WAITING TO LOSE THEIR PATIENCE*

Ravikumar

Impotence is the natural law of the administration.Karl Marx

SINCE India’s independence, the violence against dalits haswitnessed an annual increase. Government-appointed commissionshave confirmed this for a fact.1 Violence against the oppressed isindeed a worldwide phenomenon; but discrimination based onbirth is unique to caste society—the subjects of such violence areborn into certain castes.

The general understanding of such specific violence has beenas follows: when the oppressed dalits are enlightened by theirexposure to aspects of modernity and assert their rights, thosesections which have traditionally wielded power, reluctant to losetheir authoritarian position, unleash violence against them. Thisexplanation is even understood to be favourable to the dalits. Oncloser examination, such rationalisation appears to be only partiallytrue. The ‘backward’ castes (erstwhile shudras) that inflict violenceagainst dalits—especially physical violence—do not possess full-fledged authority in Indian society.2 They continue to be largelycontrolled by the authority wielded by brahmins. Since theparliamentary form of democracy introduced in post-independenceIndia favoured the wielding of power by those who are in a majorityin society, these shudra castes have, over the years, come to controlpolitical power. The Constitution of 1950 and the introduction ofthe concept of secularism curtailed the religious authority of the

* Translated from the Tamil by S. Anand

The Geography of Violence

Northern districts

Western districts

Southern districts

Tamil Nadu map: not to scale

x xi

brahmins and the BCs were no longer bound to be subservient tothe brahmins. It was only subsequently that economic,administrative and political power devolved to the BCs.

If we examine the violence against dalits in this context, we willhave to come to a different conclusion altogether. Rather thanseeing it a consequence of such accumulation of power among theBCs, the violence against dalits would be better understood as anattempt by BC Hindus to test their newfound authority on thosebelow them. This is not to say that the dalits are not asserting theirrights.3

The question of origins

In Tamil Nadu, violence against dalits is not a new phenomenon.However, it is not as if such violence has a history of thousands ofyears as is casually and popularly stated by many. The historicalorigin of untouchability in other parts of India is not the same asthat in Tamil Nadu; here, it is linked to the establishment of thevedic-brahmin religion. Unlike in other parts of India, sinceBuddhism and Jainism thrived for a longer time in Tamil Nadu—up to the fifteenth century CE4 —the vedic-brahmin religion andthe practice of untouchability that accompanied it could only makea belated entry.

According to some historians, untouchability existed even in theSangam period, but it was not based on birth.5 Another groupargues that such untouchability was based on profession.6 Boththese schools of thought base their conclusions on classical literaturesuch as the Ettuttokai (Eight Anthologies) and the Pattuppaattu (TheTen Idylls), believed to have been written between the secondcentury CE and the third century CE. Many point to a poem inPurananuru which has a reference to parayan, a term that denotes acaste that is classified today as a Scheduled Caste. This song, whoseauthorship is attributed to Mangudi Kizhaar, says:

Tudiyan, paanan, parayan, katamban endruin-naangu allaadu kudiyum illai

(Other than the tudiyan drummers and the paanan singersand the parayans and the katambans, there are no clans)

However, there is no reference to caste here. Other than in thissong, the word parayan does not figure anywhere in Purananuru.Historian K.R. Hanumanthan points out that these four clansbelong to the mullai region,7 and that the word kudi in Tamil doesnot connote caste but clan.8

Hanumanthan, who argues that the pulayan and ilicinan in theSangam songs merely refer to those engaged in ‘unclean’ work,shows that it cannot be claimed definitively that the pulayas weretreated as a separate community or that they were segregated.

Those keen on highlighting the distinctness of the parayar castedelight in pointing to this verse in Purananuru. Nondalitcommentators understand this to mean that the discrimination andoppression of the parayars/dalits is not of recent origin and theyderive solace in believing that untouchability is as old as the Sangamperiod.9 Besides, all references to ilicinan, kadayan and pulayan areimagined to denote ‘parayan’. Such scholarship merely betrays theircaste bias. My inference is that Song 335 in Purananuru could wellbe a latter-day interpolation. Not only were most of these songsfragmented, ‘there’s little that’s known about those whoanthologised or compiled them’.10 In this anthology of fourhundred songs, those after Song 266 were found in a mutilatedstate. In most of these, the first two lines are not available, and inseveral songs a few lines have been admittedly ‘reconstructed’.11

It may be asked whether it is right to dismiss this song, used asproof of the ancient origins of the parayars. Here, it would be usefulto see what Ambedkar had to say with reference to mahars. WhenMaharashtra was called the ‘land of mahars’, two kinds of objectionswere raised. While one section argued that maha-rashtra meant theGreat Country, another section found it unacceptable that their statewas once ruled by mahars, given the mahars’ low status incontemporary society. Ambedkar cites two entirely different reasonsto refute these theories.12 If Maharashtra were indeed the land ofmahars, we might have to accept that these people were a separateelement in society, always known as mahar, since very early inhistory. The Manusmriti lists some castes as untouchables.13

However, the caste ‘mahar’ is absent. It is only in the eleventh

xii DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND INTRODUCTION xiii

century CE that ‘mahar’ comes into usage. Ambedkar thus refutesthe theory that Maharashtra derives its name from mahar. He thenexamines the cultural traditions of marathas and mahars andillustrates commonalities.

Former Buddhists

Since the term mahar was not then in usage, this community musthave been known by another name, says Ambedkar. If we examinethe word parayan in the light of Ambedkar’s approach to the termmahar, its occurrence in Purananuru should be viewed more withsuspicion than with pride. It is Iyothee Thass’ explanation thatseems most satisfactory.

The arya-mlechchas influenced kings and prominentpeople, captured monasteries and drove away the monksby subjecting them to torture, and misinterpreted thedhammas. The erudite, scholarly monks, the expertsakya-valluva mathematicians and the connoisseur bards,who were agonised, refused entry to the aryas who aremlechchas into their villages. Customarily, the monksdrove them away, splattered potfuls of cow-dung waterwherever the aryas had stepped, and then broke the pots.

Thus the knowledgeable dravidian buddhists—sramanas, sakyas, valluvas and paanas—refusing to yieldto the pseudo-brahmins,14 always remained Others(paraayars), and continued to speak up15 against thecrooked machinations of arya-mlechchas…the arya-mlechchas used to run scared of the dung-water that thedravidian buddhists splashed on them. When asked whythey took to their heels, the arya-mlechchas said thelowly untouchable parayars were after them.16

Iyothee Thass’ claim is that the defeated Buddhists were laterrendered untouchables. Ambedkar, too, accepts this.17

The custom of driving away ‘arya-brahmins’ if they enteredparayar settlements has continued until recent times. Thecommunist leader P. Ramamurthy, a brahmin, recounts hisexperience thus:

In the summer of 1925, I stayed in my maternalgrandfather’s house in Nallezhundur. This village is onthe Peralam–Karaikkal route, a mile from theAmbagarathur railway station. There was a major templefestival in Kandangudi happening at that time. Congressleaders A. Rengasamy Iyengar and Rangasamy Pillaiattended the festival. I went to Kandangudi hoping to seethem. There were no buses then. I went by foot. WhenI was taking a shortcut through the fields, I came acrossa cheri [settlement] of harijans. Influenced by Gandhi’spropaganda in 1919, I did not practice untouchability. Ientered the cheri.

