This is simply the translation of this piece written by Thiruchi Selventhiran who is an important Periyarist (Don't know whether to put him in Congress or DMK brackets. Its all the same, but different, in TN. Maybe ill expand in some other post)
Link to original blog post -> http://nambitn.blogspot.com/2014/06/blog-post_6.html. You can check out the full blog. Its somewhat interesting.
Some observations about the above piece
1. It is proved without doubt that Kamaraj won purely because of Periyar's and DK's help. Rajaji had publicly raised the issue of 'Congress' cozying up with DK and Periyar around 1957 elections. But by then, 'Congress' had become a completely Dravidian Party using the facade of the old Congress brand (just like the vellalas are doing today with SwarajyaMag? A wolf in sheep's clothing.)
2. There definitely was factionalism within Congress, and Periyar supported the Kamaraj side. He also says the other side is the Bhaktavatsala Mudaliar side. Bhaktavatsalam and other Mudaliars spoke and wrote about temples. Periyar claimed to oppose that side.
3. A shift of Periyar and DK from Congress to DMK after Kamaraj Congress's loss in 1967. Selventhiran and many DK cadre had been sympathetic to DMK for a long time. If we connect all the dots and read between the lines, it is quite easy and obvious. The nadars and vanniyars and other non-dominant castes had jumped from Congress to DMK, because of the Mudaliars' oppressive behaviour in Congress. One important thing to note here is...Bhaktavatsalam was Thondaimandala Saiva Vellala/Mudaliar caste, and Annadurai was from the Kaikolar/Sengundhar Mudaliar caste. Though they both share the mudaliar title, the former look down upon the latter.
4. So, it is obvious that, both within 'Congress', and DMK, and between DMK and 'Congress' the conflict was basically friction between castes. The parties come later. The parties were used by the castes. Those castes/layers are, in my view
- Brahmins
- Vanniyar, Nadar
- Kaikolar and Thondaimandala Mudaliars
- Mudaliar/Chettiar/Pillai/Balija
Other groups like Udayars, Konars, Thevar, Goundar chose their own sides from this main rooster fight.
Brahmins were at the helm in Congress only till 1954, till Rajaji's forced resignation. After that, the Mudaliars, Nadars and Vanniyars shamelessly held on to the 'Congress' brand, but in effect, it was a Dravidian Party.
It indulged in things which DMK and #drav would later call 'Brahminical' because the mudaliars wanted it. So, the Mudaliars/Vellalas in DK, DMK would blame Brahmins for the acts of the Mudaliars/Vellalas within 'Congress', and this would be passed on to the crowd, which would drink this in, and repeat and improvise upon this.. This is the 'ஆத்திகவாதி நாத்திகவாதி' (theist and 'denier-of-god') trick of Chettiar-Mudaliar-Pillai (Dravidian) Movement. Nobody bothers to unearth this because they are not the ones under fire, which is why I say, this is a task for Brahmins alone.
There was, initially, Brahmins vs Mudaliars/Vellala/Balija friction within Congress. Then, there was Vellala/Mudaliar vs Nadar+Vanniyar brushings. Periyar sided with the latter, as we can see. So, as long as Kamaraj was at the helm, Vanniyar, Nadar, etc had the upper hand, with Periyar's support.
With the coming of Bhaktavatsala Mudaliar into the scene, these guys lost their space, and they fought back. They eyed longingly at Dravida Mudaliar Kazhagam. Maybe they decided Annadurai Mudaliar was better than Bhaktavatsala Mudaliar. DMK too, had lots of Thondaimandala Mudaliars. It was not fully a sub-alt camp. It was only less elite in comparison to 'Congress', or, wanted to portray itself as such.
After Vanniyar, Nadar shifted to DMK, and Congress lost, Periyar shifted there too. The friction was now shifted to a new boat, DMK. With Anna's death, the sub-alt groups, with the help of Periyar, 'arab-and-the-camel'ed the mudaliars in DMK.
Moral of the story : Without understanding the caste equations, we wouldn't understand the politics. And nobody will tell us all this. We have to glean it from the events. Connect the dots, and read between the lines.
