Footprints Of The Original 바카라�Anti-Nationals바카라�

Anti-national was not the only abuse hurled at him. His party, the South Indian Liberal Federation, was later called the Justice Party after its flagship newspaper was debunked as collaborationist, serving British colonial interests for the fishes and loaves of office. But Theagaraya Chetty would turn down the chief ministership of the Madras Presidency when his party swept the 1920 elections. So much for being collaborationist and anti-national. Calling one바카라�s political opponents anti-national is apparently no new weapon.

In this movement of so-called anti-nationalists and collaborationists, Theagaraya Chetty was joined by Dr T.M. Nair (1868-1919), an Edinburgh-trained doctor. Associated with the grand old man of Indian nationalism, Dadabhai Naoroji, during his London days, Nair was a regular at the annual gatherings of the Indian National Congress. But when these two nationalists, Nair and Chetty, their accomplishments and commitment to the national cause notwithstanding, realised that they were being side-lined by the behind-the-screen machinations of a Brahmin-dominated Congress, they launched a new organisation.

And when the British, who looked at educated Brahmins with suspicion, provided through a series of administrative enquiries, the figures and numbers that demonstrated the fact of Brahmin domination in every sphere of public life바카라�education, the professions and official positions바카라�it only confirmed their lived experience. As the nationalist movement gat­hered force, with a demand for some form of Home Rule, the non-Brahmin leaders wondered what might be in store for them in a free India.

These fears were articulated in the Non-Brahmin Manifesto, issued at the historic meeting in the Victoria Public Hall on November 20, 1916. The manifesto, articulated in a language that would do credit to any liberal intellectual, pointed out that though 바카라�Not less than 40 out of the 41 1/2 millions바카라� of the Madras Presidency were non-Brahmins, 바카라�in what passes for the politics in Madras they have not taken the part to which they are entitled바카라�. Arguing that a government conducted on 바카라�true British principles of justice and equality of opportunity바카라� was in the best interests of India, it declared, in words reminiscent of the early Congress, that 바카라�we are deeply devoted and loyally attached to British rule바카라�.

The Justice party won the first elections under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. Within the limits of dyarchy바카라�the political arrangement under which the bulk of powers remained with the executive and only 바카라�the transferred subjects바카라� were handled by elected (by a limited franchise) ministers바카라�the Justice ministry had many landmark achievements to its credit.

The so-called 바카라�communal government orders바카라� of 1921-22 introduced reservation on the basis of caste, and opened new avenues for backward caste mobility. Starting from government jobs, reservation soon enc­ompassed education. This form of positive discrimination became the model for the rest of India, manifesting itself in the Mandal Commission recommendations a good seven decades later. The first amendment to the Constitution of India that sec­ured reservation in the face of an adverse Madras High Court verdict (Shenbagam Dorairajan vs Union of India) was the result of an agitation centred in Tamil Nadu. Even as North India continues to grapple with the mechanics of reservation, it works with clockwork precision in the south. The profile of the South India바카라�s higher education must warm the heart of every champion of social diversity. The fruits of reservation enjoyed by backward castes across India is in no small measure due to the demand articulated in the Victoria Public Hall during a monsoon evening a hundred years ago.

The Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1925, at once stroke kick-started the secularisation of Tamil society. The numerous well-endowed temples, marred by maladministration and reeling under the control of locally dominant castes, now came under the state. That ninety years later Hindutva forces continue to clamour for its abolition speaks for the foresight of this legislation.

Why are these far-reaching moves of such great import so little known outside of Tamil Nadu?

T.M. Nair바카라�s premature death, in 1919, in London, and Theagaraya Chetty바카라�s death in old age, in 1925, at a historic juncture deprived the party of a sagacious leadership. But this loss, was also an opportunity. The non-Brahmin movement took a vernacular turn with the rise of E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker, later to be venerated as 바카라�Periyar바카라�. In an age of democratic politics, from the late 1920s, Periyar shaped the Self-Respect movement and took it to the streets. This had the effect of sidelining the English-speaking non-Brahmin elite바카라�much as Gandhi had done for Indian nationalism. It was this elite that M.N. Roy tried to tap into when he spearheaded the Radical Democratic Party in the 1940s. However, he soon forsook the likes of S. Muthiah Mudaliar, 바카라�Sunday Observer바카라� Balasubramaniam and T.A.V. Nathan, all Justice Party stalwarts, and tried to forge an alliance with Periyar.

The vernacular turn meant the loss of advocates who could articulate the non-Brahmin movement바카라�s programmes and defend it against the calumnies heaped on it. Not until the rise of area studies scholarship from the American universities did reasoned accounts arguing the non-Brahmin movement바카라�s case reach outside audiences.

The Justice party functioned within the colonial pub­­lic sphere, using the language of liberalism and con­stitutionalism. Periyar rejected that idiom and cha­llenged the roots of inequality by attacking caste, religion, and patriarchy. This campaign led to a direct confrontation with a socially retrograde nationalism which compromised with feudal values. One of the high points was the anti-Hindi agitation (1938-39), launched against the compulsory study of Hindi in schools. Periyar바카라�s movements in the 1950s바카라�the breaking of Hindu idols, the burning of the images of Ram, and the torching of pictures of Gandhi, the Constitution and the national flag바카라�chipped away at the monolithic conception of a nation based on a single language, a single religion, and an upper caste leadership.

Periyar eschewed electoral politics, preferring to play the role of unhidden persuader. Yet his impact on Tamil politics continues to remain palpable. A breakaway group, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, led by his protege C.N. Annadurai, pulled the carpet from under the Congress and scripted the political empowerment of backward castes. And, consequently, one or the other Dravidian party has ruled Tamil Nadu for a half a century now. On the other hand, Periyar바카라�s movement also triggered the debrahminisation of the Congress, and his support bolstered the chief-ministership of K. Kamaraj.

Though the English-speaking elite remained ignorant of Periyar바카라�s radical programmes, his imprint is discernible in backward castes movements across India. His leadership of the Vaikom Satyagraha in 1924, won him the support of the Ezhavas of Kerala. And their leaders such as Sahodaran Ayyappan rem­ained in conversation with him all through his life.

Periyar바카라�s initial recognition of Dr Ambedkar as the sole spokesperson of India바카라�s Dalits strengthened his hands, even as he was cornered from all sides. Not surprisingly, the history of the Dalit movement in Tamil Nadu is intertwined with Periyar. Periyar바카라�s north Indian tours in the 1950s and 1960s kindled the hopes of backward castes. It was therefore appropriate that Kanshi Ram should invoke his name when he mobilised the Bahujan Samaj in the late 1980s.

At a time when Hindutva forces are riding the high horse of nationalism, the 바카라�anti-nationalism바카라� of Periyar and the non-Brahmin manifesto deserves to be commemorated, and not only in Tamil Nadu.

(The writer is presently working on a biography of Periyar)