Immediately, the inhabitants of the cheri—men andwomen—surrounded me and began to wail. I did notunderstand why. When I pacified them and asked whatwas wrong, they replied, “Master, you are a brahmin. Ifa brahmin enters our cheri, the cheri will be ruined.”Despite my assurance that these were baselesssuperstitions and no ruin would befall them, they werenot convinced. Then an elderly man came. He said thata ritual to ward off evil would settle the issue. Theycircled me with three mud pots of water and broke thembefore me. This was the ritual! Subsequently they notonly asked me to leave the cheri, but also counselled meagainst entering other cheris.18

Iyothee Thass’ contention is therefore not baseless. When certainnonbrahmin castes accepted the supremacy of brahmins and becamecaste Hindus, those who resisted the very entry of brahmins intotheir settlements and remained outside the Hindu fold becametoday’s ‘untouchables’.

Besides parayars, the pallars (who are today predominant in thesouthern districts of Tamil Nadu) could have also had a Buddhistorigin. According to T. Gnanasekaran, the word pallar is acorruption of mallar, referred to in Sangam literature.19 He citesancient thesauruses Diwakara Nighandu and Pinkala Nighandu assources for this claim. Gnanasekaran and Gurusamy Siddhar believethat the pallars were once a ruling community who later became

xiv DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND INTRODUCTION xv

agricultural labourers and were further demeaned as untouchablesby brahmins.

Colonial anthropologist Edgar Thurston’s claim that pallars areso called because they lived in pallams (low-lying areas)20 is refutedby Hanumanthan, who argues that ‘a large number of them arefound in dry table lands such as Salem and Coimbatore’.21 Anotherargument is that pallars are descendants of the Pallavas. It is notablethat vanniyars, also known as pallis, claim descent from the Pallavas.Pallars, who now prefer to call themselves devendrakula vellalars,trace their lineage to Indira. According to Iyothee Thass, the wordIndira is derived from aindiram. The emperor of Magadha,Siddhartha, is said to have controlled his five senses and acquiredthe name Aindiran,22 corrupted later as Indira (Indra in Sanskrit).The Buddhist monasteries were known as Indira-vyaram (viharas),and their festival was known as Indira-vizha.23 Viewed in thiscontext, the pallars’ claim that they are descendants of Indira canbe interpreted as an indication of their former Buddhist roots.

As for arundhatiyars, now found predominantly in the westernparts of Tamil Nadu, they claim they were termed sakkiliyars bythe Nayaka king Tirumalai Nayakar in the seventeenth century.According to K.S. Singh, ‘They migrated from Andhra Pradesh asa service group along with other Telugu-speaking immigrantsduring the reign of Telugu kings/chiefs in some parts of TamilNadu.’24 However, a section of the politically consciousarundhatiyars today claim a Tamil origin and prefer to be knownas adi tamilars.25 Another claim is that sakkiliyar is a corruption ofSakkiyar/Sakya, thus bestowing a Buddhist past on even thiscommunity of dalits.26

When we examine the history of untouchability, it becomes clearthat it originated in different times in different places in India. Evenwithin Tamil Nadu, different dalit communities were rendereduntouchable by means of different historical processes. Thoughthere’s a commonality in all dalits being defeated Buddhists whowere rendered untouchables, it was only several centuries afteruntouchability became institutionalised in northern India, wherethe vedic-brahmin religion acquired dominance, that the practice

entered the Tamil country. It is not surprising that the practices ofthe vedic-brahmin religion could not be established easily in aregion where Buddhism had been alive up to fifteenth century CE.27

Inscribed evidence

Those who talk of the caste hierarchy being thousands of years olddo so only to emphasise the difficulty in uprooting the caste system;this theory helps create the impression that it cannot be easilyaltered. The system of untouchability and the status of those setaside as untouchables is made to appear ancient in this view. Yetthis flies in the face of evidence obtained through research.Speculating on when the caste system could have taken root inTamil Nadu, epigraphist Y. Subbarayulu says:

It is only in the 12th and 13th centuries that there is clearmanifestation of the caste formation. Of course, ‘caste’is met with as a rudimentary social feature of the Tamilsociety even in the 9th and 10th centuries. A sort ofstratification had taken form by the beginning of the 11thcentury. Two Tanjavur inscriptions of Rajaraja I dated1014 supply us information relating to the separatequarters respectively for landholders (ur-irukkai), artisans(kammana-ceri), and the paraiya (parai-ceri). A longinscription of Virarajendra at Gangaikondacholapuram,gives almost similar description of settlements inTanjavur and Tiruchirapalli districts in 1068. Castes lowerin hierarchy than the Brahmanas are also referred to insome records, but in very general terms. This hierarchybecame elaborated during the course of the 11th and 12thcenturies.28

Reinforcing Subbarayulu’s findings, we find that fromPeriyapuranam to Kapilar Akaval,29 various works of literaturesupportive of the caste system emerge only after the twelfth century.

The false stories propagated about those who were rendereduntouchable have only played a crucial role in the strengtheningof untouchability. According to Iyothee Thass, the unscrupulous‘pseudo-brahmins’ spread themselves all over the Tamil country and

xvi DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND INTRODUCTION xvii

killed the Buddhist kings and monks by impalement and bycrushing them in oil-pressers. They also captured the Buddhistmonasteries, demeaned Buddhists as ‘parayas’ and concocted severalstories about ‘paraya lowliness’.30

Iyothee Thass’ position has been strengthened by NoburuKarashima’s research.31 Studies that talk of Indian villages as littlerepublics and self-sufficient units have been effectively disproved.Karashima bases his studies on the two large stone inscriptions inthe Thanjavur Big Temple and the inscription in theGangaikondacholapuram (GKC) temple. The Thanjavur inscriptionlists details of forty villages while the GKC inscription mentionsseven villages. Karashima prepares a table that pertains to thirty-three villages mentioned in the Thanjavur inscription and the sevenvillages listed in the GKC inscription. Of these forty villages, five areconsidered nagaras (towns). These inscriptions reveal that peoplebelonging to certain castes had separate habitations. In theadministrative orders of that period, there are details of three typesof settlements—the settlement of ooraar, called oor-nattham, the para-cheri and the kammaana-cheri. Besides these three, there were alsothe kudi-irukkai (place where the kudis live), eezha-cheri (thesettlement of toddy-tappers), theenda-cheri (the settlement ofuntouchables), thalaivai-cheri (where those who control the flow ofwater from the main canal live), thani-cheri (the temple settlement),vannara-cheri (where washerpersons live) and other settlements.

Even when communities were living thus segregated from oneanother, the segregation had not become a permanent feature. It isnot clear which community lived in kudi-irukkai. Kudi could beunderstood variously as uzhu-kudi (sharecroppers, tillers), a familyor a community of people. Since kudi-irukkai is mentioned alongwith oor-nattham and para-cheri settlements, those who did notbelong to the latter two categories might have lived in kudi-irukkai.Other than these settlements, there is an area called kanimuttroottuallotted to astrologers and a settlement for doctors, calledmaruttuvaperu. But these do not appear to have been separate,segregated settlements.

Of the forty villages that find place in Karashima’s table, it is

only in twenty—nineteen in Thanjavur and one inGangaikondacholapuram—that a para-cheri is to be found. Withinthis, there’s a specific reference to uzha-parayar. Since those engagedin agricultural labour are referred to specifically as uzha-parayar, wemay conclude that the parayars may have engaged in other, non-agricultural labours. While only twenty villages are listed byKarashima as having a para-cheri, all the five towns (nagaras) had apara-cheri.

