People's Democracy

MORE than eight decades have passed since the Dravidian movement was born in Tamilnadu in 1917. In this period, it has passed through many stages, changed many slogans and deviated from many of the ideals that it had been pursuing.

As a matter of fact, the main Dravidian parties in Tamilnadu have now come to a stage where they have no hesitation in joining hands with the Hindutva parties (BJP and others) to share power at the centre. Hindutva and Brahminism, which Periyar (E V Ramaswamy Naikar) declared as the main enemy, are today the closest allies of the DMK and MDMK. In the last 84 years, the movement has given up many of its main slogans.

The aim of this article is not to go into the entire history of the Dravidian movement. It will be confined to some of the main, positive or negative, aspects of the movement and its legacy, so that the positive aspects may be utilised to further strengthen the democratic movement.

The following main aspects need to be considered for a realistic assessment of the objective situation behind the birth and growth of the movement and to understand its legacy:

1) The domination of upper castes (Brahmins in Tamilnadu) in education, employment, etc.

2) The Congress party’s orthodox approach about the caste system, chaturvarna, etc.

3) The divide and rule policy of the British government and its alliance with the landlord class for survival.

The South Indian Liberal Federation, founded by Thyagaraja and T M Nair in 1916, soon came to be called the Justice Party. Its declared aim was to strive for an improvement in the educational, economic, political and social status of the non-Brahmins in South India. Though it was said to be a "non-Brahmin" movement, essentially it was a non-Brahmin non-Harijan movement against the Brahmin domination in various fields.

The figures given in Tables 1 and 2, courtesy C J Baker, will explain the position of the Brahmins and non-Brahmins in education in the period. They show the domination of the Brahmins, 3 per cent of the population in Madras presidency, in school and college education. The increase in the percentage share of some non-Brahmin castes in the 1920s is also to be noted. Combined together, these very aspects led to a conflict of interest between the Brahmins and non-Brahmins.

Another interesting detail given by Baker is also to be noted. While these tables show the castewise position, landlords and officers’ families were classwise the dominant section of educated people, with 71 per cent share in college education in 1926-27. (See Table 3.)

It was in such a background that the richer sections of the non-Brahmins started the Justice Party against the Brahmin rich.

Another interesting feature was that education among the non-Brahmins was mainly concentrated in some upper castes. The percentage shares of various castes among those knowing English, then essential for jobs and political positions, are shown in Table 4.

Thus, of the many (around 200) castes and sub-castes at that time, only a few castes and naturally the rich among them had the opportunity to get a job and education, especially English education.

The position of various castes in employment also reflects the Brahmin domination. In those day the highest governmental position an Indian could get was that of a deputy collector, sub-judge and district munsif. In the Madras presidency in 1912, Brahmins occupied 55 per cent of deputy collector posts, 82.3 per cent of sub-judge posts and 72.6 per cent of munsif posts. The respective shares of the non-Brahmins (especially the castes mentioned above) were 2.5, 16.7 and 19.5 per cent only.

As for ownership of property, Baker’s figures (given in Table 5 and 6) show the number of taxpayers in villages and town during the 1930s when the British introduced representative government in India wherein Indians were allowed to participate. It was only the taxpayers and the educated who could vote in those elections. The figures clearly show that the non-Brahmin taxpayers of certain castes numbered much more than Brahmins in both towns and villages. It was this economic strength of certain non-Brahmin sections that prompted them to demand a bigger share in jobs and in administration when the representative government was introduced.

In this regard, late Comrade E M S Namboodiripad observed:

"Unlike in Europe where "slave society" succeeded barbarism, in India, the ruin and disruption of pre-historic tribal society led to the creation of a society consisting of a large number of social groups or castes, each with its own sense of solidarity. In other words, the factor of class was covered by caste society which, in theory, existed in "age-old" idyllic and self-sufficient village communities.

"During the British rule, the old social system based on castes and communities had its impact on the process of modernisation. From the position occupied by each caste, sub-caste and community in the pre-British social order, some of them took to modernisation more quickly than others. They were therefore able to benefit from it to a greater extent. Those who lagged behind were necessarily handicapped in various ways. The consequent discrepancy as between castes and communities lies at the root of the present distinction between the forward and backward."

In Madras presidency, the Brahmins who occupied the position of dominance for more than 2000 years, adapted to the new situation more quickly, got English education and held sway in government jobs, politics, etc. But, after receiving education, castes like the Balija Naidus, Vellalas and others also began to organise, thus giving birth to the non-Brahmin movement.

These divisions and tensions cannot simply be attributed to casteism. They were built in the national movement itself whose leaders were moved primarily by a desire to revive the age-old Indian civilisation based on Varnashrama Dharma and caste oppression. It was the millions of Indian people’s refusal to abide by this Varnashrama Dharma, that found expression in the non-Brahmin movement, in howsoever distorted manner it may have been.

The British, naturally, exploited the caste feelings among the non-Brahmins who were led by the landlords, traders, etc, to set various castes and communities against one another in order to disrupt the growing unity of Indian people for freedom.

