When there was a growing sense of resentment among the activists towards Tamil immigrants, Kannada intellectuals chose to look at the larger picture, not conceiving Tamil migration as a threat. Writers in the Kannada literary sphere like Jnanpith awardee U.R. Ananthamurthy, P. Lankesh and K.P. Poornachandra Tejaswi were strongly influenced by the ideas of Ram Manohar Lohia, who argued that language is one of the dominant tools for controlling power relations in society. Thus, people바카라s languages are required to be included in all government affairs since most of the Indian population is not acquainted with English. On the one hand, there were a large number of people speaking in their respective Indian languages, and on the other, there was a handful controlling them through English, the language most people did not know. Therefore, Lohia strongly insisted on removing English from the sphere of bureaucracy and replacing it with the people바카라s languages. However, when he said 바카라바카라banish English바카라바카라, he did not imply its banishment from India바카라s libraries and colleges. His argument was to retain English as an optional language. He also believed that original thinking can only happen in one바카라s native language. The Kannada intellectuals were, thus, more concerned with the increasing influence of globalisation in Karnataka and on the Kannada language. U.R. Ananthamurthy argued that instead of targeting Tamilians and their language, the government should elevate Kannada by de-emphasising the importance of English and Hindi. Noted cultural critic D.R. Nagaraj took the argument further and said that the pro-Kannada movement had the potential to fight against the so-called universal market culture, which aimed to destroy local traditions. However, he sensed the lack of a larger understanding of the issue in the Kannada movements of that time.