Of the forty villages, twenty-two had at least one temple; infourteen there was more than one temple. However, there is noreference to specific communities that worshipped in the temple.Ayyan temples were found in five villages and Pidari temples in ten.Ayyan is one of the Tamil names for the Buddha.32 Pidari refers tothe Buddhist deity Sambapathy. Manimekalai, the Tamil epic, refersto Sambapathy and says she was worshipped throughout India as aguardian deity.33

Pidari means the one who rids (haari) a person of pain (pida).Since Sambapathy-amman warded off the troubles that visited goodpeople, she was also called Pidari. Similarly, Buddhist shrinesknown as Saasta were later made Ayyanar temples, Saasta/Ayyanareventually becoming one among the many village deities, accordingto Venkatasamy.34 Examined in this light, it appears that the Ayyanand Pidari temples that figure in Karashima’s table were worshippedby former Buddhists who in a later period came to be inferiorisedas untouchables.

These epigraphs/inscriptions also have details of cremationgrounds. Of the forty villages listed, only twenty-four hadcremation grounds. Of these, eight villages had a separate cremationground for parayars. It is not as if all the villages which had a para-cheri had a separate cremation ground for the parayars. Similarly,other settlements such as theenda-cheri, eezha-cheri or kammana-cheri do not seem to have had separate cremation grounds.

Now, we come to theenda-cheri (the settlement of‘untouchables’). Only two villages among the forty in Karashima’slist had a theenda-cheri. Even in villages with a para-cheri, atheenda-cheri is listed. We can therefore conclude that parayars of

xviii DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND INTRODUCTION xix

that period were not subjected to the stigma of untouchability. Someother minor community was then designated untouchable. We callthem a minor community since in the forty villages listed, they arefound only in two. From the inscriptions, it does not appear thatthis community had a separate temple, tank or cremation ground.They must have either had access to the temples, tanks andcremation grounds of other communities or they must not havehad the right to use these. Examining the various details about theforty villages we realise that even when the settlements wereseparate, a complete segregation had not materialised with regardto temples, tanks and cremation grounds.

Textual and inscriptional evidence lead to the conclusion thatuntouchability was institutionalised in Tamil Nadu only after theeleventh century CE. Subsequently this practice has onlystrengthened and deepened. The annihilation of Buddhism andJainism through violence forms a backdrop to these developments.

Brahmin–Nonbrahmin alliance

Even when there are commonalities in the brahmin hegemony thatcame about in northern and southern India, there are severaldifferences. The main difference lies in the manner in which thevedic-brahmin religion triumphed over Buddhism and Jainism,according to historian Burton Stein. While the invasion of the Hunsfrom the northwest, the claiming and acceptance of Buddha as anincarnation of Vishnu and the intermarriage between prominentBuddhist and Vaishnava and Saiva devotees, including among theroyalty, led to the ‘peaceful displacement of Jainism and Buddhism’in the north, the south witnessed ‘the violent suppression of bothby devotees of the new devotional worship of Siva…and the proudboast of the new kings of Pallava and Pandyan kingdoms that theyhad slaughtered Jainas. This has always embarrassed modernhistorians, but it has not moved them to offer explanations for thesemurderous claims.’35

In this violent suppression of Buddhists and Jains, the allianceformed by brahmin and nonbrahmin Hindus played a crucial role.36

Since Tamil Nadu does not have the equivalent of the kshatriya

castes found in the north, a section of the shudras and brahminsjoined hands to unleash this violence.

While the evidence of tension between Brahman andnon-Brahman savants and religious teachers becomesmanifest in the thirteenth century and lays thefoundation for some of the conflict between the two inthe twentieth century, the tension is not that betweenmaintainers of an indigenous culture against externalintruders, but largely that of cultural variants and theirupholders seeking the greatest favour from those in aposition to support them.37

According to Stein, the ‘Brahman–high non-Brahman’ allianceremained intact till 1800 and played a crucial role in theinstitutionalisation of untouchability and the caste system in TamilNadu. It was the enthusiastic participation of the nonbrahmins thatled to the destruction of Buddhism and Jainism in Tamil Nadu,which resulted in temple-centric medieval Hinduism taking root,the caste system getting strengthened and untouchability becomingentrenched.

During the British colonial period, the various strategies adoptedby nonbrahmin communities to counter brahmin hegemony—similar to the struggles in the thirteenth century to win the favoursof rulers—were merely attempts to seek a share in the powerstructure, the bureaucracy and other spheres of public life.Indoctrinated as we have been by contemporary histories ofnonbrahmin antagonism towards brahmins,38 it may be a littledifficult for us to accept and understand this relationship betweenbrahmins and nonbrahmins, which alternates between conflict andcooperation. But if we understand the unique nature of Hindusociety and how agrarian equations worked, it becomes easier tocomprehend this relationship. Ambedkar’s insight would be helpfulhere:

Men live in a community by virtue of the things theyhave in common. What they must have in common inorder to form a community are aims, beliefs, aspirations,knowledge, a common understanding. Or to use the

xx DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND INTRODUCTION xxi

language of the Sociologists, they must be like-minded… . Participation in a group is the only way of being like-minded with the group.39

Discussing the evils of ‘isolation’ and benefits of ‘endosmosis’among social groups, Ambedkar dwells upon the relationshipbetween touchables and untouchables:

The significant fact about the Hindus is that before theyare Hindus they are members of some caste. The castesare so exclusive and isolated that the consciousness ofbeing a Hindu would be the chief guide of a Hindu’sactivity towards a non-Hindu. But as against a Hindu ofdifferent caste, his caste-consciousness would be thechief guide of activity… . From the point of view ofcommunication the Hindus, in spite of castes, dividethemselves into two groups—the touchables and theuntouchables. The touchables have enoughcommunication between them to enable us to say thatthe conflict of like-mindedness so far as they areconcerned is not much to be dreaded. But there is a realdifference and consequent conflict between the like-mindedness of the touchables and the untouchables.Untouchability is the strongest ban on the endosmosisbetween them.40

Untouchables are placed outside the pale of Hinduism asOthers. In suppressing them, Hinduism consolidates itself. This iswhat we increasingly witness as history closes in on us. Hindus havealways isolated Buddhists, Jains, untouchables and other religiousminorities and treated them as Others. We have also beenwitnessing an increase in this violence against the Others. Unlessthere is a qualitative change among the Hindus, there cannot be aquantitative change in the violence they perpetrate. Let us nowidentify whether, and to what extent, there has been a qualitativechange.

Prior to independence, above and over the touchables anduntouchables, the British occupied the position of a third party.Once the British left this country, there was a vacuum in this thirdspace. Since the parliamentary form of democracy introduced in

India espoused political rule by the majority, it became easy for theHindus, who were in the majority in society, to exercise politicalmajority. Very soon, this religious majoritarianism led to theemergence of a caste majority. Political power has today come tobe wielded by those caste groups that are numerically strong.

Since brahmins have been a numerical minority in Hindusociety, their violence has mostly been symbolic; whereas theviolence unleashed by the castes which are in a numerical majorityis physical in nature. Earlier, the authority to decide whether a kingcould be bestowed with recognition and legitimacy was vested withthe brahmins. The dilemma faced by Shivaji, the maratha ruler, inthe face of such brahminic authority is recent in our collectivememory. Today, the brahmins wield no such authority. In fact, thepower to curb and neuter the symbolic authority of the brahminsis today wielded by the nonbrahmin castes. The authority that hasbeen concentrated in the hands of the numerically strong castes hasled to their power becoming unlimited in scope.

