-British policies in south India --seeds of communal division

The Justice Party (Tamil: நீதிக்கட்சி), officially known as South Indian Liberal Federation, was a political party in the Madras Presidency ofBritish India. The party was established in 1917 by T. M. Nair and Theagaroya Chetty as a result of a series of non-Brahmin conferences and meetings in the presidency. Communal division between Brahmins and non-Brahmins had taken root in the presidency during the late 19th and early 20th century, mainly due to caste prejudices and disproportional representation of Brahmins in newly available government jobs


Taravath Madhavan Nair[TM Nair] (b. January 15, 1868 - d.July 17, 1919) was an Indian politician and political activist of the Self-Respect Movement from the Madras Presidency. He founded the Justice Party along with Theagaroya Chetty.In 1917, Dr. Nair left the Indian National Congress. At a meeting on August 1917, Dr. T. M. Nair spoke:-
Non-Brahmins were looking to the British Government for protection, to hold scales evenly and to mete out Justice, but when they saw a movement progressing whose object was to undermine British influence and power in this country, they thought it their duty to rally round the British Government and to support them
In October 1917, Dr. T. M. Nair launched the South Indian Liberal Federation, also known as the Justice Party

.In 1918-19, despite warnings from fellow doctors not to travel abroad considering that his health was deteriorating, he led a mission to England to speak in support of communal representations before a Joint Parliamentary Committee.However, he was prohibited from speaking to the public on the orders of Edwin Samuel Montagu, the Secretary of State for India
The Justice party opposed the Home Rule Movement and the party newspapers derisively nicknamed Besant as the "Irish Brahmini"


The development of the non-Brahmin movement is often attributed to the practices and policies of the provincial British Government. The statistics used by the non-Brahmin leaders in their 1916 manifesto was prepared by senior Indian Civil Service officers for submission to the 1913 public services commission


Historians differ about the extent of the British influence in the evolution of the non-Brahmin movement. Kathleen Goughargues though British had a role to play in the formation of Justice party,


Eugene F. Irschick (in Political and Social Conflict in South India; The non-Brahmin movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929) holds the view that British officials sought to instigate the growth of non-Brahminism




David. A. Washbrook disagrees with Irschick in his book, The Emergence of Provincial Politics: The Madras Presidency 1870-1920, and goes as far as to say "Non-Brahminism became for a time synonymous with anti-nationalism - a fact which surely indicates its origins as a product of government policy.




Dravidan, the Tamil language mouthpiece of the party, ran headlines such as Home rule is Brahmin's rule. All three of the party's newspapers ran articles and opinions pieces critical of the home rule movement and the league in a daily basis. Some of the articles published inJustice were later published in book form as The Evolution of Annie Besant. Nair described the home rule movement as an agitation carried on "by a white woman particularly immune from the risks of Government action" whose rewards would be reaped by the Brahmins.


On 20 August 1917, Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India,[ Montagu-Chelmsford ] political reforms to increase representation of Indians in government and to develop of self-governing institutions. This announcement increased the division among the non brahmin political leaders of the Presidency. Justice party organised a series of conferences in late August to support its claim as the representative of the non brahmin caste Hindus as well as the untouchable (Dalit) castes.


The non-Brahmin members from Congress party formed their own association called the Madras Presidency Association (MPA) to compete with Justice party. Periyar E. V. Ramaswamy,Kalyanasundaram Mudaliar, P. Varadarajulu Naidu and Kesava Pillai were among the non-Brahmin leaders involved in the creation of MPA. MPA was supported by Brahmin run nationalist newspaper The Hindu and Justice leaders accused MPA of the creation of Brahmins to weaken the cause of non-Brahmins.


The Joint Select Committee hearings to finalize the Government of India Bill, (which would implement the proposed reforms) were held during 1919-20 at London.The Committee's report, issued on 17 November 1919, recommended communal representation for non brahmins and brahmins in the Madras Presidency.63 general seats in plural member constituencies were reserved for non-Brahmins. Thus with help from the Indo-British Association, the British press and the Government of Madras, the party was able to achieve its goal of communal representation for non brahmins.


Dissatisfied with the extent of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms and the passage of the Rowlatt Act in March 1919, Mahatma Gandhi launched his non-cooperation movement in 1919. He called for a boycott of the legislatures, law courts, schools and social functions. 


This non-cooperation with the British Government did not appeal to Justice party which sought to derive its political power continued British presence in India and participation in elections held under the new reforms. Justice members considered Gandhi an exponent of anarchy and threat to an ordered and disciplined society. The party newspapers JusticeDravidan and Andhra Prakasika were extensively used to discredit the non-cooperation campaig
 Gandhi reemphasized his appreciation of Brahmin contribution to Hinduism and said "I warn the correspondents against separating the Dravidian south from Aryan north. The India today is a blend not only of two, but of many other cultures." The party's relentless campaign against Gandhi, supported by the British run Madras Mail made him less popular and effective in South India


After its crushing defeat at the hands of the Congress in the 1937 elections, the Justice party ceased to exist as a effective political opposition for sometime
The new Congress government under C. Rajagopalachari introduced compulsory Hindi teaching in the schools of the Presidency. Justice party under the leadership of A. T. Panneerselvam (one of the few Justice leaders to have escaped defeat in the 1937 elections) joined hands withPeriyar E. V. Ramasamy's self respect movement to oppose the government's move. The resulting anti-Hindi agitations, brought the party effectively under Periyar's control. When the Raja of Bobbili's term ended, Periyar took over as the president of the party on 29 December 1938. Periyar, a former Congressman, had a previous history of cooperation with the party. He had left the Congress in 1925 after accusing the party of Brahminism.


