தமிழில் கட்டுரைச் சுருக்கம் ( yet to be done)
Chapter III
REGIONALIZATION OF CONGRESS
AND STATE POLITICS
There were three important personalities and associated factions found operating in the politics of Tamil Nadu in the middle of the twentieth century.
Among them the Rajaji faction represented national culture while other two groups symbolized in different form, the regional political culture.
The dominant group led by Kamaraj represented the regional, indigenous classes and categories. The protracted conflict between Kamaraj and Rajaji factions within and outside Congress underlines the tensions and struggle for supremacy between national and regional cultures.
The third most important segment operating in the politics and society of Tamil areas then was the Dravida Kazhagam led by Periyar.
The congress dominance of Tamil politics in the two decades after independence was established because of the regionalized nature of the congress party brought out tellingly by the dominance of Kamaraj and Symbiotic alliance between Kamaraj faction and Dravida Kazhagam.
Rajaji- Kamaraj Rift
The British govemment had banned congress for launching the Quit India Movement in 1942, which it believed, had endangered British interests in the Asian theater of the
Second World War.
At the end of the war the imprisoned Congressmen came to be released though the ban on the party was not immediately lifted. These released congresmen including C.N. Muthuranga Mudaliyar and Bhakthavachalam redirected the congress activities under the name of a new organization titled as Congress Sangam.
Under the presidentship of S.K. Patel these released congressmen convened a conference at Ariyalur to discuss the organizational priorities of the party.
A resolution was moved at this conference seeking to throw out of congress party those leaders who did not remain part of the 1942 Quit India Movement, in the hour of grave crisis for the party and those who supported the colonial interests.
The resolution was passed with a overwhelming majority as it was supported by 670 members and was opposed by a paltry number of four members.
The resolution and the conference were considered by Rajaji and his band of loyalists as essentially directed against him.
It is pertinent to remember here that Rajaji
remained opposed against the August resolution and disobeyed the directives of the Congress Working Committee to participate in the Quit India Movement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Moreover,during the interwar period Rajaji actively associated himself with the British govemment
and more disappointingly for congress , authored the Rajaji Plan, which pemitted the partition of the country along communal lines and visualized the creation of Pakistan
from the truncated parts of India.
Amidst these anti congress activities the Congress Working Committee delegated the decision on Rajaji's indiscipline to the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee.
Its president Kamaraj even insisted on the withdrawal of four anna membership of Rajaji.
________________________________________________________________
3
Though Kamaraj was in jail in Amaroti at the time of Ariyalur conference of Congress Sangam , there was a clear manifestation of the ire of the rank and file of the
congress against the political demeanor of Rajaji during the interwar period.
The Congress party oriented students conducted a massive conference in Madurai opposing any move towards the readmission of Rajaji into congress.
But isolated Rajaji attempted to bring about rapprochement with Kamaraj and through the efforts of some common friends a meeting was arranged in Rajaji 's house where he suggested to Kamaraj that both of them should undertake a joint tour in TamilNadu to dispel the impressions of any serious disagreement between them.
Though Kamaraj expressed his formal concurrence with that suggestion, in practice through the strategy of procrastination avoided any such tour primarily because his own supporters were not enthusiastic but lukewann to such a joint endeavor.
A few days after the rendezvous in Rajaji's house, Kamaraj went to his hometown of Virudhunagar and it was expected that his return would be within a week and after that a joint tour would be undertaken.
But to his horror and amazement the newspapers reported that Rajaji had been elected to the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee from Tiruchengode, a place where Rajaji had enduring association since the establishment of
his Ashram many years ago.
Kamaraj was surprised that without achieving primary membership of the party how an expelled member could be elected to the provincial congress committee especially he as the president of TNCC did not know anything about it.
As a result in a mood of rejoinder he immediately issued a statement to the press challenging the validity of the election supposedly held in Tiruchengode.
The Tamil Nadu Congress Committee convened a conference in Madurai to deliberate on the issue of Tiruchengode election of Rajaji.
The conference was important as it was the first meeting of the provincial congress committee to be organized since the passage of the August Resolution 1942. As a preemptory strategy, the Rajaji group sent a Jetter to the office of the Provincial Congress Committee signed by 80 members recommending that Rajaji should be invited back to congress party so that his skilful leadership could be utilized for the benefit of the party and people in the province.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
The Kamaraj group was incensed over this letter and organized a Provincial Workers Conference one day ahead of the scheduled official conference on October 30,
1945.
The staunch member of Kamaraj group Chidampara Bharathi organized this conference to demonstrate the strength of anti-Rajaji sentiments. In the deliberations
Muthuramalinga Thevar, Muthuranga Mudaliyar, Meenchur Bhakthavachalam etc.,
expressed their steadfast resolve against the admission of Rajaji as it would have a deleterious impact on the culture of discipline in the party.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
In the discussions of this conference Bhakthavachalam argued that even if the claimed admittance of Rajaji into congress had some validity or confomity to
congress rules , his election from Tiruchengode was invalid as the party constitution clearly stated that only those who demonstrated a minimum period of three years of
continuous service to the party could be elected to the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee.
C.N. Muthuranga Mudaliyar another ardent supporter of Kamaraj argued that there were 3 7 vacancies in the provincial congress and how an election could be conducted in Tiruchengode alone that too in a manner shrouded in mystery and even the president of
Provincial Congress Committee did not know anything about it.
A massive vote against Rajaji's entry and leadership by some 1400 to 100 votes at this special provincial workers conference was passed and later submitted in the form of
indictment to the representative of the congress High Command for the past and present behaviour of Rajaji
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
An umpteen number of placards and pamphlets were issued against Rajaji's political career.
These Kamaraj's followers approached the high command against any move to satisfy Rajaji's desire to become a member of congress party.
One Mrs. KrishnabaiNimbkar wrote to the congress secretary Acharya Kripalani.
"He has deliberately been instrumental in crippling the public life of the province. His obsessions have been so great that even the sense of shame attendant to the part he has been playing seems to have left him. The faith of the whole province will be shattered if the Working
Committee fails to rise to the occasion late then never .... The prestige of the Working Committee
and the Indian National Congress will become more firmly entrenched among the people of the .South if it shows the courage to discipline even a Rajaji ".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
The president of the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee ruling out the validity of Rajaji 's election wrote to Maulana Abdul Kalam Azhd, the president of congress in 1945
'"you are aware that during the last three years Sri C. Rajagopalachariar had been strong opponent of
the August Resolution and the consequent resistance movement of congressmen and had been openly advocating the acceptance of the rejected Cripps offer, surrender to the government and acceptance of office in the province on any terms. He. joining hands with the
communists openly dissuaded the studets of Madras even against observing hartals on the arrest
of the leaders and pleaded with a few members of the Congress Legislative Party in Madras to form a group and.form the ministry.
Sri. C. Rajagopalachaiar has been consistently condemning the congress programmes and policies and openly inciting others against congress. Even as recently as early September (this month). he was reported to have advised an audience in Tiruchirapalli at a public meeting that at the ensuing elections to the legislature, people should not be carried away by the colour of
the box:es. referring to the colour box voting system and voting by party labels. but that they should look at the personality of the individual candidates seeking the election. This being the persistent attitude of Sri Rajagopalachariar, congressmen in Tamil Nadu feel themselves unable to take him as one of them.
In the circumstances stated above, the correspondence that is reported to have passed between Sri Rajagopalchariar and yourself has caused no surprise and misgiving. While we are always willing to be guided by you, we are bound to expect that you will at least consult our committee before doing anything with reference to the taking back of Sri CR. into the congress
. I would also like to inform you regarding your invitation to him to attend the meeting of the Congress Working Committee in Poona, that Sri. C.Rajagopalachariar should not be deemed to
represent. in any way the Tamil Nadu Congress ".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
Similarly another opponent of Rajaji, Muthuranga Mudaliyar wrote to Azad. " ...
Rajaji 's alleged election to the Provincial Congress Committee was wholly irregular and void not
merely on technical grounds but also on substantive grounds. The contention of the Tamil Nadu
Congress Committee, since confirmed by the General Body of the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee is that no election has taken place at all. And we cannot distinguish prominent leaders from ordinar congressmen in applying the rules of the congress constitution . ... Now the
Tamil Nadu Congress Committee is not against Rajaji 's
entry into the congress. In fact. our
president in his opening speech, made a statement welcoming Rajaji back into the congress and
seeking his cooperation for the work before us. But neither the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee nor the 'bulk of the congress workers in Tamil Nadu has any confidence in Rajaji 's leadership. Both his past and present attitude and conduct only tend to alienate .further the feelings of
congress workers towards him".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
The vehement reaction of these congressmen from Tamil Nadu against Rajaji became increasingly shrill as Rajaji bypassing the local congress where his strength was
not appreciable , straight away established communication with high command of the party.
His extensive links with the congress party at the higher corridors of power became handy for him. His group after a secret meeting in Seerkali, a small town in the cauvery delta decided to approach the Congress Working Committee.
They dispatched T.S.S. Rajan to Calcutta to seek the support of the Congress Working Committee and in response Asaf Ali was sent south to sort out these paralyzing rivalries within the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee.
In spite of the registration of vehement protest Asaf Ali concluded in favour of Rajaji and said that the election of Mr.C. Rajagopalachariar to the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee from Tiruchengode should
be decreed valid unless a duly constituted Election Tribunal under Article VIII and XI of the congress committee set it aside.
He also said conclusively that such a Parliamentary Board should contain eight representatives and at least 3 of Rajaji men should be included. That Tribunal was duly
constituted later and it had the following members. The president of Tamil Nadu Congress Committee Kamaraj, Rukmani Lakshmipathi, C.N. Muthuranga Mudaliyar,
Omandur Ramasamy Reddiar, Avinashilingam Chettiar are the five members from the Kamaraj faction and the remaining members were loyal to Rajaji.
Mahatma Gandhi's Visit
The last visit of Gandhiji to Tamil Nadu proved to be a source of increasing divergence between Rajaji and Kamaraj.
In 1946 Gandhiji came to Madras Presidency to preside
over the annual day celebration of the Hindi Prachar Shaba. The visit also included his pilgrimage to the holy cities of Madurai and Palani. The tour became controversial as it tumed out to be medium of manifestation of the paralyzing factionalism in the Provincial
Congress Committee.
The Rajaji group secretly shielded the entire schedule of the tour away from the knowledge of Kamaraj himself, the president of the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee.
The details about the time and place of Gandhii's arrival, stay and departure in Madras were kept shrouded in mystery by Rajaji group so as to exclude any association
of Kamaraj with Gandhiji.
In its zeal to utilize the closeness to Gandhiji it withheld this infomation from the knowledge of the president of the provincial congress committee,Rajaji along with his supporters like N. Gopalasamy lyangar and the secretary of Hindi Prachar Shaba Sathyanarayanan went to receive Gandhiji at the Ambattur Railway station.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
Meanwhile the details about Gandhiji's programmes were leaked out to Kamaraj by one of his journalist friends Ganapathy and an alerted Kamaraj went on time to
Ambattur to receive the Mahatma.
Rajaji was a bit bewildered and annoyed by the arrival of Kamaraj and consciously attempted to avoid introducing the president of the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee to the visiting dignitary.
Gandhiji's tour lasted seven days in Tamil Nadu and on 02.02.1946 he departed in a special train from Kattupakkam railway station to have a holy darshan at the pilgrimage centres of Madurai and Palani.
Traveling in the same time were Rajaji, Kamaraj and a group of journalists.
The train had halts at Acharapakkam and Tindivanam and Gandhiji addressed multitudinous gatherings of people. He spoke profusely praising Rajaji saying that he was going to these temples in appreciation of the historical fact that Rajaji had opened these temples to all people through legislation passed during his premiership of Madras presidency. He extolled copiously the contributions of Rajaji to the temple entry movement and the untouchability eradication in Tamil Nadu.
The train traveled from Vilupuram, Viruthachalam, Ariyalur and Trichy to reach Madurai where Gandhiji spoke to a mammoth gathering and later went to worship at the
temples.
There while climbing the stairs of the Palani shrine Rajaji suddently albeit belatedly introduced Kamaraj to Gandhiji stating rather awkwardly that he was Kamaraj
the President of Tamil Nadu Congress Committee.
With deliberate intention he hesitated to introduce Kamaraj to Gandhiji either in Madras or throughout the journey to Madurai lasting more than 450 kilometers though Kamaraj was traveling in the same time was the strong suspicion of Kamaraj group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
ln the retum journey too ,Kamaraj was prevented from developing any rapport with Gandhiji.
He was intentionally kept in the dark about the time of departure of the Gandhiji and hence Kamaraj missed the train departing with Gandhiji from Madurai in the retum direction.
He traveled in a car to reach Dindigul the next station and boarded the train from there. Thus for around seven long days Gandhiji was in Madras Presidency and the Rajaji faction kept him away from the approach and reach of the rival Kamaraj faction.
But when Gandhiji reached the Wardha Ashram he wrote the letter in the Harijan on I 0-02-1946 under the caption CURIOUS setting of a major controversy.
In that article while paying a tribute to Rajaji Gandhiji said that he was pained to find a clique working against him.
"It is a clique that evidently counts in the official congress in Madras ... but the masses are devoted to Rajaji. I am neither vain nor foolish enough to feel that I could have had the huge public demonstrations all along the route of the pilgrimage if he had no influence with the masses in Tamilnadu. Congressmen will act as they think best. But I would be less than loyal to the organization if I did not warn them against losing the valuable services which no one can shoulder as Rajaji can at the present moment".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14
In the same article Gandhiji denied that his visit had anything to do with Rajaji's political future.
Yet when he was asked about the prospects of Madras premiership,without tentativeness Gandhji said "Rajaji was by for the best man for the purpose in the Southern Presidency and if I had the disposal in my hands I would call Rajaji to office, if I did not give it to myself'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15
This statement precipitated a grave crisis in the provincial congress in Madras as Kamaraj rightly felt that reference to a clique by Gandhiji was a reflection on himself and
his colleagues in the TNCC executive and promptly tendered his resignation from the Tamil Nadu Congress Parliamentary Board.
Deeply wounded by the indirect reference by Gandhiji Kamaraj declined to continue as the president of TNCC as he rightly interpreted that remark as an indication of absence of confidence in his capacity.
In his explanation Kamrajar said
'I am the official head of the Tamil Nadu Congress. According to the constitution I nominated the Working Committee. Therefore Gandhji 's
references can only be applicable to me. I have paid my respects to Gandhiji in person and I have been in his calling distance in Madras during his Tamil Nadu tour. So have been many of the other members of our Working Committee. It pains me much that Gandhiji did not talk to us anyrhing ahout Tamil Nadu Congress affairs while he was here. His use of the word. 'clique' affects me deeply.
Neither I nor my colleagues believe in the parliamentmy programme except as a means to further the country's struggle for freedom. I had made my position clear on dozens of platforms since my release. At any rate I am no aspirer to any kind of office under theparliamentmy activities.
