CHAPTER – II

NEED OF THE HOUR FOR COMMUNAL

REPRESENTATION

Communal representation in India is often identified with the

non-Brahmin movement, and its reformulation reservations with the Indian
Constitution.1 But analogous to the growth of the Backward Classes these had
begun to evolve from at least the mid nineteenth century.2

British Indian Society in the sense of the numerous social closures is

operated by the caste system. These indigenous incarnations continued and some
categories were introduced by the British. No doubt, a beginning with these
categories was a continuation of the pre-British ones.3 That was only in keeping
with the British Endeavour to create an overarching administrative machinery
reflecting the established structure of the country and its related concern for
incorporating into its colonial framework, the traditional well entrenched, and
from its viewpoint, the strategically placed social groups as its compradors.4 That
explains the following directive of the Committee of the Public Instruction,
Madras, to the district officers, soon after its appointment in March 1826. “The
Committee wish it invariably to be kept in mind that no measures can be pursued
whatever other advantages they may offer, which are at variance with the customs
and prejudices of the people. Such obstacles must be carefully a voided. Every
measure must, as much as possible be divested of the odium of innovation; and be
such as to induce the people to go along with government in the undertaking.”

In fact, the British attempts to go along with high castes long preceded its
educational efforts. As early as 1814 the Court of Directors had ordered exclusion
of Indian Christians, then mostly of the 'untouchables' castes, from certain offices

1 K. B. Krishna, The Problem of Minorities or Communal Representation in India,

London,1939, p.37
2 Ibid, p.38
3 David, page, Prelude to Partition, the Indian Muslims and Imperial System Control 1920-
1932, New Delhi, 1982, p. 120.
4 Eugene, F. Irschick., Tamil Revivalist in the 1930s, Madras, 1986, p.6.

74
such as of 'munsiff', 'vakil', and law officer in Bengal Presidency,5 and also of
'sudder ameen' (civil judge), and cavalry in Madras Presidency.

In 1831 the Court of Directors did convey the inexpediency of such

exclusion and their belated realization that the British religious neutrality in India
did not require placing by law converts to Christianity in a less advantageous
situation than others. In 1846, in response to a request from the Sheriff of Madras
for sanction to select peons from among the Pariahs to be employed in the grand
goal indiscriminately with those of other castes, the Board of Revenue reaffirmed
this principle. The Government does not recognize caste, or any to religious
distinction as a ground of civil disability and all classes or castes are therefore
alike eligible to offices for which the Head of an office may consider them
qualified and their employment advantageous to the public interests.6

But, it was one thing to reaffirm a principle and quite another to redeem it.
And there in were British dilemmas. It showed its inability to decide on an
application it received in 1833 from a Pariah boy. "The Board ... have not felt it
right to decide of themselves whether a person of this class shall be admitted as a
scholar, in consequence of the strong repugnance evinced by the native
headmasters to give instruction to Pariahs, and the knowledge that Hindus of caste
would consider their prejudices,7 interfered with, were Pariahs taught in the same
classes, with themselves.

Brahmins and British Administration

The Brahmins with their scribal background were the first to realize that
under the colonial dispensation. English education was the key to government
employment and literate professions. Therefore, through their eager acquisition of
such education, as Dubois observed, they perpetuated their predominance under
the British rule as well. "The Brahmins have also been clever enough to work
their way into favour with the great European Power that now governs India. They

5 Public Despatches from England to Fort William, 2 February 1831, p.8.

6 Board of Revenue Proceedings, 21 April 1845 and 23 April 1846.
7 Public Consultations, Vol. 618, 24 January 1834

75
occupy the highest and most lucrative posts in different administrative boards and
government offices, as well as in the judicial courts of the various districts. In fact
there is no branch themselves indispensable".8 As the European collector was
often overwhelmed with multifarious duties, it was the 'Sheristadar' who attended
to the onerous details of revenue collection and accounts, settling the annual
assessment and authorizing remissions. In the eyes of the rural community, the
Sheristadar was the 'real administrator' who controlled the sole channel of access
to the collector. As the chief executive officer of the Taluk containing a few
hundred villages, the Tahsildar discharged revenue, judicial, and police duties
under the supervision of the Collector.9 In the whole of Madras Presidency
Brahmins accounted for about ninety per cent of all the 'huzur' (chief)
Sheristadars, eighty-seven per cent of all the ‘Naib' deputy Sheristadars, seventy-
five per cent of all Tahsildars, and seventy-eight per cent of all these positions
taken together.10

TABLE No. 3: COMPOSITION OF DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION, 1855

Huzur Naib
Tahsildar Total
Caste/Community Sheristadar Sheristadar

No percent No percent No percent No percent

Mahratta Brahmins 17 81.0 20 52.6 117 47.6 154 50.5

Other Brahmins 2 9.5 13 34.2 68 27.6 83 27.2

Non-Brahmins 2 9.5 3 7.9 45 18.3 50 16.4

Musilms 13 5.3 3 4.3

Indian Christians 2 5.3 3 1.2 5 1.6

Total 21 100.0 38 100.0 246 100.0 305 100.0

Source: The Madras Presidency Administration Report, 1885.

8 Ibid., pp.290-291.
9 R. Suntharalingam, Politics and Nationalist Awakening in South India 1852-1896,
Delhi, 1972, p.50.
10 Ibid., p.51.

76
 However, by this time the government itself realised the danger of its
exclusive reliance on Brahmins11 and began to check their monopoly in public
service and weaken their family connections, a vital link to such monopoly and
their established lines of patronage.

Curbs on Monopoly
The result was a Standing Order of the Board of Revenue: "Collectors
should be careful to see that the Board of Revenue dinate appointments in their
districts are not monoplised by the members of a few influential families.
Endeavour should always be made to divide the principal appointments in each
district among the several castes. A proportion of the Tahsildars in each district
should belong to castes other than Brahmin, and it should be a standing rule that
the two chief revenue servants in the collector's office should be of different
castes." In the following years the Board of Revenue reminded the Collectors of
this order which they also tried to enforce. Thus, in 1866-1867 the Tirunevelli
Collector reported that in that district the 'influences for evil' or the native officials
had grown far beyond his power to grapple with. The Board of Revenue ordered
the surrounding collectors to assist him by arranging for transfers, in this case, of
the Pillais, a non-Brahmin upper caste, with whom every office in the district was
"crowded".12

As a prelude to these illustrations the Board of Revenue had dwelt on the

grave consequences for the administration from two causes: First, the
accumulation of many public offices in the hands of relatives of a few influential
families, tending naturally to the formation of strong cliques for the benefit of
those families necessarily at the expense of others and of the state. Second, the
intensification of such personal interests "by the possession of landed property in
the district in which the monoplishing families hold offices, such landed property
necessarily implying influence, as well as interests generally inimical to those of
the state by which they are employed so that officials are naturally under strong

11 Eugene, F.Irschick., op.cit., p.6.

12 Board of Revenue Proceedings, No.607, 12 March 1886.

77
temptation to be at the heart the guardians of their own personal and family
interests in preference to those of the public".13

In 1890 while working out the Provincial Civil Service Scheme, the
Madras government modified free competition for post of deputy collectors for
enabling it to appoint one-third of the vacancies by selection from persons of
proved merit and ability.14 As this had no effects on the Brahmins, in 1896 it
limited appointment of deputy collectors by open competition to per year for
correcting their communal distribution.

No doubt, Brahmin preponderance in public service was a reflection of

that in higher education. Reviewing the results of the 1870-1872 Matriculation
and Fine Arts (FA) examinations, the Madras Presidency Administration Report
(MPAR) for 1871-1872 recorded that "the percentage of Brahmins, always
immense, has increased, while that of other Hindus has greatly fallen off'. The
situation was much the same even after a decade. The Public Instruction Report
(PIR) for 1880-1881 recorded the educational statistics "curious, illustrating the
energy with rich Brahmins is endeavouring to keep lead in the higher education".
The PIR 1881-1882 revealed that for the FA and the examinations combined there
was one candidate for every 125 Brahmins in the Presidency as against the
candidate for as many as 5,888 Other Hindus, 11,984 Muslims, and 447 Indian
Christians. The PIR also recorded that the vast preponderance of Brahmins in the
Arts course has highly creditable to their ability and energy.

The Civil Engineering College, the Medical College and the School of
Agriculture, are attracting to themselves Brahmin students in rapidly increasing
numbers whilst the growing partiality of BA students for the science course in an
indication of the same spirit. Sensing the strong nexus between English educations
and government employment, the PIR for 1888-1889 recorded the unequal
distribution of higher university education among the different section of the
population as certainly a matter for regret, and an anomaly which demanded the

13 Ibid.
14 R. Suntharalingam, op.cit.,p.125.

78
 serious attention of all interested in the progress of the country. However, it was
only in the 1900s that action was initiated, that too in the College of Engineering,
Madras. Of the students admitted to this college about 92 percent in 1899, and 79
to 93 percent during 1900-1903 were Brahmins through their population in the
Presidency was only about 3 percent.

