Justice Party (India)
Justice Party | |
---|---|
Theagaroya Chetty | |
Founded | 1917 |
Dissolved | 27 August 1944 |
Preceded by | Madras Dravidian Association |
Succeeded by | Dravidar Kazhagam |
Headquarters | Madras |
Newspaper | Justice Dravidian Andhra Prakasika P. Balasubramania Mudaliar’s Sunday Observer |
Ideology | Socialism Anti-Brahminism |
The Justice Party, officially the South Indian Liberal Federation, was a political party in the
During its early years, the party was involved in petitioning the imperial administrative bodies and British colonial officials demanding more representation for non-Brahmins in government. When a
The Justice Party was isolated in contemporary Indian politics by its many controversial activities. It opposed Brahmins in civil service and politics, and this anti-Brahmin attitude shaped many of its ideas and policies. It opposed
Background
Brahmin/non-Brahmin divide
This article is part of a series on the |
Dravidian Politics |
---|
The
Caste group | Deputy collectors | Sub judges | District Munsifs | % of total male population |
---|---|---|---|---|
Brahmins | 77 | 15 | 93 | 3.2 |
non-Brahmin Hindus | 30 | 3 | 25 | 85.6 |
Muslims | 15 | nil | 2 | 6.6 |
Indian Christians | 7 | nil | 5 | 2.7 |
Europeans and Eurasians | 11 | nil | 3 | .1 |
The dominance of Brahmins was also evident in the membership of the
British policies
Historians differ about the extent of British influence in the evolution of the non-Brahmin movement.
The British role in the development of the non-Brahmin movement is broadly accepted by some historians. The statistics used by non-Brahmin leaders in their 1916 manifesto were prepared by senior
Early non-Brahmin associations in south india
Identity politics among linguistic groups was common in British India. In every area, some groups considered British rule more favourable than a Congress–led independent government.[16] In 1909, two lawyers, P. Subrahmanyam and M. Purushotham Naidu, announced plans to establish an organisation named "The Madras Non-Brahmin Association" and recruit a thousand non-Brahmin members before October 1909. They elicited no response from the non-Brahmin populace and the organisation never saw the light of the day. Later in 1912, disaffected non-Brahmin members of the bureaucracy like Saravana Pillai, G. Veerasamy Naidu, Doraiswami Naidu and S. Narayanaswamy Naidu established the "Madras United League" with C. Natesa Mudaliar as Secretary. The league restricted itself to social activities and distanced itself from contemporary politics. On 1 October 1912, the league was reorganised and renamed as the "Madras Dravidian Association". The association opened many branches in Madras city. Its main achievement was to establish a hostel for non-Brahmin students. It also organised annual "At-home" functions for non-Brahmin graduates and published books presenting their demands.[9]
Formation
In the 1916 elections to the
On 20 November 1916, a gathering of non-Brahmin leaders and dignitaries met at the Advocate T.Ethirajulu Mudaliyar's residence in Vepery, Chennai. Diwan Bahadur Pitti Theagaraya Chettiar, Dr. T. M. Nair, Diwan Bahadur P. Rajarathina Mudaliyar, Dr. C. Nadesa Mudaliyar, Diwan Bahadur P. M. Sivagnana Mudaliar, Diwan Bahadur P. Ramaraya Ningar, Diwan Bahadur M. G. Aarokkiasami Pillai, Diwan Bahadur G. Narayanasamy Reddy, Rao Bahadur O. Thanikasalam Chettiar, Rao Bahadur M. C. Raja, Dr. Mohammed Usman Sahib, J. M. Nallusamipillai, Rao Bahadur K. Venkataretti Naidu (K. V. Reddy Naidu), Rao Bahadur A. B. Patro, T. Ethirajulu Mudaliyar, O. Kandasamy Chettiar, J. N. Ramanathan, Khan Bahadur A. K. G. Ahmed Thambi Marikkayar, Alarmelu Mangai Thayarmmal, A. Ramaswamy Mudaliyar, Diwan Bahadur Karunagara Menon, T. Varadarajulu Naidu, L. K. Thulasiram, K. Apparao Naidugaru, S. Muthaiah Mudaliyar and Mooppil Nair were among those present at the meeting.[17]