As for the public agitation against Rajaji it is only a reaction among congressmen and the public to Rajaji 's actions and speeches since his Pakistan resolution and resignation from the congress. But after Gandhiji 's recent article I feel I can do nothing else than resign from the
parliamentmy Board, because all the conflict has come about only on account of the parliamentmy programme. "Four of my colleagues, messors TS. Avinashilingam, C.N.
Muyhu ranga Mudhaliar, O.P. Ramasamy Reddiar and Mrs. Rukmani Lakshmipathy felt compelled to quit also. I have persuaded them to remain for the ve1y simple reason that the short time available for the election work ahead would not admit of such wholesale resignations. I thank rhem for the spirit in which they have agreed to continue on the Board. They would certainlv have been within their rights if they had followed my example. But they and I do not want disturb the election work. For my part I can not but quit. For twenty years Gandh(ji has been the leader whom I have unwarvingly followed and my faith in him continues unabated. That I should occasion himpain drives me to take the action I have decided to take. I assure everybody concerned that whatever decision taken by the board here or at the centre will command my wholehearted acceptance ··.
*************************************************
16
Dr. Varadharaja Naidu, a member of the Kamaraj faction wrote a letter to Gandh ij i as a reaction to his "clique" statement.
"Kamaraj works in the south for the implementation of the Gandhian ,programmes of the congress party with unparalleled enthusiasm and dedication. He has
risen through his selfless service to be one of the front ranking leaders of the congress party. Your statement, about Kamaraj and his colleagues as a clique is not reflective of reality. We humbly request you not to interfere in this fashion in the internal affairs of the congress party in the state".
Immediately Gandhiji wrote a reply to Dr. Varadharajalu Naidu stating that hereafter he would not interfere in the Nadar's affair.
Meanwhile Pattabhi Seetharamaiya also met Gandhiji and apprised him of the reality in the affairs of the
Tamil Nadu Congress Committee.
Gandhiji commented on Kamaraj's decision in Harijan
and defended his use of the epithet clique by stating that he used it with the meaning found in the dictionary. He appealed to Kamaraj to withdraw his resignation and
subsequently he received letters of discontent from other Congressmen in Tamil Nadu on his statement. On 24-02-1946 Gandhiji, in an article in his Harijan accepted that
"I must admit that I did not talk to those who were with me in the special train".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17
The strategy of positive discrimination as an instrument of the empowennent of the NonBrahmins,
which created tenacious misunderstandings between the Brahmin and NonBrahmin Congressmen in the 1920's, again visited upon the political landscape of the
state in the early fifties. But this time due to the changed composition of the organizational leadership and socio-economic base of the Congress, the response was
exceedingly congenial to the strategy of positive discrimination.
The democratic, sovereign, republican constitution of India was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949 and exactly two months later the
commencement of the constitution started. This supreme, sacrosanct document in part -III provided various fundamental rights to the people of India out of which the right to equality was enshrined from articles 14 to 18. The Communal G.O. of Madras state that contained the policy of bestowing special treatment to the backward classes was challenged in the courts as it was deemed to be in contradiction to the article 16 of this
egalitarian constitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18
The disappointed Brahmins against this G.O filed two writ petitions.
Chithambaram Durairajan, a candidate seeking admission to the Madras Medical College,
tiled a petition for a writ of mandamus restraining the government from enforcing the
Communal G.O by which admission to the medical college was regulated. A similar
petition was filed by C.R. Srinivasan, an applicant to the Engineering College where also
admissions were regulated in the manner prescribed for the state services. 19
The aggrieved Brahmins considered the communal G.O as patently discriminatory
and specifically targeted against them. The Salem Brahmana Seva Sangam sent a petition
to the president praying for a declaration that the communal G.O was "ultra vires, illegal
and opposed to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. The Madras High
Court in its judgement declared that the aforementioned communal G.O discriminated
against citizens on grounds of caste, community and religion and therefore violated
article 15 (1) of the constitution. This judgment delivered by the Madras High Court
holding that the communal G.O made caste and religion the grounds for admission or
rejection declared it ultra virus.
There was a vociferous opposition to the judgment of the courts and fired by the
weight of the public pressure, the increasingly non-Brahmanized provincial congress
party and government decided to appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the
Madras· High Court. The Government of Madras argued in the Supreme Court through its
Advocate -General that the communal G.O was constitutionally valid conforn1ing to the
article 46 of the constitution falling under the Directive Principles of State Policy. It
argued before the Supreme Court that the communal distribution of seats in educational
institutions was tantamount to assisting the dis-privileged sections of the population.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument of the state Government and said that
fundamental rights are sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by any legislative,
120
executive act or order except to the extent provided in the appropriate articles of the
constitution and confinned the judgment of the High Court regarding the constitutional
invalidity of the communal G.O implemented in the state.
As soon as the judgment was delivered, there were unceasmg waves of
demonstration in favour of incorporating constitutional safeguards for protecting the
communal G.O. The Dravidian outfits organized extensive agitation transversing the
entire territory of the state. Periyar reacted strongly against the cancellation of communal
reservations and considered the developments as sinister manifestation of Brahmin
cunningness.20 On 8111 August 1950 he appealed to the non -Brahmins to carry out
agitations for communal reservation. In a retrospective mood he recollected passionately
the events preceding the 1925 Conjeepuram Conference and his subsequent departure
from the congress over the communal reservation issue. A conference of non -Brahmins
was convened at Thiruchirapalli on 3rd December 1950 to which leaders and
representatives from the entire kaleidoscope of non - Brahmin fim1ament attended and
demanded the unequivocal restoration of the communal G.O.
The non-Brahmin president of the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee, himself
pe11urbed at the course of the events rushed to Delhi, to apprise the Prime Minister of the
disturbing developments in the state and its possible detrimental consequences to the
fortunes of the party in the state especially in the context of imminent General
Elections.21 He sought a meeting with the prime minister and delineated the details about
the historical dynamics of the Communal government order and its emotive repercussions
in the state politics. He, an avid advocate of the positive discrimination to achieve
obliten1tion of caste, succeeded in convincing the Prime Minister about the need for
amending the constitution to provide protection to the communal reservation scheme in
the state. As a result the constitution was amended through the First Constitutional
Amendment Act to overcome the constitutional objections raised by the inviolability of
the fundamental rights. Articles 15 (1) and 15 (2) of the constitution which forbade
discrimination on caste, religion etc., were amended by supplementary provision that
121
nothing in the article would prevent the state from making any special provision for
educational, economic or social advancement of any backward class of citizens.
The constitutional amendment was the product of the collective bargaining
strength of the Non-Brahmin faction of the congress party within the higher echelons of
the congress party organization and concomitant diminution of political power and
influence of Brahmins whose position was on the irreversible downward trajectory from
the heady days of the Mylapure and Egmore centric congress party. The controversy and
its beneficial settlement created the congenial atmosphere whereby Periyar and Kamaraj
came to establish an enduring symbiotic political association.22
Education Policy and Ascendancy of Region in Congress
The Rajaji Government introduced a new education policy, a modification of Gandhian
Basic Education to which congress was committed and that had its historical roots in the
nationalist upsurge against the western educational scheme of the British administration.
The Gandhian scheme of education as delineated in the Wardha scheme provides for
moral education in indianized context where professional training to the children would
also be simultaneously provided even while empowering them with moral character and
attitude.
The Rajaji scheme was comprised of two fundamental attributes. One as there
was the paucity of teachers and infrastructure to provide universal education to all
children immediately the government thought of introducing a shift system where by
children instead spending the whole day time in the school would utilize only a few hours
for the purpose of learning. As learning time was limited more number of children would
derive the benefits of education even with the available limited infrastructure. Secondly
the children would be leaming the traditional professions of their parents in the
considerable amount of free time now at their disposal because of the truncated school
hours. The objective of educational scheme was to provide universal education to all
children below 14 years of age by the way of implementation of article 45 of the
122
constitution especially with adequate infrastructure and simultaneously to provide scope
for acquisition of professional skills by children.
As the details of the scheme were delineated the floodgates of non -Brahmin
anger were opened and the leaders of the Dravidian movement opposed the plan on the
grounds of its pernicious, sinister implications. Periyer considered the scheme as
brahmincal, anachronistic and castiest and characterized it as Kula Kalvi scheme meaning
caste based education. He attacked the scheme as it in a cleverly disguised manner
sought to perpetuate duty according to caste or Varnaashrama Dharma.23
Unfortunately, Rajaji did not understand the genuineness of the objections raised
against his scheme or the intensity of the fears entertained by those who felt that it would
affect the educational future of their children. 24 The DMK launched a new style of
agitation described as three-comer agitation. Besides opposing the educational scheme of
Rajaji administration, the agitation had two more objectives of changing the name of a
Trichy town from Dalmiapuram to Kallakudi (Dalmiapuram was named after a north
Indian cement magnet while kallakudi had been the original Tamil name of the town) and
expressmg party's indignation over certain derogatory remarks made by the prime
. . ...,,
mJmster.-·
The raging controversy had its own internal implications in the congress where
the Non-Brahmin factional leaders become concerned over the long-tenn implications of
the scheme to the Tamil society. A bulk of the Non-Brahmin congress members of the
state Legislative Assembly was against the educational plan of the government. They
demanded overtly the instant jettisoning of the scheme. Dr. Vardharajalu Naidu, V.K.
Ramasamy Mudaliyar, K.T. Kosalaraman, T.G. Krishnamurthi, A.M. Sampantham etc.,
were in the vanguard of the members opposing the educational policy of the
2() govemment.
O.P. Ramasamy Reddiar, the former chief minister addressing Rajaji in the
Madras Legislative Council said, "Please give up the scheme without any more ado. It is
123
a new handle to the black shirts. Persistence will only sound the death knell of the
pa11y". 27 Kamaraj too had been critical of the scheme and advised Rajaji to withdraw it.
The anti Rajaji faction adopted the tactics of procrastination in the Legislative Assembly
and repeatedly postponed the final voting on the burning conundrum. As Rajaji was a
member of the Legislative Council he could not have much leeway and the anti -Rajaji
faction postponed inordinately the final voting leading to prolonged discussions
ultimately paving the way for the crystallization of mounting anger against the scheme.2
R
On September 6111 the beleaguered but stubborn chief minister announced that a
meeting of the Congress Legislature Party would be convened to decide over the
continuance of his dispensation but later on after a meeting with Kamaraj backtracked
and explained that Kamaraj had consented to the continuity of his administration and
especially the new education policy. But in a discordant note Kamaraj denied swiftly that
he had ever expressed such a support. 29
Meanwhile the opposition parties in the Legislative Assembly mobilized support
for the passage of a No-confidence motion against the chief minister and in tum the chief
minister strove to organize his support against that emerging No-confidence motion.
Concemed over the developments in the southern state the congress high command
summoned the two prominent leaders of the state Kamaraj and Rajaji to thrash out a
settlement and at the conclusion of the meeting the Prime Minister declared that Rajaji
would continue as chief minister in the state. 30
The congress legislature party members in tum sent to the high command their
resolution that they were in fact for a change in the chief ministership as they had lost
confidence in the leadership of Rajaji. This resolution was taken to Delhi by NonBrahmins
T.G. Krishnamurthy, A.M. Sampantham, Panchandra Chettiyar to be submitted
to the high command to register the enom1ity of opposition to Raj aj i 's chief ministership.
These aggrieved congressmen went to Delhi and conversed with the Congress
Parliamentary Board, Prime Minister and President of the Congress Party and impressed
upon them the indispensability of changing the chief minister. Ultimately the convinced
124
Prime Minister and the President of the congress party announced that the Congress
Legislature Party of Madras state could decide about the issue ofChiefMinistership.31
The lukewam1 attitude of the Prime Minister towards the beleaguered chief
minister also contributed to the compounding of the problems for the chief minister. P.
Ramamurty, the communist MLA who became the opposition leader in Madras after the
separation of Andhra Pradesh thought that Nehru's reluctance to come to help Rajaji over
the education scheme produced a sharp bitterness in the later.32
The speech of the Chief Minister in Madurai amidst the raging controversy too
served to deepen the suspicions of the Non-Brahrnins towards Rajaji. There was a
function in Madurai city organized by the T.V.S. Motor Company to mark its foundation
day. Many prominent personalities participated in that celebration that included Kamaraj
and Rajaji. Here Rajaji in his speech asked a question to the business family of the motor
company why they, being Brahmins were engaged in motor company business, which
basically was an occupation of Sudras according to the Vamaashrama Dharma. In that
same speech he also said that old, elderly people should delegate their responsibilities and
power to the younger ones. 33
Kamaraj who was on the podium was annoyed by the overt message delivered
by his bitter rival and appreciated Rajaji for his advise that elderly people should step
down in favour of the young people and in a teasing manner said that this should be
followed not merely in business but also in politics. This anecdote brought out the
subterraneous political animosities between the two important leaders of Tamil Nadu
congress, which essentially meant a rivalry between national political culture of Rajaji
and regional culture ofKamaraj.
Even the anti-Kamaraj Non-Brahmin leaders did not condone the chief minister
on the question of his education scheme. Muthuramalinga Thevar, the leader of Forward
Block and a prospective partner of Rajaji in the pragmatic politics of opposition to
Kamaraj too attacked the education scheme calling it a manifeststation of the anti
125
democratic, dictatorial attitude of the chief minister. The arguments of Thevar against
the scheme were comprehensive and not caste centric. He took strong exception to
Rajaji's statement that the great sages of Shankara and Ramanuja did not consult any
body \vhile expounding their philosophy and hence he did not consult any one about the
educational scheme and he replied with more aggression. He considered the remarks of
the chief minister as arrogant, self-flattery and an insult to the great theological tradition
of Shankara and Ramanuja. Thevar also criticized the scheme as being repugnant to the
spirit of modernity and democracy. He also said that the scheme would have more
detrimental impact on poor rural children as they suffered already from the educationally
uninspiring atmosphere. Thevar was also against the scheme as it degraded the quality of
education available to the children of lower castes leading to the perpetuation of their
socio economic backwardness. 34
Congress, Periyar and DMK
Along with the relentless march and gathering strength of Dravida Kazhagam internal
dissensions began to emerge in the organizational structure of the movement. The
dynamic, younger crop of leaders led by the Kanchipuram born C.N. Annadurai
demanded the democratization of leadership and decentralization of power within the
organization with increasing vigour and voice. But Periyar, in the tradition of Plato
rejected these demands for internal democracy not only in the organization of the
movement then but also in the future if the demand for Dravida Nadu materialized.
In 1948, Dravida Kazhagam conference itself Annadurai walked out protesting
against Periyar's political autocracy and totalitarianism. 35 The incumbent leadership of
the movement denounced these pro-democracy activists as renegades but alam1ed at the
possibility of a split Periyar settled for a compromise by appointing Annadurai as the
president of the conference held later that same year. However he steadfastly refused to
concede to the demands of the rebels for a democratic party organization.