TABLE No. 4: ENGINEERING STUDENTS BY CASTE / COMMUNITY

Other
Brahmin Muslims Christians Total
Year Hindus
No Percent No Percent No Percent No Percent No Percent
1899 11 91.7 - - - - 1 8.3 12 100.00
1900 11 78.6 1 7.1 - - 2 14.3 14 100.00
1901 13 86.7 - - 1 6.7 1 6.7 15 100.00
1902 13 86.7 1 6.7 - - 1 6.7 15 100.00
1903 14 93.3 - - - - 1 6.7 15 100.00
Total 63 87.3 2 2.8 1 1.4 6 8.4 71 100.00
Population 31.3 86.1 6.4 2.7 98.2
Note: Christian include European/Eurasians; population as per 1901 census.15

The college rules already had provisions for admitting four qualified
Europeans/Eurasians and three Muslims annually, even if they were not within the
first 15 qualified candidates. In view of the Brahmin preponderance, the DPI,
college principal, and the education department officials favoured reservation for
non-Brahmin castes as well.16 But, A.G. Cardew, education secretary, felt the
Brahmin preponderance was a case of the survival of the fittest, and that it was not
shown that Brahmin was less fit for engineer's duties than non-Brahmin Hindus,
while it was proved that he was more intelligent. He, therefore, wanted to see if
there was any sufficient reason for deliberately preferring the "less intelligent
class".

15 G.O.Ms. No.544, (Education Department), 9th Novembers 1903.

16 G .O.Ms. Nos.244-245, (Education Department), 2nd May, and 544 of 9th December 1903.

79
 Responding to Cardew, the Coimbatore Collector credited the Brahmins
with more brains; The remaining officials were against Brahmin preponderance:
The Madurai Acting Collector expatiated that "an engineer has generally a lot of
camping and knocking about to do", that "though an Aiyangar will, as a rule,
adapt himself to this life, an Aiyar will not and tends sooner or later to get lazy",
and that "the non-Brahmin, though his brain work it worse, is generally better than
either at knocking about and handling coolies". The Thanjavur Acting Collector
complained that Brahmins constantly neglected their duties for performing
religious ceremonies. The Tiruchirappalli Collector conveyed that "in the event of
any underhand or dishonest practices obtaining among the Board of Revenue
dinates.... Brahmins form a clique which it is very difficult to break down", and
that "non-Brahmins and Mussalmans can be more easily found out, because they
have fewer friends and more enemies". Virtually all the officials consulted were
Europeans. As the most of them were for letting in other castes more freely, in
1903 the government enhanced the admissions to the college from 15 to 20 a year,
and ordered induction of not less than 25 per cent of the candidates from non-
Brahmin castes.17 Though Brahmin preponderance in higher education continued
even after this order, it was only since the late 1920s that the government made
many serious attempts to reduce it.

Restraints on Employment
It was, however, continuing with its efforts to curb Brahmin monopoly in
public service. Thus, in 1904 the Board of Revenue obtained from the collectors a
statement in the castes of all employees in superior service, that is, on monthly
salaries of Rs.15 and above, in the revenue offices in the districts. As the
Brahmin, non-Brahmin ratio was 70:30; it instructed the collectors to watch the
recruitment of non-Brahmins for ensuring fairer distribution of appointments.
That year in the uniformly introduced district establishment list of revenue
officials, the Board of Revenue provided a column to show the caste/sect of each

17 G.O.Ms. No.544, (Education Department), 9th November, 1903.

80
Board of Revenue denote for enabling the collectors to see how far the standing
order was enforced.18

In 1909, the Board of Revenue informed the Registrar of Co-operative

Societies that not more than one half of the total number of superior appointments
in an office should ordinarily be held by Brahmins, the other half being at least the
due share of non-Brahmin Hindus, Indian Christians, Mohammedans, and
Eurasians". Finding that the proportion of Brahmins did not show any substantial
diminution, in the following year the Board of Revenue asked the registrar why he
had not followed its instructions and why the power or making appointments shall
not be withdrawn from him. It also ordered that until the proportions of Brahmins
were reduced to nearly 50 per cent of the total strength he should appoint fully
qualified non-Brahmins in preference to Brahmins.19 Thus the Board of Revenue
was exercising "constant vigilance", over the distribution or appointments.

As of the conditions in Madras an official reasoned thus: The real danger

against which action should be concerted is not against the predominance of
Brahmins, who (have) not been shown to be specially deselected towards the
government and who after all (are) unquestionably, on the average, the most
efficient portion of the community, but against the tendency towards the practical
exclusion from the higher offices of the state or those portions of the community,
especially the Muhammadans and the Eurasians, who are least able to compete
with the rest or the population in the severe struggle imposed by our examination
system. Accordingly, he wanted the government to make some allowance for the
"inferior efficiency" of Muslims and Eurasians, take up seriously the question of
promoting a fair proportion of them to the rank of deputy Tahsildars, Tahsildars
and district Massifs. Another official expressed his view against the monopoly of
any single caste: "When an office consists largely of one caste ... faults and even
serious offences are concealed and members of other castes are shut out of
employment. The first is bad for efficient administration and leads to corruption

18 G.O.Ms. No.792, (Revenue Department), 25th July 1904; 2491 (Revenue Department) 15th
August 1911.
19 G.O. Ms. No.2357, (Revenue Department), 16th July, 1910.

81
 and the transfer of power from the hands in which it should lie to the hands of
inferior public servants.

The second is unfair to the excluded communities and must create

discontent among them. Stating that "there is always an ill defined apprehension
about what the future may have in store in the way of sedition", the stressed that
like the class regiments to prevent collusion and detect seditious or mutinous
conspiracies, there was need for quasi-class establishments. He also noted that
while in the higher ranks of public service there must "always be a high
preponderance of Brahmins, since they are by far the most intellectual class, yet it
is important to prevent that caste or any other caste gaining monopoly". The
Board of Revenue’s scrutiny of the state of affairs revealed the predominance or
Brahmins. They held 57 to 76 per cent jobs in different departments, and about
69 per cent of all the jobs, though they were only about 3 per cent of the
population.
TABLE No. 5: OFFICIALS BY CASTE/COMMUNITY, 1911

Non-
Brahmins Muslims Christians Total
Brahmins
Department
No percent No Percent No Percent No Percent No percent

Revenue 4106 70.1 1324 22.6 214 3.7 213 3.6 5857 100.00

Judicial 178 62.7 78 27.5 10 3.5 18 6.3 284 100.00

Salt, Abkari 613 56.8 284 26.3 45 4.2 138 12.8 1080 100.00

Public work 397 72.7 88 16. 1 1.5 81.5 53 9.7 546 100.00

Education 440 75.7 56 9.6 32 5.5 53 9.1 581 100.00

Population 5734 68.7 1830 21.9 309 3.7 475 5.78 348 100.00

3.2 87.4 6.6 2.8 100.00

Note: Non-Brahmins include others (1.8 per cent); Christians include Europeans/
Eurasians (0.1 Per cent); population as per 1911 Census.20

20 G.O. Ms. No.1561, (Public Department), 19th December 1912.

82
 In the light of this preponderance the Board of Revenue again asked all the
departments to adhere to the standing order: In view of the difficulty in getting
qualified candidates, the chief presidency magistrate even proposed the creation of
a recruitment bureau for different grades and classes of appointments, though the
governments dropped it as unfeasible21. Following the Morley-Minto Reforms of
1909, the first major step towards lndianisation or the administration began in
1911. The government of India desired the provincial governments to secure in
their services adequate representation or the various classes in public service. In
that connection the Board of Revenue reported that it was scrutinizing the annual
lists of persons recommended by the Collectors for posts of Tahsildars and deputy
Tahsildars to check the preponderance of Brahmins by securing suitable non-
Brahmins from other districts if the district did not have a sufficient number of
them. It also mentioned that having found in 1910 that Brahmin preponderance
was marked in some districts, it informed the district authorities that it would
decline to place any more Brahmins on the list of such districts, unless the
Collectors had taken every possible means to find suitable non-Brahmins for
inclusion in the lists.

However, the government's scrutiny of the revenue establishment list

corrected up to January 1, 1911 revealed that in no less than 10 out of the 24
districts, the standing order was on that date apparently disregarded. Expressing
its lack of confidence in the care taken by the Board of Revenue to avoid the
dangers arising from the concentration of an undue number of posts in district in
the hands of a single caste or a single family, it advised the Board of Revenue to
institute an enquiry in all districts.22

In a related G.O. it also declined to concur with the Board of Revenue that
"different sects of Brahmins may safely be regarded ... as constituting different
castes", and held that "in spite of the existence of rivalries ... there is reason to
believe that they will unite in their opposition to the preferment of men of other,
and in the Board of Revenue's view, lower castes". Therefore, it insisted on

21 G.O.Ms. No.1561, (Public Department), 19th December 1912.

22 G.O.Ms. No.1763, (Revenue (Confidential) Department), 9th June 1911.

83
maintaining as strictly as possible the rule that the men doing duty in the
appointments of Sheristadar and head clerk shall not be of the same caste.23

In a note on provincial services prepared for the Royal Commission on

Public Services, appointed in pursuance of the Morley-Minto reforms, the Madras
government reported in 1913 that the all officers appointed after the competitive
examinations of 1893-1895 were, with one exception, Brahmins, that of the total
deputy collectors in the Presidency they announced for 53 per cent in 1896 and 55
per cent in 1912, and that in the judicial branch in 1912, 15 (83.3 per cent) of the
18 permanent sub-judges, and 93 (73.8 per cent) of the 126 permanent district
munsiffs were Brahmins. Stating that as a consequence of their extraordinary
ability in passing examinations, it was practically certain that they would always
or at least for many years, obtain all or nearly all the appointments thrown open to
competition, it observed that such a monopoly was not advantageous to the
administration both because of the preponderance of this one class and because,
the large proportion of them recruited will leave no opportunities for rendering
justice to the other classes. Therefore, it recommended that the proportion of
Brahmins shall not exceed 50 per cent.24 Parallel to and reinforcing these efforts
to reduce the representation of Brahmins were those to increase that of Muslims.