During the British period, the right to exercise franchise wasgiven only to those who had education and property. As a result,the untouchables had no share in political power. The othernondalit castes, too, had only a limited share in political power.Only after universal adult franchise was introduced did the situationchange for good. Says Ambedkar:

In India, the majority is not a political majority. In Indiathe majority is born; it is not made. That is the differencebetween 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 andremade. A communal majority is permanent majorityfixed in its attitude. One can destroy it, but one cannottransform it.41

The parliamentary democracy we have today has not only pavedthe way for a communal majority, but has also facilitated a castemajority. The checks that Ambedkar sought to introduce against theemergence of such a situation were rejected in the constituentassembly.42 Other than procuring a few concessions for the dalits,Ambedkar could not do much.

xxii DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND INTRODUCTION xxiii

Nonbrahmin ascendance in Tamil Nadu

The first strong voice raised in favour of a caste majority came fromTamil Nadu. Since ‘enlightenment’ about this issue dawned hererather early, courtesy of the nonbrahmin movement, the realisationof a caste majority also unfolded sooner when compared to otherparts of India. The intensity and scope of the violence perpetratedagainst the dalits of Tamil Nadu in the last fifty years is only anindicator of this ‘nonbrahmin enlightenment’.

The founding of the Dravidian Association by Dr C. NatesanMudaliar in 1912,43 and the launch of the ‘Non-brahmin Manifesto’in 1916 in Madras are significant moments in Tamil Nadu’s recentpolitical history.44 With these, the imaginary, dubious category ofthe ‘nonbrahmin’ was constructed. The Justice Party, launched in1917, formed the first nonbrahmin-led ministry in the 1920provincial legislative council election. When the Britishadministration introduced dyarchy in pursuance of the Governmentof India Act of 1919, the brahmin-dominated Indian NationalCongress boycotted the elections in protest. The Justice Party,accepting the scheme of dyarchy, contested the elections, wonwithout facing any resistance, and formed the ministry of theformer composite Madras Presidency in December 1920. TheJustice ministry issued the Communal GO reserving jobs for variousnonbrahmin communities in 1921.

However, the Justice Party ministry’s idea of nonbrahminwelfare did not include all nonbrahmin castes. This categorypractically excluded dalits and other religious minorities. Evenamong nondalit nonbrahmins, only the minority ‘high’ nonbrahmincastes—reddiars, naickers, mudaliars, vellalars, chettiars—benefited.The composition of the first Justice Party ministry in 1920 reflectedthis social reality.45 Consequently, communities which hadnumerical strength and yet could not get a taste of the political piebegan to stake their claims. The political mobilisation of vanniyarsmust be understood in this context.46 S. A. Nanjappan, who in 1935spoke on the legislative council budget motion, said that despitevanniyars constituting over a thirty-lakh population, they did notget a proportionate share in government jobs.47 The Vanniyakula

Kshatriya Mahasangam, established in 1888, presented a petition tothe chief minister in 1938 on this issue.

Such being the case of the ‘lower’-order nonbrahmin castes, theplight of the dalits was worse. In 1923, led by one of the foremostleaders of dalits, M.C. Rajah, a delegation of dalit representativesmet the governor and submitted a petition on the injustice doneto the Depressed Classes by the Justice Party ministry. Demanding30 percent reservation in government jobs and arguing that dalitrepresentation in elected bodies should not be based solely onwinning elections, the delegation demanded a separate departmentto attend to the welfare of dalits.

After independence, the struggle by the BCs for reservation inthe legislature and judiciary intensified. This formed one of thecontexts for the coming to power of the Dravida MunnetraKazhagam in 1967, the first post-independence non-Congressgovernment in Tamil Nadu. With the non-representation of MostBackward Classes (MBCs) in DMK-led regimes, one saw thealignment of the thevars with the M.G. Ramchandran-led AIADMK

from 1972. That a numerically strong caste could emerge as apolitical force in the electoral arena was first proven in Tamil Nadupolitics by the vanniyars. Disgruntled with the treatment meted outto vanniyars by the Congress, vanniyar leaders S.S. RamaswamyPadaiyatchiar and M.A. Manickavelu Nayakar broke away from theparent party and launched political outfits of their own in 1951—the Tamil Nadu Toilers Party and Commonweal Partyrespectively.48 Such was the electoral impact created by thevanniyars under these two leaders that the Congress in 1952, unableto muster a simple majority in the assembly, sought out these twoleaders, who controlled twenty-five councillors. The two vanniyarleaders merged their parties with the Congress.49 The struggle ofthe vanniyars, which scaled down between 1952 and 1967, regainedmomentum and peaked in 1987.50 As a result, the state governmentwas forced to create a category called the ‘Most Backward Class’(MBC) within the BC list. Some castes, such as the piranmalaikkallarsand maravars of the thevar cluster,51 became the unintendedbeneficiaries when they too were designated MBCs.

xxiv DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND INTRODUCTION xxv

The BCs, who were already in a powerful position, received ashot in the arm thanks to the struggle of the vanniyars and thereservation gains made by the MBCs, and to the implementation ofthe Mandal Commission report in 1990. The nonbrahmin, nondalitbloc became even more powerful. This completes the picture ofthe accumulation of power by the caste majority. The dalits facedthese political circumstances with the political and symbolic powerderived from the Ambedkar centenary year celebrations (1991) thataccompanied these developments. The qualitative changes inviolence against dalits after the 1990s must be understood againstthis background.

The fact of political power in Tamil Nadu resting with the castemajority facilitates the exercise of both societal violence and stateviolence against dalits. This can be seen in various incidents, startingfrom the Mudukulathur riots in 1957 and continuing on to theThamiraparani massacre (1999, 123–129) and the most recentviolence in Kalapatti near Coimbatore (2004, 303–306).Parliamentary democracy has given dalits certain safeguards onpaper. These legal safeguards have been constantly disregarded andviolated by civil society. The caste Hindus, who have reduced therule of majority to the rule of a caste majority, have consignedanother aspect of democracy—equality—to the dustbin. Just as theassemblies and parliament have been rendered expanded versionsof the caste panchayats that we find in villages, the police andmilitary too have become mercenaries of caste Hindus. In TamilNadu, such a state of affairs became obvious after the DMK came topower in 1967. Following the 1957 Mudukulathur riots,Muthuramalinga Thevar was arrested by the Kamaraj government.Certain actions initiated by the police contained the riots. However,when antidalit violence was unleashed in Kilvenmani (1968, 29),Villupuram (1978), Kodiyankulam (1995, 5–11), Melavalavu (1997,83–86), Gundupatti (1998, 87–94) and Thamiraparani (1999, 123–129), the police abetted the crimes as perpetrators.

Both the AIADMK and DMK have been united in the unleashingof violence on dalits. C.N. Annadurai was chief minister for a veryshort while (1967–69). Most people in Tamil Nadu may even haveforgotten about his rule, but the dalits cannot, since it was in 1968

that the Kilvenmani massacre happened.In Dalits in Dravidian Land, the reports of the various incidents

of violence that dalits have been subjected to in Tamil Nadu in thelast ten years have been compiled. We see that the violence hasgradually shifted from the southern districts to the northern districtsover these ten years. Of late, such violence is unfolding in thewestern districts as well. Seen as a whole, this gives us an idea aboutthe geography of caste violence. We can also see that this violenceassumes certain patterns. Even when a small development orincident leading to the empowerment of dalits takes place, casteistforces are at the forefront of efforts to quash it. The instrumentsof the state cooperate with these forces. The judiciary too plays itspart.