126
These growrng contradictions between the incumbent and aspmng leaders
exploded into a formal, overt outburst in 1949 over the seemingly innocuous event of
Periyar's marriage. He then at the age of72 married a 28-year-old woman who had been
an active member of the party. He also gave the reason of his sudden marriage by stating
that as he had no faith in his lieutenants he wanted to marry this lady so that in future the
movement could be run smoothly.
The younger group of leaders condemned the marriage, as it was contrary to the
avowed social objectives of the movement that included the elimination of the practice of
unequal marriages. These leaders including C.N. Annadurai, N.Y. Natarajan,
Karunanithi, E.V.K. Sampath broke away from the movement to form their own political
party in 1949 called Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. To emphasize the democratic
credentials of the newly formed party it was consciously provided in the party
constitution that the post of General Secretary would be rotated among the top leaders to
avoid the kind oftotalitarianism that characterized the parental Dravada Kazhagam.36
Through its elaborate structural organization, it broadened the social base and
through various conferences and campaigns it sought a mass membership as the base for
capturing political power. Later the party at its Trichy conference decided to enter
electoral arena of democracy to participate in the Second General Elections. The split in
the movement in 1949 was triggered by the question of electoral participation too, apart
from the issue of intemal democracy. Periyar traditionally declined to accept the strategy
of direct involvement in politics and elections because of the many compromises he
would be forced to make with in his radical ideology to be more acceptable to the
electorate. He always maintained that compromises and adjustments in the programmes
would result in the gradual abandonment of the entire social plank of the movement in
favour of obtaining political power. He always pointed out the educative example of the
erstwhile Justice Party, which in pursuing the fishes and loves of office adopted the
strategy of electoral participation and in the quagmire of electoral politics compromised
its own social commitments and in the process became rootless, disappearing into the
realm ofpolitical oblivion.
127
But the new outfit DMK chose to enter electoral democracy as the founders were
strongly convinced that participation in electoral democracy and the subsequent capture
of political power would enable the party to implement more rapidly and substantially the
basic programmes of social and economic development.
Periyar never condoned nor forgot the defectors who split the social organization
of Dravida Kazhagam. He in a language of derision called the rebels as "Tear drops".37
When the defectors left the party they wrote a letter to the leader saying that with tear
drops in the eyes and heavy heart they had undertaken this political expedition because of
the extenuating circumstances. To heap scom on rebels the wounded leader Periyar till
1967 elections always called DMK as tear drop party.
He attacked DMK in all his meetings and speeches. He opined, "The objectives
of the tear drop party are to enjoy a great life full of comforts. They will do anything and
everything to satisfy their personal interests. If there has been no anti Brahmin
movement in this land, then the teardrop party would not have any political space hear.
The teardrop party survives only because of our sacrifice. But the party and its leaders
have betrayed the ideology of the anti Brahmin movement".38 As DMK gained strength
and popularity Periyar began to support congress and Kamaraj in a bid to counter its
growth.
Dravida Kazhagam and Communism
Periyar had close interaction with communism in the third decade ofthe 20111 century. He
was. deeply influenced by the Marxist doctrine and Soviet Union where he had
undertaken a visit. In 1932, at a meeting of the General Body of the Self Respect
Movement in Erode a communist agenda called Fourteen Points Programme or Erode
programme was adopted. It envisaged the fom1ation of two separate wings within the
body of the Self-Respect Movement; the Self Respect Party and the Self Respect League
Samadham1a Party of South India. 39
128
The publication of literature on commumsm, popularization of May Day
celebrations, formation of Samadham1a Party's local branches, projection of intrinsic and
innate similarities between Communism and Self Respect Movement etc were the
important activities undertaken by Periyar to favour the establishment of communist style
of society in South India. The Erode programme advocated nationalization of all means
of production, distribution and public transport, amelioration of the conditions of the
industrial workers and agricultural labourers and propagation of the original basis of the
SelfRespect Movements.40
The Samadharma Party had salient objectives that included adoption of adult
suffrage, provision of minimum wages and security of service, distribution of reasonable
share in the agricultural produce to industrial workers, removal of caste distinctions,
participation of the· party in the election, utilization of the income of religious institutions
fi d
. 41 or e ucatwn etc,.
The colonial government alarmed by the growmg upsurge m the communist
activities anested and imprisoned Periyar on the charges of sedition. Once released from
the prison after the completion of the sentence Periyar concentrated on Self Respect
Movement alone, eschewing the communist angle considering it imprudent to Indian
conditions prevailing at that time. From then on till the adoption of our republic
constitution the Non-Brahmin movement of Periyar never had any interaction with
communist movement in the state.
The Dravida Kazhagam supported the Communist Party of India in the First
General Elections in 1952. As the general elections became imminent after the
commencement of the constitution, the executive committee ofDravida Kazhagam met at
Trichy in 1951 and passed a resolution to work in tandem with the Communist Party to
achieve common objectives and interests. The resolution identified the defeat of the
congress party in the ensuing elections as its primary objective and to achieve it favoured
an alliance with the Communist Party. The resolution also stated that in the event of nonavailability
of communist candidates or in the context of the weak prospects of
129
communist candidates other parties and even independents should be supported to defeat
the omnipotent congress party.
Periyar justified the alliance with the communist party with the help of the old
maxim; 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. He likened his support to communist party to
a train journey. The passengers traveling in the same train and compartment became
friends and this friendship would last till they reached their respective destinations. Each
passenger would get down at his station and would go in his own way. There was no
need to keep the relationship after it had outlived its utility.42
The Communist Party of India too decided to take the support of Dravida
Kazhagam based on the commonality and compatibility of interests. It specifically
identified the salient features where symmetry of views could be established between
Communist Party and Dravida Kazhagam. Opposition to congress, support for civil
liberties, support to the struggle of the workers and peasants, friendship with Soviet
Union, China and the anti-colonial liberation movements were some of the objectives
adduced by the communist party for accepting the support ofDravida Kazhagam.
The party also appreciated the efforts of Periyar who had formed a huge mass
organization after his courageous departure from the Justice Party. More significantly the
party expressed its genuine appreciation of the fact that the Dravidian Movement had its
origin in the revolt against severe caste oppression. In a momentary mood of
condonation, the leaders of the Communist Party brushed aside the unconcealed antiBrahmin
attitude of the Dravida Kazhagam by explaining that the agrarian revolts in the
South were naturally, inevitably anti-Brahmin since the Non-Brahmins and untouchables
constituted overwhelmingly the social collectivity.43 In brief, it could be said that the
Communist Party of India characterized the Dravida Kazhagam as one that was more
progressive, egalitarian than communal or primordial.
The communist leader S.A. Dange himself a Brahmin said "on this question of
anti-brahminism and 'Dravida Nadu ·we don't agree with the Dravida Kazhagam. But
130
our alliance will bring to it the proletarian leadership, which will ultimately change those
features for the good ofboth parties and the people as a whole.44
Ajay Ghosh, General Secretary of the CPI feeling it necessary to justify the
alliance to leftists critical of communist association with a communal party emphasized
that the CPI would never make truce with communal parties such as the Muslim League,
Hindu Mahasabha or the Jansangh but Dravida Kazhagam was essentially a progressive
rather than a communal party.
Both parties worked out the alliance by emphasizing on the areas of commonality
and compatibility and by ignoring the issues of irresolvable contradictions. Both parties
were acutely aware of the fundamental dichotomy on issues of caste, class, power, state,
nation etc. In the heat of electoral campaign even on the contentious conundrum of the
separate Dravida Nadu demand both parties steered clear of any controversy. The
communist party was more obliging as its leader Ramamurthi, while delivering a speech
along side Periyar referred to the right to secede from the union on the basis of language,
culture and contiguity of territory.
The electoral alliance was neither permanent nor universal in all the
constituencies. As outlined in its executive council resolution the Dravida Kazhagam in a
discriminatory mood supported the communist party only in one third of the
constituencies and declined to deliver its vote bank in the remaining seats to ·the
communist party. This arrangement between Dravida Kazhagam and Communist Pa1iy
proved to be a success as it halted the electoral juggernaut of congress in the southern
state. The rather lackluster performance of the congress party in the Madras state, in
comparison with its performance elsewhere could be adduced by the strategy of electoral
adjustments made by these parties. As a result, the Congress Party was unable to achieve
the simple majority on its own.45
But soon after the elections the tenuous arrangements broke down, as the two
reluctant allies became implacable opponents, triggered by their dichotomy on
131
fundamental issues. The alliance ended when Periyar accused the communist party of
political treachery. He attacked the Communist Party of the entertaining sinister designs
to infiltrate into the organizational structure of Dravida Kazhagam under the mask of
electoral alliance to convert the local branches of the organization into communist party
units. The Trichirappalli district unit of Dravida Kazhagam passed a resolution that
blamed the communist party's opposition to the separate Dravida nadu demand for the
rupture in its relationship with them. It said that its support to the Communist Party was
extended only after it was convinced that communist party could be persuaded to accept
the validity of the demand for a separate Dravida Nadu. As now after the elections the
communist leaders denounced the Dravida Nadu demand the party decided to end
I . I . 4(, re ations 11p.
Though a plethora of causes could be cited for the breakdown of this transitory
political alliance the most paramount factor was the caste question. The Dravida
Kazhagam objected to the preponderance of.Brahmins in the leadership domain of the
communist party. It argued that the Brahmin dominated communist leadership would
surreptitiously and cunningly work for the welfare of the Brahmins at the expense of the
Non-Brahmins. Periyar claimed that communist party would bring the subservience and
downfall ofNon-Brahmins and promote the North Indian hegemony and exploitation.
Periyar cited the example of a Legislative Assembly constituency m the
composite Thanjavoor district where the communists had surreptitiously supported a
congress candidate against the candidate of the Dravida Kazhagam choice, primarily
motivated by caste affiliation as the former though a congress man was a Brahmin by
caste. He argued, "Most of the communist leaders are Brahmins. RamamUI1hi is a pucca
Brahmin. The editors of Janasakthi (Communist Tamil Weekly) are Brahmins.
Wherever a Brahmin goes, into the communist party or anywhere else he wants to
. . . " 47 support caste distmctions .
Periyar had soft comer for the Non-Brahmin communist leaders in the state. He
told them to stay within communist ranks but to begin to behave as Non-Brahmins. The
132
Dravida Kazhagam attempted to adopt the old communist strategy of remaining within
congress to capture its leadership, organization and policies. Periyar now wanted NonBrahmins
to capture the communist party so that the Non-Brahminized party would
achieve the welfare of all Non-Brahmins. For a long time the Dravida Kazhagam had
special attachments with Non-Brahmin communist stalwart of the state, Jeevanandam, a
fonner supporter of Periyar. When Jeevanandam expounded an inclusive definition of
Tamil identity whereby even Brahmins of Tamil Nadu were entitled to be called as
Tamils in contradiction to the exclusively Non-Brahmin identity of Tamil in Dravidian
discourse, Periyar rejected it instantly. He said that the communist Brahmins were
exploiting the poor Non-Brahmin Jeevanandam just as the Soviet, for all their claims to
National Justice exploited the hinterland outposts.
After the disintegration of the political alliance Periyar attacked communism as an
inadequate ideology and Communist Party of India, especially its provincial unit as a
braminical party. His attacks on Tamil communist leaders became bitter and harsher and
he described their commitment to communism as "spurious". He contended that while
communism as an ideology rejected beliefs in God, the Tamil communists were
diabolically devotional as they were controlled by Brahmin minds.48
He argued that a communist should not possess any love or interest towards
nanow identities like language, caste, nation, religion and god and should be committed
to the basic communist principles of classlessness and statelessness. He criticized the
communist Tamil leaders as possessing only shallow commitment to communism as they
were embroiled in the quagmire of outdated religious practices. He condemned them for
evincing interests in the classical epics of Mahabharata and Ramayana that were
proliferating superstitious practices. He questioned the practice of putting religious marks
on forehead and wearing sacred thread as practiced by Brahmin communist leaders in the
.j<) state.
He considered the communist party as an organization conceived and created by
Brahmins and Brahmanism to subvert and halt the onward march of rationality, equality
133
and humanism passionately advocated by Dravida Kazhagam. He strongly believed that
the rationalist, egalitarian attack of Dravida Kazhagam on the foundations of
Brahmanism provoked the Brahmins to start the communist party so that the narrow,
iniquitous interests of Brahmins could be protected. He often argued that the communist
party in the state was the B team of Brahmins while congress functioned as their A team.
He claimed that the communists created the false consciousness of class struggle
so that the scientific and pragmatic reality of Brahmin exploitation could be safeguarded.
He sought to reach out to the common man through a Tamil proverb that says that when
one is unable to catch the hen on the rooftop he proclaimed that he was going to show
heaven. That meant that if the eradication of Brahmanism was beyond the capacity of
communism how they could implement equality in this benighted land.
He also criticized the commitment of Indian communism to Indian nationalism
and argued that any true communist would consider nation as an anachronistic tool to
exploit the poor classes.50 He argued that any true commitment to communism would be
in tandem with Dravida Kazhagam to deny the reality of the Indian nation. Often Periyar
attacked the ideology of communism itself leave alone the Indian or Tamil communist.
He said that the warm cloths of western countries would not be apposite to Indian
conditions. Similarly the communist ideology of western societies could not be applied
in India. He believed that the establishment of a new society on the principles of
rationality, science and teclmology would automatically eradicate economic inequality
and exploitation.
The breakdown of the relationship between Dravida Kazhagam and the
Communist Party of India after the First General Elections created conditions congenial
to the blossoming of relationship between Periyar and Kamaraj. As the DMK and the
Communist Party of India began the political journey of friendship and cooperation
compelled by the necessity of challenging DMK, Periyar started forging political alliance
with the Kamaraj faction of the congress. This new alliance was symbiotic and beneficial
to both parties that were proved by the political dynamics of the state in the 50s and 60s.
134
Emerging DK-Congress Relationship
A close symbiotic relationship started building up between Dravida Kazhagam and NonBrahmins
in the congress party with the achievement of independence and the increasing
ascendancy of the Non-Brahmin faction within congress. The sympathetic Non-Brahmin
congressmen were provided with a suggestive nomenclature by the Dravida Kazhagam as
Dravida Congressmen.51
One of the chief architects of this budding relationship was Kuthusi Guruswamy,
the firebrand editor of Viduthalai, the Dravida Kazhagam's journalistic organ.
Guruswamy was widely known for his aggressive articles on the twin goals of the
Dravida Kazhagam, rationalism and anti-Brahmanism. These aggressive articles earned
him anonymous letters of intimidation from some Brahmins in his native areas of
Pudukottai and Pattukottai. These letters merely singed as Brahmins warned him of dire
consequences for his continued vituperation against Brahmins.