Non-Brahmin Pressures and British Response

In fact, from almost the beginning of British rule the non-Brahmin Hindus
were protesting against Brahmin dominance. The 1840 petition by 32 Panchalar
from Salem blamed the East India Company for succumbing to the willingness of
Brahmins by, among other things, conferring on them all the responsible public
offices, and prayed for employment of all classes of men alike without
distinction.25 Similar petitions of the subsequent years, though sporadic to begin
with, gathered momentum towards the close of the Nineteenth century.

23 G.O. Ms. No. 2491, (Revenue Department), 15th August 1911.

24 G.O. Ms. No.202, (Public Department), 12th February 1913. see Also K. Nambi Arooran,
Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism, 1905-1944, Madras, 1980, p.37.
25 H. Bower, Essay on Hindu Caste, Calcutta, 1851, pp.91-95.

84
 The education commission by exposing backwardness had observed that
"the most efficacious of all encouragements to the spread of education is that
supplied by the bestowal of public appointments upon educated candidates", and
that "unfortunately no level for raising education is less systematically applied".
This observation is also borne out by the statistics collected by the government in
1872, 1881, and 1886, in the context of Muslim employment. The representation
of non-Brahmin Hindus was only about 32 per cent in 1881, and had increased
only by 4 per cent since the preceding decade. Though by 1886 it had increased
considerably, it was mostly in posts on salaries of Rs.10 or less: In 1886 non-
Brahmin Hindus were 68.2 per cent of the total officials on salaries of Rs.10 or
less, and 33 per cent on salaries exceeding Rs.10. Reviewing the statistics in 1887
the Board of Revenue noted that in the disproportionate distribution of
employment non Brahmin Hindus were the worst sufferers."

The 1897 memorial by the Viswakulotharana Association, Madras,

submitting to the governor its "Kammala Condition Amelioration Bill" made the
following observations: “Kammalas constitute not less than one tenth of the total
Presidency population, but have no seat in the legislative council.” To accord to
them one is to secure them an agency to watch their interests; develop them in
different directions, and establish a good loyal power out of the forces within the
race". The exclusion of the country's vernaculars from the work of administration
has affected the progress of all classes of the people. As even the commonest nail
is imported, the Kammalas who were the suppliers of all the local wants are
placed in acute poverty. They are most deplorably backward in education, and
require stipends as a necessary incentive for education until they receive a due
share of public appointments; and special schools like the ones for Muslims and
Pariahs.26 In 1902 the Acharis (Kammalar) of Tirunelveli district pointed out that
public service was fully and skillfully shut out to them through the particular and
peculiar revenging spite of the Brahmins, and that surrounded by them the British
officials were being entirely misled.27

26 G.O.Ms. No.970, (Public Department), 20th July, 1897.

27 G.O.Ms. No.112, (Education Department), 2nd March 1903.

85
 One group, which has not figured in the discussion of non-Brahmin
Hindus, is the "depressed classes", comprising mostly the Panchamas and partly
the "hill tribes". Even as late as 1916, for a population of about 16.4 per cent their
representation was virtually nil in higher education, only less than 1 per cent in
secondary education, and about 8.8 per cent in primary education. With such
educational backwardness they could not have had any significant representation
in public service either. Nor could they have made any serious claim for such
representation, as they were fill-equipped to fill important government posts. That
probably explains the statistics on government employment.

Meanwhile, most of the petitions for inclusion in the backward classes list
for educational concessions, especially after the introduction of half-fee
concession in 1892 had also urged for representation in public service. More often
than not, the education department considered them favourably for inclusion in
the list.28 Their claims for representation in public service were, however,
overlooked. This could have been because either the petitions were not directly
for such representation, or the petitioners were not articulate enough as pressure
groups. However, this situation began to change since 1917 when a vocal and well
organized pressure group appeared on the scene. In understanding of this change
anticipates a close look at the non-Brahmin movement.

Though communal representation and reservations are often identified

with the non-Brahmin movement and the Indian Constitution respectively, the
evolution of the non-Brahmin movement itself was preceded by certain intricate
and elaborate processes of over half a century. These processes had direct bearing
on communal representation and reservations at the ideational and pragmatic
levels as functional imperatives of the colonial administration. The imperatives
were both tactical and moral. On the tactical side were considerations of the
stability and legitimacy of the British administration, as evident from its attempts
to draw on its side first the "influential class", and later the "alienated class"; its

28 P. Radhakrishnan, op.cit., pp.512-513.

86
apprehension of corruption, nepotism, favouritism, administrative dominance of
the "influential class", and belated attempts to prevent such dominance of the
"alienated class" as injurious to the most vital interests of the empire. On the
moral side was seemingly abiding concern for rendering justice to the
disprivileged section of the society through attempts at communal representation
and reservations on the ground that they could not compete on equal terms with
the "influential class", and the related dilemma to strike a balance between equity
and efficiency.

As the imperatives were often incompatible with each other, they resulted
in contradictions. Examples are the failures of the administration to ensure its
professed neutrality principle because of its exclusion of the lower castes for fear
of alienating the "influential class"; to honour its policy of absolute impartiality
because of its special treatment of "the alienated class" for fear of its disaffection;
and to stick to its repeated assertions against communal representations because of
their ad hoc introduction as part of its patronage politics. The long interface of this
period between the colonial administration and the local society created in the
non-Brahmin segments an increasing awareness of the close nexus between
English education and government employment, their own dis-privileged position
in both compared to the Brahmins, and the role of British administration as a great
dispenser of patronage. The recurrent themes in such interface were inferior
versus superior races, backward versus forward races, administrative stability, and
distribution of government patronage. Each group was concerned with its own
claims and reference to others was not for any concern for overall social justice or
equality, but for only justifying its own claims. There was also no composite
category of non-Brahmins as used in the context of the subsequent non-Brahmin
movement.

While all groups were eager to have a share of the government patronage,
only one group was equipped itself for doing so through competition by mastering
English though this language was as alien to it as to all others. Other groups
merely sought protection. This was especially so in the case of Kamma1ar, who

87
for several centuries maintained a struggle for a higher place in the social scale
than allotted to them by the brahminical authority,29 though unlike the Brahmins
they hardly made any effort for competition for the material and socio-cultural
benefits under successive rulers.

To conclude central to the issue on communal representation and reservation

of this period, the related administrative processes, and the non-Brahmin response
to them were the statistics collected from time to time. These made the non-
Brahmins and the British officials increasingly aware of the structural cleavages
in South Indian Society of Brahmin versus non-Brahmin, Hindus versus Muslims,
and so on. Such awareness in turn sharpened these cleavages, pitted the
non-Brahmins against the Brahmins, and gradually paved the way for the
Non-Brahmin Movement.

Simon Commission in Madras

Throughout the year 1928 the Congress boycotted the Simon Commission
by organizing hartals and demonstrations in the major cities like Bombay,
Calcutta and Madras.30 On the other side, the Adi-Dravida leaders like
B. R. Ambedkar, R. Srinivasan and M.C. Rajah, the Justice leaders like Pangal
Raja and Self - Respect leaders like E.V.Ramasamy appealed to the masses to
extend all co-operation to the Simon Commission.31 M.C. Rajah, as a member in
the Indian Central Committee,32 was able to easily gather the support to the Simon
Commission and influenced the British opinion for the cause of separate
electorates.

The Simon Commission arrived again at Madras on February 18, 1929 to

gather a full fledged opinion from the people.33 The non-Congressites, particularly

29 C.D. Maclean, (ed.), Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency,

Vol.II, New Delhi, 1989, p.229.
30 P.E. Mohan, Scheduled Castes : History of Elevation, Tamil Nadu, 1900-1955, Madras,
1993, p. 61.
31 Trilok Nath, Politics of the Depressed Classes, Delhi, 1987 pp. 94-95;
Junior Vikatan,(Tamil Weekly), Madras, September, 1990, p.14
32 S.R. Sangh Mittra, Bakshi, Non-Cooperation to Independence, 1920-1947, Common
Wealth Public, New Delhi, 2003, p. 55.
33 Unmai, 1 March, 1992, p. 16.

88
the Justicites, welcomed this move and ensured active co-operation to the
Commission.34 The Congressites condemned this warm response given by the
Justice ministry headed by P. Subbarayan on the advice of E.V.Ramasamy.35. On
the other hand, the Congress, with political motivation, organized a hurtle on the
day of Commission's visit to Madras in order to express their resentment.36 The
Justice Party presented a memorandum demanding special and separate
electorates.

Recommendations of the Simon Commission

Owing to the support received from the quarters of the Dravidans, the
Simon Commission easily garnered oral and written evidences in Tamilnadu for a
new constitutional experiment to the whole nation. It submitted its
recommendations to the British Parliament in 1929.37 It agreed that by
nominations, the Adi-Dravida representatives would not receive training in
politics, and at the same time it rejected the demand for separate electorate on the
ground that it would create animosities between the Adi-Dravidas and
caste-Hindus, besides leading to serious impediments to their ultimate political
amalgamation.