The dalits in this book

Most often, dalit issues do not figure in the media. Even when theydo, such news relates only to atrocities against dalits.52 However,the news reports of S. Viswanathan collected in this book cannotbe categorised thus. He dwells upon various dimensions of theissues that concern dalits. Besides aspects such as land, education,reservation and administration, gender is factored in as a componentintegral to his understanding of the issue. Viswanathan’s leftistperspective underlines his writing. Owing to his politicalinclination, several CPI(M) and some CPI voices find a significantplace in these reports, giving the impression that the left in TamilNadu has contributed in a major way to dalit issues.

The mishandling of the caste question by the left partiesdemands a study in itself. There has been a belated dawning of casteconsciousness on the part of marxists in India: ‘India has of coursebecome independent, but those two other issues, of class in Britainand caste in India (the hereditary division of labour as Marx putsit) are yet to be resolved; and the resolution of the class questionin India doubtless passes, even today, through the caste question.’53

These words have, however, not been translated into deeds. Theleft in Tamil Nadu has not taken any notable initiatives to containcaste clashes. It is well known that dalits were the affected party in

xxvi DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND INTRODUCTION xxvii

the Mudukulathur riots (1957). The then Congress governmentheaded by K. Kamaraj played a relatively non-partisan role incontaining the clashes between thevars and dalits. But what roledid the Communist Party play? Party leader P. Ramamurthy54 —who stopped short of visiting Mudukulathur and turned back fromParamakudi—suggested that if chief minister Kamaraj and All IndiaForward Bloc (AIFB) leader Muthuramalinga Thevar visited the riot-affected area, normalcy would return.55 Ramamurthy wasunmindful of the fact that Thevar was one of the instigators of theviolence in Mudukulathur. At that point the thevars were seekingto portray what happened in Mudukulathur as not a caste clash, butrather a result of police highhandedness in which the thevars werethe most affected. When P.N. Dattar, minister of state in the unionhome ministry, visited the affected area twenty days after thecarnage, Communist Party leader K.T.K. Thangamani, whoaccompanied him, said, ‘The police shot at the maravars and threwthem into flames,’ and showed the minister a burnt bone as proof.Dattar, in turn, wondered, ‘The bone seems hot even after twentydays!’56

On 28 December 1957, a no-confidence motion was introducedin the assembly against the Kamaraj government claiming that thestate had oppressed the mukkulathor community. This was movedby Communist Party leader of the house, M. Kalyanasundaram, andseconded by Sashivarna Thevar, MLA (AIFB) from Mudukulathur.57

The sympathy of the Communist Party then was clearly not withthe dalits. When the Kilvenmani carnage happened in 1968, thecommunists preferred to see it merely as a class/workers’ issue,though all the forty-four agricultural labourers charred to deathwere dalits.58 Today, the CPI(M) has fenced the Kilvenmani memorialand declared it private property, rendering it out of bounds for dalitparty leaders.59 There has not been any substantive change in theposition or attitude of the left parties till now. When violence wasunleashed on dalits during the 1999 parliamentary poll in theChidambaram (reserved) constituency, the CPI(M) merely issuedstatements condemning the violence.60 The left’s historical role indealing with dalit issues in Tamil Nadu has to be seen in this light.

However, the faults of the left cannot be extended to the author

of this book. Viswanathan’s marxist grounding yields severalpositive dividends. He focuses attention on the basic economicissues concerning dalits. Be it the Karanai land struggle (42–45 ),the Koothirambakkam conversion issue (255–260) or the TamilNadu government’s wasteland development programme( 244–254), Viswanathan offers a historical reading of these issueswith an eye for the economic aspects involved. Unlike theconventional left, Viswanathan takes a pro-dalit stand on thereservation issue, especially the questions of reservation inpromotions and backlog clearance (152–155).

The year 1995, with which this book begins, marks thebeginning of contemporary dalit upsurge in Tamil Nadu. It wasaround this time, in the southern districts of the state, that a dalitconsciousness spread. According to Human Rights Watch, betweenJuly 1995 and July 1996, there were several clashes between dalitsand thevars in the southern districts leading to several deaths andto the arrest of several dalit youth under the National Security Actand the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act.61 According to a governmentreport, in 1996 there was a 34 percent increase in caste clashes inthe southern districts of Tamil Nadu when compared to theprevious year. There were clashes in 282 places, of which 238clashes were between dalits and BCs.62 An important aspect of theseclashes was the fact that the dalits had begun to retaliate. Evenduring the Mudukulathur riots, the dalits had hit back.63 But todaythe retaliation is more explicit. Viswanathan has not only recordedmost of the incidents of violence between 1995 and 2004—themanner in which they spread from the southern to the northerndistricts—but has also chronicled the emergence of the dalit partiesduring this period. Reading these reports, we also witness the birthand growth of the K. Krishnasamy-led Puthiya Tamizhagam.

Viswanathan records the politics and the new social alliances thatthe emerging dalit parties espoused and also documents how thesealliances were broken. The manner in which hindutva politics wasinterwoven with the Ramanathapuram caste clashes of 1998 byShanmugaiah Pandian (of Thevarkula Koottamaippu) and themanner in which this was used to break the dalit–Muslim alliancewas missed by most journalists, but not Viswanathan (101–108).

xxviii DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND INTRODUCTION xxix

The panchayati raj system, whose role in the spread ofdemocracy in India is held to be crucial, seems to have only addedto the misery of the dalits. Ambedkar’s view that the strengtheningof the village system will only lead to the strengthening of the castesystem continues to ring true. Despite reservation in the panchayatsystem, no real change has been brought about in the village powerstructure. Caste Hindus do not allow for even a small change inthe power equations of a village. The Melavalavu massacre (83–86),the deadlock in Keerippatti and Paappapatti (215–218), theauctioning of panchayat posts to prevent grassroots democracy(198–202) and the forced resignations of elected panchayat leaders(181–183) only reinforce this perception despite a few individualdalit successes at the panchayat level, which too Viswanathanunfailingly documents (175–177, 203–207, 227–234).

Dalits who are subjected to violence by caste Hindus in civilsociety also have to reckon with the violence of the state, as seenin Gundupatti (87–94), Thamiraparani (123–129), Vittukkatti (270–273) and Sankaralingapuram (208–214). Viswanathan was again theonly reporter to record the fact that the Venkatachalam Commission(appointed by the Supreme Court to inquire into the atrocities inChidambaranar–Tuticorin district) had suggested that nine policeofficials be barred from functioning in dalit-dominated areas (54–56). The Thinniyam incident (241–243), where dalits were madeto consume excreta, went unreported in the English-languagenational media, except in Frontline.

I have personally known Viswanathan for fifteen years. Whenhe came to gather news during the caste clashes in Cuddaloredistrict, I accompanied him on various occasions. He would neverrely on secondhand information; he would go to the spot andinteract with several people for hours to get to the bottom of anyissue. In his reportage, he has always stood by the victims. Thesearticles reveal that he is not just a reporter but also a social analyst.

Today, dalits run several publications of their own.64 News thatdoes not make it to the mainstream media gets recorded in these.However, the political and social conditions in Tamil Nadu,especially concerning dalits, have not been well represented to those

living outside the state. Intellectuals living outside Tamil Naduimagine that the dalits and the BCs here are living in harmony. Thisis the image that has been created by Dravidian intellectualsconversant with English.65 However, the ground reality is quite theopposite.