This upper caste dominance and the non-Brahmin revolt against it, coupled with the pro-orthodoxy approach of the Indian National Congress that was leading the national movement, made the depressed castes and minorities raise a question at one stage: "what will happen to us if the British are thrown out and power comes to the Congress?

It was this tragedy of the situation because of which many reform movements in India remained out of the national movement’s purview. Periyar who started his life as a Congressman, came out of the Congress on this very issue of Brahmin domination and started the Self-Respect Movement in 1929, which later became the Dravida Kazhgam (DK).

Late C N Annadhurai, founder of the DMK, said, "Periyar brought the Self-Respect Movement from the palace to the streets." This is certainly true. Periyar made the DK a mass movement and widened its social, political and ideological approach.

Periyar’s main difference not only with the Justice Party but also with the subsequent Dravidian parties is that he extended his opposition to the Brahmin domination to the entire caste system, to Hinduism and to the very idea of God. During his tireless work among the Tamilians for years, he took up various issues like untouchability, equal rights for women, etc, and made the DK a mass party.

Periyar also posed the question of what would happen to the oppressed castes in case of transfer of administration from the British to the Brahmin-dominated Congress. It was this thinking that made him pro-British, so much so that he declared the day of independence as a "black day" for the Tamilians.

Yet the movement led by Periyar was, overall, a progressive, democratic movement that echoed the sentiments of the oppressed castes of Tamilnadu. This was the basic cause attracting the masses to the Dravidian movement. This led to a complete change in the status of non-Brahmins in Tamilnadu regarding education and jobs.

After visiting the Soviet Union for more than four months, Periyar got attracted to socialism. But this inclination was short-lived (1930-36) and when British imperialism declared the Communist Party illegal, he withdrew from this position, saying that caste oppression was a more fundamental issue than class oppression. This unfortunate development took the revolutionary and the reform movements in Tamilnadu in two different directions.

As for the successors of Periyar, they have changed many a slogan of their mentor. This is as true of the DMK which was formed in 1949 as of the subsequently formed AIADMK and MDMK, all of whom claim to be the ardent followers of Periyar and his Dravida Kazhgam.

"There is no god and the god is created by man only" was the clear position Periyar took. Though there was something undesirable in his propaganda, nobody can deny that Periyar identified religion and God as the root cause of caste domination and propagated against them all through his life.

But, for the sake of its electoral interests, the DMK began talking about "Ondre Kulam Oruvane Devan," meaning "only one God and only one society." The same with the MDMK. As for the AIADMK, it completely changed its approach and openly propagated a belief in God. This is one main aspect of difference between Periyar and his followers.

While Periyar fought against the Brahmin domination, chaturvarna and the religion which preaches it, the DMK and other Dravidian parties shifted their stand for own electoral gains, in fact reversed it, which has led to their alliance with the Hindu communalists. It is also a fact that the Dravidian parties are not actively fighting against the caste system except resorting to some occasional rhetoric on the issue. They are in fact using the same caste system to consolidate their support among the backward castes in Tamilnadu. In fact, except on issues like reservation, more power to states and equality of languages, the Dravidian parties have changed a lot, and are aligning with the very same forces whom Periyar declared as the main enemy.

Another important aspect to be noted is the plight of Harijans and the approach of various Dravadian parties towards them. As already said, the Justice Party mainly represented the non-Brahmin, non-Harijan Hindu castes and was confined mainly to the issues of education and job opportunities for these castes and their participation in the government. But Periyar fought against the caste system itself and took up the issue of untouchability and other atrocities against Harijans. He even criticised that the oppression on Harijans by non-Brahmin castes was at times more cruel than the atrocities by Brahmins. Periyar took up a temple entry programme and some other programmes in this sphere. Yet at no time did he conduct a struggle against the atrocities on Harijans by the non-Brahmin castes as in his view Brahminism was the basic source of all atrocities. He advocated that Harijans must organise themselves to do away with these atrocities against them by a section of the society.

But the Dravidian parties of today are not taking up the issue for fear of losing their vote banks. While oppression against Harijans by non-Brahmin castes was an important issue in the 1980s, now these parties are not taking up this issue seriously, except a sporadic rhetoric on the equality of man and their advice on the unity of all people in general.

In the specific conditions of today, the fight against caste has as an essential element of the Harijans’ struggle for social respect and for an upgradation of their political and economic status in society. After more than 30 years of the Dravidian parties’ rule in Tamilnadu since 1967, there is no appreciable change in the status of Harijans while caste feelings have only sharpened.

It is thus two aspects of Indian politics today that we have to take into account. On the one hand, we have to forge the unity of the working people in their struggles against the present economic policies, including the policies of globalisation and their ill effects. On the other hand, we have to fight against the increasing attacks on Harijans in various parts of the country, which tend to disrupt the people’s unity.

In other words, in the specific situation of Indian society, one needs to fight against both class and caste oppression instead of counterposing them as is being done by some reformist organisations.

  Table 2: College Education

  Table 5: Taxpayers In Villages

  Table 6: Taxpayers In Towns