However, it accepted that in all eight provinces - Madras, Bombay,

Bengal, United Provinces, Punjab, Bihar and Orissa, Central Provinces and
Assam,38 there should be reservation for the depressed classes; and the number
should be three quarters of the proportion of the depressed class population to the
proportion of the electoral area of the province.39 Accordingly, in the Madras
Legislative Council fourteen seats were proposed for the depressed classes, even
though the Madras Government suggested only twelve seats for them, to the
Commission.

34 C.F. Andrews, India and the Simon Report, Delhi, 1930, p.22.
35 S. Muthusami Pillai, Neethikatchi Varalaru, (Tamil), Madras, 1985, p. 70.
36 T.A.V. Nathan, (ed.), Justice Year Book 1929, Section III, Madras, 1931, p.13.
37 Andhra Patrikan,17th August, 1932, M. N. N. R., 1932, p.733.
38 A.I.R., Vol.I, 1929, p.75.
39 Madras Legislative Council Proceedings, Vol. XL VI, 1929, p.633.

89
 B.R.Ambedkar and R.Srinivasan who attended the Round Table
Conference as the representatives of the depressed classes of India objected to use
the term 'depressed classes as (degrading and contemptuous) and suggested terms
like Protestant Hindus and non-conformist Hindus.40 The British Government, in
course of time, discarded the use of such names as they evoked the sense of ill
feelings and humiliation.

The British showed enough interest in the problems of the untouchables.41

In 1930, the alien government decided to enumerate the depressed classes in order
to improve their social and economic conditions in a schedule.42 During the 1931
Census Survey, a special committee was appointed to draw up a ‘Schedule’ of the
depressed classes who would be entitled to benefit in the future from
Government's special schemes.43 The British Indian Government appointed a
State Committee to list out the depressed castes in a schedule.

During the survey of 1931 Census, the officials used nine criteria to
identify the untouchables. They were
1. Whether the caste or class in question can be served by clean Brahmins or
not, [at marriage and death ceremonies]
2. Whether the caste or class in question can be served by the barbers, water
carriers, tailors, etc., who serve the caste,
3. Whether the caste in question pollutes a high caste Hindu by contact or by
proximity,
4. Whether the caste or class in question is one from whose hands a caste
Hindu can take water, [not food]
5. Whether the caste or class in question is debarred from using public
conveniences such as roads, ferries, wells and schools,
6. Whether the caste or class in question is in debarred from the use of Hindu
temples,

40 Dilip Hira, The Untouchables of India, London, 1982, p.5.

41 The Indian Journal of Social Work, January, 1992, p.40.
42 N.L. Madan, Congress Party and Social Change, Delhi, 1984, p.281.
43 The Indian Journal of Social Work, op.cit., pp.40-41

90
 7. Whether in ordinary social intercourse a well educated member of the
caste of class in question will be treated as an equal by high caste men of
the same educational qualification.
8. Whether the caste or class in question is merely depressed on account of
its own ignorance, illiteracy, poverty and but for that would be subjected
to no social disability.
9. Whether it is depressed on account of the occupation followed and
whether but for that occupation it would be subjected to no social
disability.44

In the light of the above facts, fifty million people were segregated as
untouchables in India. The term Scheduled Caste (SC) was officially adopted in
the Government of India Act of 1935.45 The term ‘SC’ is nowhere define in the
Constitution of India. The Indian Independence Act 1947, defined as: "The
Scheduled Castes mean such castes, the races or tribes or parts or groups, which
appear to the Governor General to correspond to the classes of persons formerly
known as the depressed classes as the Governor General may by order specify".46

Poorna Swaraj and 'Brahminocracy'

Meanwhile, in 1929 the British Government announced that on the
submission of the Simon Commission Report, a Round Table Conference would
be convened in London in which full opportunity would be given to Indian
representatives of all organizations for discussing matters connected with
communal representation.47 When the Government was silent on the demand of
Dominion Status and sidelined with communal reservation demand, the Congress,
at its Forty-fifth Annual Conference held at Lahore in 1929 under the presidential
of Jawaharlal Nehru, declared 'Poorna Swaraj' or complete independence as its

44 Report of the Commissioner for SCs and STs for the Period Ending, 31 December,
1951, Simla, 1961, p.8.
45 V.R.Krishna Iyer. Dr.Ambedkar and The Dalit Future, Delhi, 1990, p.58.
46 Manju Kumar, The Social Equality. The Constitutional Experiment in India,
New Delhi, 1982, pp.142-143.
47 A.I.R, Vol. II, 1932, p. 229.

91
ultimate goal.48 E.V.Ramasamy and his companions in Tamilnadu propagated
proportional communal representation as a theme of central issue in their mission.
E.V.Ramasamy. by writing and delivering speeches rejected the Congress view
that the proportionate communal electorate would augment social disorder.49 On
the contrary, he spread the idea that it would strengthen communal harmony by
minimizing competition and antagonism among the various castes.

E.V.Ramasamy criticized the demand of 'Complete Swaraj' and opined

that such kind of independence would lead the nation to 'Brahminoacracy'.50 He
openly ridiculed it thus: It is not 'Swarajya' but 'humbug rajya' and 'Brahmin
rajya'.51 He pointed out the political ascendancy of the Brahmins in the Central
Legislature as early as 1929. In fact in the Central Legislature the Brahmin
members represented mostly all the constituencies of Madras Presidency.

For instance, M.S. Sashay Iyengar represented Madurai, Ramnad and

Tirunelveli districts; A.Rengasami Iyengar represented Tiruchirappalli and
Thanjavur districts; M. K. Acharya represented Chengleput and South Arcot
districts; Madras by S. Srinivasa Iyengar, Chitoor district by Duraisami Iyerngar,
South Kanara and Malabar districts by K.V.Rangaswami Iyengar and
C.V.Venkataramana Iyengar represented Coimbatore, Salem and North Arcot
districts. Owing to their majority,52 the Brahmins in the Central Legislature
attempted to block all the progressive measures of the British Government
through different tactics.53 Thus E.V.Ramasamy mobilized masses in Tamilnadu
for the successful function of Simon Commission which was expected to make
recommendation for separate electorates to the weaker sections.

48 P. Ramamurthi, Viduthalai Porum Dravidar Iyakkamum,(Tamil), Madras, 1983, p. 81.

49 Kudi Arasu, 25 June, 1935.
50 The Modern Rationalist, February, 1992, pp. 26-27.
51 Viduduthalai, (Tamil), Madras, 7 October, 1948, and 15 May, 1954.
52 K. Veeramani, Congress Varalaru: Maraikkappadum Unmaikalum Karaipadinatha
Athiyayankalum, (Tamil), Madras, 1986, pp.154-158.
53 Jawaharlal Nehru, An Autobiography, New Delhi, 1962, p.14.

92
Communal Electorate in Tamilnadu
The Indian Central Committee, which was constituted to co-operate with
Simon Commission, entered into a general agreement and wanted to test the
principle of communal electorate to the depressed classes in the Madras
Presidency for a period of ten years. It considered them as educated, better
organised and altogether politically more advanced than in any other part of India.
M.C. Rajah, a member of Central Committee, however stressed that separate
electorate for ten years should not be furnished to Madras alone, but should be
applicable to all the provinces. On behalf of the Madras Provincial Depressed
Class Federation, R. Srinivasan expressed satisfaction with separate electorate as a
tentative and educative measure for ten years. However, he objected to the
possibilities of the depressed classes being represented by members of other
communities.54 He appreciated the idea of certification of candidates by the
governor testifying their qualification in education and experience for election to
the council.

As the Justice Party was the political alternative to the Congress in

Tamilnadu on the ground of social ideology and political interest and exigency, it
strongly accepted the recommendations of the Simon Commission. Thus the
arrival of Simon Commission exposed the socio-political issues between the
Brahmins and non-Brahmins on the one side. On the other side it revealed the
ideological Dravidiar, organizations in Tamil Nadu.

Census of 1931 and the Emergence of the Term ‘SCs’

The untouchables were economically enslaved, had no religious rights and
were subjected to social disabilities.55 During the British regime, various kinds of
terms namely depressed classes, exterior classes, untouchables, outcastes and
backward classes were adopted to denote the disabled groups.56 The term 'Harijan'

54 Trilok Nath, op.cit. pp.101-103.

55 G.L. Nanda, Plans and Prospects of Social Welfare in India, 1951-61, Delhi, 1963, p.170.
56 Walter Fernandes, (ed.), Inequality. Its Bases and Search for Solutions, New Delhi, 1988,
p.90.

93
was applied by Gandhi to denote the untouchable communities.57 For sometimes,
the term was popularly in vogue. Later, this was not liked by the untouchables.58
When the British Government extended concessions for their elevations, during
1930s,59 several castes applied for changing their names for achieving benefits.