Through these reports, we need to understand not just thequalitative changes in the violence against dalits, but also theconnections between these changes and how the caste Hindus havecaptured the state machinery which unleashes this violence. Thesearticles, though written within the constraints and needs of anewsmagazine, transcend such limitations and serve as historicaldocuments.

In this book, we bear witness to the ashes of burnt houses andthe blood of murdered people. Concluding the Communist Manifesto,Marx declares: ‘Workers of the world unite, for you have nothingto lose but your chains.’ For the oppressed dalits today, it is thewords of a little known poet, Keorapetse Kgositsile, that ring moretrue:

Blessed are the dehumanisedFor they have nothing to loseBut their patience.66

3 March 2005Pondicherry

NOTES & REFERENCES

1 National Human Rights Commission, Report on Prevention of Atrocities AgainstScheduled Castes (New Delhi: National Human Rights Commission, 2004).

2 The terms ‘forward’, ‘backward’, ‘lower’ and ‘upper’ for castes have beenlargely avoided in this essay and the book. If used, they occur within quotes.State terminology is preferred even when ‘Backward Class’ is a euphemismfor ‘Backward Caste’. Hence nonbrahmin shudras are referred to by theirspecific caste names or as Backward Classes (BCs) and Most Backward Classes(MBCs). For dalits, either their specific caste identities or Scheduled Caste isused, depending on the context.

xxx DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND INTRODUCTION xxxi

3 See M.S.S. Pandian, “Dalit Assertion in Tamil Nadu: An Exploratory Note,”Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, vol. 12, no. 3–4, 2000, 501–17.

4 According to Mayilai Seeni. Venkatasamy Buddhism was introduced to TamilNadu in third century BCE during the reign of emperors Asoka and Mahendra.See Venkatasamy, Bavuthamum Thamzihum (Tirunelveli: The South India SaivaSiddantha Works Publishing Society, 1940). Art historian Vidya Dehejia arguesthat ‘the Buddhist faith persisted in the Tamil country with greater strengththan has hitherto been realised’. Dehejia, “The Persistence of Buddhism inIndia,” in A Potpourri of Indian Art, ed. P. Pal (Bombay: 1988). George Michellsays Buddhism lingered in the Tamil region upto the fifteenth and sixteenthcenturies. Michell, Architecture and Art of Southern India (Cambridge: 1995).Several statues of the Buddha have been found and continue to be discoveredin different parts of Tamil Nadu. See B. Jambulingam’s Ph.D. thesis,“Buddhism in the Chola Country,” (Thanjavur: Tamil University, 2000),which lists sixty granite images of the Buddha in Perambalur, Tiruchi,Thanjavur, Thiruvarur and Pudukkottai districts, adding at least sixteen to theearlier recorded Buddhas. Also see S. Anand, “Bodhi’s Tamil Afterglow,”Outlook, 19 July 2004; and Ravikumar, “Buddhar Desam,” Kalachuvadu, July2004.

5 See, for instance, N. Subramanian, Sangam Polity (Madras: Asia PublishingHouse, 1966).

6 See K.R. Hanumanthan, Untouchability: A Historical Study upto 1500 A.D. withSpecial Reference to Tamil Nadu (Madurai: Koodal Publishers, 1979); and“Evolution of Untouchability in Tamil Nadu up to AD 1600,” Subordinate andMarginal Groups in Early India, ed., Aloka Parasher-Sen, (New Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press, 2004) 125–56.

7 The Sangam poets classified the Tamil country into the distinct tinai or eco-types of marutham (agricultural land), neythal (coast), mullai (forest), kurinji (hill/mountain) and paalai (arid/desert region).

8 Hanumanthan, Untouchability, 131. George Hart on the contrary translateskudi as caste rather than clan. See George L. Hart and Hank Heifetz, trans.,Purananuru (New Delhi: Penguin, 2002), 191. In The Poems of Ancient Tamil(New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999), Hart argues that caste originatedin ancient Tamil society contrary to the perception that it was imposed by‘northern Aryans’. He counters the Dravidianist ideologues who claim thatTamil civilisation was free of caste, especially in the Sangam age.

9 Though historians do not agree upon specific dates, the Sangam period isslotted between third century BCE and second century CE. In myths and thepopular psyche, the Sangam era dates back to more than a ten thousand yearsago.

10 See publisher’s Preface, Purananuru, 2nd ed. (Madras: New Century Book

House, 1981), 3–4. This is the standard edition of Purananuru used in Tamiltoday.

11 It is said that Mangudi Kizhaar composed six songs in Purananuru (24, 26,313, 335, 372 and 396). After U.V. Swaminatha Iyer published the first modernedition of Purananuru in 1894, the editor of Sentamizh—a periodical of whichwe have no record now—referring to Song 335 asserted that ‘these four castesexisted 1,800 years ago’. Iyothee Thass cites this claim in his weekly, Tamizhan(15 July 1908), and strongly refutes the possibility of ‘parayar untouchability’during the Sangam period. Not unaware of Swaminatha Iyer’s edition ofPurananuru, Thass wonders: ‘Is there a book called Purananuru? Who is theauthor? Which period does it belong to?’ He basically questions theauthenticity of the work in the form in which it is presented and interpreted.For a detailed exegesis, see Iyothee Thass, Iyothee Thassar Sinthanaigal, ed.Gnana Aloysius, vol. 1 (Palayamkottai: Folklore Resources and ResearchCentre, 1999), 534–35.

12 B.R. Ambedkar, “The Mahars: Who were they and how they becameUntouchables?,” in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writing and Speeches, vol. 17, part 2(Mumbai: Government of Maharashtra, 2003), 137–50.

13 The Manusmriti is said to have been composed in the first century CE.

14 Thass refers to parayars as the ‘yathartha brahmanar’ (the real brahmins),and contemptuously refers to contemporary brahmins as ‘vesha brahmanar’(false or pseudo brahmins). He wrote a book positing the historical relationbetween the two, entitled Vesha Brahmanar Vedanta Vilakkam. See Iyothee Thass,Iyothee Thassar Sinthanaigal, ed. Gnana Aloysius, 3 vols (Palayamkottai: FolkloreResources and Research Centre, 1999)

15 In Tamil, parai also means ‘to speak’; a usage that persists in Malayalam.

16 Iyothee Thassar Sinthanaigal, vol. 1, 128.

17 B.R. Ambedkar, “Untouchables: Who are they and how they becomeUntouchables,” in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writing and Speeches, vol. 7(Mumbai: Government of Maharashtra, 2003), 311–20.

18 P. Ramamurthy, Viduthalai Porum Dravida Iyakkamum (Madras: PazhaniappaBrothers, 1983), 139–40.

19 Gurusamy Siddhar and T. Gnanasekaran, eds., Tamizhar Panpaattu Varalaru(Coimbatore: Tamizhar Panpaattu Aayvu Manram, 1996), 17–33.

20 Edgar Thurston and K. Rangachari, Castes and Tribes of South India, vol. 4(Madras: Government Press, 1909), 476–77.

21 Hanumanthan, Untouchability, 116.

22 In Tamil, the human senses are called indiram. Aindu is Tamil for ‘five’.Hence aindu + indiram = aindiram.

23 The celebration of Indira-vizha is recorded in the Sangam epics Manimekalai

xxxii DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND INTRODUCTION xxxiii

and Silappadikaram. On Indira-vizha, a lexicon entry says: ‘An ancient annualfestival in honour of Indira held in the month of Chittirai by the Chola kingsin their capital city of Kaveripumpattinam.’ See University of Madras, TamilLexicon, vol. 1 (Madras: University of Madras, 1982), 295.