 C. N. Annadurai andPeriyar E. V. Ramaswamy

The demand for 
Dravidistan"
was repeated in the party's 15th annual confederation in August 1940.On 10 August 1941, Periyar declared that the agitation for 
Dravida Nadu
was being temporarily stopped to help the government in its war efforts. When the Cripps Mission visited India, a Justice party delegation, comprising Periyar, W. P. A. Soundarapandian Nadar, N. R. Samiappa Mudaliar and Muthiah Chettiar, met the members of the mission on 30 March 1942 and placed before them the demand for a separate Dravidian nation
The party which had never possessed much popularity amidst the students of the Presidency, started making inroads into the younger population with C. N. Annadurai's help
On 27 August 1944, the sixteenth annual confederation of the Justice party was held in Salema resolution was passed and the party was to be renamed as Dravidar
 Kazhagam (DK). 
The Justice party and the Dravidar Kazhagam were the political forerunners to the present day Dravidian parties like the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which have ruled Tamil Nadu uninterrupted since 1967

Anti-nationalism:-

The Justice party was loyal to the British empire and did not want to over throw the empire. During its early years, it opposed the Home rule movement.During the non-cooperation movement, it joined hand with the European owned Madras Mail in opposing and denouncing Gandhi and the nationalists

However, the party's definition ofSwaraj varied from that of the Indian National Congress. To the Justicities, Swaraj meant partial self-government under British rule and not complete independence. The constitution clearly stated this as: ".. to obtain Swaraj for India as a component of the British Empire at as early a date as possible by all peaceful and legitimate and constitutional means

On 11 May 1921, both Dalits and caste Hindus went on a strike in the Carnatic textile mill in Madras city. On 20 June, workers in Buckingham Mill followed them. The Dalits were quickly persuaded to get back to work, but the caste Hindus continued to strike. This created animosity between the two groups. In an ensuing clash between the police and caste Hindus, several caste Hindus were killed in police firing. The Justice leaders accused the Government of creating problems

post script:- British AIM  was to divide and RULE

 TO DIVIDE HINDU AND MUSLIM; THROUGH BRITISH BOOT LICKING LEADERS LIKE JINNAH ;LED TO THE CREATION OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN ;LEADING TO HINDU MUSLIM COMMUNAL RIOTS IN 1947 WITH 1000000 [1 MILLION ]PEOPLE KILLED;AND CREATION OF REFUGEES OF 10000000{10 MILLION]
 BRITISH WANTED TO DIVIDE INDIA INTO NORTH INDIA AND SOUTH INDIA- (DRAVIDSTAN}
BRITISH WANTED TO SEPARATE PUNJAB AS A SEPARATE STATE THROUGH SIMILAR DIVISIVE  MOVEMENTS; BUT DUE TO CREATION OF PAKISTAN THAT DID NOT TAKE 

PLACE

The Historic Meeting of



Accordingly, they agreed for the following:

1.     Jinnah and Ambedkar would tour Tamil districts for a month in April or May 1940 and support the demand for Dravidanad (as announced by A. Ponnambalam).
2.     EVR was again invited to visit Bombay.
3.     EVR and his followers support for the Muslim cause and work together.
4.     Ambedkar also would support the Muslim cause.
5.     All would create more problems for Congress.
6.     Make representations to the British to that effect that power should not be vested with Congress alone.



BRITISH EVEN TRIED TO CREATE PROBLEMS BETWEEN DALITS AND OTHER CASTES; BUT PROMINENT LEADERS LIKE AMBEDKAR RESISTED SUCH NEFARIOUS AIMS OF THE BRITISH RULERS
BEFORE LEAVING INDIA BRITISH TRIED TO GIVE FULL FREEDOM TO ALL THE ABOUT 600 SMALL INDIAN KINGDOMS,THINKING IT WILL WEAKEN INDIA ;BUT THAT DIDNOT TAKE PLACE



Weekend Reading: Jinnah on ”Dravidistan” | Retributions

retributions.nationalinterest.in/weekend-reading-jinnah-on-dra...
Feb 11, 2008 – In this land of yours (meaning the Madras Province) there is another nation, the Dravidians. This land is really Dravidistan. Imagine that three ..
 PDF] 

Facts about the Partition : Jinnah's Legacy

ikashmir.net/gljalali/.../Facts%20about%20the%20Partition.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Mohammad Ali Jinnah was a stooge in the hands of the British Viceroy. This message was conveyed by. Linlithgow to his political masters in London.


 http://mostaqueali.blogspot.com/2009/02/was-jinnah-british-raj-agent.html


LTTE ACTIVITIES IN THE UK

easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~sydney/ltte.htm
The centre of LTTE activities for the area has now shifted to Paris and the LTTE ... by LTTE International Secretariat at No 211 Katherine Road, London E6 IBU ...

Your Majesty-Are you aware that UK MPs openly support LTTE ...

www.defence.lk/new.asp?...Are...support_LTTE...
1 day ago – Such is the case with the LTTE proscribed by the UK Government ... run its international headquarters from London, LTTE's theoretician and ..

Sri Lanka Guardian: Why are UK MPs supporting LTTE terrorism?

www.srilankaguardian.org/.../why-are-uk-mps-supporting-ltte....
Oct 9, 2011 – The LTTE holds 2 events each year in London despite the UK & EU .... Virendra Sharma openly supporting the LTTE & the UK Government ...