Round Table Conferences

The British Government convened the Indian Round Table Conferences.60
The Justice Party urged the British Government to convene it at the earliest
possible.61 In the first session of the Round Table Conferences, met in London on
12 November, 1930, B.R.Ambedkar and R.Srinivasan projected ideas in favour of
the welfare of the depressed classes.62 Communal and sectional interests were
highly pronounced in the representation element of the Round Table
Conferences.63 The Madras Mahajana Sabha condemned the Round Table
Conferences and questioned the representative character of the Round Table
Conferences.64 The Tamils felt that the Round Table Conferences will carry out
works for framing a constitution for Dominion Status. They stressed the
importance of representing all interest and communities at the conference.65 While
the Indian leaders and representatives sat along with the representatives of the
British Government discussed the Indian problems, the INC did not take part in
the first session of the Conference, but they discussed about a common concern.66
In the first session of the Round Table Conferences, the terrible practice of
untouchability in India was discussed.67 Extension of political power and
representation in the legislatures for them to obtain their deprived rights and

57 Anup Chand Kapur, Select Constitutions, New Delhi, 1988, p.18.

58 C.R. Madan, Indian Social Problems. Social Disorganization and Reconstruction, Vol.I,
New Delhi, 1989, p.408.
59 Duarte Barreto, India's Search for Development and Social Justice, New Delhi, 1983,
p.63.
60 Anil Chandra Banerjee, The Constitutional History of India 1919-1977, Vol. III, Meerut,
1978, p.99.
61 F.N.R., March, 1930, p.1.
62 Indian Round Table Conference, 12 November, 1930 -19 January, 1931, Calcutta, 1931,
p.3.
63 F.N.R., September 1930, p.2.
64 F.N.R., 17 October 1930, p.2.
65 F.N.R., 4 July 1930, p.2.
66 K. Girija, Mookerjee, History of Indian National Congress, Delhi, 1974, p.35.
67 K. Thirunavukkarasu, Dravida Iyyakka Verhal, (Tamil), Chennai, 1991, p.247.

94
privileges were stressed.68 He got the sympathy of the British during the first
session of the Round Table Conferences.69 B.R. Ambedkar claimed that as the
British Government has not done anything to remove untouchability it should
consider the views of the public.70 The Conference appointed nine sub-
committees to study the various problems for framing a new constitution for
India.
The Minorities Sub-committee was formed to consider the claims of
various non-Brahmin groups. It was to consist of 39 members with Prime Minister
Ramsay MacDonald as its Chairman.71 They demanded that arrangements should
be made for communal representation and for fixed proportion of seats. There
were only three methods to secure such a representation in one way or the other
(1) nomination (2) joint electorates with reservation of seats, and (3) separate
electorate.

1. Nomination was unanimously dropped down.

2. Joint electorate was proposed with the proportion of reserved seats through
democratic form of elections. Doubts were raised over the security of the
representation of minorities under such system.
3. Though the depressed classes demanded separate electorates, there was a
problem in fixing the amount of communal representation in various
provinces and in the centre. The non-availability of unanimous opinion
made the problem a complicated one.72 It was agreed that the demands of
various communities to employment in the civil services should be
considered by Public Service Commissions at the centre and provinces.73

When the Government realised the necessity of adequate representation of

the depressed classes, the minorities and the depressed classes were from in their
demands and refused to accept any self-governing constitution for India unless

68 Ambedkar Priyan, Diwan nahadur 'Thaththa, Irattamali Srinivasan' (Tamil),

Chennai, p.70.
69 T.S. Kaliaperumal, Nattukku Ulaiththa Nallavar Dr. Ambedkar, (Tamil), Chennai, 1981,
pp.54-56 .
70 K.Thirunavukkarasu, op.cit., pp.139-144.
71 Indian Round Table Conference, 12 November, 1930 -19 January, 1931, op.cit., p.316.
72 Ibid., pp.316-318.
73 Ibid., pp.252-253.

95
their demands were met in a reasonable manner.74 So, the same problem ended
with same fate. In another dimension, Ambedkar claimed that the depressed
classes should be given equal treatment for electoral purposes as a separate group
from the general Hindu population.75 So, the Minorities Sub-committee failed to
arrive at a solution. The Prime Minister adjourned the Conference on 19 January,
1931.

The Hindus thought that the minor issue should not stand in the way of
Congress representation at the Round Table Conferences.76 When Gandhi-Irwin
Pact was signed on 5 March 1931,77 Gandhi agreed to take part in the second
session of the Round Table Conferences in London. During the second session of
the Conference Gandhi held series of informal meetings and no agreed solution
was found.78 He advocated that without touching the communal problem, the
Constitution should be framed. Tension arose between the groups. The leading
representatives of the Muslims, the depressed classes, the Indian Christians, the
Anglo-Indians and the resident British community as a counter action to the
congress proposal, demanded separate electorates.79 Without arriving a solution to
the communal problem, the second session came to an end on 1 December, 1931.

Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald felt that without finding a solution

to this communal minority under the new Constitution, no further advancement
could be made by them.80 So, the 'Communal Award' which envisaged separate
electorate for the depressed classes was announced. Mahatma Gandhi on 11
March, 1932 in his letter to the Secretary of State for India, Samuel Hoare,
informed that Communal electorate in the case of depressed classes will be
harmful for them as well as for Hinduism and it will disrupt the development of

74 T.B. Wilkinson, & Thomas, (eds.), Ambedkar and the Neo-Buddhist Movement, Madras,
1972, p.39.
75 Anil Chandra Banerjee, op.cit., p.101
76 F.N.R., 18 August, 1931, p.2.
77 P. Ramamurti, The Freedom Struggle and the Dravidian Movement, Madras,
1987, p.42.
78 F.N.R., 2 May, 1931, p.2.
79 R. Coupland, The Constitutional Problem in India, Bombay, 1944, p.23.
80 Yogendra Makwana, Dr. Dabasaheb Ambedkar - A Crusader Ambedkar and Social
Justice, Vol.I, New Delhi, 1992, p.52.

96
the Hindus as a whole. Therefore, he informed the British Government that if they
announced the separate electorate, he had no other go except committing “fast
unto death ... ".81

Samuel Hoare in a letter on 13 April, 1932 stated that before the

submission of the report the Franchise Committee under the Chairmanship of
Lord Lothian, no decision could be arrived about the minorities.82 The decision
would be upon the merits of the case.

On November 12, 1930 Ambedkar and R.Srinivasan of Tamil Nadu were

given the chance to represent in the Indian Round Table Conference on behalf of
the Depressed Classes while framing the Constitution for India. The work of the
Conference was distributed among nine committees.83 One of those was known as
the minority committee which was to deal with the most difficult work of finding
a solution to the communal question related to Muslims, the Depressed Classes,
the Anglo-Indians, and the Europeans. The minorities insisted that their position
under "Swaraj" should be safeguarded by allowing them special representation in
the legislature. Ambedkar submitted a memorandum to the minority committee
demanding, among others, the right to adequate representation in the
legislatures,84 the right to elect their own men as their representatives and
adequate representation in services for the "untouchables".

Communal Award of 1932

Even after the two Round Table Conferences the Indians could not arrive
at an agreed resolution on the communal representation issue. Ramsay Mac
Donald, the Prime Minister announced, on the discussion over the Simon
Commission's recommendations the Communal Award on August 17, 1932 which
favoured separate electorate.85 The Communal Award gave the untouchables two
benefits, viz., a fixed quota of seats to be elected by a separate electorate of

81 T.S. Kaliaperumal, op.cit., pp.24-25.

82 Yogendra Makwana, Dr. Dadasahep Ambedkar – A Crusader Ambedkar and Socail Justice,
Vol. I, New Delhi, 1992, p.53.
83 Ibid, p.52.
84 Karuppiah, op.cit., p.p.24-25.
85 Vasant Moon, Dr.Dadasahep Ambedkar:Writings and Speeches, Vol.IX, Delhi, 1987, p.759.

97
untouchables and to be filled by the untouchables86 and a double vote, one to be
used through separate electorate and the other to be used in general electorate.

Provision of the Communal Award

1. The scheme fixed the number of seats in the Provincial legislatures
approximately double the number in the existing councils.
2. Separate electorate was retained for the minority communities, particularly
for the Muslims and the Sikhs.
3. About 3 per cent of the seats in each Provincial legislature except that of
the North-West Frontier Province were reserved for women.
4. The depressed classes were to have a separate electorate with two votes in
order to ascertain their membership of the Hindu community should
remain untouched. This was facilitated to maintain the solid votes of the
higher caste candidates. They were deliberately resisted the creation of
communal electorate, so, they were given two votes.87 Thus, in any way
the unity of Hindu society was preserved.

It gave two major benefits (i) a fixed number of candidates were to be

elected by separate electorate of untouchables and should be filled by persons
belonging to the same community and (ii) double vote had been given to them to
exercise one through separate electorate and the other to be exercised through
general constituencies.88 Communal Award was announced to save the depressed
classes from the age-old disabilities and to substitute other electoral arrangements
by an agreement of the communities themselves.