24 K.S. Singh, The Scheduled Castes (New Delhi: Oxford University Press,1999), 293.

25 R. Adhiyaman, “Mozhi Adaiyalam, Ina Adaiyalam, Saathi Adaiyalam:Arundhatiyar Edirkollum Prachinaikkal,” in Dalit Kalai, Ilakkiyam, Arasiyal, ed.,Ravikumar, (Neyveli: Dalit Kalaivizha Kuzhu, 1996) 134–38.

26 Buddhamithran (interview), in Karuppu, eds., Sugan and Shobasakthi,(Puthanatham: Adaiyalam, 2002) 163–86.

27 The Sangam literary texts occasionally refer to andanar and these are claimedto be the equivalent of latter-day brahmins. But andanar could refer to anypriestly class or the Jaina and Buddhist monks. The brahmins as we knowthem today established themselves in the Tamil country only during the Pallavaperiod (seventh to tenth centuries); it is only in the subsequent Chola periodwith the brahmadeya settlements that the brahmins came to dictate social,cultural and political terms, and vedic religion found a base in Tamil society.See Burton Stein, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India (Delhi:Oxford University Press, 1980).

28 Y. Subbarayulu, Studies in Chola History (Chennai: Surabhi Pathippagam,2001), 21.

29 Akaval is a form of poetry. The reference here is not to the Kapilar of theSangam period (second century CE) who contributed to Purananuru, but tothe Kapilar who is placed around the thirteenth century.

30 See Iyothee Thassar Sinthanaigal, vol. 2, 459. Iyothee Thassar argues that thecontemptuous use of ‘paraya’ was extended to other life-forms as well; hencea mongrel is called a ‘pariah’ dog and a bird like the mynah is termed‘brahmini’ mynah.

31 Noburu Karashima, “Grama Samugangal: Karpanayum Unmayum,” inVaralatruppokkil Thennaga Samugam, vol. 1, Cholar Kalam (850–1300)(Thanjavur: Tamizhaga Tholliyal Kazhagam, 1995), 64–80. This is a translationof the English version, “The Village Community in Chola Times: Myth orReality,” Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India, 8 (1981). Surprisingly fewcontemporary historians have followed up on the path-breaking research ofKarashima and Subbarayulu.

32 Venkatasamy, Bavuthamum Thamzihum, 174–96. He points out that theBuddha in the Tamil country was known as Saattan, Ayyan, Muneeswaran,Arugan, Dharman, Dharmaraja, Satavahanan and by several other localisednames.

33 ‘Being the ancient deity of the Sambu peninsula (Jambu in Sanskrit),Sambu is her first name. Her place of dwelling is Sambapathy. Later becauseof its association with Kaveri, Sambapathy came to be known asKaveripoompattinam. In the contemporary period, Sambapathy has come tobe known as Pidari,’ says U.V. Swaminatha Iyer in a footnote to the volumeof Manimekalai edited by him. See Manimekalai, 6th ed., (Chennai: Dr U.V.Swaminatha Iyer Nool Nilayam, 1981 [1898]), 456. This epic authored bySittalai Sattanar is said to have been written before second century CE.

34 Bavuthamum Tamizhum, 178.

35 Burton Stein, “Situating Precolonial Tamil Politics and Society,” in PlenarySession Papers, VIII World Tamil Conference (Chennai: International Associationof Tamil Research, 1995), 51.

36 According to Stein, ‘Religion was made to serve the Brahman-peasantalliance which constituted the underpinning of localised self-governingterritories in South India from the eighth to fourteenth centuries.’ Peasant Stateand Society, 87.

37 Ibid., 52.

38 This is a result of both the nonbrahmin movement’s self-representationand the reinforcement of this ‘common sense’ by academic works producedby a section of English-speaking Dravidian intellectuals such as M.S.S. Pandian(“Notes on the Transformation of Dravidian Ideology: Tamil Nadu c. 1900–1940,” paper presented at the Seminar on Ethnicity and Nation Building,Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Madras, 21–23March 1994; idem, “Beyond Colonial Crumbs: Cambridge School, IdentityPolitics and Dravidian Movement,” Economic and Political Weekly, 18–25February 1995); V. Geetha and S.V. Rajadurai, Towards a Non-BrahminMillennium: From Iyothee Thass to Periyar (Calcutta: Samya, 1998); V. Geetha,“Re-Writing History in the Brahmin’s Shadow,” Journal of Arts and Ideas, 25–26, December 1993; and S. Anandhi, “The Women’s Question in theDravidian Movement c.1925–1948,” in Gender and Caste: Feminism, DalitWomen, Caste, Labour Conditions, India, ed., Anupama Rao, (New Delhi: Kalifor Women, 2003) 141–63. (It is notable that Geetha and Rajadurai, in theearlier Tamil version of Non-brahmin Millennium, completely avoided referenceto and discussion of the work of Iyothee Thass. See Periyar: Suyamariyathai,Samadharmam (Coimbatore: Vidiyal Pathippagam, 1996)). However, Oxfordhistorian David Washbrook (The Emergence of Provincial Politics: the MadrasPresidency 1870–1920, Cambridge: 1976, and South India: Political Institutions andPolitical Change, New Delhi: 1976) and Berkeley’s Eugene Irschick (Politics andSocial Conflict in South India, the Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism,1916-1929, Berkeley: 1969, and Tamil Revivalism in the 1930s, Madras: 1986)engage critically with the thrust of the nonbrahmin movement.

xxxiv DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND INTRODUCTION xxxv

39 B.R. Ambedkar, “Evidence Before the Southborough Commission,” BAWS,vol. 1, 248–49.

40 Ibid., 249–50.

41 B.R. Ambedkar, “Communal Deadlock and a Way to Solve it,” BAWS, vol.1, 377.

42 Ambedkar elaborated his thesis with reference to the Central Assembly thatwas functional then. In this, he said the Hindus, who comprised 54.68 percentof the population, must have only 40 percent representation; the Muslims,who comprised 28.5 percent, should have a representation of 32 percent; theScheduled Castes, who formed 28.5 percent of the population, must have 32percent; Christians, who formed 1.16 percent, should have 3 percent; and theSikhs, who formed 1.49 percent, should have a 4 percent representation. See“Communal Deadlock,” ibid., 369.

43 In 1914, Natesan Mudaliar, then a medical student in Madras, foundedthe Dravidian Home, a hostel for nonbrahmin students. The home functionedfor only two years, but it was during this time that Mudaliar founded theDravidian Association with the purpose of advancing nonbrahmin politicalpower through ‘Dravidian uplift’. The Rajah of Panagal was elected presidentof the association, Dr T.M. Nair the vice-president and Mudaliar was thesecretary. See Robert L. Hardgrave Jr., The Dravidian Movement (Bombay:Popular Prakashan, 1965), 12.

44 For sympathetic histories of the nonbrahmin movement, see Geetha andRajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium; and E. Sa. Visswanathan, ThePolitical Career of E.V. Ramasami Naicker: A Study in the Politics of Tamil Nadu,1920–1949 (Madras: Ravi and Vasanth Publishers, 1983).

