but the Congress could never recapture power in Tamilnadu. Today D.M.K. which is an ally of the Congress is in opposition and AIADMK, its bitter rival is in power. But on coming to power in Tamilnadu, DMK and other Dravidian parties abandoned all ideas of a separate Dravidanadu and they wholeheartedly support the united India. After sharing the power with the Congress and also BJP at the Federal level, they have discovered that sharing power at the Center is far more profitable than being confined to Tamilnadu! There is no Dravidian sentiment among the people of South India. Even in Tamilnadu they use the term only to denote a Tamil subnationalism, The South Indians do not have any particular attachment for other South Indians, more than they have for North Indians. Today South Indian states are developing faster than the North Indian states of the Gangetic Plane. What that they might feel in future is that the North India is pulling the development of the country backward. The former Union Finance Minister Chidambaram, who is from Tamilnadu once opined that the North and the East are holding back the South and the West from advancing forward.
An interesting point to note, that if a Dravidanadu was formed with the four(now five with the addition of Telengana) states of Andhra(Telugu), Karnataka(Kannada), Kerala(Malayalam), Tamilnadu(Tamil) and the union territories of Puthucheri (Tamil) and Lakshadweep(Malayalam), its present population would have been around 250 million, fourth most populous country after the USA.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
In the first half of the twentieth century, towards the close of the British period there was a Dravidian movement in the Madras Presidency, especially in the Tamil areas. The term "Dravidians" include the inhabitants of the four South Indian states speaking the Dravidian languages namely, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam. Just before independence when the Muslim League demanded Pakistan, a separate country for Muslims, there were a few who thought about a Dravidanadu in South India. But the Dravidian movement had some support only in the Tamil areas and others never supported it. When the states were organised on the basis of language, the Dravidian movement was confined to Tamilnadu.
There the Dravida Kazhakam which spearheaded the movement formed a political party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam, which captured power in 1967 displacing the Indian National Congress. Later the D.M.K. split into A.I.A.D.M.K, M.D.M.K etc. but the Congress could never recapture power in Tamilnadu. Today D.M.K. which is an ally of the Congress is in opposition and AIADMK, its bitter rival is in power. But on coming to power in Tamilnadu, DMK and other Dravidian parties abandoned all ideas of a separate Dravidanadu and they wholeheartedly support the united India. After sharing the power with the Congress and also BJP at the Federal level, they have discovered that sharing power at the Center is far more profitable than being confined to Tamilnadu! There is no Dravidian sentiment among the people of South India. Even in Tamilnadu they use the term only to denote a Tamil subnationalism, The South Indians do not have any particular attachment for other South Indians, more than they have for North Indians. Today South Indian states are developing faster than the North Indian states of the Gangetic Plane. What that they might feel in future is that the North India is pulling the development of the country backward. The former Union Finance Minister Chidambaram, who is from Tamilnadu once opined that the North and the East are holding back the South and the West from advancing forward.
An interesting point to note, that if a Dravidanadu was formed with the four(now five with the addition of Telengana) states of Andhra(Telugu), Karnataka(Kannada), Kerala(Malayalam), Tamilnadu(Tamil) and the union territories of Puthucheri (Tamil) and Lakshadweep(Malayalam), its present population would have been around 250 million, fourth most populous country after the USA.
Very interesting! Indeed, this paragraph is especially interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravida_Nadu

"The movement for Dravida Nadu was at its height from the 1940s to 1960s, but due to fears of Tamil hegemony, it failed to find any support outside Tamil Nadu. The States Reorganisation Act 1956, which created linguistic States, weakened the demand further.[6][7] In 1960, the DMK leaders decided to delete the demand of Dravida Nadu from the party programme at a meeting held in the absence of Annadurai. In 1963, the Government of India led by Jawaharlal Nehru, declared secessionism as an illegal act. As a consequence, Annadurai abandoned the "claim" for Dravida Nadu – now geographically limited to modern Tamil Nadu – completely in 1963."

Overall, it looks like ethnic federalism is working quite well for India, no? :)
 
Top