Protest of Gandhi to Communal Award

On 9 September, 1932, Gandhi again wrote a letter to him without any
arguments about his fast unto death and commenced it on 20 September, 1932 as
unaccepted the cessation of separate electorate to the depressed classes.89 Ramsay
MacDonald declared that the problems like the communal question should be

86 G.S. Chur, Caste and Race in India, Bombay, 1969, p. 53.

87 R Coupland, op.cit., p.128.
88 Yogendra Makwana, op.cit., p.57.
89 Tamil Arasu, April, 1991, p.3.

98
solved in India itself.90 This became a great shock throughout the country.
Everybody desired to save Gandhi's life. British Government was firm in its
decision and made it clear that they would not withdraw it or alter it unless the
caste Hindus and the depressed classes reached an agreement. B.R.Ambedkar was
on the other hand firm in his decision for the rights of the untouchables.91

The attitude of Gandhi towards the claims of depressed classes for

separate representation had far reaching effect in the Madras City. It resulted in
open manifestations of Adi-Dravida hostility to the Congress. One clash ended in
pelting stones at Congress picketers. Attempts were made to bum the petty shops
and the figure of Gandhi made out of wood was hanged and burnt in an Adi
Dravida's hamlet. Similar tension was reported in many parts of the Presidency.92

The British Government accepted Ambedkar's demands. Gandhiji resisted

the grant of separate electorate for the depressed classes on the ground that such
an arrangement would make their lives miserable in villages which are the
strongholds of Hindu orthodoxy. According to him, it is the upper class of Hindus
who have to do penance for having neglected the untouchables for ages. That
penance would be done by active social reforms but not by giving separate
electorate. Gandhi further stated that "Separate electorates will ensure them
bondage in perpetuity. The Mussalmans will never cease to be Mussalmans by
having separate electorates. Do you want the untouchables to remain untouchables
forever?" The other reasons which were placed against the demand for separate
electorates are the untouchables were not minorities; they were Hindus and,
therefore, they could not have separate electorates; the system of separate
electorates was anti-national and would enable British imperialism to influence
these communities having separate electorates to act against the interests of the
country. Ambedkar said these arguments against separate electorates were not
only insubstantial but also unsupportive. He said Gandhi could not give a logical
and consistent defense of his opposition to the special representation for the

90 F.N.R., 3 February 1931, pp.2-3.

91 Rakesh, History of Freedom Struggle in India 1800-1947, Madurai, 1977, p.72.
92 F.N.R., 4 November, 1931, p.2.

99
untouchables. Gandhi told the British Government that if separate electorates for
the depressed classes were not withdrawn, he would fast unto death. The British
made it clear that they would not withdraw them or alter them of their own, but
that they were ready to substitute them by a formula that might be agreed to by the
caste-Hindus and the untouchables.

Gandhi began his fast unto death on September 20, 1932 and Ambedkar
was in a dilemma. Then he decided to save Gandhi's life by agreeing to alter the
Communal Award in a manner satisfactory to the latter. The modified version of
the Communal Award is known as the Poona Pact. The Poona Pact is an
important historic agreement, which was signed on September 24, 1932 between
the non Harijan Hindu leaders and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in the Yeravada jail. The
main reason for the agreement was to suppress the Communal Award announced
by the British Government under the Prime Ministership of Ramsay MacDonald
and to save the life of Mahatma Gandhi who undertook a fast unto death against
the political rights granted to the untouchables in the Communal Award.
Dr. Ambedkar was not in favour of any agreement but he had to yield to the
preseure of the Congress leaders to save Gandhi's life.

The Communal Award had given reservation to the untouchables in the

legislature under a separate electorate system, but the Poona Pact paved the way
for more facilities, such a adult franchise, educational opportunities,
representation in services, etc., besides representation in legislature.93 Ambedkar
was unhappy about Gandhiji's opposition to separate electorate for the
untouchables; and, at the same time, Gandhi agreed for such provision for the
Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans, Mahomedans and Sikhs. It is also
important to note that even the untouchable leader of the south, M.C. Raja,
opposed the Communal Award on two grounds, viz. i.e.,94 the depressed classes
would gain lesser number of seats than they were entitled to on the populations
basis, and that the depressed classes would be separated from the Hindu fold.

93 L.R Balley, (ed), Dr.Ambedkar on Poona Pact, Jallandur, 1973, pp.55-56.

94 M.N.N.R, August 1932, p.702.

100
Poona Pact (1932)
Gandhi’s protest led to the negotiations between the representative of the
caste Hindus and the depressed classes.95 Different leaders assembled at the
Central Prison Yerawada to find out a solution to this burning problem of the
nation.96 On 25 September, 1932 an agreement was signed between the depressed
classes and the caste Hindus in the name of “Poona Pact”.97

Impact of the Poona Pact

1. Reservation of seats was made out of the classified general seats in the
Award.
2. Under the Poona Pact, double the numbers of seats were reserved.

The reserved would be filled by a form of double election. All members of

the depressed classes would elect a panel of four candidates belonging to their
own body. Among the four persons who would receive the highest number of
votes in the primary election would be eligible for contesting the election to the
reserved seat.98 But the candidate finally elected to the reserved seat would be
elected by the general electorate, i.e., by caste-Hindus and by members of the
depressed classes alike.

The Franchise Committee prescribed qualifications for Provincial franchise.

(1) Besides the property and educational qualifications, certain special
qualifications were made to secure an adequate representation of women
and to enfranchise approximately 10 per cent of the depressed classes.
(2) It was also proposed to enfranchise retired, pensioned and discharged
officers, non-commissioned officers and men of Regular Forces.
(3) Special electoral arrangements were made for the seats reserved for special
interests, such as labour, landlords and commerce.

95 Tamil Arasu, August, 1988, p.21.

96 M. Niranjan Kilhani, India's Road to Independence 1857-1947, New Delhi,1987,
pp.90-93.
97 Ambedkar and Social Justice, Vol.I, Government of India, New Delhi, 1992, pp.149-156.
98 Report of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform (Session 1933-34),
Vol.I, London, 1934, p.66.

101
(4) The individual qualifications varied according to the circumstances of the
different provinces.

The Franchise Committee recommended direct election by territorial

constituencies in the case of the various communities, which represented special
interests. These proposals were accepted by the white paper.99 Special
representations were made in the white paper for landlords, commerce and
industry, university and labour, which were regarded as striking a just balance
between the claims the various interests and as affording an adequate
representation for them.100 Poor and of the labouring classes were adequately
safeguarded under the proposals embodied in the white paper.

It paved the way for the formation of the future Indian Constitution based
on the form of federation. Both the Houses of Parliament were invited to set up a
Joint Select Committee to consider those proposals in consultation with Indian
representatives and to make report on them.101 After that, the British Government
would be requested to introduce a Bill embodying their own final plans.
Generally, demands were raised the more representation of the non Brahmins in
the educational institutions and employment opportunities. When the non-
Brahmins got educated they demanded their chances in all the fields.
E.V.Ramasamy advocated that if the fixed minimum qualification would be
possessed by a downtrodden candidate, he should be given the job opportunity.102
According to him, the community, which had low representation in the
Government services should be treated as the minorities. So, they should be given
statutory recognition, protection and safeguards.103 He stressed that for getting
more opportunities in the public services, special concessions should be extended
to them.

99 Report on the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform (Session 1933-34),

op.cit., p.71.
100 Ibid., p.72.
101 Ibid., p.284.
102 Periyar E.V.Ramasamy, Why Brahmins Hate Reservation? Madras, 1983, p.15.
103 Ibid., p.14.

102
 In the Legislative Assembly, the Government of India reviewed the
reservation scheme followed since 1925 which failed in its objective. The Poona
Pact promised due share of the depressed classes in the public services.
Accordingly, a resolution was passed by the Government of India in 1934 to
secure reasonable representation of Muslims, Anglo-Indians and Domiciled
Europeans, Depressed Classes and other minority communities. The following
rules were prescribed to follow for making the recruitment of Indian Civil
Services and the Central and Board of Revenue dinate Services.
(i) 25 per cent of vacancies were reserved for Muslims in direct recruitment
and 8.33 per cent for other minority communities.
(ii) The recruitment was made by open competition method. If Muslims or the
other minority communities obtained less than the prescribed percentage,
they would be selected by nomination. On the contrary, if they would have
been secured more than the prescribed percentage of representation, no
reduction would be made in the percentage fixed for other minority
communities.
(iii) If qualified candidates were not available even for nomination among the
minority groups, the residue of the fixed minority percentage Muslims
were entitled to use it.
(iv) In the fixed percentage for minorities, there was no fixed proportion
among them.
(v) Minimum eligible qualifications would be imposed for enjoying these
reserved vacancies.
(vi) In order to secure fair representation of the Muslims and minorities,
nomination was being made. Such nominated members would not count
against the reserved percentages as per the above mentioned quota.

By this resolution, Anglo-Indians and Domiciled Europeans were given

their due share. So, the Government remarked that no reservation was necessary.
If their representation decreased from 9 per cent, it would have been required to
protect their legitimate share.

103
 Certain modifications were made for recruitment which was made by local
areas and not on an All-India basis. For example, Board of Revenue denote posts
in the Railways, Post and Telegraph Departments, Customs Service, Income Tax
Department etc., for the Anglo-Indians and Domiciled Europeans
8.33 per cent of the vacancies were reserved for them. Other than the Muslims and
the Anglo-Indians 6 per cent of seats were reserved to safeguard the interest of
minorities. It would be made by direct recruitment.104 Anglo-Indians were
preferably appointed in the Appraising Department and in the Superior Preventive
Service at the major posts, which required technical qualifications.

Government of India Bill

According to the Government of India Bill of 1935 reserved a number of
seats to various communities and interests. For the Province of Madras 37 seats
were allocated. Among them, 19 were specified as general seats, of which 4 seats
were reserved for the SCs exclusively, 8 seats were reserved for Muhammedans, 1
for Anglo-Indians, 1 for Europeans, 2 for Indian Christians, 2 for representatives
of Commerce and Industry, 1 for landholders, 1 for representatives of labour and
2 seats were reserved for women.