45 Though the nonbrahmin movement’s primary demand was proportionalrepresentation for nonbrahmins in ministries and government jobs, thecategory ‘nonbrahmin’ excluded the dalits, designated then as DepressedClasses (adi dravidars). The tables provided in E. Sa. Visswanathan’s book areproof of the glaring under-representation of dalits. In the three legislativecouncils between 1920 and 1926, the nonbrahmins constituted 57 percent ofthe councils. While in the 1920 council comprising ninety-eight members,fifty-seven nonbrahmins and seventeen brahmins were elected, there was notone elected member from the Depressed Classes. The non-election of theDepressed Classes continued till 1926, the little representation they hadcoming only through nominations and ex-officio memberships. A similartrend can be seen in the elections to district boards and municipal councils.In 1922, while 486 nonbrahmins and 132 brahmins were elected to districtboards, only one dalit was elected; in 1927, the nonbrahmins improved theirtally to 545, the number of brahmins came down to seventy-eight, but thedalits had only two elected members. See Visswanathan, Political Career of E.V.Ramasami Naicker, 124–25.

46 For an account of the rise of the Backward Classes in Tamil Nadu, seeP. Radhakrishnan, “Backward Caste Movements in Tamil Nadu,” in Caste: ItsTwentieth Century Avatar, ed. M.N. Srinivas, (New Delhi: Penguin, 1996) 110–34. In this section of the essay, I draw substantively from the trajectory chartedby Radhakrishnan.

47 Nanjappan is quoted by Radhakrishnan as saying that the vanniyarsconstitute 6.3 percent of the population of the Madras Presidency. Later inhis essay Radhakrishnan says ‘vanniyars account for 12 percent of the state’spopulation,’ (125). The incomplete 1931 Census being the only source of datafor the share of various castes in the population, empirical data on the strengthof nondalit castes now is a matter of conjectured projections. The thevars,concentrated in the southern districts, claim to constitute 6 percent of theoverall state population.

48 Prior to that the two leaders put up vanniyar candidates as independentsin the 1949 elections to the district board in South Arcot district, winningtwenty-two of the fifty-two seats, defeating many Congress candidates.

49 The vanniyars demonstrated their political muscle but successive Congressgovernments bypassed their demand for reservation in jobs and the legislature.

50 The Vanniyar Sangam was constituted in 1980 and evolved into the PaattaliMakkal Katchi (PMK) under the leadership of S. Ramadoss, a medical doctor.Today, the PMK wields tremendous influence in the vanniyar belt—thenorthern districts of the state. In 1987, they staged a weeklong roadblock todemand 20 percent reservation for vanniyars. During this struggle they torchedmore than a thousand dalit homes. The agitation and its success led to thesubsequent political consolidation of the vanniyars.

51 Maravars are a subcaste of the thevar community. The kallar, maravar andagamudaiyar together constitute ‘muk-kula-thor’ meaning ‘those of the threecastes’; they are also collectively referred to as thevars. Classified as a ‘criminaltribe’ by the British, they were denotified from this list in 1949 and were laterlisted as a Backward Class. They are today designated a Most Backward Classin state parlance.

52 For an analysis of how caste/dalit issues figure in the print media, seeS. Anand, “Covering Caste: Visible Dalit, Invisible Brahman.” (forthcoming,New Delhi: Sage).

53 Aijaz Ahmad, ed., Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: On the National and ColonialQuestions, Selected Writings (New Delhi: LeftWord, 2001), 20.

54 Ramamurthy was cited earlier recounting his experience in a para-cheri;see p. xv and note 18.

55 Dinakaran, Mudukulathur Kalavaram (Madurai: Dinakaran Noolagam, 1957).Dinakaran, a journalist, reconstructs this incident in his book, published inthe year of the riots. The author, a thevar himself, published the work on his

xxxvi DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND INTRODUCTION xxxvii

Taken to task

A judicial commission finds the Special Task Forceguilty of rape and torture of tribals

11 August 1995

THE Jayalalitha government is at the receiving end once again. Thelatest in a series of judicial strictures the administration and itspolice force have received has come from a commission that probedpolice atrocities in a tribal village. Constituted in August 1994 toinquire into the alleged rape and torture of tribals by policemen atChinnampathi near Coimbatore on 11 and 12 June, the BanumathiCommission has found the allegations to be true and has comedown heavily on the district civil and police administration and aruling party MLA for their cover-up attempt. It has indicted theSpecial Task Force (STF) of the Tamil Nadu police, which has beenhunting for sandalwood smuggler Veerappan in the forests on theborder with Karnataka, for the rape of two women and the tortureof seven tribals.1 It has recommended a compensation of Rs 2 lakheach to the rape victims and Rs 10,000 each to the tortured.

The incident took place on 11–12 June, when STF personneldescended on the tribal village, 30 km from the district headquarterstown of Coimbatore, as part of what they described as combingoperations. They searched every house, allegedly tortured the menand subjected the villagers to all sorts of humiliation under thepretext of looking for Veerappan. The traumatic experience wasrecounted by a villager thus (as reported in a Tamil weekly): “A lotof wild animals frequent the village, but they do us no harm. Butthe uniformed men, on the pretext of hunting for Veerappan,behaved like animals; they molested our women. Wild animals arereally far better... .” It was during this operation that the two womenwere allegedly raped.

own, exposing the role of the thevar community, especially MuthuramalingaThevar, during the riots. The thevars killed Dinakaran in 1958.

56 Ibid., 56.

57 Ibid., 61.

58 The Communist Party was then an ally of the DMK.

59 See Thirumavalavan, Talisman: Extreme Emotions of Dalit Liberation (Kolkata:Samya, 2003), especially “Must Venmani be Fenced?,” 169–74.Thirumavalavan is the leader of the Viduthalai Siruthaigal (also known as theDalit Panthers of India), a party that has a significant presence among dalitsin the northern districts of Tamil Nadu. For a brief account of what happenedin Kilvenmani, see note 5 on p. 29 of Dalits in Dravidian Land.

60 The 1999 elections saw a three-cornered fight in most of Tamil Nadu.While the ruling DMK, PMK, MDMK and BJP formed an alliance, the AIADMK,Congress, CPI and CPI(M) formed the second opposition front. Having noalternative, the G.K. Moopanar-led Tamil Maanila Congress allied with thedalit parties, Puthiya Tamizhagam and Dalit Panthers of India. Until theelection, the left had aligned with PT on various issues, including the Manjolaitea estate workers’ struggle that led to the Thamiraparani massacre (p. 123–129). The silence of the left parties following the Chidambaram violence(p. 144–149) owed merely to their alliance with the AIADMK at that point. Inthe May 2004 Lok Sabha election, the left parties found it convenient to shifttheir allegiance to the DMK-led front. The denial of ticket to dalit parties inthe grand alliance did not invite any rebuke from the CPI and CPI(M) (see“Political Untouchability,” p. 296–302). For a detailed account of the violenceduring the Chidambaram election and the role of the left, see Ravikumar,Vanmurai Jananayagam (Pondicherry: Dalit, 2004).

61 Human Rights Watch, Broken People: Caste Violence against India’s“Untouchables” (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1999).

62 Broken People, 82.

63 In Arunkulam, five thevars were killed and eighty-three thevar houses wereburnt, whereas only twenty-four pallar houses were burnt. See Dinakaran,Mudukulathur Kalavaram, 47.

64 Notable among them are Dalit Murasu, Thaimann, Pudhiya Kodangi andMakkal Kalam.

65 See note 38.

66 Keorapetse Kgositsile, “Mandela’s Sermon,” in Poems of Black Africa, WoleSoyika, ed., (London: Heinemann, 1975), 204. The poem, all of six lines, ends:False gods killed the poet in me. Now/ I dig graves/ With artistic precision.

xxxviii DALITS IN DRAVIDIAN LAND