They established the South Indian People's Association (SIPA) to publish English, Tamil and Telugu newspapers to publicise grievances of non-Brahmins. Chetty became the secretary. Chetty and Nair had been political rivals in the Madras Corporation council, but Natesa Mudaliar was able to reconcile their differences. The meeting also formed the "South Indian Liberal Federation" (SILF) as a political movement. Dr. T. M. Nair and Pitti Theagaraya Chettiar were the co-founders of this movement. Rajarathna Mudaliyar was selected as the president. Ramaraya Ningar, Pitti Theagaraya Chettiar, A. K. G. Ahmed Thambi Marikkayar and M. G. Aarokkiasami Pillai were also selected as the vice-presidents. B. M. Sivagnana Mudaliyar, P. Narayanasamy Mudaliar, Mohammed Usman, M. Govindarajulu Naidu were selected as the secretaries. G. Narayanasamy Chettiar acted as treasurer. T. M. Nair was elected as one of the executive committee members.[17] Later, the movement came to be popularly called the "Justice Party", after the English daily Justice published by it. In December 1916, the association published "The Non Brahmin Manifesto", affirmed its loyalty and faith in the British Raj, but decried Brahminic bureaucratic dominance and urged for non-Brahmins to "press their claims as against the virtual domination of the Brahmin Caste".[9] The manifesto was harshly criticised by the nationalist newspaper The Hindu (on 20 December 1916):
It is with much pain and surprise that we have perused this document. It gives a manifestly unfair and distorted representation of many of the matters to which it makes reference. It can serve no purpose but it is bound to create bad blood between persons belonging to the Great Indian Community.[9]
The periodical Hindu Nesan, questioned the timing of the new association. The New Age (Home Rule Movement's newspaper) dismissed it and predicted its premature death. By February 1917, the SIPA joint stock company had raised money by selling 640 shares of one hundred rupees each. The money purchased a printing press and the group hired C. Karunakara Menon to edit a newspaper which was to be called Justice. However, negotiations with Menon broke down and Nair himself took over as honorary editor with P. N. Raman Pillai and M. S. Purnalingam Pillai as sub–editors. The first issue came out on 26 February 1917. A Tamil newspaper called Dravidan, edited by Bhaktavatsalam Pillai, was started in June 1917. The party also purchased the Telugu newspaper Andhra Prakasika (edited by A. C. Parthasarathi Naidu). Later in 1919, both were converted to weeklies due to financial constraints.[9]
On 19 August 1917, the first non-Brahmin conference was convened at Coimbatore under the presidency of Ramarayaningar. In the following months, several non-Brahmin conferences were organised. On 18 October, the party published its objectives (as formed by T. M. Nair) in The Hindu:
1) to create and promote the education, social, economic, political, material and moral progress of all communities in Southern India other than Brahmins 2)to discuss public questions and make a true and timely representation to Government of the views and interests of the people of Southern India with the object of safeguarding and promoting the interests of all communities other than Brahmins and 3) to disseminate by public lectures, by distribution of literature and by other means sound and liberal views in regard to public opinion.[18]
Between August and December 1917 (when the first confederation of the party was held), conferences were organised all over the Madras Presidency—at Coimbatore, Bikkavole, Pulivendla,
Early history (1916–1920)
During 1916–20, the Justice party struggled against the Egmore and Mylapore factions to convince the British government and public to support communal representation for non-Brahmins in the presidency. Rajagopalachari's followers advocated non-cooperation with the British.[10]
Conflict with Home Rule Movement
In 1916,
Besant's association with Brahmins and her vision of a homogeneous India based on Brahminical values brought her into direct conflict with Justice. The December 1916 "Non-Brahmin Manifesto" voiced its opposition to the Home Rule Movement. The manifesto was criticised by the Home rule periodical New India. Justice opposed the Home Rule Movement and the party newspapers derisively nicknamed Besant as the "Irish Brahmini". Dravidan, the Tamil language mouthpiece of the party, ran headlines such as Home rule is Brahmin's rule. All three of the party's newspapers ran articles and opinions pieces critical of the home rule movement and the league on a daily basis. Some of these Justice articles were later published in book form as The Evolution of Annie Besant. Nair described the home rule movement as an agitation carried on "by a white woman particularly immune from the risks of government action" whose rewards would be reaped by the Brahmins.[9][20]
Demand for communal representation
On 20 August 1917,