Guruswamy contacted some of his friends who were Dravida congressmen and
infonned them of these letters of intimidations. The alanned congressmen of NonBrahmin
origin concurred with the editor of Viduthalai and told him that in the party
organizational structure and governmental machinery many Brahmins were engaged in
secret measures to suppress his Non-Brahmin cmsade. The Dravida congressmen also
told him that they would thwart any such attempt of the Brahmins aimed at hanning
Dravida Kazhagam. They also assured him that the Non-Brahmin congressmen would
work with finn resolve to prevent the emergence of Brahmin hegemony in the pa11y
organization of the congress.
The editor of Viduthalai in turn told the congress non- Brahmins that they shou!d
work from within the party to realize the objectives of debrahminisation of the congress
pm1y while the Dravida Kazhagam worked towards achieving the debrahminisation of
the Tamil society outside the congress party. The editor also said that the Dravida
Kazhagam and Congress (Dravida Congress) were the two eyes of the beloved Tamil
135
mother and hence they should work with a spirit of cooperation. He also said that the
Ora vida Kazhagam was the latch, lock of the house of Non-Brahmin security and if the
latch was to be removed or broken the security of the Non-Brahmins and their welfare
would be affected. He argued that Dravida Kazhagam was the protective armour of all
Non-Brahmins, including the congress Non-Brahmins. Without this protective armour
the Non-Brahmin congressmen would be left at the mercy of the Brahmins.
The budding relationship between these partners of dissimilar orientation grew
more intimate with the progress ofthe Brahmin- Non-Brahmin rivalry within congress.52
On March 2211
d 1953 the Dravida Kazhagam organized a conference titled "Abolition of
Caste Conference". The kazhagam put forth a condition for those who were interested to
participate in the conference. Only those people who had proven commitment in
breaking the rigor of caste system could attend the conference. In a deliberate move the
organizers invited Rajaji to preside over the conference as he had broken caste barriers
through the marriage of his daughter to the son of Mahatma Gandhi.
Sensing trouble Rajaji declined to accept this invitation from the conveners of the
conference who had regularly and with mounting anger attacked him in their editorials
and articles. Then the organizer contacted Kamaraj and requested him to preside over the
conference, which he accepted promptly and gladly. This conference brought together
the Kamaraj faction of congress and Dravida Kazhagam even while furthering
simultaneously the distance of mistrust between the Rajaji faction and the apolitical
organization and the future dynamics of an evolving regionalization of congress party in
the regionalized landscape ofthe state politics.
Kama raj as Chief Minister and Dravida Kazhagam
As the events of I 954 gained momentum and the controversy over the educational
scheme of Rajaji administration neared its logical conclusion, the lynch pin of the
provincial congress was grappling with his own doubts about tlje right choice for the
chief ministership. When the loyalists and friends of Kamaraj impressed on him the need
136
to put himself on the chief ministerial chair he was extremely reluctant to accept it
especially given his conspicuous disassociation from administrative posts in the past.
The leaders of Dravida Kazhagam Periyar and Gurusamy played an important role in the
persuasion of Kamaraj to accept the post of chief minister.
K. Veeramani the general secretary of Dravida Kazhagam argued that the
reluctant Kamaraj accepted the chief ministership only because of intense persuasion
from Periyar and the veteran congress man Varadarajalu Naidu. When Rajaji resigned
his chief ministership Periyar was in Chidambaram, a temple town to attend a public
meeting. In the afternoon of that day suddenly a phone call came from Madras to Periyar
and after that Periyar rushed that to the capital city postponing his scheduled meeting in
Chidamparam. He met Kamaraj at the residence of Dr. Varadarajalu Naidu and
convinced him through exhaustive persuasion to accept the chief ministership. Periyar
asked Kamaraj to accept the post so that the controversial educational scheme of Rajaji
Government could be nullified. Kamaraj told Periyar that already he occupied the
position of the President of TNCC, a Member of Parliament and hence he intended to
choose a loyalist to the chief ministership and through a loyalist chief minister all
unpopular programmes of Rajaji Government including the education scheme could be
abolished. More ever Kamaraj also argued about his inexperience in administration. But
Periyar and Varadarajalu Naidu ignored these reasons of reluctance from the mind of
Kamaraj and persuaded him to accept the chief ministership of the state. 53
Once Kamaraj became the chief minister he cancelled the controversial
educational scheme of Rajaji, which was welcomed by the leaders of Dravida Kazhagam.
Periyar ·wrote an editorial on 01.06.54 in his Viduthalai appreciating Kamaraj for
showing urgency and sensitivity in abolishing that scheme.
"Today we have received the news about the cancellation of the educational scheme o{
Rajaji. The whole nation should be proud of this achievement and felicitate the chief minister for
this nohle action. Some people criticize me saying that I am supporting the government. I ignore
them. For me ideology is more important. As Kamaraj implements my ideology I support him
and provide him encouragements and rejuvenation. I have two important objectives now. Firsth·
137
the diabolic Kula Kalvi Thittam should be cancelled. Secondly the communal reservation scheme
should be implemented. Kamaraj had achieved the objectives hence I support him. Earlier
Kamaraj came to me to assure his suppolt in achieving these objectives and now he had.fit!filled
his promises. hence I support him". 54
As Periyar started to support Kamaraj the Dravida Assembly pm1y, a loose
conglomeration of Members of Legislative Assembly who had active support of Periyar
began to get disintegrated. Those members who were sympathetic to the Dravidian ideals
of rationalism, atheism, anti-brahminism etc formed this Dravida Assembly party after
the 1952 elections. These members acted as an important vehicle of expression of
Periyar's thoughts in the Assembly. This party faced serious strains and directionlessness
in 1954 as Periyar proposed the members to disband this organization so that it could be
merged with Kamaraj faction of congress. Hence this outfit gradually disintegrated as
most of them joined congress to strengthen Kamaraj faction. 55
After the acceptance of chief ministership Kamaraj constituted his council of
ministers. The composition of his minjstry drew applause and plaudits from the Dravida
Kazhagam as there was no representati<>n to the Brahmins in the ministry. It is pertinent
to remember that Brahmins dominated the Rajaji's first Cabinet in 1937 and then Peiryar
was vehemently critical of it. In fact not only Periyar but even a section of NonBrahmins
in congress viewed the fom1ation of the congress ministry under Rajaji 's
leadership as an indication of the resurgences of Brahmin domination in the politics of
the province, particularly considering the disproportional number of positions given to
Brahmins. The fom1ation of an exclusively Non-Brahmin ministry was probably a
conscious attempt to retain the support of the Dravida Kazhagam and the segments of the
society sympathetic to the cause ofnon-Brahmanism.
Periyar was particularly impressed with the induction of a dalit in the council of
ministry and the allocation of the portfolio of Hindu Religious Endowments to him.5
('
Many orthodox individuals manifestly and latently expressed their misgivings and
unhappiness over the appointment of a dalit to this important portfolio arguing that such a
138
portfolio should be given to only orthodox and devotional people and this choice would
offend the sentiments of the people. But the chief minister refused to budge from this
appointment and attacked the opponents for their conservatism. Periyar welcomed this
appointment, as it would promote caste obliteration and empowem1ent of traditionally
suppressed groups. The appointment of Parameswaran as the minister to this portfolio
had historical significance too as he was the grandson of Rettamalai Srinivasan, a dalit
leader of the preceding decades. 57
As per constitutional requirements the Chief Minister was to get elected to the
State Legislature within six months. He contested the bye- elections held in Gudiatham
constituency vacated by the sitting congress member to enable the election of the Chief
Minister to the legislative assembly. The Dravida Kazhagam and even the Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam supported the Chief Minister, as he was a Non-Brahmin. They
actively campaigned for him in the elections. Only the Communist Party of India put up
its candidate against the incumbent Chief Minister. Periyar took offence at the communist
pa11y and called its candidate a traitor to the Tamil community as he competed against the
glorious son of the Non-Brahmin communities. It is significant to remember that only
two years back Periyar had supported the Communist Party of India in the General
Elections. Kamaraj won by an over whelming majority in the bye- elections and the
opposing communist candidate forfeited his deposit. This election cemented the growing
relationship between Dravida Kazhagam and Kamaraj.
Periyar explained the reasons for his support to Kamaraj in the bye-elections. He
said. "This is a golden opportunity for the objective of eradicating caste. I know
personally that Kamaraj is interested in the mission of caste abolition. He had talked
about eradicating this menace many times. Moreover my memory tells me that he has
not attended any caste conferences. Now such a noble man has been installed a::; the chief
minister he will achieve the obliteration of caste through his actions. I think that he had
already started this mission. The purely caste based parties like the Common Wheel
Party and Tamil Nadu Toilers Party have been disbanded and absorbed in to congress.
Though politically the disintegration of these parties had different causes, motives and
139
imp! ications yet the very fact of their dissolution and disappearance should be welcomed
as it has erased the shameful presence of caste based parties in Tamilnadu. Its impact on
society should be appreciated as it is positive and functional". 5
8
He also said that the opportunity had arrived in the form of the chief ministership
of Kamaraj to abolish caste and the activists and synthesizers of Dravida Kazhagam
should assist Kamaraj in this mission through their routine propaganda. He believed that
a congenial atmosphere created by Dravida Kazhagam would help Kamaraj to abolish the
caste order through legislative action. He argued that the great reforn1ers like Budha,
Sittars and Brahma Samaj were not able to abolish caste and hence the cadres should
keep in mind the enormity of the task ahead and help Kamaraj to achieve it.
Restoration of Interview System
Periyar was highly impressed by the administrative measures of Kamaraj government,
which provided political and administrative relief to Non-Brahmin grievances. After
abolishing the controversial educational scheme of the predecessor government Kamaraj
ordered the restoration of the erstwhile interview system in the entrance examinations of
the professional educational institutions and this measure further strengthened the bond
between Periyar and Kamaraj.
There was a social justice oriented scheme of interview for admission to Medical
and Engineering colleges in the state. The interview component of the exam was for 150
marks. The interview panel awarded these marks after evaluating the social and
educational background of the competing students. Weightage was given to candidates
who were aspiring first generation graduates and who came from socially, economically
underprivileged communi ties.
The objective of the scheme was to increase the intake of students coming from
these communities. In 1953 the Rajaji government in a provoking move whittled down
the total marks of the interview component of the examination to 50 marks from the
140
original total of 150 marks. This reduction precipitated a critical situation where there
was a large-scale exclusion of Non-Brahmin students from the professional colleges.
The Dravida Kazhagam and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam conducted vrgorous
and at times violent agitation against this measure calling it a brahminical conspiracy.
The Dravida Kazhagam leaders like Periyar, Kuthusi Gurusamy met the president of
Tamil Nadu Congress Committee and impressed upon him the need to jettison the
iniquitous move of the govemment. Kamaraj too was saddened by the reduction in the
intake of the Non-Brahmin students in the professional colleges then and asked the
college authorities to fumish him the details of the admission especially about the number
of students from the Non-Brahmin communities.
After his appointment as chief minister Kamaraj rendered administrative remedial
measure to rectify this situation. He ordered the restoration of the erstwhile 150 marks to
the interview component of the entrance test. When joumalists asked him the reasons for
this restoration the chief minister in a cryptic statement said that the restoration of the
erstwhile system was for the same reason, which precipitated the earlier reduction there
by implicitly stating that his predecessor had decreased the interview marks to ham1 the
Non-Brahmins and he restored it to benefit them. 5
9
Kamaraj and Convictions
Kamaraj had convictions and beliefs, which located him in any ideological continuum
closer to Periyar and far away from Rajaji. His views on religion, caste order, society,
leaders and organization were closer to the agnostic Nehru and atheist Periyar than the
intensely pious and culturally orthodox Rajaji. Like a dyed in the wool agnostic Kamaraj
exhibited more significance to humanism than devotional tenets. He succinctly
confom1ed his agnostic personality by stating that it was better to be a morally upright
and socially conscious, committed humanist then a rigidly orthodox, profoundly
devotional being. Not infrequently he negated the very existence of God and so often he
had stated that if god existed and created the caste divisions then he was no God at all.w
141
He had candidly admitted that he never celebrated Diwali, the festival of lights. It
was a crucial admission on his part as the festival was vilified in the Dravidian discourse
as a festival celebrating the Aryan victory over the indigenous Dravidians in the ancient
past. The Dravidian movement attacked the Diwali festival and exhorted the people not
to take the traditional oil bath associated with the festival. More significantly Kamaraj
often characterized the Pongal festival as one where he enthusiastically participated. He
called the Pongal festival as the festival of agriculture and Tamil community, a confinned
preposition of the Dravidian movement.61 The fact that Kamaraj personally did not
celebrate the Diwali and considered Pongal as the festival of Tamils placed him in idyllic
Dravidian surroundings.
Kamaraj also attacked the religious superstitions of people in the rationalist
fashion of the Dravidian movement. He criticized the people who dropped huge amount
of money in the hundis of famous temples like Tirupathi. He blamed the accumulation of
unaccounted black money as the essential reason for people putting money in the hundis
of temples. He advised people to spend that money in social welfare activities like
establishment of schools, construction of roads etc. He also attacked the holy fire walking
ceremony, milk abhiseka etc as superstitious and wasteful. He accused frequently
religion of creating hatred, divisions, superstitions and fear psychosis among people
rather than encouraging the flowering of the qualities like self-confidence, rationalism,
humanism, equality etc.62
Like the leaders of Dravidian movement Kamaraj ridiculed the South Indian habit
of tonsuring head in temples as a kind of religious offerings. He honestly admitted that
he had also tonsured his head once in Tirupathi when he went there along with Sanjeeva
Reddy. the Telegu congressman. But later he recalled that incidence with ridicule and
regret. He asked whether instead tonsuring they could provide propitiously any other
limb to God especially if these limbs would have no possibility of regrowth and
regeneration like hair. The tone and tenor of his argument evidently located him on the
side of Periyar in any ideological continuum. If differences between Periyar and Kamaraj
142
existed on the domain of religion then these differences were only peripheral, only in
degrees m. not 1.1 1 k"m d . 63
Kamaraj opposed the religious tradition of pilgrimages as functions of lazy,
jobless, irresponsible men. He asked rhetorically to tell him the name of any God, which
had asked the devotees to come and meet him on pilgrimages. He considered these
pilgrimages as activities undertaken by people to show off their status. As even poor
people undertook these pilgrimages they were faced with indebtedness. The money spent
in religious pilgrimages could be spent more positively and productively in establishing
orphanages for children, old age people etc., was his firm belief.
True to the rationalist tradition of Periyar he considered the milk spent in
Abhisekams as wasteful. It was his sound proposition that the millions of litres of milk
spent wastefully in religious practices should be diverted to feed the undemourished
children of the downtrodden background.
