Dravidian Model Of Governance Vs Hindutva: The Battle For Tamil Nadu’s Soul

In September 2023, while speaking at a "Sanatana Abolition Conference," Udhayanidhi Stalin stated that Sanatana Dharma is against social justice and equality and should be "eradicated". His statement generated the outrage far beyond Tamil Nadu. Television studios in Delhi flared. BJP leaders pounced on him. Several FIRs were registered against him to the extent that the Supreme Court had to say no fresh FIRs should be registered without its permission. Yet to see this as merely an irresponsible provocation or a political gaffe is to misunderstand Tamil Nadu — and the movement that governs it.

Udhayanidhi’s words were less a slip than a signpost. They marked the return of a long-simmering, deeply-rooted ideological confrontation, one that predates the BJP by decades and even predates Independence: the clash between the Dravidian imagination of India and the Hindu nationalist, homogenising vision of the Sangh Parivar.

The incident isn’t an aberration. Last few years have witnessed a growing clash between Dravidian ideology and its distinctive model of governance, and Hindutva and the BJP’s brand of development — a confrontation now at the centre of the BJP’s ambition to establish itself in Tamil Nadu. Be it Udhayanidhi Stalin’s provocative remarks on Sanatana Dharma, or the BJP’s persistent push for greater Hindi presence in the state through the National Education Policy, are expressions of a deeper ideological struggle between RSS and Dravidian movement for power as both the movements completed hundred years this year.

As the BJP aggressively pushes into Tamil Nadu, these clashes are becoming more frequent. The latest row erupted after the Centre withheld Rs 2,150 crore meant for Tamil Nadu after the MK Stalin-led government refused to implement the NEP in the state which included offering Hindi/Sanskrit to the state students. As the battle between these two competing models of governance is unfolding in Tamil Nadu today, it marked the return of a long-simmering, deeply-rooted ideological confrontation, one that predates the BJP by decades and even predates Independence: the clash between the Dravidian imagination of India and the Hindu nationalist, homogenising vision of the Sangh Parivar.

Tamil Nadu offers a compelling counter-model to the Hindutva vision of India. Anchored in regional pride, linguistic assertion, social justice politics and expansive welfare policies, the Dravidian model has transformed the state into one of India’s most diversified and industrialised economies, with consistently strong human-development indicators — including higher literacy, better sex ratios, improved life expectancy, and robust public health and education systems — compared to many other parts of the country. This success has been built not on religious nationalism or cultural homogenisation, but on rationalism, redistribution, and a sustained challenge to caste and Brahminical hierarchies. In contrast, several Hindutva-dominated states in central and northern India continue to struggle with weaker social outcomes, despite long periods of political dominance by the BJP. Most of these states are part of what is also called as BIMARU states-Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

In Tamil Nadu, the contest is not about whether one believes or disbelieves in “Sanatana Dharma.” It is about power — who defines culture, who controls history, whose language dominates, whose rituals are sanctioned, whose social position is preserved and whose dignity is denied. The BJP’s foray into the state is not merely an electoral enterprise; it is a civilizational project. And the Dravidian response is not simply political opposition; it is existential resistance. Tamil Nadu today is the arena in which two Indias are being tested against each other.

The Dravidian DNA: A Movement Born in Defiance

To understand why the BJP finds Tamil Nadu so ideologically hostile, one must understand the DNA of Dravidian politics. The Dravidian movement arose in the early 20th century as a response to Brahminical domination of social, political and cultural life under colonial rule. Periyar E.V. Ramasamy’s Self-Respect Movement launched a frontal assault on caste hierarchy, religious orthodoxy and Sanskritic hegemony. His ideas — radical, atheistic, iconoclastic — challenged the very foundations of what Hindutva politics would later try to revive.

When anti-Hindi agitations erupted in the 1930s and again in the 1960s, they were not only protests against a language, but rejections of a worldview: that India could survive only through cultural uniformity, linguistic hierarchy and northern dominance. D.M.K. and later A.I.A.D.M.K. transformed these ideas into state power. They did not merely oppose Hindi imposition — they built an alternative. Tamil was elevated as a language of administration, science, education, governance and pride. Social justice was institutionalised through reservations, welfare programmes and affirmative policies for backward castes, Dalits and women.