/It is proved without doubt that Kamaraj won purely because of Periyar's and DK's help/
ReplyDeleteNot sure why you say ONLY?
Sure he played a part but not significant, let alone, ONLY.
If so, the DK-Cong should have won in ‘67 too. Right?
If anything this goes to show EVR’s electoral sway was limited and CNA’s calculation paid of spectacularly.
And success (and imminent power) suddenly made ‘teardrop boys’ acceptable to EVR who did an overnight volte-face.
Maniammai screaming - one can imagine! After all that CNA & co. wrote for 18 years - making peace with them would have been personally revolting to her.
/Brahmins were at the helm in Congress only till 1954/
Let us unpack this a bit.
Yes the leader faces were Rajaji, Srinivasa Iyengar and Sathyamurthi. But that’s not to say that, as a caste, Brahmins had much sway - let alone domination- in Cong.
The whole charge reeks of typical Dravida புனைசுருட்டு.
Rajaji was the ONLY Tamil Brahmin in his cabinet. And we know he had no sway, he was a Delhi insertion to patch up Prakasam and Kamaraj.
Even prior to that the previous cabinet 46-52 (with several Premiers) had only TSS Rajan (who was in the 37 cabinet too)
So even this ‘Cong was under Brahmin sway’ till Kamaraj is Dravida hogwash.
I know you only said ‘helm’ but I just want to ensure it isn’t read incorrectly, due to the Dravida propaganda. That is precisely how they played with the public perception.
Fact is, there was an inherent diverseness in Cong cabinet always. So the charge of ‘Brahmin-helm’ means nothin.
If we examine it as a charge of policy-skew then there was of course nothing Brahministic (as per the meaning of that word means in the wretched Dravida political vocabulary) in policies either.
They were consistently pro-reform and progressive. In fact on multiple occasions Justicites (obviously) stalled legislations that would have benefited the landless labourers(who were almost exclusively non-Brahmins) exposing themselves to be representing landed interests and not truly representing NonBrahm interests as they always bombastically claimed.
Of course the Seranmadevi and edu policy are vicious bogus - anyone with at least two brain cells should know that.
If the ‘பார்ப்பன congress’ charge of Dravidam was not about heft or policy, what was it?
It meant just one thing:that even the mere presence of a Brahmin politician was unacceptable to Dravida bigots. The current public exultation at ‘Brahmin mukth assembly’ is a straight line from that.
————
Btw any idea what happened in 1923?
It is my impression that there wasn’t a single election that JP won (even with the communal electorate system) when Cong/Swaraj contested. But 1923 seems to be an aberration. Wiki doesn’t throw much light.
u made 2 points.
Delete/1/
Ur following Periyar, DK, DMK, Kamaraj, Congress. Im saying lets follow preferences of Vanniyar and Nadar, as a caste. I told why Congress lost 1967. M. Bhaktavatsala Mudaliar was CM from 1963 to 1967 elections. After he came over, the Congress pattali crowd became restless. They saw Kamaraj as their representative. I have a small clip to show that Kamaraj was at the disposal of the elites even when he was CM. Im saving some good stuff for a youtube channel if it happens.
Periyar was supporting those ppl who agitated the most for upward social mobility + had the numerical strength. He didn't support dalits because then vanniyar+nadar would've ditched him. He chose them because they were the ones just above dalits.
Periyar supported Kamaraj because that would win him the support of vanniyar + nadar (as is, sub-altern, non-dominant ones). But vanniyar + Nadar started jumping to DMK after Mudaliar took over Congress. Periyar didn't calculate this would become so big.
After winning, he supported DMK because that was the new abode of the sub-alts. Like WPA Soundarapandian who has lost mavusu after 1939, kamaraj had ceased to be the champion of nadars after 1969 sambavam. I think Periyar's support helped the sub-alterns' kamaraj congress, and the victorious party (INC first, DMK later) added to periyar's glory. happened both ways. Also, you have to understand...
Pls see these 2 vids if u have the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1cuMSfRKEg - 'Kamarajar a child of Dravidian Party'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI6xQ0TCJoA - 'Kamarajar the descent of Periyar'
Saanans want to fashionably denounce periyar, but their history was molded by him.