At a meeting held in Thanjavur, the party dispatched T. M. Nair to London to lobby for extending communal representation. Dr. Nair arrived in June 1918 and worked into December, attended various meetings, addressed Members of Parliament (MPs), and wrote articles and pamphlets. However, the party refused to cooperate with the Southborogh committee that was appointed to draw up the franchise framework for the proposed reforms, because Brahmins V. S. Srinivasa Sastri and Surendranath Banerjee were committee members. Justice secured the support of many Indian and non–Indian members of Indian Civil Service for communal representation.[19][22]
The Joint Select Committee held hearings during 1919–20 to finalise the Government of India Bill, which would implement the reforms. A Justice delegation composed of Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, Kurma Venkata Reddi Naidu, Koka Appa Rao Naidu and L. K. Tulasiram, attended the hearings. Ramarayaningar also represented the All India Landholder association and the Madras Zamindar association. Reddi Naidu, Mudaliar and Ramarayaningar toured major cities, addressed meetings, met with MPs, and wrote letters to the local newspapers to advance their position. Nair died on 17 July 1919 before he could appear. After Nair's death, Reddi Naidu became the spokesman. He testified on 22 August. The deputation won the backing of both Liberal and Labour members. The committee's report, issued on 17 November 1919, recommended communal representation in the Madras Presidency. The number of reserved seats was to be decided by the local parties and the Madras Government. After prolonged negotiations between Justice, Congress, MPA and the British colonial government, a compromise (called "Meston's Award") was reached in March 1920. 28 (3 urban and 25 rural) of the 63 general seats in plural member constituencies were reserved for non-Brahmins.[19][22] A youth conference for non-Brahmins was held in Bombay, with Adv J S SAVANT serving as the chairman of the reception committee. Was a weekly writer in the English daily “Justice “ of Madras when Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar was its editor, President, Maratha Recruitment Board World War II, President Konkan prantic Non Brahmin Sangh
Opposition to non-cooperation movement
Unsatisfied with the
This stance isolated the party—most political and social organisations supported the movement. Justice Party's believed that he associated mostly with Brahmins, though he was not a Brahmin himself. It also favoured industrialisation. When Gandhi visited Madras in April 1921, he spoke about the virtues of Brahminism and Brahmin contributions to Indian culture.[24] Justice responded:
The meeting was presided over by local Brahmin politicians of Gandhi persuasion, and Mr. Gandhi himself was surrounded by Brahmins of both sexes. A band of them came to the meeting singing hymns. They broke coconut in front of Gandhi, burnt camphor and presented him with holy water in silver basin. There were other marks of deification and, naturally, the vanity of the man was flattered beyond measure. He held forth on the glories of Brahminism and Brahminical culture. Not even knowing even the elements of Dravidian culture, Dravidian philosophy, Dravidian literature, Dravidian languages, and Dravidian history, this Gujarati gentleman extolled the Brahmins to the skies at the expense of non-Brahmins; and the Brahmins present must have been supremely pleased and elated.[24]
Kandaswamy Chetty sent a letter to the editor of Gandhi's journal Young India, advising him to stay away from Brahmin/non-Brahmin issues. Gandhi responded by highlighting his appreciation of Brahmin contribution to Hinduism and said, "I warn the correspondents against separating the Dravidian south from Aryan north. The India today is a blend not only of two, but of many other cultures." The party's relentless campaign against Gandhi, supported by the Madras Mail made him less popular and effective in South India, particularly in southern Tamil districts. Even when Gandhi suspended the movement after the Chauri Chaura incident, party newspapers expressed suspicion of him. The party softened on Gandhi only after his arrest, expressing appreciation for his "moral worth and intellectual capacity".[24]
In office
The Government of India Act 1919 implemented the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, instituting a Diarchy in Madras Presidency. The diarchial period extended from 1920 to 1937, encompassing five elections. Justice party was in power for 13 of 17 years, save for an interlude during 1926–30.