Unlike many post-colonial elites who sought legitimacy through religion and nationalism, the Dravidian state sought it through rationalism and redistribution.

In short, while Hindutva relied on cultural unity as its organising principle, the Dravidian project chose dignity through difference.

What the Dravidian Model Actually Built

The most inconvenient truth for its critics is that the Dravidian model worked. Not perfectly. Not without contradictions. Not without political corruption or dynastic monopolies. But by the yardstick of human development, Tamil Nadu outperformed most of India — consistently and structurally.

According to data reflected in both NITI Aayog assessments and National Family Health Surveys: Tamil Nadu’s Infant Mortality Rate has been significantly lower than the national average for years. Its life expectancy is among the highest in the country. Maternal mortality reduced at a faster pace due to a robust public healthcare system.

Literacy, especially among women, rose steadily due to targeted state intervention. Women’s labour participation, self-help groups, and micro-credit movements flourished.

The Public Distribution System remained more efficient and universal than in most BJP-ruled states. NFHS-5 revealed lower child stunting rates than many northern states, better vaccination coverage, and improved nutrition indices.

Unlike nations obsessed with “temple economics”, Tamil Nadu invested in primary healthcare centres, government schools, midday meals, maternal nutrition, free bicycles, uniforms, laptops and scholarships. These might sound mundane, but the result was extraordinary: first-generation learners, upward mobility and a workforce that attracted global manufacturing.

This social base then fuelled economic transformation. Tamil Nadu today is: A leader in automobile and auto-components manufacturing; A hub for electronics and semiconductors; Strong in textiles, garments, leather and exports; Increasingly central in renewable energy; Home to a widely-dispersed network of small and medium industries; Cities like Coimbatore, Tiruppur, Hosur, Sriperumbudur and Trichy emerged not as centres of religious nationalism but as engines of decentralised capitalism linked to state welfare. This is the paradox that unsettles Hindutva economists: Tamil Nadu achieved capitalist modernity without surrenderingsocial justice or regional pride.

Hindutva’s Limited Imagination in the South

The BJP understands highways, optics, flags, temples and statues. It understands mobilisation through fear, grievance and pride. But it has struggled to understand Tamil Nadu for a simple reason: Tamil Nadu does not require cultural validation from the north.

Hindutva thrives on the narrative of reclaiming a supposedly glorious Hindu civilisation suppressed by invaders and secularists. The Dravidian narrative, in stark contrast, asserts that the very civilisation Hindutva celebrates was built on unequal hierarchies that Tamil society chose long ago to dismantle. For Hindutva, Ram is the unifying symbol. For Tamil Nadu, Murugan is a regional god — but religious devotion does not automatically translate into political submission.

In fact, Tamil temples are historically linked to local communities more than to national uniformity. Hence, when the BJP pushes Hindi through: NEP language formula, competitive exams dominated by Hindi-medium, cultural programming, and signage and state communication. This is why even Tamil Hindus who are devout — and they number in millions — resist the BJP’s political Hinduism. Their faith is older than the BJP. And their identity is not negotiable.

Tamil Nadu does not reject India. It rejects uniform India. And the BJP cannot tolerate diversity that refuses submission. This is why the conflict is unavoidable.

A Battle That Will Define India

What is playing out in Tamil Nadu is not merely a state-level political contest. It is a referendum on India’s future direction, structure and soul. The Dravidian movement has demonstrated that a society built on dissent, difference, reason and redistribution can outperform a society built on unity, obedience, faith and hierarchy. Tamil Nadu women live longer. Its children remain in school. Its factories participate in the global economy. Its welfare reduces indignity. And all this has occurred without mass deference to a singular god, a singular language, a singular culture.

The BJP’s project is therefore not simply to win elections in Tamil Nadu. It is to prove that resistance to uniformity is futile. That cultural difference must bow before national singularity. That slogans matter more than systems.

If the Dravidian model survives — adapts — and renews itself, it may offer India its last credible alternative vision. And if it does not, what is lost will not just be one political system. It will be the idea that India can be many, and still be one.