/2/
Yes, by 'at the helm', I meant perception-wise. Dominant in...Pls log in to JSTOR and read this article https://www.jstor.org/stable/4402996 V. Geetha and S. V. Rajadurai. VG and SVR are not vala vala kola kola like A.R.Venkatachapathy or MSS etc. They are incisive. The paper says that at one point, during the time Besant was active, Congress party, and the freedom movement itself, was Brahminical. Brahmins and Congress were fused very closely, at one point.
Probably why a 'non-brahmin' wing of the congress was started - Madras Presidency Association
/lets follow preferences of/I do get where you are coming from.But the very assertion that EVR's overt support being THE determinant for success is a large claim.
DeleteAgain, I am not contesting the backroom machinations you assert. I don't know enough.Just saying, that just on the face of it, the JP-DK were hardly ever an electoral force against Congress ever. So, the explanations you say, insofar as they sync up with the shift in compositions of Cong and DMK can themselves explain some outcomes.
But this building up of EVR as someone who is a popular leader who held electoral sway seems Dravida propaganda.
/ceased to be the champion of nadars after 1969 sambavam/What are you referring to?
/Im saving some good stuff for a youtube channel if it happens./I look fwd to it
/Pls see these 2 vids if u have the time./
I saw the videos.
Pazha Karuppiah - actually he is only saying Kamaraj was enabled by the Dravida revolution (!). There is a good deal of 'appropriation' right there. And with this lout - if you've seen one you've seen 'em all. He says nothing new and has managed to sell himself to umpteen parties!
The Kovai Ramakrishnan video OTOH was interesting
- we have it from the horse's mouth here that EVR urged his suppoters to have petrol and wait for his command to burn agrahArams. And that he escaped on a legal technicality that he didn't announce a date for the violence! This is a rare public admission from the very guys who tout that EVR abhorred non-violence அய்யா கண்டி நென்ச்சிருந்தா etc.
- and look at the spin of 5 Brahmins in Rajaji cabinet versus none in Kamaraj. This is a long repeated lie. Info is out on wiki. First of all Rajaji cabinet included Andhra. Of the ministers who remained, not a single one was Brahmin. (Of the Andhraite ministers I can't make out the castes on wiki of three probables!).
Yet this canard is presented again and again and has lodged itself firmly in Dravida discourse.
Regarding candidates fielded, there isn't granular information (easily) available on the elections prior to '57 to check Ramakrishnan's claim on dialing down the quantum of Brahmin candidates fielded more than how much even EVR would have (கொக்குக்கு ஒண்ணே மதி!)
Other anecdotes his speeches are tiresome rehashes (கைநாட்டுக்காரர்க்களில் குழந்தைகள் etc).
/SVR/
Thank You.I will read the article. I think SVR also wrote a Tamil version of that article (or a variant of that) much later in this magazine called உயிர் எழுத்து in the noughties.
As you know, TM Nair used the horrendously uncouth language about Annie Besant. So I am not surprised by the perception of Congress being (or having become - as per the NBManifesto) brahmininfluenced. But the question is, how substantive is the case.
How substantive in the sense of what? By what standard? By absolute logic? factual? Come on, boss, by now you must have guessed that facts don't matter. perceptions matter.
DeleteThiru.Vi.Ka and P. Varadarajulu Naidu were in Congress all their life, and were, well...
but my point is....the other castes had deep links with british in terms of power, and trade. import export, etc. them being in congress didnt' worry the british because they knew who they were. they were only scared of the weak efforts of brahmins at freedom struggle gaining traction and becoming big.
1969 sambavam is karunanidhi taking over as CM, after sidelining nedunchezhiyan. i believe vanniyar+nadar, who had hitherto been in Cong, were behind karunanidhi.
Ok I believe that Periyar's support was one of the most important reasons for kamaraj congress' victories. It failed in 1967 and after because kamaraj himself was sucked dry and rendered useless to nadars. the groups were the same, but the parties and persons changed. first cong, then dmk (today bjp, ntk), first kamaraj, then moo.ka. periyar had a lag in reading their movements, i guess.
ofc 'congress' had a brand by itself. it was the party that fought for independence, and got it. this gang hid behind that brand and used it.