Method of Election
Voting was made with the principle of proportional representation by
means of the single transferable vote.105 Certain provisions were adopted for
filling the seats by the representatives of commerce and industry, landholders,
labour and similar to that the general seats.The Act of 1935 provided a bi-cameral
system of Legislature. The number of members in the Legislative Assembly was
increased from 98 to 215.106 Thirty seats were reserved for the SCs in the general
Hindu Constituencies. It was the first time; the SCs were classified on the basis of
untouchability.107 Further, separate representation was given to the Muslims, the
Sikhs, the Anglo-Indians, the Europeans and the Indian-Christians. Again, seats

104 No.F.14/l7-B/33. Government of India Resolution, Establishment (General), 4 July, 1934.

105 Government of India Bill, New Delhi, 1935, pp.255-260.
106 M.S. Muthuswamy, K. Kamaraj – A Socio-Political Study, Madras, 1988, p.26.
107 P.E. Mohan, op.cit., p.12:3.

104
were reserved for commerce, industry, mining, and plantations, among
landholders, labour and universities. It was again for the first time, seats were
reserved exclusively for women hailing from the Hindu, the Muslim, the Sikh, the
Anglo-Indian and the Indian Christian communities.108 The other reservation
included one for backward areas and tribes, 28 for the Muslims, 2 for the Anglo-
Indians, 3 for the Europeans, 8 for the Indian Christians, 6 for the representatives
of Commerce and Industry, 6 for the landholders, one for the University, 6 for
labour and 8 for women of whom 6 were general constituencies.109

The Legislative Council was to consist of not less than 54 and not more
than 56 members consisted of 35 general seats, 7 seats for Muslim one for
European, 3 for Indian Christians and not less than 8 and not more than 10
nominated members by the Governor.110 Franchise for women were given on the
basis of property qualification. Voting right was also given to wives of deceased
landholders or wives of armed personnel or pensioned widows. The Government
of India Act of 1935 provided special consideration for SCs by relaxing the age
from 25 to 27 for admitting them to public services. At the beginning, it was
confined to only subordinate Services,111 but later on it was extended to the State
Medical Services increasing the age limit to 35 years.

Legislative Assembly Election in the Madras Presidency in 1937

After passing the Act of 1935, election was held in 1937. The Congress,
the Justice Party and the Muslim League were the prominent political parties
contested the election.112 It was an effective election campaign on the part of the
Justice Party and the Congress in the Madras Presidency. Congress activity had
been in considerable progress in respect of both the general election campaign and
the local body elections.113 Many of the prominent Indian Congress leaders toured

108 A.T.Philip, & Sivaji Rao, Indian Government and Politics,p.35.

109 K.V. Ramasubramania Ayyar, Government of India Act 1935 (Tamil), Vol.I, Madurai,
1936, pp.43-47.
110 Ibid., Vol. II, p.38. Until 1933, there was no relaxation in age and marks [G.O.Ms. 615,
(Public Department), 24 July 1933].
111 G.O.Ms. No.615, (Public Department), 24th July., 1933
112 Anil Chandra Banerjee, op.cit., p.61.
113 F.N.R., 18 November, 1936, p.l.

105
all over the country including the Madras Presidency.114 The Congress Party got
majority victory. The following table will show it clearly.

TABLE No. 6: Legislative Assembly Election Results in the Madras

Presidency in 1937 115

Muslim League
Peoples Party
Justice Party

Independent
Progressive
Total Seats

Congress

Muslim

Party
Constituency

General (Open) 116 111 3 - - - 2

General (SC) 30 26 2 - - - 2
Muhammedan 28 4 8 - 9 1 6
Christian 8 3 4 - - - 1
European &
5 - - - - - 5
Anglo-Indian
Women 8 7 - - - - 1
European Commerce
Department 4 - - - -- - 4

Indian Chamber of
Commerce 1 - - - - - 1

Nattukkottai
Nagarathars 1 - 1 - - - -

Landlords 6 - 3 1 - - 2
Labour 6 6 - - - - -
University 1 1 - - - - -
Backward Tribes 1 1 - - - - -
Total 215 159 21 1 9 1 24

114 The Hindu, 1 February, 1937.

115 C.J. Baker, The Politics of South India 1920-1937, New Delhi, 1976, p.311.

106
 The Communal G.O.s, which were passed during the first Justice Ministry
did not grant due share to the depressed classes: The main objective of the Justice
Party was to capture power from the hands of the Brahmins. After assuming
office, they never shared power with the other sections and failed to fulfill the
needs of the masses. They failed to promote social changes. They showed little
interest in the social reform works. The Justice Party lacked the dynamic
leadership and well established organisation. The Justice Party was not able to
compete with the other two national level parties. Depressed people considered
that the Brahmin dominated Congress Party was better than the Justice Party.
Hence, the party got strengthened.116 The Justice Party failed to get the support of
the Muslims.117 Further, disunity and disaffection among the justices brought
disintegration in promulgating the policies of the party. This led to the defeat of
the party.118 Rajas and Zamindars, who led the party, were not able to hold
together the masses for long.119 A few castes which were traditionally dominant in
several localities, dominated the party.

The Role of Communal Representation or the Roster System

In 1928, 12 point roster system was followed.120 The roster would be first
applied to any such service, class or category determined by the local
Government. If qualified candidates would not be available in any such
community, the qualified candidate belonged to the next category would be
eligible. The former community would have been preferable to claim in the
subsequent recruitments.121 If there were two or more communities, having a
preferential claim that communities should be received first considerations in the
next recruitment. Transfer and promotion should be made irrespective of any

116 V.M. Krishnamurthy, History of Tamilnadu. Political, Constitutional and Cultural.

A.D. 1565-1970, Vol.II, Neyyoor, 1983, p.299.
117 J.B.P.More, The Political Evolution of Muslims in Tamilnadu and Madras 1930-1947,
Hyderabad, 1997, p.129.
118 P. Venugopal, Justice Party and Social Justice, Madras, 1992; p41.
119 A.N. Sattanathan, The Dravidian Movement in Tamilnadu and its Legacy, Periyar
E.V.Ramaswamy Endowment Lectures, Madras University, 1981, Madras, 1982, p.17.
120 Supra., Chapter II, p.1l7.
121 G.O.Ms. No.947, (Public (Services) Department), 10th September, 1934.

107
communal consideration. So, the rule of communal rotation would be applied to
initial recruitment.

Since, the depressed classes, who met many difficulties in the socio
economic fronts, were ear-marked as 'others' for utilizing the reserved
opportunities. So, the other classes were grouped with non-Brahmin Hindus for
the purpose.122 The scheme of communal representation put into effect the method
of communal rotation and the method of communal proportion. By the roster
system, adequate representation of all communities could be made in the public
service offices. Since 1935, statutory recognition was given to the SCs, the
Government granted concessions liberally to these classes.123 In 1936, the age
relaxation was extended to 35 for them in the State Medical Service, while it was
provided 30 years for others.

Separate Communal Representation Order for Madras Non-Brahmins

From 1936 onwards under the “Separate representation order for Madras
non-Brahmins” the British government made reservation to the non-Brahmins
including the SCs in the office of all the central government departments located
in the Madras Presidency.124 But, the scheme was abolished in free India after
1947.

Representation by Increasing the Age-Limit

In order to implement the representation and to facilitate the recruitment of
minority communities, the government raised the age-limit for certain services.
For the Madras Civil Services, 25 years was fixed as the age limit for the
Mohammedans and the SCs. For the Madras Co-operative Service and
Co-operative Subordinate Services 27 was fixed as the age limit for the
Mohammedans and the SCs. For the subordinate services of engineering for the
Class III category supervisors 28 was fixed as the age limit for the Mohammedans

122 Idem.
123 G.O.Ms. No.1077, (Public (Services) Department), 15th June, 1936.
124 V. Anaimuthu, Amend the Constitution Guaranteeing Proportional Reservation to all
Segments, Madras, 1993, p.5.

108
and the SCs. For Madras Ministerial Services 27 was fixed for the
Mohammedans, the SCs, the Anglo-Indians, the Christians and the
non-Asiatic. For the Madras Secretariat Services, 27 were fixed for the SCs.125

It was prescribed that for the post of Provincial Service, each applicant had
to pay Rs.15/-, for the subordinate Services, Rs.10/- for any post. The maximum
application fee was Rs.50/- and the minimum Rs.5/-.126 The Government of
Madras proclaimed that the SCs were exempted from paying the application fee,
on the condition that they should be obtained intermediate course or a degree in
Arts of the University of Madras or of the Andhra or Annamalai University. This
concession would be in force for a period of three years from first January,
1939.127 Age relaxation was made to help the SCs to make use of the chances
provided in the communal representation and came over the age old difficulties.128

The Committee appointed under the Chairmanship of Tej Bahadur Sapru

in November, 1944, to examine the whole of communal and minorities question
from the Constitutional and political point of view.129 In 1945, it recommended
many things along with the formation of an independent Minority Commission at
the centre and each province,130 which should be represented by the members of
each community. The Committee suggested that in the Union Legislature, total
strength will consist of 10 per cent reserved members of the landholders,
commerce and industry, labour and women. The remaining seats would be
distributed among various communities namely, the Hindus, other than the SCs,
the Muslims and the Sikhs, the Indian Christians, the Anglo-Indians and other
communities. Similarly, the executive of the union should be represented the
communities of the Hindus, the Muslims, the Sikhs, the Indian Christians and the
Anglo-Indians.131

125 G.O.Ms. No.2215, (Public (Services) Department), 18th November, 1937.

126 G.O.Ms. No.1964, (Public (Services) Department), 16th October, 1937.
127 G.O.Ms. No.27, (Public (Services) Department), 6th January, 1939.
128 G.O.Ms. No.1249, (Public (Services) Department), 20th July, 1938.
129 Kamalesh Kumar Wadhwa, Minority Safeguards in India, Constitutional Provisions and
their Implementations, Delhi, 1975, p.30.
130 Idem.
131 Ibid., p.31.