1920–26
During the non-cooperation campaign, the
I was a Minister of Development without the forests. I was a Minister of Agriculture minus Irrigation. As a Minister of Agriculture I had nothing to do with the Madras Agriculturists Loan Act or the Madras Land Improvement Loans Act... The efficacy and efficiency of a Minister of Agriculture without having anything to do with irrigation, agricultural loans, land improvement loans and famine relief, may better be imagined than described. Then again, I was Minister of Industries without factories, boilers, electricity and water power, mines or labor, all of which are reserved subjects.[23]
Internal dissent emerged and the party split in late 1923, when
1930–37
After four years in opposition, Justice
Decline
Increasing nationalist feelings and factional infighting caused the party to shrink steadily from the early 1930s. Many leaders left to join Congress. Rao as inaccessible to his own party members and tried to curtail the powers of district leaders who had been instrumental in the party's previous successes. The party was seen as collaborators, supporting the British colonial government's measures to counter the
In its last years in power, the party's decline continued. The Justice ministers drew a large monthly salary (Rs. 4,333.60, compared to the Rs. 2,250 in the Central Provinces) at the height of the Great Depression which was sharply criticised by the Madras press including Madras Mail, a traditional backer of the party, attacked its ineptitude and patronage.[37] The extent of the discontent against the Justice government is reflected in an article of Zamin Ryot:
The Justice Party has disgusted the people of this presidency like plague and engendered permanent hatred in their hearts. Everybody, therefore, is anxiously awaiting the fall of the Justice regime which they consider tyrannical and inauguration of the Congress administration...Even old women in villages ask as to how long the ministry of the Raja of Bobbili would continue.[37]
Justice's final defeat has been ascribed variously to[38] its collaboration with the British colonial government; the elitist nature of the Justice party members,[39] loss of scheduled caste and Muslim support and flight of the social radicals to the Self-Respect Movement or in sum,[40] "...internal dissension, ineffective organisation, inertia and lack of proper leadership".[23][37]
In opposition
Justice was in opposition from 1926 to 1930 and again from 1937 until it transformed itself to Dravidar Kazhagam in 1944.
1926–30
In the
1936–44
After its crushing defeat at the hands in 1937, Justice lost political influence. The Raja of Bobbili temporarily retired to tour Europe.
Under Periyar's leadership, the party embraced the
Transformation into Dravidar Kazhagam
Periyar withdrew the party from electoral politics and converted it into a social reform organisation. He explained, "If we obtain social self-respect, political self-respect is bound to follow".[51] Periyar's influence pushed Justice into anti-Brahmin, anti-Hindu and atheistic stances. During 1942–44, Periyar's opposition to the Tamil devotional literary works Kamba Ramayanam and Periya Puranam, caused a break with Saivite Tamil scholars, who had joined the anti-Hindi agitations. Justice had never possessed much popularity among students, but started making inroads with C. N. Annadurai's help.[52][53] A group of leaders became uncomfortable with Periyar's leadership and policies and formed a rebel group that attempted to dethrone Periyar. This group included P. Balasubramanian (editor of The Sunday Observer), R. K. Shanmugam Chettiar, P. T. Rajan and A. P. Patro, C. L. Narasimha Mudaliar, Damodaran Naidu and K. C. Subramania Chettiar. A power struggle developed between the pro and anti-Periyar factions. On 27 December 1943, the rebel group convened the party's executive committee and criticised Periyar for not holding an annual meeting after 1940. To silence his critics Periyar decided to convene the confederation.[54]
On 27 August 1944, Justice's sixteenth annual confederation took place in Salem
Electoral performance
Elections | Total seats up for election[60] | Seats won | Total seats available for nomination[61] | Members nominated | Result | Party President |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1920
|
98 | 63 | 29 | 18 | Won | Theagaroya Chetty
|
1923
|
98 | 44 | 29 | 17 | Won | Theagaroya Chetty |
1926
|
98 | 21 | 34 | 0 | Lost | Raja of Panagal
|
1930
|
98 | 35 | 34 | Won | B. Munuswamy Naidu | |
1934
|
98 | 34 | Lost[62] | Raja of Bobbili
| ||
1937
|
215 | 18 | 46 | 7 | Lost | Raja of Bobbili |
1939–1946 | No elections held | E. V. Ramasamy
| ||||
1946
|
215 | 0 | 46 | 0 | Did not participate | P. T. Rajan |
1952
|
375[63] | 1 | NA | NA | Lost | P. T. Rajan |
Organisation
The Justice party's first officeholders were elected in October 1917. Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar was the party's first general secretary. The party began writing a constitution in 1920, adopting it on 19 December 1925 during its ninth confederation. An 18 October 1917 notice in The Hindu, outlining the party's policies and goals was the nearest it had to a constitution in its early years.[18][64]