/Come on, boss, by now you must have guessed that facts don't matter. perceptions matter./
DeleteOh not contesting that at all.
What I meant was, I suspect that the whining in NBM is likely to be short on facts, a typical Dravida signature. I will read the SVR article and see what he has to say about the 'transition' period.
/periyar had a lag in reading their movements, i guess./
I see what you mean.
Btw any thoughts on 1923?
Im sorry i don't follow you. facts about what? brahmin dominance in congress pre-1947 (or 1954)?
DeletePls see this 5 min clip that i clipped off a vid on periyar tv. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoNW6VonJ9w
வெள்ளாள நாய் வ.ஊ.சி க்கு வெள்ளைக்காரன் குண்டிய நக்கி அவன் குடுத்த assignmentஆன காங்கிரஸ் வீழ்ச்சியும் செய்யணும், ஆனா சுதந்திர போராட்ட வீரனும் ஆகணும், காங்கிரஸ் தலைவனாகவும் ஆகணும். அந்த "50 பெயரை கூட்டிட்டு வந்து ஆளுக்கு 1 ரூபாய் குடுத்துஉக்கார வைத்து விட்டார்கள், வாக்கெடுப்பில் கைய தூக்க" was probably the story of the role that nadars & others played in 'Congress'. The elites smelled way back around 1918/19 that their game was up. That they needed massive support, and they needed people with numerical strength on their side. the elites were a minority too but they didn't need popular support all the time they were mudaliars and nayakas of TN. Need for support of numerical strength came with elections. No matter how minimal the franchise was, they saw that this was the beginning of the end.
There was Brahmin and non-brahmin division in Congress. And the non-Brahmin division of Congress was basically nothing but the non-SILF division of the Dravidian Movement.
Mudaliars/Vellalas/Balija Naidus were in congress, but their interests were different. It wasn't that of the freedom struggle that congress had, at one point.
You have to understand. Congress was formed by A.O.Hume, and the big shots of the land. It was a cosmopolitan club of sorts. This club kind of affiliation is always important to men of eminence. Check out this article about the private clubs of NYC https://www.ft.com/content/51c937ae-fda8-11e8-aebf-99e208d3e521
So, it was a different kind of org to begin with. Then, as the Non-Brahmin Manifesto laments, it morphed into a different kind of club. During this period, there was friction between the brahmin and non-brahmin members. It is interesting how this mapping of brahmins with freedom struggle happened so fully, at least in madras state. I think its a backfiring of the macaulay policy of empowering the topmost so they will be the managers of ur empire.
All the other eminent guys benefited immensely from the british. Through trade, and the importance that the british gave for the agricultural/landholder groups. I hope u read that 11-part essay series i posted on Twttr. They were scared of the martial groups, and greatly empowered the agricultural groups, the vellalas.
Brahmins were almost entirely identified with the freedom cause. and, maybe, exclusively. Why did kamaraj go to jail? where are the records? im saying nadars went to both INC and SILF for social mobility. they don't have allegiance to the cause. they are like that today too.
brahmin-dominated Congress needed widespread support for its cause of freedom struggle. many big shots turned up. p. varadarajulu naidu, thiru.vi.ka, periyar, voc, kamaraj....
but this group flocked to congress to destroy it from within. it was sent by the british, this cannot be adequately substantiated for now, but it is obvious.
the problem is..assume ur congress, and u need support for ur cause. how can u turn away the guys who turn up at ur doorstep? could u tell that trio "how can u show up and come here? ur the slaves of the british"??
No. They r the biggest shots in the land, and congress is not even like ur father's property. u don't have the power.
No idea about 1923. I guess that was the only year SILF won an election properly. Also, Pananganti Ramarayaningar was a famous guy.
//I'm sorry i don't follow you. facts about what? brahmin dominance in congress pre-1947 (or 1954)? //
DeleteYes. I don't think there is much factual basis to that claim that Brahmins dominated Congress. It smacks of Dravideological concoction.
So I said I will read the SVR paper and see if it throws any light on this. And it doesn't.