109
 The Cripps Proposal recommended certain number of members from all
communal interest groups. The following table will show the membership
prescribed by the two committees.132
Table No. 7: Number of Representatives in the Constituent Assembly

Number of Representatives in the Constituent

Communities Assembly
Cripps Proposal Proposal of the Sapru Committee
Hindus 77 51
Muslims 50 51
Scheduled Castes 15 20
Sikhs 3 8
Indian Christians 2 7
Anglo-Indians 1 2
Europeans 6 1
STs 2 3
Individual - 16
Others 2 1
Total 158 160

Both the proposals advocated the system of joint-electorates. For the

Universities, Landlords, Industries and Commerce, there was no prescribed
communal representation for them. Ambedkar rejected the formation of the
Constituent Assembly, on the basis of representation.133 Both the reports of the
committees were not given due support.

The Government encouraged the SCs by giving them age concessions and
reduction of prescribed fee. It also fixed the number of reserved seats hoping that
to stimulate by obtaining better qualifications. The Government allotted
8.33 per cent of vacancies in 1943 to the SCs through direct recruitment on All
India basis whereas; their population was 12.5 per cent. If they did not obtain their

132 B.R. Ambedkar, Thadaihalum, Viduthalayum, (Tamil), Chennai, 1984, p.2l.

133 Ibid., p.17

110
due share in the open competition they would be nominated to fill their vacancies.
Even if there was no qualified candidate for nomination, the vacancies reserved
for such candidates would be treated as unreserved.134 Three years age relaxation
was given to SC candidates. These rules were applied to the temporary vacancies
also.

Cabinet Mission Plan and its Proposals

Subsequently, certain proposals were offered by the Cabinet Mission Plan
in 1946.
The Cabinet plan rejected the demand of the partition of India on the
ground that it would not solve the communal problem.
For the formation of the Constituent Assembly, it proposed that
(a) Each province should have representation in proportion to its population.

(b) Such a kind of representation would be distributed into various

communities in proportion to their population in a province and

(c) The members should be elected by the provincial assemblies on the basis

of communal electorates.

The Cabinet Mission Plan decided that the Constituent Assembly was to
be elected indirectly by the Provincial Legislatures. Madras Province came under
the group A states. Each province was allotted seats on the basis of the population
and distributed among the three communities namely the Muslims, the Sikhs and
general including the Hindus and all others to their proportion in the total
population. It advocated indirect elections by the Provincial Legislative
Assemblies. Members were to be elected by the representatives of each
community in their respective legislative assemblies. 296 members were to be
elected from the Provinces by the various communities as mentioned below:

134 Resolution No.23/5/42- Ests(s) Government of India Resolution, Home Department,

New Delhi, 11 August, 1943.

111
 Hindus - 163
Muslims - 80
Anglo-Indians - 3
Indian Christians - 6
Paresis - 3
Sikhs - 4
SCs - 31
Backward Tribes - 6
---------------------
Total 296
--------------------
After the election, the Constituent Assembly was formed. In the first
meeting of the Constituent Assembly out of the 296 members, 210 attended the
meeting in the preliminary session. Among them, the Hindus constituted 155
members, 30 SC representatives and 14 Muslim representatives attended the
sessions.
Under the 3 June, 1947 plan: due to the proposal of the partition of the
country the membership was reduced to 324, of which 235 represented the
Provinces and 89 the Indian States. Hyderabad State did not send its reserved
seats of 16 representatives to the Constituent Assembly at any stage. So, out of the
remaining 308 seats 277 put their signatures on 26 November, 1949, declaring
that it was the final draft. The minority communities were given seats as given
below:
Muslims - 36
Sikhs - 6
Anglo-Indians - 3
Parsis - 3
Christians - 6
-----------------
Total 54
-----------------

Thus, constitutional arrangements were also made regarding

reservation.135

135 The Muslim League first accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan, later rejected it on 29 June
1946. It wanted to observe "Direct Action Day" on 16 August 1946. So, Lord Mountbatten
was sent to replace Lord Wavell to tackle the Hindu - Muslim problem. He proposed a plan
on 3 June, 1947. It envisaged the division of India into two, India and Pakistan respectively.
It was materialized by enacting the Indian Independence Act of 1946.

112
Communal Representation in 1940s and the 1947 Communal G.O. in the
Madras Presidency
T.Prakasam, the Chief Minister of the Madras Presidency (1946-47),

vehemently opposed the Communal G.O. and stood for efficiency and

intelligence. During his Chief Ministership, a G.O. was issued to reserve

20 per cent of seats in educational institutions and government jobs for "open

competition" and this 20 per cent was filled up by the Brahmins. Hence, most of

the seats in the medical and engineering colleges were occupied by the Brahmin

candidates. His successor O.P.Ramaswamy Reddiar (1947-49) supported the

Communal G.O.136 Though, the Congress Party did not support the scheme of

reservation and the Communal G.O., it took interest in allotting more number of

seats for Depressed Classes. It believed that Communal G.O., differentiates the

people of India into various caste groups and thereby causes the decline of

communal harmony and national integrity.137 As Gandhi wished to eradicate

untouchability and uplift the Harijans, the Congress Government took efforts to

render justice to them.

In 1940s, E. V.Ramasamy Naicker struggled for exclusive reservation for

Backward Classes (BCs).138 The Backward Classes League, founded in 1933, by a
memorandum in 1944 pointed out that the forward non-Brahmins utilised all the
opportunities in the name of BCs. So, they wanted to follow a revised scheme.139
The Congress Government issued a G.O. in 1947. Accordingly, the scheme of
reservation was rearranged as follows:140

136 G. Thangavelu, & R.Prathaban, Communal Reservations and Constitutional,

Safeguards in Tamilnadu, Madurai, 1999, p.37.
137 David Arnold, The Congress in Tamil Nadu, New Delhi, 1977, pp.32-37.
138 V. Anaimuthu, op.cit., p.17.
139 Tamil Arasu, December 1993 to January 1994, p.9.
140 G.O.Ms. No.3437, (Public Department), 21st January 1947.

113
 No. of vacancies
reserved
Brahmins : 14% 2
Hindu Non-Brahmins (Forward) : 44% 6
Hindu Non-Brahmins (Backward) : 14% 2
Mohammedans : 7% 1
Indian Christians & Anglo-Indians : 7% 1
Scheduled Castes : 14% 2
---------- -------------
100 14
---------- -------------

This G.O. which continued up to 1950 was revised. The 1947 Communal
G.O. was a significant one, because, for the first time the non-Brahmin Hindu
category was divided into two, non-Brahmin Hindus and non-Brahmin Backward
Hindus. The bifurcation was made on the basis of the existing caste lists for
educational purposes. The category non-Brahmin Hindu was consisted of the
forward Vellala, Naidu, Chettiar, Reddy, etc. No resentment arose against this
bifurcation.141 After 1947, 20 point roster system replaced the 14 point roster
system. By the 1947 Communal G.O., the Government recognized 'BCs' as a
category,142 eligible for separate turns in the order of communal rotation for
recruitment to public services.

SCs demanded two vacancies in 14 appointments exclusively for them. In

1942, reservation was made on population basis and 12 per cent143 was reserved
for them. The following table shows the employed SCs in the Government
services.

141 Report of the Backward Commission, Part-II, Vol.IV, Government of India,

Delhi, 1980, p.148.
142 Vide Appendix - II, p.12.
143 Administrative Report of the Madras Presidency, 1930-31 and 1940-41, Madras, 1932
and 1942, pp.108, 147.

114
TABLE No. 8: Demand for increasing percentage of Reservation
Gazetted in Non-Gazetted Above Rs.35/-
Less than
Year Provincial over and below
Rs.35/-
Services Rs.100/- p.m. 100/- p.m

1930-31 2 7 103 1818

1940-41 11 39 144 2161

Increase in Central Government Communal Representation

In June, 1946 the percentage of reservation was raised from 8.33 to 12.5 in
proportion to their population under the administration of the Government of
India.

After Indian Independence the communal rules were revised and the
reservation of communities other than the SCs should be withdrawn. For the SCs,
the then existing reservation of 12.5 per cent continued. In the case of recruitment
by open competition, it was laid down that 16.66 per cent of the vacancies should
be reserved for members of the SCs. For the Muslims 13.5 per cent and for other
communities 10 per cent of reserved seats were continued. Reservations for SCs
were made on the basis of the 1941 Census.144 In 1947, the Government of India
also considered the question of tribal recruitment. Since, they were too backward,
reservations of seats were not made for them in Central Government Services.
However, instructions were issued for appointing authorities to recruit suitable
candidates if available from the tribal communities.145 In 1949, further orders
were issued to give age and fee concessions for the Tribal and for the SCs.

It is noted that, when the freedom movement was going on and

Constitutional development were undertaken, simultaneously there was a parallel
movement for the representation of members of various communities in
legislative bodies and public sectors.

144 Report of the Commissioner for SCs/STs for the period ending, 31 December, 1951,
Simla, 1961, pp.23-24.
145 Ibid., p.24

115