Madras City was the centre of the party's activities. It functioned from its office at Mount Road, where party meetings were held. Apart from the head office, several branch offices operated in the city. By 1917, the party had established offices at all the district headquarters in the presidency, periodically visited by the Madras–based leaders. The party had a 25–member executive committee, a president, four vice-presidents, a general secretary and a treasurer. After the 1920 elections, some attempts were made to mimic European political parties. A chief whip was appointed and Council members formed committees. Article 6 of the constitution made the party president the undisputed leader of all non-Brahmin affiliated associations and party members in the legislative council. Article 14 defined the membership and role of the executive committee and tasked the general secretary with implementing executive committee decisions. Article 21 specified that a "provincial confederation" of the party be organised annually, although as of 1944, 16 confederations had been organised in 27 years.[18][64]
The following is the list of presidents of the Justice Party and their terms:[18][64]
President of Justice Party[65] | Term start | Term end |
---|---|---|
Sir P. Theagaroya Chetty
|
1917 | 23 June 1925 |
Raja of Panagal
|
1925 | 16 December 1928 |
P. Munuswamy Naidu
|
6 August 1929 | 11 October 1932 |
Raja of Bobbili
|
11 October 1932 | 29 December 1938 |
E. V. Ramaswami
|
29 December 1938 | 27 August 1944 |
B. Ramachandra Reddi
|
1944 | 1945 |
P. T. Rajan | 1945 | 1957 |
Works
Legislative initiatives
During its years in power, Justice passed a number of laws with lasting impact. Some of its legislative initiatives were still in practice as of 2009. On 16 September 1921, the first Justice government passed the first communal government order (G. O. # 613), thereby becoming the first elected body in the Indian legislative history to legislate reservations, which have since become standard.[66][67][68] The Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act, introduced on 18 December 1922 and passed in 1925, brought many Hindu Temples under the direct control of the state government. This Act set the precedent for later
The Government of India Act of 1919 prohibited women from becoming legislators. The first Justice Government reversed this policy on 1 April 1921. Voter qualifications were made gender neutral. This resolution cleared the way for
The Madras Elementary Education Act of 1920 introduced compulsory education for boys and girls and increased elementary education funding. It was amended in 1934 and 1935. The act penalised parents for withdrawing their children from schools. The Madras University Act of 1923 expanded the administrative body of the
The State Aid to Industries Act, passed in 1922 and amended in 1935, advanced loans for the establishment of industries. The Malabar Tenancy Act of 1931 (first introduced in September 1926), controversially strengthened the legal rights of agricultural tenants and gave them the "right to occupy (land) in some cases".[68]
Universities
Rivalry between the Tamil and
Infrastructure
The second Justice Chief Minister, Ramarayaningar's years in power saw improvements to the infrastructure of the city of Madras – particularly the development of the village of Theagaroya Nagar. His administration implemented the Madras Town Planning Act of 7 September 1920, creating residential colonies to cope with the city'srapid population growth.[72]
The Long Tank, a 5 km (3.1 mi) long and 2 km (1.2 mi) wide water body, formed an arc along the city's western frontier from
Political legacy
The Justice party served as a non-Brahmin political organisation. Though non-Brahmin movements had been in existence since the late 19th century, Justice was the first such political organisation. The party's participation in the governing process under dyarchy taught the value of parliamentary democracy to the educated elite of the Madras state . Justice and
Contemporary and erstwhile parties that find their roots in Justice Party
Justice Party 1917 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Self-respect movement 1925 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dravidar Kazhagam 1944 | Justice Party (PTR) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam 1949 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tamil National Party 1962 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Merger with Indian National Congress 1964 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam 17 October 1972 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thazhthapattor Munnetra Kazhagam 1974 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Makkal Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam 1977 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Merger with AIADMK 1977 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
M.G.R.'s death on 24 December 1987 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AIADMK Janaki faction | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thamizhaga Munnetra Munnani 1988 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Merger with Janata Dal 1989 | AIADMK unifies again Janaki's faction dissolved and merged with Jayalalithaa's faction 1989 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam 1994 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MGR Kazhagam 1995 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MGR Anna DMK 1996 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Merger with Bharatiya Janata Party 2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Major Dravidian parties that are currently active | Dravidar Kazhagam | All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam | Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam | Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Controversies
Attitude towards Brahmins
The Justice party began as a political organisation to represent the interests of non-Brahmins. Initially it did not accept Brahmins as party members. However, along with other groups including Europeans, they were allowed to attend meetings as observers.