There are sure some damning references: like the excerpt from Justice Sathasiva Iyer's article in New India.
Besant's own writings excerpted aren't damning. At best, they showcase a superficial 'reverence for Easten culture' which was itself a reaction to the Western condescension that was common a generation before hers. I am not reducing her, just contextualizing.
But SVR presents it as if she undercut some pre-existing anti-Brahmin progressive political formation. That is baseless. And then he builds on it with a series of assertions and his own slants and Tamil history bull.
You see he is packing his prejudice passed off as 'facts' and makes inferences fast and loose in the paper.
For instance who were the sandal-paste forehead Madras delegates of First Congress whom SVR alleges 'would have pleased' Besant? What was the split up between Brahmins and non-Brahmins? The very fact that he has not bothered to offer a break-up is quite telling.He wants the audience to infer they were almost all Brahmins.
Again, it is not at all surprising that Brahmins overrepresented their population in several fields then, including the then nascent nationalist forum. But the landed castes repeatedly allege that Brahmins DOMINATED - with nary a substantiation. And it gets accepted as 'fact'. This powers the perception. If anything it only underlines that they were irked to see any Brahmin have any power at all. It was a modern phenomenon, unprecedented thus in feudal history.
Saw the Veeramani video, thank you.
DeleteDidn't read the FT article, it's behind a paywall. But I get your point about the nature of Congress initially.
/Then, as the Non-Brahmin Manifesto laments, it morphed into a different kind of club. During this period, there was friction between the brahmin and non-brahmin members./
Wait, this is exactly the point: this is the Dravideological narrative. It powers perception till date. I am NOT taking DK's word for it.
It was likely not a Brahmin v non Brahmin clique. It was likely a 'non-anti Brahmin' vs. anti-Brahmin clique. That is my contention.
This matters a lot IMO because a contrast in attitude in the groups is being cunningly reduced to a contrast in composition. And by accepting the accuser's framing as such without interrogation, we provide unacceptable mileage to it. It inevitably leads to thinking in terms of compositions and congenital dispositions.
/ I hope u read that 11-part essay series i posted on Twttr. /
Do you mean S.Ramachandran's essay in sishri? I just started.
/Why did kamaraj go to jail? where are the records?/
Oh are records hazy?
I thought it well known that he was jailed for the Vedaranyam March and was sent to Bellary. In fact it is unfailingly repeated how he remained in prison till the Gandhi-Irwin pact, while Rajaji who started the protest, was released with a year.
KK served time during Quit India (which Rajaji - rightly- sat out of, and was forever castigated for). Not sure about other incarcerations.
/brahmin-dominated Congress /
See, you are also stating it as if it is some axiomatic truth.I am saying the factual basis of this claim itself needs to be interrogated.
// "how can u show up and come here? ur the slaves of the british"??//No. They r the biggest shots in the land, and congress is not even like ur father's property. u don't have the power.//
Well it is more than that.
One can't start off with 'you belong to caste X therefore you are congenitally slavish to British and I cannot trust you'. Not only does that run counter to the idea of Congress/nationalism, it is simply not a tenable way to run a movement. And what's worse it would have ended up making the Dravida canard true that Congress was exclusivist!
/No idea about 1923. I guess that was the only year SILF won an election properly. Also, Pananganti Ramarayaningar was a famous guy./
DeleteCongress boycotted 1920. That is widely accepted asTHE reason why Justicites won.
They had no connection on the ground with voters (even with the limited electorate).
So, I expected that with a split in JP, and with Swaraj party participating in the 1923 polls it would have been a no-contest. I was surprised to see that was not the case. SP came third!
Dravideologues like to wave this as 'proof' and overstate the case that JP. And claim that it was that a strong electoral entity and not just a sham British prop. I am disinclined to believe that.
There must have been other factors, such as:
- Swaraj Party was too naescent and couldn't organize electorally quickly enough. Short runway to polls.- they couldn't establish clearly enough that they kinda had Congress blessings
Curious to know about contemporary accounts of events then.
No. I meant this 11-part essay by SL Tamil journo Sivaraman - > https://tamilnation.org/forum/sivaram/920501lg.htm
DeleteYou can navigate from the top.
