I wish we all first get a chance select the leader before even applying the prejudices. In a sense, we don’t get a chance to apply even our prejudices fully, as we nowadays never know who will be our PM, we can only vote for a party. I can’t imagine US elections without a presential candidate. Still keep my hopes alive – Nanda

I would concede this point, in the larger context. It is a well argued and well thought out position.

“I still believe Karunanidhi was a right example as well.”
I do not accept this point, as my contention is that Karuna would not have succeeded without MGR and his charisma, and he built on what MGR created. So, the people of TN accepted him and Jaya as the rightful heirs to MGR’s legacy, without really going into the question of his atheism.

However, that is only my interpretation of the political developments in TN and I accept that you can have a completely different assessment of the situation.

To me, though, in the context of the bigger question that we were debating, Mayawati is actually the bigger phenomenon. If she indeed wins Delhi with a rainbow coalition, I would accept that we have gotten over our age-old prejudices. Although, I think she would be an unmitigated disaster from an economics standpoint.

Thanks again for chatting. Regards.

MGR was not an explicit ateist, so the discussion is only about Karunanidhi and his DMK. Anti-hindi was a primary card for winning that election, true. I understnad it as, people electing who they thought convincing rather than looking into the leader’s religious position. This is without getting into argument of whether anti-hindi was right or not (separate subject), they supported Karunanidhi without looking at his religious affiliation, which is the matter of discussion.

This is same as why Whites voted for Obama, because they saw something convincing(good or bad) more than his race. This is the analogy. TN hindus found something(anti-hindi) convincing more than Karuna’s religion. And it continues till now for different reasons.

Though I provided more than one example, I still believe Karunanidhi was a right example as well.

There is no direct relation to TN, I was just using an indirect analogy – but, an interesting thing happened when I went to search out data on Maharashtra, religion demographics by India census data – it is not available!

A third party site offers this:
http://www.mapsofindia.com/census/

And, the official govt of India site on census data is down or does not allow me to access the data. Therefore, here is a question – does the census actually collect data on religion? If not, did the TN govt collect this data specially?

Coming back to the debate on TN, if Hindus accepted Periyar’s ideology, without accepting atheism, is it also possible that most members of the two Dravidian parties today also do the same? i.e. they are not atheists? In which case, it would be hindus voting for hindus?

Also, another diversion on TN – if my memory serves me right, the DK or the Justice Party (the original party of Periyar) never actually came to power in TN? It was only when DMK was formed out of the DK *and* MGR joined and led the party that it won its first elections? In which case, it would be hindus voting for a film star? And, MGR essentially rode a huge anti-Hindi wave to power in TN? So, it was really tamils voting against the imposition of hindi as official language in 1965, rather than any other flavour?

The consolidation of power by DMK (and then A-DMK) happened thereafter. By which time, one can argue that both these parties had lost their previous strident anti-hindu position, and had become more of regional, language driven parties, albeit one of which is headed by a stated atheist.

So, the DMK/A-DMK are really not a good example of your points.

Hindu’s accepted periyars ‘pahutharivu’ ideology, it doesn’t mean they all agreed to be ateists. If someone makes a trip to TN, they can see how many people trong to temples, how many wear big ash and kumkum in forehead. Dravidian parties consecrated temples, glad you mentioned here, its atrocious. Hindus didn’t revolt, its their tolerant nature, which is widely being questioned now-a-days.

Apologies, my intention was not to attribute motives. I stand corrected – but yes, the point is, hindus vote for non-hindus, and its a good example in TN.