So long as we exclude one community, we cannot as a political speak on behalf of or claim to represent all the people of our presidency. If, as we hope, provincial autonomy is given to the provinces as a result of the reforms that may be granted, it should be essential that our Federation should be in a position to claim to be a truly representative body of all communities. What objection can there be to admit such Brahmins as are willing to subscribe to the aims and objects of our Federation? It may be that the Brahmins may not join even if the ban is removed. But surely our Federation will not thereafter be open to objection on the ground that it is an exclusive organization.[41]
Former education minister A. P. Patro supported Naidu's view. However this resolution was vehemently opposed by Periyar and R. K. Shanmukham Chetty and failed. Speaking against letting Brahmins into the party, Periyar explained:
At a time when non-Brahmins in other parties were gradually coming over to the Justice Party, being fed up with the Brahmin's methods and ways of dealing with political questions, it was nothing short of folly to think of admitting him into the ranks of the Justice Party.[41]
The party began to accept Brahmin members only in October 1934.[44]
The pressure to compete with the Justice party forced the Congress party to let more non-Brahmins into the party power structure. The party's policies disrupted the established social hierarchy and increased the animosity between the Brahmin and non-Brahmin communities.[13]
Nationalism
The Justice party was loyal to the
The historical record does not clearly indicate whether Justice condemned the
Rumors about Justice Party
Justice party, which had captured power in 1920, claiming to represent all non-Brahmins in the presidency gradually lost the support of many communities. Under Theagaraya Chetty and later Panaganti Ramarayaningar, the party came to represent a few non-Brahmin Shudra castes, alienating Scheduled Castes and Muslims. During the first Justice ministry,
I have found out from actual experience that whenever the question of experience came in, they always preferred a Mudaliar, a Nayudu, a Chettiar, or a Pillai but not a Muhamaddan[82]
Justice party never regained Muslim support, because it failed to convince the group that high-caste Hindus had not received a disproportionate allocation of jobs opened up by communal reservation.[83]
The fracture with Scheduled Castes came during the same time period. After T. M. Nair's death, Adi Dravidas were slowly pushed out of the party. The "Pulianthope incidents" (also called as the "B&C Mill strike") soured the relationship of non-Brahmin Sudra castes like Vellalas, Beri Chettis, Balija Naidus, Kammas and Kapus with Paraiyars. On 11 May 1921, bots and caste Hindus went on strike in the Carnatic textile mill. On 20 June, workers in Buckingham Mill followed. The Paraiyars were quickly persuaded to end the strike, but the caste Hindus continued to strike. This created animosity between the two groups. In an ensuing clash between the police and caste Hindus, several were killed. Justice leaders accused the Government of creating problems by pampering the Paraiyars.[24] The party paper Justice claimed:
Public opinion...holds the present deplorable state of affairs has been brought about partly at all events by the undue pampering of the Adi-Dravidas by the officials of the Labour department, and partly by the, perhaps, unconscious encouragement given to them by some police officers.[24]
Notes
- ^ Encyclopedia of Political parties. p.152
- ^ Kavitha Muralidharan (20 November 2016). "100 years of Justice Party, a movement which defined Tamil Nadu politics". The NewsMinute. Retrieved 13 September 2021.
- ISBN 978-0-19-539245-6. Retrieved 7 July 2016.
