Dravidian Movement

Dravidian politics is the main political ideology in Tamil Nadu that seeks to safeguard the rights of the Dravidian peoples.

Dravidian politics started in British India with the formation of the Justice Party on 20 November 1916 in Victoria Public Hall in Madras by C. Natesa Mudaliar along with T. M. Nair and P. Theagaraya Chetty as a result of a series of non-Brahmin conferences and meetings in the presidency.

Communal division between Brahmins and non-Brahmins began in the presidency during the late-19th and early-20th century, mainly due to caste prejudices and disproportionate Brahmins representation in government jobs. The Justice Party's foundation marked the culmination of several efforts to establish an organisation to represent the non-Brahmins in Madras Presidency.

Background

Brahmin/non-Brahmin divide

The Brahmins in Madras Presidency enjoyed a higher position in India's social hierarchy. By the 1850s, Telugu Brahmins and Tamil Brahmins comprising only 3.2% of the population began to increase their political power by filling most of the jobs which were open to Indian men at that time. They dominated the administrative services and the newly created urban professions in the 19th and early 20th century. The higher literacy and English language proficiency among Brahmins were instrumental in this ascendancy. The political, social, and economical divide between Brahmins and non-Brahmins became more apparent in the beginning of the 20th century. This breach was further exaggerated by Annie Besant and her Home Rule for India movement. The following table shows the distribution of selected jobs among different caste groups in 1912 in Madras Presidency.

The dominance of Brahmins was also evident in the membership of the Madras Legislative Council. During 1910–20, eight out of the nine official members (appointed by the Governor of Madras) were Brahmins. Apart from the appointed members, Brahmins also formed the majority of the members elected to the council from the district boards and municipalities. During this period the Madras Province Congress Committee (regional branch of the Indian National Congress) was also dominated by Brahmins. Of the 11 major newspapers and magazines in the presidency, two ('' The Madras Mail'' and ''Madras Times'') were run by Europeans sympathetic to the crown, three were evangelical non–political periodicals, four (''The Hindu'', ''Indian Review'', ''Swadesamithran'' and ''Andhra Pathrika'') were published by Brahmins while New India, run by Annie Besant was sympathetic to the Brahmins. This dominance was denounced by the non-Brahmin leaders in the form of pamphlets and open letters written to the Madras Governor. The earliest examples of such pamphlets are the ones authored by the pseudonymous author calling himself "fair play" in 1895. By the second decade of the 20th century, the Brahmins of the presidency were themselves divided into three factions. These were the Mylapore faction comprising Chetpet Iyers and Vembakkam Iyengars, the Egmore faction led by the editor of ''The Hindu'', Kasturi Ranga Iyengar and the Salem nationalists led by C. Rajagopalachari. A fourth non-Brahmin faction rose to compete with them and became the Justice party.

Anti-Brahminism and Comparison with Anti-Semitism

The Dravidian movement, especially in the writings of E.V. Ramaswamy, expressed a sustained critique of Brahmin dominance in religious, social, and political institutions in South India. This critique, often labeled as anti-Brahminism, targeted what was perceived as the imposition of Vedic and Aryan cultural hegemony over the indigenous Dravidian population.

Some scholars and critics have drawn comparisons between anti-Brahminism and anti-Semitism, especially in how both target historically literate, socially distinct, and endogamous minorities seen as gatekeepers of power.Nandy, Ashis. "Shamans, Savants and Shudras." In ''The Savage Freud and Other Essays on Possible and Retrievable Selves''. Oxford University Press, 1995. However, others argue this analogy is reductive and potentially misleading, as the historical, theological, and political contexts differ sharply.Viswanathan, Gauri. "Secularism in the Framework of Heterodoxy." In ''Outside the Fold: Conversion, Modernity, and Belief''. Princeton University Press, 1998.

The following table outlines some key similarities and distinctions:

While anti-Brahminism emerged from a ''progressive and anti-caste ideological foundation'', anti-Semitism largely arose from ''racialized and exclusionary ethno-religious ideologies''. Nevertheless, both reflect how minorities associated with literacy, ritual authority, or cultural capital can become focal points of broader societal resentment.Chatterjee, Partha. ''The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories''. Princeton University Press, 1993.

The analogy remains controversial, and most scholars caution against equating the two phenomena too closely, emphasizing instead the **need to contextualize anti-Brahminism within the colonial and caste-based history of the Indian subcontinent**.

History and Caste Reconfiguration within the Dravidian Movement

The Dravidian movement, originating in the early 20th century, emerged as a rationalist, anti-caste, and anti-Brahmin socio-political initiative. Influenced by figures such as Iyothee Thass, E. V. Ramasamy (Periyar), and Singaravelu Chettiar, the movement critiqued the Vedic-Brahminical order as a form of religious and cultural domination over the indigenous Dravidian population. Its early support base included marginalized castes—particularly Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes—seeking educational access, social equality, and temple rights.

The formation of the Justice Party in 1916 marked the political foundation of the movement, followed by the launch of the Self-Respect Movement in 1925 and later the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK). These organizations promoted atheism, Tamil linguistic pride, and the abolition of caste and religion.

By the mid-20th century, however, as the movement transitioned into electoral politics via the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and its offshoots, dominant non-Brahmin landlord castes such as the Vellalar, Mudaliar, and Balija Naidu communities increasingly came to control its leadership and material networks. While these castes had historically positioned themselves against Brahminical dominance, they retained significant socio-economic privilege and often reproduced caste hierarchies in their own image.

This led to a transformation in the movement’s social justice framework. Scholars describe it as a shift toward graded inequality—where anti-Brahmin rhetoric was retained but hierarchical privilege was preserved by newly dominant castes. As electoral pragmatism took priority, radical anti-caste ideals were moderated in favor of caste-based patronage politics. Dalit and most MBC communities remained underrepresented in leadership and state power structures.

Though the Dravidian movement began as a radical project for caste annihilation, its institutionalization led to the entrenchment of new elites. Critics argue that the movement, while discursively anti-Brahmin, ultimately enabled the rise of a new caste elite under the guise of Dravidian secularism and social justice.

References

Works cited

*
*
*{{cite book , last=Rajaraman , first=P. , title=The Justice Party: a historical perspective, 1916–37 , publisher=Poompozhil Publishers , year=1988 , url=http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/handle/2009/4745 , oclc=20453430 , url-status=dead , archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721181607/http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/handle/2009/4745 , archive-date=21 July 2011

Anti-caste movements
Political history of the Madras Presidency