The country is afflicted with many evils like unemployment, poverty, inequality,
exploitation and inadequate sanitation. Though Gods are in abundance in this land no
God had so for come to rescue the down trodden from these evils.64 He rhetorically
asked why these Gods had gone silent over these intractable evils. He considered the
pictures of Gods and Goddess as mere paintings and imaginations of mortal men. He
believed in the Anthropological principle of Anthropomorphisation whereby human
identity was given to Gods. These Gods, Kamaraj averred must have been noble,
powerful men of ancient period who evoked admiration and adulation from the common
masses for their exemplary deeds and posthumously they had been elevated to the status
of Gods by the admirers, friends and relatives.
In a pragmatic interpretation Kamaraj considered religion as a mere political
party. It was his opinion that religion could not feed man or eliminate his hardships.
Moreover religions on competitive grounds precipitated conflicts and communal
violence. Far from being a positive functional instrument of social cohesiveness religion
143
was the reservoir and repository of venom, hatred, exploitation etc., was the opinion of
K . (l'i amaraJ. ·
Views on Caste System
Like Periyar Kamaraj too attacked the caste system with all its attendant invidious traits
like untouchability, inequality etc., He considerd caste as baneful to the consolidation of
national resources and emergence of a politically stable, socially egalitarian and
economically prosperous India. He condemned caste system as a creation of fertile
minds of vested interest and considered the development of Sudras and untouchables as
his political mission. His unparalleled, unwavering commitment to the educational
development of the masses, especially lower castes was part and parcel of his mission to
subvert the ascriptive caste order.
In reformist zeal Kamaraj attacked the then prevalent custom of hotels bearing the
names of castes. In the Madras state hotels, especially Brahmin owned ones would
prominently display the caste identity of the owners in their name boards. He considered
such caste coloration in hotels as awkward and anachronistic and argued for the
elimination of such practices.66
Kamaraj supported reservation policy so that societal transfonnation could be achieved
and debilitating blow to the caste edifice could be delivered. He fim1ly believed that
equality in competitive examinations in recruitment to governmental employment and
professional courses should be implemented only after achieving the empowennent of
dispriviieged groups through positive discrimination. He argued that no doctor belonging
to backward classes, scheduled caste and scheduled tribes, who received medical
education because of reservation system, had killed any patient through inefficiency and
carelessness. He also rhetorically asked about any proven incidence of any engineer
belonging to dispreveleged background building a bridge in an inefficient way that had
collapsed due to faulty engineering.
144
He passionately argued that talent, skill and expertise were not the exclusive
endowments of selective social groups. 67 He lamented that the concepts of talent, skill
and merit were deliberately distorted so that some groups could claim a perpetual
monopoly over them to the pem1anent exclusion of access to other social groups.
Flllihemwre he argued that this deception and simulation had gone for an inordinately
protracted period of time and it is time that such deleterious discriminations were
eradicated. Through the calculated manipulation of magic, religion and supernatural
beliefs, the lower castes were portrayed as meritless people and the highly deplorable
reality was that these lower castes themselves under the impact of pervasive
indoctrination were convinced of the apparent absence of merit in them. He lamented the
fact that the same vested interests attempted covertly and overtly to keep these people in
psychological and economic subordination by manipulating economic opportunities.
Kamaraj and Tamil Language
Kamarja's explicit thoughts on the status of Tamil Languages too positioned him in the
same ideological plane as Periyar. He lambasted the studied indifference of caste-ridden
bureaucracy to the introduction of Tamil in official communication. He lamented the
lackadaisical attitude of anglo-centric bureaucracy towards accepting Tamil Language in
day-to-day administration even after the passage of legislation many years ago.
According to Kamaraj the upper caste people dominated bureaucracy was averse to using
Tamil as it would democratize social aspects of administrative recruitment and
consequently undem1ine their monopoly over administrative apparatus.<'8
Kamaraj was obvious of the dangers of Hindi imposition and obliquely many
times hinted at it. Once there was a heated discussion taking place in the Legislative
Assembly about the necessity and desirability of substituting Tamil in place of English as
the language of education in higher secondary schools and colleges. The Communist
Pariy of India stalwart Kalayasundaram passionately argued for the elimination of
English fonn the educational landscape of the state so that Tamil could be implanted in
its place. The chief minister Kamaraj who was patiently observing the emotionally
145
surcharged deliberations gesticulated to the Dravidian Leaders C.N. Annadurai and
Karunanidi to come and sit near him. Then he conversed with opposition leaders and
emphatically denied the allegations from some quarters about his dubious commitment to
Tamil language. In his own imitable way the chief minister told the Dravidian Leaders
that he was not in favour of deporting English from the educational premises in the state
and this was so not because he possessed any love for English but solely because in such
a scenario Hindi, and not Tamil would be the language of substitution. The leader of
DMK Karunanidi reminisced over this episode to emphasize the point that Kamaraj was
much closer to Dravidian movement on the question of Hindi then the people nom1ally
believed him to be. Bound by party discipline Kamaraj acted with astute discretion over
th e H1.1 1 d"1 controversy. 69
Agitation politics of DK and Kamaraj
The Dravida Kazhagam, which had earlier carried on hostile campaign against congress
party and chief minister Rajaji out of deference to Kamaraj, declared that no agitation
would be staged in 1954.70 In 1955, however, as a reaction to the central govemments
moves towards the establishment of Hindi as official language, Periyar appealed to
members of Dravidia Kazhagam to bum the national flag. This agitation was in order to
express Dravidian opposition to the compulsory imposition of Hindi on an unwilling
people. Periyar declared that the people of Tamil Nadu had not received justice under the
flag of the Indian union. 71
He repeatedly emphasized that the action was not to undennine the Chief Minister
but to register our discontent and anguish over the lurking danger of Hindi imposition.
But the chief minister of condemned the proposed agitation and arrested Periyar and his
followers but instead sending them to jail put them in hospital for treatment.
A group of prominent leaders including the rationalist Kuthusi Guruswamy,
Chengalvarayan and Mohan Kumaramangalam met Kamaraj and discussed the situation.
The Chief Minister assured them that until all states agreed to adopt Hindi, English would
146
be continued to be joint official language and he would strive to ensure these safeguards
to be implemented by raising the issue in the Congress Working Committee. He also told
them that protection would be provided to be continuance of Tamil as the official
language at the state level. He also assured them that he would review the stem measures
of the state government towards the agitating college students. 72
It is said that during the agitation the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru asked
Kamaraj when he visited Delhi that why despite being his friend Naicker conducted
agitations against congress party in the state. The Chief Minister replied to the Prime
Minister that Ramaswamy Naicker was a friend only to him and not to Hindi. Moreover
he infonned the Prime Minister that Naickar considered the implementation of Hindi as
detrimental to Tamils, Tamil Language and Tamil Nadu and hence he agitated. 73 During
the course of this intensive meeting after prolonged discussions the Chief Minister
convinced the Prime Minister of the need to provide some assurances to salvage the
volatile situation. Consequently the Central Government gave an assurance that Hindi
would not be implemented on the unwilling and unyielding people which locally led to
the stoppage of the anti Hindi agitation. 74
In 1956 August first, Dravidia Kazhagam asked the volunteers to bum pictures of
Lord Rama as the organization considered Ramayana as anti-women and anti lower
castes etc. one Dravidia Kazhagam leader in the name of Thiruvarur Thangarajan wrote a
new version of Ramayana way Rama was portrayed as a villain. The Dravidia Kazhagam
film star M.R. Radha staged the play throughout the state. The Government led by the
Chief Minister Kamaraj immediately banned the play but Dravidia Kazhagam after
obtaining court's pem1ission staged the play in selected towns.
In 1957 Dravidia Kazhagam agitated to bum the constitution as it was based
allegedly on 'Manudharma ·.The government arrested the Dravidia Kazhagam volunteers
but kept Periyar and Kuthusi Guruswamy in hospital and not in jail. The relationship
between the acerbic Guruswamy of Dravidia Kazhagam and the Chief Minister was
profound and symbiotic. The Madras Mail, in a language of political derision
147
commented that whatever Guruswamy wanted in the Viduthali News paper the Chief
Minister Kamaraj implemented it in the corridors of St. George Fort, the seat of
govemance m. M a d ras. 75
During the aforementioned agitations many volunteers of Dravidia Kazhagam
were aJTested and imprisoned with sentences ranging from six months to three years. Two
volunteers passed away in Trichy Central prison where they were lodged. To handle the
overcrowding in the jail the Chief Minister ordered the transfer of the imprisoned
volunteers to the Coimbatore prison in the westem part of the state. As he relatives and
sympathizers of the detainees found it difficult to go to Coimbatore to see them the wife
of Periyar and a few colleagues went and requested the Chief Minister to keep all the
detainees in Trichy prison itself. The Chief Mnister, in a tone mixed with affection and
respect asked the leaders of Dravidia Kazhagam to reconsider the request as such a
transfer of detainees would affect them. The relatively cool climate of the westem city of
Coimbatore would be definitely more comfortable to imprisoned activists then the hot,
humid prison of Trichy city. Convinced by the wam1 persuasion of the Chief Minister the
wife of Periyar went back with drawing her request. 76
Realm of Bureaucracy and Dravidia Kazhagam-Kamrajar Alliance
The symbiotic relationship between Kamrajar and penyar promoted Non-Brahmins
interests in administrative machinery. Periyar profusely eulogized the Kamaraj Ministry
for providing greater representation to Non-Brahmins in the higher echelons of
bureaucracy. The Inspector General of the Police Service was a non -Brahmin Tamil.
The public prosecutor and the Chaim1an of Public Service Commission, the judge of the
City Civil Court, the majority of judges of the High Court were all non Brahmin Tamils
and such a greater representation of Non-Brahmins was unprecedented in the annals of
the Madras State. Periyar adduced the commitment of Kam1arajar to social justice as the
factor for this unprecedented success of the Non-Brahmins.77
148
There were instances when affected non-Brahmin officials would approach the
govemment, especially Chief Minister through Dravidia Kazhagam leader Periyar. One
Mr. Rajendran was working in the Information Department in Government. There were
allegations that he was deliberately leaking out official information to the opposition
pat1ies. An official enquiry was ordered and it was found out that he was guilty of leaking
out the official infonnation. The govemment was thinking of suspending the concerned
official for his dereliction of duty. The Non-Brahmin official went and sought the
assistance of Dravidia Kazhagam leader Periyar. Ultimately Periyar went and met the
Chief Minister to persuade the Govemment not to suspend the concerned official but to
give a lesser punishment. Conceding to the request the Chief Minister ordered the transfer
of the official to some other department.78
The Chief Minister appointed N.D. Sundaravadivelu as Director of Public
Instruction in 1955 overlooking the claims of several seniors in the department. This set
of a big controversy as Sundaravadivelu came form a strong Self Respect Movement and
Dravidia Kazhagam background. He had married the sister of the wife of Kuthusi
Gurusamy the staunch Dravidia Kazhagam leader ardently supporting Kamaraj. His
matTiage was blessed by Periyar and was conducted without any brahminic rituals and in
a manner typical of any Self Respect Movement marriage. He had also attended the first
Self Respect Conference held at Chengulpet in 1928. More than the formal appointment
what precipitated the controversy was the fact that the Chief Minister gave a carte
blanche to him as Director of Public Instruction to do whatever he deemed fit to bring
about an educational revolution. The officer who had a good grasp of educational
psychology opened a high school within radius of every 5 miles and an elementary school
in any ·place with a population of over three hundred. He, in the administration
represented the fusion of Kamaraj's administrative measures and Periyar's ideological
. . I 7') pnnctp es.
149
Kamaraj- Periyar Alliance and Dakshina Pradesh Proposal
The relationship between Dravida Kazhagam and Kamaraj congress was not confined to
the electoral politics but extended into political domain too where Periyar propelled
Kamaraj to accept a particular choice or jettison a particular stand depending on the
benefits accruing to Kamaraj faction. The issue of Dakshina Pradesh and the shifting
stand of Kamaraj epitomized the weightage Kamaraj gave in his political considerations
to Periyar's advice.
As there was a considerable uproar against the principle of linguistic
reorganization of states in the early 50's as exhibited by the reactions of different groups
to the recommendations of Fazl Ali commission, the Prime Minister came up with the
proposal for the formation of polyglot provinces. The nation was to be ten·itorially
organized into four regional provinces of mammoth size and the borders of these
provmces were not to be determined by linguistic considerations but the factors of
administrative viability and financial health. The paramount objective of the proposal
was to check the fissiparous tendencies within the country.
In 1956, the issue of heterogeneous provmces was discussed in the Amritsar
session of the All India Congress Committee. As a result of the deliberations the
Dakshina Pradesh was visualized for the southern region. There was to be an
amalgamation of all southern states including Madras, Mysore, Andhra, Kerala and
Hyderabad to form the polyglot Dakshina Pradesh.80
The fonner chief minister of Madras Rajaji immediately welcomed the fonnation
of Dakshina Pradesh as it would further his standing in the politics of the southem areas
and at the same time undem1ine the position of his rival Kamaraj. The Congress Working
Committee met in Bangalore in the same year to discuss the implementation of the new
proposal. The south em chief ministers participated in the deliberations including Kamaraj
did not oppose the forn1ation of Dakshina Pradesh. But in the aftemoon session of the
conference there was a total change in the position of Kamaraj who began to oppose the
150
fonnation of the new state. What catalyzed the change in the stand of Kamaraj was the
telegram he received from Periyar in the lunch break. Periyar had advised Kamaraj to
oppose the polyglot province as in the heterogeneous state Tamils would be a minority
and hence would be subjugated by others and the leadership ofKamaraj himself would be
endangered.81 Hence in the post-lunch session of the Congress Working Committee
meeting the chief minister of Madras spoke against the formation of Dakshina Pradesh
state. This controversy and the shifting stand of Kamaraj clearly showed the depth of the
symbiotic association between Periyar and Kamaraj.
Kamaraj Congress
Periyar supported congress because of Kamaraj and not vice versa. He was discerning
and discriminatory in his support to congress candidates. He did not extend Dravida
Kazhagam support to all congress candidates. He went out of his way to campaign
against those congressmen who were not friendly to or happy with Kamaraj Ministry. In
the 1957 elections Periyar was harsh in his attacks on those who chose not to remain with
the par1y and joined Congress Reforms Committee. Repeatedly he made a distinction
between Kamaraj and congress party. In 1957 he stated, "I will be happy if the congress
party dies. I do not support the congress party in the elections. My wish is the
continuance of Kamaraj leadership alone. I am not a communalist. I have supported
Srinivasa Iyer in Kanjeepuram (where Annadurai was candidate). In Madras city I
support T.T. Krishnamoorthy".82
Periyar asked Brahmins to support Kamaraj. While campmgnmg m the 1957
elections Periyar said that at this time of crisis Brahmins should support Kamaraj. He
dangled before them ministerial posts to get their support.83
The octagenarion Periyar in 1961 called on the people of Tamil Nadu to vote for
all candidates be they donkeys or Brahmins. He said that "ultimately it is Kamaraj who
counts -no others, candidates or even voters who are any way unfit to judge what is right
and good for them. Take my word, vote congress and you will be well. If you do not then
15 I
the ingenious Rajaji, riding the Dravidia Kazhagam horse will trample you all without
., X4 mercy .