- ^ Manuraj Shunmugasundaram (22 November 2016). "A century of reform The Dravidian movement has left its progressive imprint on Tamil Nadu". The Indian Express. Retrieved 8 August 2018.
- ^ "The Inner Grammar of Dissent Lives". K.S. Chalam. Outlook India. 12 December 2016. Retrieved 8 August 2018.
- ^ a b Irschick 1969, pp. 1–26
- ISBN 0-8223-0766-9.
- ^ K. Nambi Arooran (1980). Tamil renaissance and Dravidian nationalism, 1905–1944. p. 37.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Rajaraman 1988, ch. 2 (The Genesis of the Justice Party)
- ^ a b Irschick 1986, pp. 30–31
- ISBN 978-0-521-23889-2.
- ^ a b Rajaraman 1988, ch. 8 (Conclusion)
- ^ a b c Irschick 1969, pp. 351–357
- ^ ISBN 978-0-521-05345-7.
- ISBN 978-0-521-20755-3.
- ^ John R. McLane (1970). The political awakening in India. Prentice-Hall. Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. p. 161.
- ^ ISBN 9788184935981.
- ^ a b c d e f Rajaraman 1988, ch. 4 (Ideology, Organisation and Programme of the Justice Party)
- ^ a b c d e Rajaraman 1988, ch. 3 (The Era of Dr. T. M. Nair)
- ^ a b c Irschick 1969, pp. 27–54
- ^ a b Irschick 1969, pp. 55–88
- ^ a b Irschick 1969, pp. 89–136
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Rajaraman 1988, ch. 5 (History of the Justice Party from 1920 to 1937)
- ^ a b c d e f g h Irschick 1969, pp. 182–193
- ^ Ralhan 2002, p. 179
- ^ Ralhan 2002, p. 180
- ^ Ralhan 2002, p. 182
- ^ Sundararajan 1989, pp. 334–339
- OCLC 300514750.
- ^ Ralhan 2002, p. 190
- ^ Irschick 1969, pp. 136–171
- ^ Ralhan 2002, p. 196
- ^ a b Ralhan 2002, p. 197
- ^ Ralhan 2002, p. 199
- ^ a b c Irschick 1986, pp. 104–105
- ^ Hamsapriya, A (1981). Role of the opposition in the Madras legislature 1921–1939 (PDF). Madras University. p. 85. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 July 2011.
- ^ ISBN 978-81-250-2456-9.
- N. Ram, Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu and Robert L. Hardgrave, Professor Emeritus in the Humanities, Government and Asian Studies at the University of Texas, Austin Robert L. Hardgrave Faculty page, University of Texas Archived 7 July 2012 at archive.today
- Andre Beteille
- ^ Marguerite Ross Barnett
- ^ a b c d Ralhan 2002, pp. 164–166
- ^ a b Malarmannan 2009, pp. 34–35
- ISBN 978-81-250-2495-8.
- ^ a b Irschick 1986, pp. 102–103
- ^ Sundararajan 1989, p. 546
- ^ More 1997, p. 163
- ^ Kannan 2010, p. 56
- OCLC 4449727.
- ^ Kannan 2010, pp. 60
- ISBN 978-81-7033-860-4.
- ^ a b Kannan 2010, p. 41
- ^ Kannan 2010, pp. 63–71
- ^ Ravichandran & Perumal 1982, pp. 5–18
- ^ Ravichandran & Perumal 1982, pp. 19–21
- ^ The anti-Periyar faction tried to preempt their opponents' moves by declaring that the resolution passed in the Salem confederation did not bind them. They did this at a meeting convened on 20 August. They argued that since Periyar had not been properly elected president per the party constitution, any resolutions passed in the Salem conference were ultra vires.Ravichandran & Perumal 1982, pp. 22–23
- ^ Malarmannan 2009, p. 72
- ^ Irschick 1969, p. 347
- ^ "Statistical Reports of 1951/52 Madras State Election" (PDF). Election Commission of India. Retrieved 3 March 2010.
- ^ Justice Party Golden Jubilee Souvenir, 1968.
- Madras Legislative Council under the dyarchial system. The legislature was a unicameral body. In 1937 and 1946, 215 seats were available for election in the Legislative Assembly. After the Government of India Act of 1935, the legislature had become bicameral with the Assembly being the lower chamber (with primacy over the Council).
