Decoding the Kamal-Kannada episode

Members of Kannada Raksha Vedike stage a protest in Bengaluru on May 29, 2025 against actor Kamal Haasan for his remarks on the Kannada language.
| Photo Credit: PTI

Actor Kamal Haasan’s remark that “Kannada was born from Tamil” has sparked several debates. But this is not a new idea; it has existed within the Tamil discourse for two centuries. Robert Caldwell and other linguists have said Dravidian languages branched off from a shared language, termed Proto-Dravidian. However, Tamil nationalists have never accepted this view. They have claimed that all Dravidian languages are offshoots of Tamil. At its peak, this belief extended to proclaiming that Tamil is the world’s first language and that all other world languages were born from it.

The more acceptable idea

Even today, these two schools of thought continue to thrive in the Tamil intellectual space. The idea of a Proto-Dravidian language has gained traction beyond Tamil Nadu. In contrast, the notion that Tamil is the source of all languages has little traction or acceptance outside. We now live at a time when awareness around linguistic dominance has grown politically in India’s multilingual context. Every national group tends to hold its language as the primary marker of its identity. Any idea or action that is perceived as one that diminishes their linguistic pride often invites a fierce backlash.

In such a climate, it is more appropriate on public platforms to affirm the idea that all Dravidian languages emerged from a common Proto-Dravidian root. Culturally and politically, this view fosters harmony and equality. To say other languages came from Tamil can easily be perceived by others as demeaning to their language and identity. They may see such a claim as a form of dominance imposed on them. For Tamil nationalists, who mix ancestral pride with political messaging, such assertions may help construct a narrative of ancient greatness. But beyond that, in contemporary politics, this view only serves to isolate Tamil Nadu. Without strong, widely accepted academic evidence, there is no need to insist that Tamil is the source of all languages.

The classical attributes of Tamil — its antiquity, literary richness, and unbroken literary tradition — are well known to other language communities and to the world at large. Merely presenting these strengths is enough to bring honour to Tamil. Even when compared with modern literature of any Indian language, Tamil literature stands equal, if not superior. What we need are conscious efforts to take this richness of Tamil to a wider world.

In 2022, Hindi writer Geetanjali Shree won the International Booker Prize. This year, Kannada writer Banu Mushtaq received the same honour. Tamil, too, deserves to be taken to such global heights. What we need is a sustained cultural effort in that direction — not the unproductive habit of making provocative statements that alienate speakers of other languages.

When Mr. Haasan said “Kannada was born from Tamil,” his intent was not to insult that language. Kannada actor Shivarajkumar was on stage, and Mr. Haasan was speaking with pride about his warm relationship with that family. He was pointing to the kinship between Tamil and Kannada and was trying to say ‘we are family; ours are sibling languages’. It is likely that in that moment, the idea that ‘Tamil is the origin’ — an idea long held by a section of Tamil thinkers — came to his mind. But there is no reason to doubt his intentions. He has the freedom to express such a view in public. Those who hold opposing views can disagree, and speak or write in response. But to issue threats to him is a violation of his right to express an opinion.

The court’s view

When a case regarding the release of his film Thug Life came before the court in Karnataka, the judge almost compelled Mr. Haasan to apologise. While linguistic fundamentalists are prepared to turn this into a conflict between two regional nationalities, should the court be approaching it in a way that favours them? The police may treat this as a law-and-order issue, but the court cannot view it that way. Should the court function like a kattapanchayat (extrajudicial body) enforcing commercial compromise?

The court should have treated this as an issue of freedom of expression. Anyone can say they are hurt by a particular view, but what is the measure of being hurt? Anyone can deliberately create social tension. The court cannot consider such people as a party to compromise. The court should have said that it will carefully examine whether Mr. Haasan has the right to express such a view; that this has no relation to the release of the film; and that it will allow the film’s release with police protection. Whatever way the case came before the court, it should have been approached from the standpoint of freedom of expression. In a democracy, the court is the final refuge that safeguards that right.

Mr. Haasan did not apologise. He explained that “the opinion was not wrong; it was misunderstood.” Normally, if any issue arises around a film, the standard response is to issue an immediate apology, remove scenes, and make compromises to facilitate the film’s release. For the first time, someone from the film industry has said, “I will not apologise.”

Whatever commercial calculations may lie behind that stance, the courage to make such a statement must be acknowledged. As the court itself said, this is not a matter of arrogance, but of self-respect. A person has every right to express an opinion and to stand by it if they believe it is right. Democratic opposition to such views can certainly be voiced. But issuing violent threats or denying someone their right to live must be treated as punishable crimes.

Perumal Murugan, scholar and literary chronicler who writes in the Tamil language