Periyar argued that Kamaraj promoted the development and education of Tamils
and Non-Brahmins not because he was a congressman but inspite of being a
congressman. He asked a pertinent question as to why the congress predecessor to
Kamaraj in Tmail Nadu had not done anything to develop Tamils. He also proclaimed
that if Kamaraj was either defeated or replaced by a Brahmin or even a Non-Brahmin
stooge of Brahmins, he would not continue the good work of the Pachai Thamilan.
Periyar justified his support to Kamaraj and his efforts at distinguishing Kamaraj
from congress with a simple imagery. My house was engulfed in fire. There was no water
in my house to put off the fire. But there was water in the well belonging to my enemy. If
people drew out water from that well to extinguish fire in my house, it would be foolish
on my part to reject that water as it came from my enemy's well. Similarly I couldn't
oppose Kamaraj nearly because he was a congressman. I would support him for his
constructive contributions to the building of a new egalitarian, educated and enlightened
Tamil society. 85
The Dravidia Kazhagam conducted a conference known as Voter's Conference
1962 when the General Elections were imminent. In his speech at the conference,
Kuthusi Gurusamy argued that Kamaraj should be voted back to power in the ensuing
elections. The Dravidia Kazhagam members should vote and campaign for congress as it
was led by Kamaraj in the state. In a lengthy clarification he said that Periyar didn't
suppo11 ·congress pat1y per se. If Periyar wanted to support congress party for its
programmes, then Periyar would go to Kamataka to campaign for congress, as he was
basically a Kannada speaker. If he wanted to support only congress party because of its
ideology, then he would go to Kerala as he was the "Hero of Vaikom". He did not go to
these places to campaign for congress, as he didn't have any faith in congress policies
and programmes. He supported the congress party only in Tamil Nadu as here it was a
pa11y of Kamaraj. Later that year Periyar in an announcement in Viduthalai said that the
152
members and sympathizers of Dravidia Kazhagam could now join congress party
fom1ally as Kamaraj congress delivered development and progress to the Tamil people.
Justification of Kamaraj about Dravidia Kazhagam Alliance
Many Brahmin congressmen expressed their discontent over the close rapport between
TNCC and Dravidia Kazhagam individually and collectively. Once when Kamaraj visited
the Cauvery delta district of Thanjavur a Brahmin congressman popularly known as
"Thiruthuraipoondi Rajaji" came and complained to Kamaraj in person about the
growing and overarching influence of Dravidia Kazhagam over congress government and
congress party organization.86 He asked Kamaraj about the moral rectitude of his political
proximity to Oravidia Kazhagam as its basic principles were quintessentially
contradictory to the political culture and ideology of congress party.
Kamaraj quietly answered the complaining Brahmin congressman that he never
expounded or supported anti Brahmanism. He also stated that it was his considered view
that both Brahmanism and anti-Brahmanism were condemnable and derogatory to human
rights and hence should be eschewed. The aggressive postures and attitudes of NonBrahmins
emanated only from revulsions to dehumanizing Brahmanism. The hierarchical
caste order was the source of Non-Brahmin anger and hatred against Brahmins. He also
said that those who sowed the seeds of caste hierarchy and structures of exploitation in
India society should reap the fruits of venomous political, social evils of untouchability.
According to Kamaraj the major responsibility of all socially conscious people
was to eradicate the evil of the invidious caste structure and to promote equality. Dravdia
Kazhagam and its leader Periyar were active participants in this social mission. Only
blemish one could identify in their activities was the element of aggressiveness.
Otherwise the objectives and activities of Dravida Kazhagam were socially egalitarian
and productive. He said that he condemned the extreme aggressiveness of the movement;
nonetheless he respected the social commitment of the movement towards equality,
libe11y, rationality, women education, empowem1ent etc. He concluded that long lecture
153
to the aggrieved Brahmin congressman by stating that all outmoded, obscurantist,
superstitious beliefs and practices should be fought against and eradicated.
More than the personal rapport between these two leaders many members of the
congress party had an active association with Dravidia Kazhagam, often participating in
its conferences as speakers advocating anti-Brahmin ideas. One such member was Sirkali
Ethiraj. a Member of Legislative Council. He had appeared on numerous conferences
advocating rather forcefully anti god, anti-religion and anti-Brahmin ideological
propositions. He had also functioned as the Secretary of The District Congress committee
in Thanjavur.
Many Brahmin congressmen complained to Kamaraj about this undisciplined
Secretary of the District Congress Committee. But Kamaraj defended the actions and
speeches of this congress non -Brahmin by stating that the concerned member has
spoken about periyar at a Dravidia Kazhagam meeting highlighting his contribution to the
development and consolidation of the congress party in the early part of the twentieth
century.
Very often Kamaraj defended Periyar and said that he should be appreciated as he
had implemented Gandhian programmes like untouchabiltiy abolition, alcohol
prohibition, swadeshi etc during the days of the Non-Cooperation Movement and
moreover Kamaraj said that Periyar's activities and ideals in the fifties were continuation
of that commitment to Gandhian principles. As a pragmatic politician Kamaraj told the
detractors of the district congress committee secretary that it would be an act of
indiscipline if he had participated in a meeting of Dravidia Munnetra Kazhagam and not
Dravidia Kazhagam. The absolved secretary of the district congress committee who
fim1ly considered nationalism of congress and the rationalist regionalism of Dravidia
Kazhagam as his two eyes was so overwhelmed with emotions of gratitude that he called
Kamaraj as "Periyar in congress clothes". 87
154
Kamaraj, sensitive to the widespread opposition to Periyar's steatfast support
declared that he had never sought his support. Furthermore, he said that as a political
strategist he would not decline to receive the unsought but considerably productive
support from Periyar.
Kamaraj Plan and Periyar
Once Periyar came to know about the details of the Kamaraj plan with much alacrity and
promptness sent a telegram to Kamaraj delineating its negative implications. The
telegram said that either on his own will or because of his friend's motivation he had
resigned the Chief Ministership of the state. Periyar added that this resignation of
Kamaraj would be suicidal for Tamils, Tamil Nadu and even for the political career of
Kamaraj. Hence he requested Kamaraj to give up his moves.88
On I 0-08-1963 Periyar wrote an editorial in his Viduthalai expressing his anguish
and disappointment over the implementation of the suicidal Kamaraj plan and resultant
resignation of Chief Ministership by him. He said that no one could exceed Kamaraj in
commitment to party discipline and social values like equality, humanism etc. His
resignation could not be condoned or appreciated on any ground. Whoever filled up the
position vacated by Kamaraj would not be able to sustain for long and no person could
act with the kind of ethnic pride and spirit like Kamaraj. He said that he didn't like
Kamaraj's resignation, as it would lead to the emergence of political instability as in
Kerala. The state would not continue to have the development in education, industry, and
agriculture, as it had under Kamaraj governance was the opinion of Periyar.
He also said that Kamaraj plan would be beneficial only in those states where
party factionalism, confusion, cheap politicking were rampant and not in Tamil Nadu
where there was peace, order, tranquility and development. Periyar continued that
Kamaraj should not resign from the Chief Ministership to reveal his commitment to
Kamaraj plan as "Kamaraj is like a doctor. Kamaraj plan is the medicine. The party is the
155
patient. The doctor should grve medicine to the patient and not eat himself the
d
. . ,89 me rcme.
Periyar believed that in that critical situation the consensus in congress was for
the continuance of Jawaharlal Nehru's Prime Ministership and in Tamil Nadu similarly
the Chief Ministership of Kamaraj should be continued. Moreover, he argued that the
national leadership of congress party should realize the indispensability of Kamaraj
Chiefministership in Tamil Nadu and should not accept his resignation. Periyar through
his article appealed to Kamaraj to consider the welfare of the Tamil people as his primary
objective, keeping the welfare of the party as his secondary objective.90
Despite these prolific implorations Kamrajar resigned the post of Chief Minister.
Though National level considerations had a role in the conception and implementation of
Kamaraj plan the evolving political scenario in the state too had its share in it. The
Dravidia Munnetra Kazhagam, which appeared as a dim speck in the electoral political
atmosphere of the state in 1956 had gathered enough luminance in the 1962 elections.
With the onward march of Dravidia Munnetra Kazhagam in gaining more popularity and
social acceptance the electoral threat was distinctly looming large over the political
calculations of Kamaraj. But the political prophesy of Periyar about the suicidal nature of
Kamaraj plan came true in the 1967 elections and Kamaraj himself had admitted to
Periyar about the negative follow out of the plan. The General Secretary of Dravidia
Kazhagam Veeramani confim1ed that Kamaraj when he met Periyar in the post
1967election phase conceded about the validity ofPeriyar's objections to Kamaraj plan.
Congress High command and D.K- Kamaraj Alliance
The national leadership of congress faced acute discomfiture and dilemma over the
alliance between TNCC and D.K that sounded ideologically repugnant but electoraly
beneficial. The problem of regional caste lobbies and dominant political personalities
asser1ing themselves against the congress high command was not unusual then but still
the political scenario in Tamil Nadu was different as there was not much political space
156
left for central leadership of the party to manipulate the situation. This unusual scenario
was due to the preponderance of support enjoyed by Kamaraj faction in Tamil Nadu
unparalleled elsewhere both within the congress party organization and outside in the
general society.
There was only deliberate indifference from the congress president U.N. Dhebor
towards this controversial connection between Kamaraj faction and Dravida Kalazhagam
as exemplified by the fact that "For from condemning Nadar, Dhebar averred that he
could not imagine Kakkagi or any one else in a position of leadership in Tamil Nadu
working for the Kazhagam".91 The cultivation of Independent base by Kamaraj
Leadership and the regionalization of the congress party organization in the state
contributed to the aura of invincibility exhibited by the Local Congress Unit from the
active intervention ofthe High command.
Reaction of Brahmins
Many Brahmins both within and outside congress party expressed their mounting
disappointment over the close rapport between TNCC and anti-Brahmin Dravida
Kazhagam. Both individually and collectively they voiced their opposition to this
alliance. They initially complained to the national leadership about the local congress
unit's predominant faction's highly disctiminating attitude against Brahmins. The
national leadership of the party was lukewarm and tentative in its remedial action as here
in the state the politically assertive caste lobbies gained political ascendancy and placed
its ascendancy behind congress and more significantly the predominant Non-Brahmin
faction of Kamaraj for all purposes came to constitute the entirety of the party. The
national party leaders looked the other way when the Non-Brahmin political landslide
pushed out Rajaji from the chief miuistership of the state. Outraged at the uncommon
alliance of nationalist congress and separatist Dravida Kazhagam united by their
commonality of anti-Brahmin stand the Brahmin congressmen and faction seceded to
establish a splinter group called as "Congress Reforms Committee".92
157
On the eve of the 1957 elections the Congress Refom1s Committee accused the
Kamaraj faction of denying seats to tried and loyal congressmen and in tern offering
these seats to the sympathizers and associates of Dravida Kazhagam. "An instance which
caused much criticism was the adoption as a congress candidate of Raja Sir Muthiaya
Chettiyar, a fom1er member of the Justice party, instead of Mr. Ganesan, a congress man
of many years stan dm. g " .9 3
SwantantraParty
The Swantantraparty was formed in Madras in 1959 by Rajaji so as to provide political
at1iculation to the organized apolitical interest groups like Forum of Free Enterprise
(FEP) and All-India Agriculturalists' Federation (AIAF).
The party was visualized as an embodiment of political opposition to the
socialism oriented congress party. Rajaji. explained the meaning of Swantantraas "a self
employed life free from the interference of ignorant officialdom".94 The fonnation of the
party consolidated the already deepening friendship between Periyar's Dravida
Kazhagam and Kamaraj Congress. In Tamil Nadu the Swantantrawas essentially a
political medium of Brahmins against this alliance between Periyar and Kamaraj. "The
identification of the Brahmins with the Swantantraparty is a conscious one. It cuts across
the boundaries of class, occupation, income, education and generations. Whether he is a
Mirasdar or a servant in a coffee shop, college educated or relatively unlettered, an
ot1hodox elder or a progressive young man, the Brahmin feels it his duty to be loyal to
the S\vantantraparty".95
.
The official weekly ofthe party 'Swarajya' and sympathetic journals like 'Kalki'
were subscribed by mostly Brahmins. Only Brahmins largely attended the party meetings
and conventions. Though the Vanniyar party Tamil Nadu Toilers party led by
Ramaswamy Padaiyachi had merged initially with Swantantraparty, later on the leader
withdrew his pat1y from the political alliance in protest against Brahmin ascendancy in
the S '' antantraparty.
158
The Dravida Kazhagam considered the Swantantraparty as the manifestation of
Brahmin anger against Kamaraj. Periyar criticized the fundamental principles of Rajaji
about liberalism, anti-statism as essentially Brahminical devices to secure the welfare of
Bahmins and to undem1ine the Non-Brahmin development through governmental
patronage.
In 1959 Periyar said "Rajaji so for had utilized the existing political parties to
achieve the interests of Brahmins. He made use of all political parties Communist Party
of India, Indian National Democratic party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam for furthering
Brahmin welfare. As Kamaraj could not be defeated by these political parties Periyar
now had started his own Swatantrato achieve that purpose". He advised Rajaji to name
the party as Brahmin welfare party or Tamil welfare abolition party.
His attack increased in stridency latter and he called the Swatantraparty as
counterfeit party arguing that the objective of counterfeiters was to deceive the people
and as Swatantrahad the same objective to deceive the Tamils it should be renamed as
counterfeit party.
As third general elections approached Swatantraand DMK began alliance
negotiations. Rajaji who had always condemned strongly the anti- Brahmin stand of
DMK now began to understand the beneficial implications of an alliance with DMK to
unseat the congress in the state. He justified such an alliance by arguing that the DMK
had abandoned its communal bias. His supporters claimed that due to the persuasion of
Rajaji the DMK had jettisoned its anti-Brahmanism and separatism.96
When critics and congressmen questioned Rajaji for taking the help of parties like
DMK to defeat congress, Rajaji remarked rather pungently that Lord Rama has taken the
help of Hanuman, a monkey to defeat Ravana. Periyar reacted strongly to this callous
remark and said that Rajaji had in a daring display of Brahmin arrogance had equated
Kamaraj with Ravana and said that it was the fundamental duty of Tamils to protect
Kamaraj or otherwise the fate, which befell Ravana, would fall on Kamaraj too. He also
159
teased DMK to react to the description implied in Rajaji statement about DMK being a
monkey. <)7
Cow Slaughter Issue
There was an agitation m New Delhi against cow slaughter on 07.11.66 in which
thousands of sadhus and naked holy men participated in an atmosphere surcharged with
emotions. They demanded the immediate enactment of legislation to ban cow slaughter.