- ^ In 1920 and 23, 29 members were nominated to the Legislative Council. During 1926–34, the number increased to 34 with the addition of 5 more members to represent the female franchise. In 1937 and 1946, the Legislature had become bicameral with the Council being the upper house. A total of 46 council seats were filled by election.
- ^ But still formed a minority government, as the Swaraj party which had won the election refused to participate in the governing process.
- ^ The Justice party led by P. T. Rajan contested only nine seats. The Dravidar Kazhagam led by Periyar did not contest the elections.
- ^ a b c d Irschick 1969, pp. 172–178
- ^ Justice party was renamed as Dravidar Kazhagam in 1944. After 1944, a rebel faction claiming to be the original Justice party existed till the mid-1950s.
- ^ Irschick 1969, pp. 368–369
- ^ Murugan, N. (9 October 2006). "RESERVATION (Part-2)". National. Archived from the original on 8 January 2009. Retrieved 22 December 2009.
- ^ a b c d e Rajaraman 1988, ch. 6 (Performance of the Justice Party)
- ^ "The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department". Department of HR & CE. Government of Tamil Nadu. Archived from the original on 6 January 2010. Retrieved 26 December 2009.
- ^ a b Irschick 1969, pp. 244–251
- ISBN 978-81-7141-689-9.
- ^ "Madras Town Planning Act 1920". Kerala Institute of Local Administration. Retrieved 28 October 2008.[permanent dead link]
- ^ a b c d e Varghese, Nina (29 August 2006). "T.Nagar: Shop till you drop, and then shop some more". Business Line. Retrieved 4 March 2010.
- ^ "DMK will not forsake rights of depressed classes, says Karunanidhi". The Hindu. 18 September 2008. Archived from the original on 21 September 2008. Retrieved 4 March 2010.
- ^ S. Muthiah (22 December 2008). "A street name unchanged". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 3 November 2012. Retrieved 4 March 2010.
- ISBN 978-0-521-56319-2.
- ^ Ralhan 2002, p. 465
- ^ Parthasarathy, R. (1979). Builders of modern India:S. Satyamurti. Publications Division, Government of India. p. 42.
- ^ Parthasarathy, R. (1979). Builders of modern India:S. Satyamurti. Publications Division, Government of India. p. 43.
- ^ Irschick 1969, pp. 262–263
- ^ Ralhan 2002, p. 170
- ^ a b Irschick 1969, pp. 258–260
- ^ More 1997, pp. 109–110
- ISBN 978-0-521-55671-2.
References
- Irschick, Eugene F. (1969). Political and Social Conflict in South India; The non-Brahmin movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916–1929. OCLC 249254802.
- Irschick, Eugene F. (1986). Tamil revivalism in the 1930s (PDF). Madras: Cre-A. OCLC 15015416. Archived from the original(PDF) on 10 June 2010. Retrieved 4 March 2010.
- More, J. B. Prashant (1997). The Political Evolution of Muslims in Tamilnadu and Madras, 1930–1947. OCLC 37770527.
- Kannan, R. (2010). Anna: The life and times of C. N. Annadurai. ISBN 978-0-670-08328-2.
- Malarmannan (2009). Thimuka Uruvanadhu Aen? (in Tamil). Kizhakku Pathippagam. ISBN 978-81-8493-265-2.
- Ralhan, O. P. (2002). Encyclopaedia of Political Parties. Anmol Publications PVT. LTD. ISBN 978-81-7488-865-5.
- Rajaraman, P. (1988). The Justice Party: a historical perspective, 1916–37. Poompozhil Publishers. OCLC 20453430. Archived from the originalon 21 July 2011.
- Ravichandran, R.; Perumal, C. A. (1982). "Chapter 1". Dravidar Kazhagam – A political study (PDF). Madras: Madras University. Archived from the original(PDF) on 21 July 2011. Retrieved 16 August 2010.
- Sundararajan, Saroja (1989). March to freedom in Madras Presidency, 1916–1947. Lalitha Publications. OCLC 20222383.
Further reading
- Chirol, Sir Valentine (1921). India Old and New Chapter XII:Cross Currents in Southern India. London: Macmillan & Co.