Caste, Politics, And Power: Adi Dravidas in the Dravidian Model

The national media is immersed in celebrating 100 years of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), but it hardly gives any space to discussing the century-old Dravidian Movement of Tamil Nadu, which is ideologically opposed to the RSS. The Justice Party — the forerunner of the Dravidian Movement — captured power in the Madras Presidency in 1920. The Self-Respect Movement and the Dravidar Kazhagam founded by E.V.R. Periyar, and the DMK, an offshoot of the Dravidar Kazhagam founded by C.N. Annadurai, are all part of this larger Dravidian tradition.

Initially, the Dravidian Movement spoke of including Dalits and other marginalised groups. Later, however, it abandoned this vision and began suppressing Dalits. This shift occurred because the Dravidian Movement eventually became a political instrument of the caste majority in Tamil Nadu.

“In India, the majority is not a political majority. In India the majority is born; it is not made. That is the difference between a communal majority and a political majority. A political majority is not a fixed or a permanent majority. It is a majority which is always made, unmade and remade. A communal majority is a permanent majority fixed in its attitude. One can destroy it, but one cannot transform it,” said Ambedkar.

Since Brahmins have been a numerical minority in Hindu society in Tamil Nadu, their violence has mostly been symbolic; whereas the violence unleashed by the castes in a numerical majority is physical in nature. The authority that has been concentrated in the hands of these numerically strong castes has led to their power becoming unlimited in scope.

The parliamentary democracy we have today has not only paved the way for a communal majority, but has also facilitated a caste majority. The checks — separate electorates and the double voting system — that Ambedkar sought to introduce to prevent such a situation were rejected in the Constituent Assembly. Other than securing a few concessions for the Dalits, Ambedkar could do little.

The first strong voice raised in favour of a caste majority came from Tamil Nadu. Since ‘enlightenment’ about this issue dawned here rather early, courtesy of the non-Brahmin and Self-Respect movements, the realisation of a caste majority also unfolded sooner when compared to other parts of India. The intensity and scope of the violence perpetrated against the Dalits of Tamil Nadu over the last 100 years is a stark indicator of this ‘non-Brahmin enlightenment.’

The founding of the Dravidian Association by Dr. C. Natesan Mudaliar in 1912 and the launch of the Non-Brahmin Manifesto in 1916 in Madras are significant moments in Tamil Nadu’s political history. With these developments, the imaginary category of the ‘non-Brahmin’ was constructed. The Justice Party, launched in 1917, formed the first non-Brahmin-led ministry in the 1920 provincial legislative council elections.

When the British administration introduced dyarchy under the Government of India Act of 1919, the Brahmin-dominated Indian National Congress boycotted the elections in protest. The Justice Party, accepting the scheme of dyarchy, contested the elections, won without resistance, and formed the ministry of the composite Madras Presidency in December 1920. The Justice ministry issued the Communal G.O. reserving jobs for various non-Brahmin communities in 1921.

However, the Justice Party ministry’s idea of non-Brahmin welfare did not include all non-Brahmin castes. This category practically excluded Dalits and other religious minorities. The composition of the first Justice Party ministry in 1920 reflected this social reality. Consequently, communities with numerical strength that could not secure their share of political power began to stake their claims. The political mobilisation of Dalits must be understood in this context.

In 1923, led by one of the foremost Dalit leaders, M.C. Rajah, a delegation of Dalit representatives met the Governor and submitted a petition highlighting the injustice done to the Depressed Classes by the Justice Party ministry. Demanding 30 percent reservation in government jobs and arguing that Dalit representation in elected bodies should not depend solely on winning elections, the delegation sought the creation of a separate department for Dalit welfare.

After Independence, the struggle by OBCs for reservation in the legislature and judiciary intensified. This formed one of the contexts for the rise to power of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in 1967 — the first post-Independence non-Congress government in Tamil Nadu.

The fact that political power in Tamil Nadu rests with the caste majority has facilitated the exercise of both societal violence and state violence against Dalits. This is evident from various incidents, starting with the Mudukulathur riots of 1957 and continuing through the Thamiraparani massacre (1999), with the 2023 Crime in India report offering the most recent testimony.

Parliamentary democracy has provided Dalits with certain safeguards on paper. These legal safeguards, however, have been constantly disregarded and violated by civil society. The caste Hindus, who have reduced the rule of majority to the rule of a caste majority, have consigned another pillar of democracy—equality—to the dustbin. Just as the assemblies and Parliament have become expanded versions of the caste panchayats found in villages, the police too have become the mercenaries of caste Hindus. Following the 1957 Mudukulathur riots, Muthuramalinga Thevar was arrested by the Kamaraj government, and some police actions helped contain the riots. However, when anti-Dalit violence erupted in Kilvenmani (1968), Villupuram (1978), Kodiyankulam (1995), Melavalavu (1997), Gundupatti (1998) and Thamiraparani (1999), the police abetted the crimes instead of preventing them.

New kinds of atrocities are now emerging in Tamil Nadu. In Vengai Vayal (2022), human faeces was mixed in the water tank that supplies drinking water to Dalits. In Nanguneri (2023), a Dalit schoolboy was hacked by his caste Hindu classmate for securing higher marks. Even today, Dalits are denied permission to worship in hundreds of government-controlled temples.

As Kalaiyarasan A. and Vijayabaskar M. note in The Dravidian Model (2021), “Though a century of mobilisation and over half a century of institutionalised populist interventions have led to considerable democratisation of opportunities and access to public services like health and education, a set of fissures in the Dravidian polity are also visible. Specific caste groups, Dalits in particular, do not see their demands addressed to the extent that others’ demands are, even as affirmative action policies are becoming less effective.”

The exclusion of Dalits from the Dravidian Model continues even today. The present DMK government has been reluctant to address the genuine demands of Dalits. Whenever Dalits call for legislation to ensure reservation in promotions in government jobs or to curb honour crimes, the government appoints commissions — an old tactic to postpone or dilute these demands.

When Dalits asked the Justice Party government to issue a Government Order banning the use of the words Pariah and Panchama, and to record them instead as Dravida or Adi Dravida in the census, the Justice Party accepted the demand only with great reluctance. They did not want to call Dalits “Adi Dravida,” a term meaning “ancient Dravidians.” This hesitation still persists. That is why, even after 100 years of the Adi Dravida G.O., government records still use the word Pariah — a derogatory term used to identify Adi Dravida people. This reflects the deeper attitude embedded within the Dravidian Movement. 

Dr. D. Ravikumar, former legislator and incumbent two-time MP from Viluppuram, Tamil Nadu, is the General Secretary of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK), an Ambedkarite party. He is a writer and edits and publishes three reputed journals in Tamil. He is also the co-founder of the anti-caste publishing house Navayana