They came from different regions of the country to register their strong emotions against
cow slaughter. The agitators carried away by emotions indulged in violent activities
which included even arson. They particularly targeted the office of All India Congress
Committee and the residence of the Congress President. As violence reached
unmanageable proportions when agitators spread their attacks on All India Radio,
Reserve Bank of India etc., the police resorted to firing in which many people were
killed.
When the violent mob attacked the residence of the congress President the
incumbent resident of the house Kamaraj escaped narrowly. The crowd had chosen to
attack Kamaraj as he had earlier spoken against anti-cow slaughter legislation in the
Congress Working Committee meeting. He was predominantly active in the prevention of
the passage of any resolution in the Congress Working Committee banning cow
slaughter. This precipitated the anger of the agitators against Kamaraj.
Kamaraj was for a long time only tangential in his reference to the attempted
assassination. But one month later while delivering a speech in salem he accused directly
the reactionary, feudalist and anti - socialist forces as responsible for the attack. Though
not holding Rajaji responsible for the attack personally he castigated him for leading
these reactionary forces in the politics of the country. He made a vitriolic attack on the
reactionary agenda of Rajaji and Swantantraparty and described him as a king of kings in
closing down educational institutions.<J11
160
The reaction of Dravida Kazhagam to the attack on Kamaraj was aggressive and
swift. Periyar saw the attack as the blatant manifestation of Brahmin anger and hatred
against a sudra who had defeated them to become the most successful leader the country.
Moreover, Periyar castigated the disgruntled Brahmins as they chose New Delhi to mount
their counter attack on Kamaraj and considered it a cowardly and diabolic move. He
challenged them to undertake such an execrable expedition in Tamil Nadu. In a
threatening posture, he forewarned that any attack on this shining star oflndia's political
fim1ament would invite overwhelming retaliation from Non-Brahmins that would
definitely exterminate the race of Brahmins in the state.99
The Dravida Kazhagam held Rajaji responsible for the assault on Kamaraj by cow
protection protagonists and called him agent provocateur. It linked the unfortunate
incidence of Delhi with the political speech of Rajaji made in Chennai Marina beach in
1966. In that speech Rajaji exhorted people to teach a lesson to Kamaraj "if we hit with
stone and drive away the black crow that has gone to Delhi from Tamil Nadu the other
crows will automatically fly away frightened and congress will be defeated". Rajaji
disguisedly referred to the swarthy Kamaraj by the word "black crow". That electoral
speech of Rajaji in Marina Beach was picked by Dravida Kazhagam as evidence of
Brahmin, Rajaji diabolical conspiracy to assassinate Kamaraj. 100
Tamil Oesiya Katchi
The rapidly emerging DMK faced an intra-party factionalism of crippling kind in the
early 60s. One of the founder leaders ofthe party E.V.K. Sampath opposed the shifting
stands of the party on the controversial issue of Dravida Nadu. He also opposed the
enormous influence exercised by the film personalities over the decision-making
apparatus of the party. The film based group led by Karunanidhi, M.G. Ramachandran
and S.S Rajendran actively mobilized support against the Sampath group. In January
19() I the General Council of DMK met at Vellore and there was a fracas as the anti
Sampath group organized no-confidence motion against the chaim1an Sampath.
161
The injured leader E.V.K. Samapth resigned his post as chairman of DMK and
undertook a political tour throughout the state to gather public support. In one of the
meetings at Trichy he was attacked by the members of the rival group. As the
contradictions became unbridgeable between the chaim1an E.V.K. Sampath and General
Secretary C.N. Annadurai, the former walked out of the party.
"In withdrawing from the DMK Sampath took a large body of his following with
him, including a number of general council members and 7 of the DMK's 47 Madras city
councilors including the Mayor Munuswami".101
The rebels formed a party called the Tamil Nationalist party and the party
prefeJTed to adhere to the concept of an autonomous Tamil state with a right to secede
from the federal structure. The party through its election manifesto recognized the
territorial integrity of India as a Federal Republic even while demanding the right of
secession on the soviet model.
A series of cascading events catapulted the former chief minister Kamaraj to be
the President of Indian National Congress starting from the implementation of the
organization centric Kamaraj plan. The Tamil Des(va Katchi began to cultivate a close
contact with Kamaraj and Indian National Congress. As Kannadasan opined they were
attracted by the political phenomenon where a Tamil detem1ined the dynamics of national
politics. When Kamaraj gave a clarion call to all the socialist supporters who had drifted
away from congress in the past for various reasons to come back into the party for the
sake of organizational regeneration and socialist solidarity, the Tamil Desiya Katchi was
tempted to join congress. The party had protracted discussions on the ways and means of
responding to the call of Kamaraj. A dominant faction led by E.V.K. Sampath and
Kannadasan advocated a merger with congress event though another faction led by Kovai
Chel iyan opposed such a move. The pro-merger faction advocated the merger stating that
congress under Kamaraj represented all that the Tamil Desiya Katchi stood for. The
general council of the party was convened in Trichy to discuss the issue of merger and
after intense deliberations the party decided to merge with congress. 102
162
The merger led to a spirit of rejuvenation in the ranks of congress. A new young
generation coming from a regional tradition having loyalty to some of its earlier ideas
came into congress. 103 They participated vigorously in the electioneering in the 1967
election and one of the new members Shivaji Ganesan brought his band of fans to
campaign for congress. Its leader E.V.K. Sampath was appointed as the General
Secretary of Tamil Nadu Congress Committee.
Congress and Tamil Language
The contribution of the congress party to Tamil language in the context of increasing
ascendancy of Non-Brahmins was another manifestation of the gradual infusion of
regionalism in the party. Exactly eight months before independence, the congress party
established Tamil Valarchi Kazhagam or Tamil Development Council with the
interrelated objectives of promoting Tamil Language and combating the political
challenge of the aggressive regional Dravida Kazhagam. 104 T.S. Avinashilingam
Chettiar, who later became the Education Minister in the state, was appointed as the
president ofthis Council.
The Tamil Development Council celebrated with exuberant enthusiasm every
year in the month of August to bestow honour on Tamil poets and litterateur.In 1948 the
congress govemment opened the great memorial in Ettayapuram for the great poet
Bharathiar, in his birth place. To honour the great poet, the govemment announced that
poet laureate would be appointed to the Govemment of Tamil Nadu. Accordingly the
Chief Minister Omandur Ramasamy Reddiar appointed the Namakkal Kavignar as the
poet laureate. 105
Tamil language was declared as the official language of administration at ail
levels in the state through a legislative enactment in 1956. The Education minister C.
Subramaniam introduced the bill with overwhelming emotions. The Minister glorified
the contribution of a number of poets who in the past cherished a fond dream of making
the language a medium of administration. He took great pride in recalling their names as
163
majority of them came from Congress tradition. He mentioned Bharathiar, Vedaranyam
Pillai, and Maraimalaiyadiagal etc specifically. The Education Minister of the Congress
Govemment expressively proclaimed that it was great honour for him as destiny had
chosen him to pilot this monumental measure. He, overwhelmed with emotions
profusely expressed his gratitude to the Almighty for g1vmg him his momentous
opportunity to introduce the Tamil centric legislation. 106
The Kamaraj Government was also the first in the history of Tamil Nadu to
prepare and present the budget in Tamil in the Legislative Assembly. 107 In 1957-58 it
was presented in English and Tamil, in the Assembly. In 1959 the congress government
established Tamil Development Research Council that was constituted by the researchers
and scholars of Tamil Language as members. The primary objective of the council was to
introduce Tamil as medium in collegiate education. The council prepared the Tamil
medium books on college education in different subjects and to publish these books a
society called Tamil Book Publishing Council was also formed. In the following year in
1960-61 Tamil medium was introduced as a pilot scheme in Government Arts College,
Coimbatore that later on was extended to many other colleges.
The Tamil Development Research Council fonned a sub committee named
Collegiate Tamil Council which was led by G.R. Damodaran and had T.P. Meenakshi
Sundaram and Aram as its members. This committee prepared and published Tamil
lexicons in many subjects like Psychology, Commerce, Chemistry and Statistics. 10 ~
Moreover scholarship was offered to these students who received their education in
Tamil at the college level. The education minister C. Subramanium argued that
preference should be given to Tamil language in public employment so that in the future
the needs of the administration could be satisfied especially in the context of the adoption
ofTamillanguage as the official language of administration in the state.
When skepticism emerged from some quarters about the feasibility of providing
education at the college level in Tamil language the education minister in a passionate
defense not dissimilar to any DMK leader emphasized that Tamil is endowed with
164
nece:,sary qualities to meet this challenge. He even wrote a book title as Tmnil can do it.
The contemporary emphasis on Tamil as a medium of instruction in college education as
a fundamental maxim in Tamil Nadu has its roots in the congress assimilation of Tamil
nationalism in 1950s. 10'>
Renaming Tamil Nadu
There was a growing demand, especially after the linguistic reorganization of states for
the renaming of the Madras State on the ground that its name was not indigenous but
exogenous and hence erroneous. While the political Dravidian outfit DMK stridently
advocated the immediate adoption of the Tamil nomenclature, other groups too gradually
joined the stream. Sankaralinganar, a congress leader launched a fast into death struggle
on 27.07.1956 to press the demand to change the name of the state to a Tamil title for
satisfying people's aspirations. Sankaralinganar was a veteran congressman who had
pat1icipated actively and enthusiastically in various phases and struggles of national
freedom movement. He was associated intimately with Gandhian movements in the
southem districts of Tamil areas.
His epic fast created a volatile atmosphere in the politics of the state and many
leaders of the congress pat1y visited him during his fast and sought to dissuade him from
his obdurate course. Kamaraj the Chief Minister, Kakkan the president of the Tamil
Nadu Congress Committee attempted to persuade to abjure this stubbom fast. M.P.
S i vagnanam the cultural nationalist of Tamil identity and Indian integrity too attempted
to convince the fasting congressman.
But Sangakalinganar was adamant m his demands. He put forth a senes of
amorphous demands, which included
I. Renaming of Madras state as Tamilnadu.
1 Establishment of linguistic provinces
165
3. Introduction of unifom1ity m Railway travel and abolition of class based
differences.
4. Adoption ofvegetarianism.
5. Prescription of Kadar dress to govemment servants.
6. Adoption of simplicity and avoidance of extravagance by congress leaders.
7. Refom1s in education system.
8. Implementation ofprohibition.
9. Introduction of technical education. 110
But unfortunately the fasting congress leader expired as the congress govemment
was unable to meet all his demands. His death precipitated a grave crisis in the state.
In 1961 the congress govemment announced in the state legislature that the Madras
State hereafter would be called as Tamil Nadu in intra-state communication while the
old name of Madras would be continued to be used for the purpose of inter-state
communication and communication with the central govemment. 111 The congress
party assured the opposition members that congress was neither reluctant nor inimical
to rename the state. It reminded the opposition party that it was congress, which, in
the second decade of the century itself had named its provincial committee as Tamil
Nadu Congress Committee even before the fragmentation of the erstwhile Madras
Presidency. Moreover, the party stated that the old name Madras State would be
continued for inter- state communication as that name had been already popular and
had been in vogue for a long time and as any abrupt conversion would precipitate
con fusion. The party in an exuberant mood presented the state budget 1961-62 in the
Legislative Assembly in the name of Tamil Nadu.
Regionalization of Congress Unit on Hindi Controversy
At the time of Indian independence there was no consensus within the congress party on
the question of official language for the young independent nation. Though a powerful
lobby led by the congress leader Puroshottam Das Tandon passionately argued for the
immediate declaration of Hindi as the only official language of India so that freedom
166
from linguistic enslavement could be achieved, there were other groups and leaders who
had openly opposed such a move. The southem leaders argued that though the objective
of Hindi as the official language of India was a final destination the joumey was rather
long and that could happen only after the acceptance secured from the people of nonHindi
regions especially the south.
T.A. Ramalinga Chettiyar who had joined congress in the 1930s from the Justice
Pm1y spoke grimly in the Constituent Assembly about the unilateral imposition of Hindi
as the official language of India. He called it a matter of life and death for south India.
He continued, "If there is the feeling of having obtained liberty, freedom and all that,
there is very little of it felt in the south. Sir, coming here to the capital in the northem
most part of the country, and feeling ourselves as strangers in this land, we do not feel
that we are a nation to whom the whole thing belongs. It is not even the thing that are
said- we have given up our language in favour of Hindi -but the way in which the Hindi
speaking people treat us and the way in which they want to demand things which is more
ga II .m g " . 112
Another congress member from Tamil Nadu in the Constituent Assembly Dr. P.
Subbarayan spoke about the danger of Hindi with the help of a Tamil proverb "if a man
comes and asks for a little place on the verandah and if you grant it, he will next ask for
entry into the house itself'. 113
Avinashilingam Missive
J.S. Avinashilingam Chettiyar, the former education minister and the president of Sri
Ramakrishna Mission Vidhyalaya located in Coimbatore, a stanch congressman wrote a
letter ro the Prime Minister La! Bahadur Shastri in 1965 drawing the attention of the
central govemment to the Hindi controversy. 114 He welcomed the announcement made
by the Prime Minister in Thiruvanandapuram promising that no central govemment
servant would be compelled to study Hindi and no increment cut or promotion skipping
would be imposed on them to force them to leam Hindi. But he drew the attention of the
167
pnme minister to the bitter fact that his assurances were violated in some of the
departments of the central government. For example in the Railway department, he said
in his missive circulars had been sent that no increment and promotion would be given to
the servants who had not learnt Hindi within three years. Moreover, the Ministry of
Broadcasting and Infonnation had sent a circular stating that hereafter all routine
circulars should be sent only in Hindi.
The former education minister of the state requested the Prime Minister that in the
departmental exams the candidates belonging to the non-Hindi areas should be allowed to
write the exams in their mother tongue or regional languages as the prevailing system
whereby only Hindi and English were allowed had created inequalities between Hindi
an d non-Hm. d.1 peop Ie . 11s
Congress Working Committee Resolution
In 1965 the Congress Working Committee meeting under the presidenship of Kamaraj
passed a resolution reiterating the fim1 resolve of the congress to adhere to the assurances
given by the late prime minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru regarding the continuance of
English in addition to Hindi for all the official purposes of the Union, not withstanding
the expiry of 15 year period provided by the constitution. The resolution also said that
every state would have complete and unfettered freedom to continue to transact it own
business in the language of its choice, which might be the regional language, Hindi or
English.
The CWC resolution echoed the words of the Prime Minister La! Bahadur Sasthri
delivered to the nation a few months earlier about the continuance of English as the
official language even after 1965 and had a calming effect on the anti-Hindi education in
Tamil Nadu where the Anti- Hindi Agitation Council called off its agitation.