/It was likely not a Brahmin v non Brahmin clique. It was likely a 'non-anti Brahmin' vs. anti-Brahmin clique. That is my contention./
Pls see post about Tim Wise on the 'good people'. The non-haters on your side are not necessarily good people. And Congress excluding people on the basis of caste has a catch-22 problem.
You need bigwigs to join you, in order for it to be effective. But, all the bigwigs on the land are hand-in-glove with the British. all the martial castes were bound with leg cuffs with iron balls. They couldn't revolt.
So, congress is not urs, to begin with. Ur urself a guest. u want support, but u don't have the strength to filter out the mischief mongers inside ur org.
im not saying brahmins or savarna led congress in north was a formidable force. freedom struggle of 20th century itself was weak and chaotic, and led by the bourgeois. it was not a force at all. the british came of their own accord, and left of their own accord. in 1947, population of india was ~ 40 crore, pop of UK was ~5 crore and u know the number of British in India in 1947?
2 lakh max. So, they ruled us USING OUR OWN POWER STRUCTURES. They forged alliances with local powers. The fight against the british was actually a fight against our own local powers that had forged alliances with them.
Brahmins/Congress were never a formidable 'force' when talking of freedom struggle (inspiring, maybe), but...they were whom the british were scared of. They knew that it was toothless, as of then, but were scared of this snowball gathering momentum and becoming an avalanche. they plotted against the congress because they perceived congress/brahmins as a threat.
if we go deep into this, we have to study indian freedom struggle fully, and block the escape alleys of #drav. best to avoid this and stick to the basics.
Thank You for the Sivaram essay. It was enlightening.
DeleteThe way he has connected the dots, internal motivations (like Pandithurai Thevar supporting Swadeshi),
Rev.Caldwell’s assertions on supposed Tamil pacificism happen to pre-date the discovery of the Puram literature (which is thenceforth ubiquitous in informing Tamil identity) and so on, was quite persuasive.
You can relate some factoids to subtly expressed anxieties even now: e.g. in a lecture about pattinathAr, Nellai Kannan made it a point to emphasise how, at one point when Nagarathars had an imbalance in male:female ratio, it was the piLLaimArs who offered their women in marriage and sustained the lineage.
It struck me then as a tasteless thing to say to endear himself to the audience just because the topic of his talk was pattinathAr. Also he worded it as if they ‘deigned’ to offer their women as brides.
But in light of the history of the tensions (as Sivaram presents them) one can infer it is kinda apparent what direction that anxiety was!
You said it is not possible to conclude that Congress had Brahmin domination at one point. I have a bit of study to do, but till then, check this out http://www.shanlaxjournals.in/wp-content/uploads/ASH_V5_N3_013.pdf.
DeleteOne of their own guys says how Congress was seen to be a Brahmanical party. It might not be so, but it became identified as such. Besant and TS contributed in no meager amount to this. Congress was different in the beginning, but began to take on a new avatar.
Interestingly, that paper gives another snippet of information; Communal order/G.O. was passed successfully in the house. Weren't we told that one of the reasons why periyar quit Congress in 1925 was the inability to pass the Communal G.O.?
I had asked this in twitter too. If he was unable to pass it in 1925, when he was 'congress' president, and when JP was in power, how could Communal representation be brought in 1928, when neither condition prevailed?
There is a lot of golmaal that we are not seeing. Madras Presidency Association was the non-brahmin wing of the Congrees, or, rather, the Congress wing of the SILF. Need to dig. I told you, the gaandu of the saiva vellalas is that they are the poorest of the elites. This proximity to 'Brahmin'/veda etc is most important to them, and since that validation didn't happen, they get pissed off.
I want to dig deep into Jaffna war too, but im scared of the vellala mafia descending on a totally clueless TB population. See the old idiot rvaidya cheering annamalai saying #drav is destroying his name just like they destroyed kamaraj's name, and suren RTing it. Enga poi muttikiradhu, theriyala. The stupor of Brahmins of Tamil Country is what is holding me from speaking everything. There is so much left unopened.