"Kamaraj, like Annadurai emphasized that Nehru had assured the non-Hindi areas
m 1963 that English would continue as an associate language as long as the people of the
168
non-Hindi areas wished. In other words, the public statements of Annadurai and Kamaraj
differed little in their position on possible solution to the language issue". 116 Not only
Hindi on other issues too Kamaraj succeeded in regionalizing Congress making it
acceptable in Tamil Nadu. 117
UPSC Examinations
The Tamil Nadu Congress Committee passed a resolution requesting the central
govemment to allow the candidate to write the UPSC examinations in English, Hindi and
the regional language so that an equal opportunity could be given to candidate from all
par1s of the country. Moreover, such a measure would remove any fear of discrimination
between Hindi and non-Hindi regional languages. 118 While explaining the need for the
resolution by TNCC Kamaraj said that candidates from rural areas of non-Hindi region
would find it difficult to express themselves in English as adequately as urban students.
The resolution was sent by the TNCC to the congress high command and Union
govemment for further consideration and adaptation.
The Congress Working Committee under the leadership of Kamaraj met in July
1965 and inspired by the resolution from the TNCC passed its own resolution
recommending that as soon as possible examinations for the All India Services should be
held in Hindi, English and the principal regional languages and that candidates might be
given an option to use any of these languages for the purposes there of.
As a result of these recommendations and resolutions the candidates appearing in
the civil services exams of Union Public Service Commission were allowed to write in
their regional languages and this regulation had a strong impact on the people of Tamil
Nadu as Tamil could be used as the medium of examination in the All India Services
Exams.
169
1965 Hindi Crisis
In 1965 the 15 year period time limit set by the constitution for the replacement of
English by Hindi ended and the central Government, especially the zealous Union Home
Minister Gulzarilal Nanda along with other enthusiasts sought to take administrative and
constitutional measures to achieve this objective. These measures evoked a strong protest
from Tamil Nadu where the opposition DMK and politically conscious students
expressed their opposition to the adoption of Hindi as the solitary official language of
India. As the stir appeared to gather momentum the Tamil congress members in the
central ministry C. Subramaniam and O.V. Alagesan decided to resign their posts. The
ministers wanted to register their opposition to the compulsory implementation of Hindi
as the only official language of the union. The ministers also met the President of the
Republic and explained to him the main purpose of their resignation, which was to
express solidarity with anti Hindi agitation. 119
These two ministers toured Tamil Nadu and met the agitationists to pacify them.
When there was pressure from other congressmen that they should take back their
resignation, these ministers decided to concede to their demand but wanted a guarantee
fi·om the prime minister that the Hindi policy of the aggressive home minister should be
discontinued and the earlier Nehruvian assurances should be strictly adhered to. The
Union Council of Ministers later on decided to adhere to the Nehruvian assurances and
the rebellious ministers from Tamil Nadu took back their resignation. 120
The action of the congress ministers from the state in solidarity with the Anti
Hindi Agitation in the state had a calming impact and opposition parties and college
students gave up the agitation. The Anti- Hindi Agitation of 1965 contributed to the
defeat of the congress pm ty in 1967 elections basically because of the repressive policies
of the state congress government. The restoration of the Nehruvian policy would have
negated any negative impact the stir had created for the congress but for the repressiYe
measures of the state government. And it is for this reason that two decades latter in
1989 when congress mounted a serious independent bid to capture power in the state it
170
scrupulously avoided mentioning the name of congress chief minister Bhathavatchalam
during the agitation.
Subramaniam Speech In 1978
The congress Member of Parliament C. Subramaniam gave a forceful and detailed
presentation of the views of the party in the parliament in 1978. This speech symbolized
the extent of impact the state unit of party had on the national party organization on the
Hindi controversy. In this impassioned speech the congress leader cautioned the new
Janata party government not to impose Hindi in the non-Hindi areas. He argued that if
Hindi was implemented as the singular official language of India eliminating English
altogether from the scene then the very parliamentary democracy would be severely
undennined in the country. Once Hindi became the sole official language of India, all
discussions, debates and deliberations in the national parliament would be conducted in
Hindi and the non-Hindi representatives in the parliament would became mute spectators
f I I
. 121 o t 1e par 1amentary process.
The deleterious impact of the compulsory, only Hindi policy on the functioning of
the central council of ministers could be easily visualized as the non-Hindi members of
the ministry would be at a considerable disadvantage to meaningfully participate in the
decision making process. Similar liabilities would befall on non-Hind people who were
recruited to administrative and managerial services in the central government was the
argument of the Tamil congress leader. 122
He also highlighted the genuine apprehensions of non-Hindi speaking people of
Tami I Nadu once the acclaimed speech of the Indian Foreign Minister in the United
Nations Organizations was delivered in Hindi. Though this gesture of the Foreign
Minister promoted the happiness of Hindi champions the south looked at it with
trepidation taking it as the bad harbinger of future Hindi chauvinism in all areas of
national life.
171
He also focused on the perceived alienation of southern and non-Hindi people
who came to the capital city as all conferences, meetings of government were held only
in Hindi and English was totally conspicuous by its absences. He rhetorically asked a
question in the parliament whether New Delhi was a city of Hindi people or a city of all
Indians irrespective of their linguistic differences. He cautioned the avid champions of
Hindi language in the Janata government not to endanger the unity and integrity of nation
by its extreme devotion to Hindi and its dissemination. The congress leader from Tamil
Nadu also advocated amending article 343 of the constitution so that English could be
retained without any time limit as the official language along with Hindi. 123
The anti-Hindi implementation sentiments of the Tamil congressmen like C.
Subramanian were entirely on grounds of national integration. Yet their stand reflected
the extra distance the congress party traveled to solve the apprehensions of Dravidian
regionalism about the complex issue of Hindi imposition.
In summery we can say that there was a gradual regionalization of congress
leadership structure in the decades preceding and succeeding independence as the
regional Non-Brahmin leaders and communities supplanted the Brahmins at all rungs of
the congress organization. The protracted rivalry between Rajaji and Kamaraj essentially
represented the subterranean rivalry between regional groups and national elites in the
domain of congress leadership. The intellectually gifted, urbane and cosmopolitan Rajaji
symbolized the interests and aspirations of national elite while Kamaraj finnly rooted in
the soil of indigenous social categories symbolized the forces of the region. The
assumption of chiefministership by Kamaraj in 1954 in the aftern1ath of the controversial
education scheme of Rajaji dispensation signified the culmination of this protracted
struggle and the regionalization, traditionalisation and indigenization of congress
leadership was completed.
The intense symbiotic relationship between the regional Dravida Kazhagam and
national pa11y of congress in Tamil Nadu was both a cause and consequence of the
regionalization of the congress party in the state. The support extended by Dravida
172
Kazhagam to the Non-Brahmin faction euphemistically described as Dravida Congress
directly and indirectly aided the Non-Brahmanization of the party and subsequently
congress began to contribute to the growth of Tamil language in education and
governance, Tamil representation in Industry, politics, bureaucracy etc., The
representation and recognition given to region in the congress party in 50's and 60's
heralded the age of congress dominance in the state.
173
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
NOTES
i\:arashimman, V.K.Kamaraj: A Study, Bombay; Manakatlas, 1967, p.31.
Copley, A.R.J-1. Op-cit, PP.171 to 231.
Narashinm1an, V .Op-cit, P .31.
Ibid., P.222
Kalaimani, N.V. Desia Talaivar Kamaraj, Chennai: Shanthi Publication, 2002, p.178
Ibid., p.l79
Copley, A.R.H. Op-cit, p.225.
Congress Party Records, p.I8, 1945, Tamil Nadu, 1945-46.
Ibid., p.l9.
I 0. Ibid .. p.20.
II. Kalaimani, N.V. Op-cit, p.l40
12. Copley, A.R.J-1. Op-cit, p.225
13. Kalaimani, N.V. Op-cit, pp.205-217.
14. Ibid .. p.215.
15. J-larijan, I 0 Feb mary 1946.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Narashimman, V.K. Op-cit, p.35.
Kalaimani, N.V. Op-cit, p.218.
Ibid., p.219.
Saraswati, S. Op-cit, p.I38.
The Hindu, 16 April 1950.
21.
22.
Gopalakrishnan, M.D. Periyar: Father of the Tamil Race, Madras: Emerald Publisher, 1992, p.39.
Gopanna. A. Kamaraj: Om Sahaptham, Chennai: Surya Publication, 2003, p.202.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Ilamathi. Sivalai, Sarithira Nayagan Kamaraj, Madras; Vasant and Co., 2002, p.291.
Hardgrave, Robert, Op-cit, p.44.
Narashimman, V.K. Op-cit, p.46.
Barnett, M.R. Op-cit, PP.79 and 80.
Kalaimani, N.V. Op-cit, p.307.
Indian Express, 10 March 1954.
Ilamathi, Sivalai, Op-cit, p.248.
Ibid .. p.249.
Ibid., p.250.
Ibid .. p.251.
Gandhi, R. The Rajaji Story: A Warrior From the South, Madras, Bharathan Publishers, 1978, p.354.
Kalaimani, N.V. Op-cit, p.303.
Jeevabharati. K. Sattaperavail Pasumpon Thevar, Chennai; Kumaran Pathipagam, 2003, pp.l39-45.
Spratt. P. Op-cit. P.91
Barnett. M.L. Op-cit, p. 107.
Naiman. M. Periyar Kanini, Part I, Chennai: Poompuhar Pathipagam, 1996, p.l28.
Ibid .. p.l29.
Viswanathan. E.Sa. Op-cit, p. 146.
Kudi Arasu. I January 1933.
Kudi Arasu. I January 1933.
Viduthalai, 27 November 1951.
44. Harrison. Selig. India: The most Dangerous Decades, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1960, p.187.
45. Hardgrave, Robert. Op-cit, p. 46.
46. Harrison, Selig. Op-cit, p 185.
47. Ibid .. p. 186.
48. !hid .. p.187
49. ~annan. M_ Op-cit, p.134.
50. Ibid .. p. D7
51. !hid .. p.l3CL
52. Velu. Kuruvikarambai. Kuthusi Gurusamy, Chennai: Valavan Pathipagam. 1991. pp.428-29.
174
53. lb1d.,
54. Veerapandian. Ahattum Parkalam, Chennai: Doorigai Veliyeedu, 2003, p.56.
55. Viduthalai. I June 1954.
56. Barnett, M.R. Op-cit, p.91.
57. \'arasimman, V.K. Op-cit, p.50.
58. Abedkarpriyan. Mannurimai Porali Rettamalai Srinivasan, Chennai; The Author, 200 I.
59. Ilamathi. Sivalai. Op-cit, p.344.
60. Veerapandian. Op-cit, p.l25.
61. Perun Talaivar Kamaraj Eluchi Uraigal. Thahuthi, Thiramai, Mosadi, Chennai; Dravida Kazhagam
Veliyeedu, 2001
62. Ibid., p.8.
63. Ibid., p.9.
64. Veerapandian. Op-cit, p.11 0
65: Ibid., p.l\2
66. Ibid., p.ll4.
67. Perun Talaivar Kamaraj Eluchi Uraigal. Op-cit, p.11.
68, Verapandian, Op-cit, p.105.
69. Ibid., p.l 06.
70. Veerapandian, Op-cit, pp.26-77.
71. Hardgrave, Robert. Op-cit, p.45.
72. The Hindu, 22 July 1955.
73. Velu, Kuruvikarambai. Op-cit, p.683.
74. Anaimuthu, V. (Ed.). Periyar E.V.R.Sinthanaigal, Trichi: Sinthanaiyalargal Pathipagam, 1974, p.1837.
75. Ibid.,p.l838.
76. The Hindu, 22 July 1955
77. Veerapandian. Op-cit, p. 171.
78. Jlamathi, Sivalai. Op-cit, pp.360 to 62.
79. Kalaimani, N.Y. Op-cit, pp.335-36.
80. Subramanian, C. Thiruppu Munai, Chennai; New Century Book House, 1994, p.293.
81. Hardgrave, Robert. Op-cit, p.48.
82. Naiman, M. Op-cit, p.249.
83. Hardgrave, Robert, Op-cit,
84. Link. 26 November 1961.
85. Nathiham, 12 January 1962.
86. Veerapandian. Op-cit, p.ll8.
87. Ibid: p.59.
88. Viduthalai, 10 August !963.
89. Ilamathi, Sivalai, Op-cit, p.375.
90. Ibid., p.75.
91. Harrison, Selig. Op-cit, pp.287-90.
92. The Hindu, 19 January 1957.
93. Spratt P.DMK In Power, Bombay: Nachikethan Poblicationm, 1970, p.44
94. Erdmann, Howard L. The SwantantraParty and Indian Conservatism, London; Cambridge University
Press, 1967,p.15.
95. Beteille, A. Caste, Class and Power: Changing Patterns of Stratification in a Tanjore Village, Berkeley:
University of Califomia Press, 1965, pp. 215 to 217.
96. Ib1d .. p .. 216.
97. Thanthai Periyar. Ac:1arya Aatchin Kodumaigal, Chem1ai: Dravida Kazhagam Veliyeedu, 1996, p.79.
98. ~avasakthi. 15 December 1966.
99. Viduthalai. 18January 1967.
100.\.Iduthalai. 10 November 1966.
I 0 I. Barnett M .R. The Politics Of Cultural Nationalism In South India, London : Cambridge University
Press. 1976,
I 02. Kannadasan.Nan Partha Arasial. Chennai ; Poongodi Pathipagam, 1980. pp.\9-21
103.1bid.
I 04 Ilamathi, Sivalai. Op-cit,p P.329.
175
I 05.1bid .. p.330.
I 06. Balasubramaniam, Sirpi. Bharata Ratna C. Subramaniam, Pollachi; Kolam Veliyeedu, 1999, PP.I 0 I.
I 07. Ibid., p.1 02.
I 08. Ilamathi. Sivalai. Op-e it, 330-31.
I 09.Balasubramaniam, Sirpi. Op-cit,p P.114.
I I O.Sundarajan, T. Tiyagi Sundaralinganar Varalaru, Chennai: Manivasakar Pathipagam, 2000. pp.93-4.
III.IIamathi, Sivalai. Op-cit, P.331.
112.ConstituentAssemblyDebates, September 13,1949, Vol. IX, No.33, P.1370.
113.Ibid., p.1398.
114.Swaminathan, P.K. Moondru Muthalvarhaludan, Chennai: Kamaraj Anna Pathipagam, 1997,
p.102-104.
115.Ibid.,p.103.
116.Barnett, M.R. Op-cit, p.132.
117.Pai. Sudha. State Politics; New Dimensions. New Delhi;Shipra, Publication,2000, p.204.
liS. Tamil Nadu Congress Conm1ittee Minutes, Vol. 63-67, 19 February, pp.95 to 97.
119.Karupiah, Kalaimamani. O.V. Alagesan: Valgaium Panigalum, Chengalpet: Bhaktavachalam
Arakkattalai, 1995, pp.276 to 277.
120.Subramaniam, C. Op-cit, p.363
12l.lbid., p.367.
122. Ibid., p.368.
123.1bid.,p.369.
176