CHAPTER 111

PARTIES I N THE MADRAS PRESIDENCY

P o l i t i c a l Groups

The roots o f t h e I n d i a n p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s may be f o u n d i n

the v a r i o u s i n f l u e n c e s t o which I n 3 i a n s o c i e t y w a s s u b j e c t e d . In

o t h e r p a r t s of t h e w o r l d , parties evolved o u t of h i s t o r i c a l

changes o r personttl a d i t i o n s of t h e m e m b e r s of t h e p o l i t i c a l

elite.' I n I n d i a w i t h i t s h e r e , l i t a r i l y d e t e r m i n e d community

g r o u p s , o p i n i o n s and i n t e r e s t s a l i k e belonged n o t t o i n d i v i d u a l s ,
L
b u t t o groups. The g r o u p s c o n s i s t e d o f people who i n t e r a c t e d o n

t h e basis o f some s h a r e d i n t e r e s t . These groups had t o o r g a n i s e

t h e m s e l v e s i n order t o a c h i e v e t h e i r g o a l s , w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l s

w e r e u n a b l e t o a c h i e v e by t h e m s e l v e s . I n the transitional society

p o l i t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w a s c l e t e r m i n e d by s o c i a l a n d p e r s o n a l
3
relations.

The phenomenon of: p o l i t i c a l g r o u p s e n g a g i n g i n s t r u g g l e f o r

power a l w a y s e x i ~ t e d . ~Two k i n d s of i n t e r e s t s w e r e expressed a n d

organised i n India. The e c o n o m i c i n t e r e s t s s u c h a s t h e l a n d l o r d s ,

lawyers, t e a c h e r s a n d m e r c h a n t s formed o n e k i n d , w h i l e t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l y r o u p s based on c a s t e , t r i h e , community, r e l i g i o n o r

l a n g u a g e formed t h e o t h e r . r h e r e w d s a g e n e r a l f e e l i n g among t h e

e d u c a t e d classes t h a t t h e o n l y a g e n c y f o r b r i q i n g a b o u t s o c i a l

a n d e c o n o m i c c h a n g e s was t h e g o v e r n m e n t , a d t h a t t h e non-
...................................................................
1. w e i n e r , I I . , P a r t y E u i l d i n g i n a New N a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f
C h i c a g o P r e s s , C h i c a g o , 1 9 6 7 , p.1.
2. Morris J o n e s , W.H., ' S t a b i l i t y a n 3 Change i n I n d i a n P o l i t i c s ' ,
i n P o l i t i c s i n S o u t h e r n A s i a , ~ a u Rl o s e , Ed.,
M a c m i l l a n & CO. Ltd., L a n d o ~ ~1, 9 6 3 , p.28.
3. pye, L., P o l i t i c s , 1 8 e r s o r l a l i t y a n d N d t i r ~ r l m i l d i n g ,
Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , New I-ldven, 1963, p.16.
4. S a r t o r i , G., P a r t i e s a n d P a r t y S y s t e m s , Volume I, Cambridge
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Cambridge, 1 9 7 6 , p.58.
 1
governmental i n s t i t u t i o n s c o u l d n o t b r i n g a b o u t such changes.

T h i s f e e l i n g , c o u p l e d w i t h t h e paternal a t t i t u d e o f t h e B r i t i s h

c i v i l s e r v i c e , p r e v e n t e d much i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e g r o u p s .
They f u n c t i o n e d o n l y t o i n i l u e n c e t h e government.2 I n t h a t sense,

m o s t o f t h e s e g r o u p s may be s a i d t o h a v e f u n c t i o n e d a s p o l i t i c a l
groups.
I n t h e e a r l y part of t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , t h e n a t i o n a l i s t

rnovernent u s h e r e d i n a n era o f a g i t a t i o n a l as w e l l a s competitive

p o l i t i c s i n ~ n d i a . The
~ l e a d e r s o f t h e n a t i o n a l i s t movement t r i e d

to briq all the factions tajetller i n t o one o r y a n i s a t i o n bound b y

a d e s i r e t o be f r e e f r o m f o r e i g n rule and t h u s t o create a n e w

single national w i l l . Owing t o t h e i m p a c t o f t h e n a t i o n a l i s t

movement, p o l i t i c a l p a r k i e s t e n d e d t o encompass a l l aspects o f

1ife.l V a r i o u s i n t e r e s t g r o u p s l a t e r began t o s p e a k i n i d e o l o g i c a l

terms f o l l o w i n g t h e t r e n d set b y t h e n a t i o n a l i s t movement, t h e r e b y

g i v i n g b i r t h t o p o l i t i c a l parkies. They were l o o s e l y h e l d t o g e t h e r

by s i m i l a r i t y o f o p i n i o n a n d desire f o r advancement. A s they

were n o t homogeneous, r a c t i o n s a n d g r o u p s w e r e e n d e m i c w i t h i n
them. They d i s s o l v e d , u n i t e d o r re-formed themselves from t i m e t o

t i m e under d i f f e r e n t nares. The g r o u p s w e r e e i t h e r i d e a g r o u p s

whose members d i d n o t d e r i v e a n y m a t e r i a l b e n e f i t from t h e e n d

- which t h e y sought. o r interest g r o u p s or communal g r o u p s , all

..................................................................
s t r i v i n q f o r statSJs t h r o u g h p o l i t i c s . so, t h e s e a r c h for
1. Almond, G.A. a n d Coleman, J.S., The P o l i t i c s o f t h e
D e v e l o p i n g A r e a s , pp.208-212.
2. A r o r a , S.K. a n d Msswell, Y.7., P o l i t i c a l Communication,
H o l t , R i n c h a r t and Winston, Inc., U.S.A., 1 9 6 9 , p.23.
3. Almond, G.A. a n d Coleman, .J.S., The P o l i t i c s o f t h e
D e v e l o p i n g A r e a s , p.128.
4. P y e , L., P o l i t i c s , P e r s o n a l i t y a n d N a t i o n B u i l d i n g ,
Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , New Haven, 1 9 6 3 , pp.17-18.
- 5. W e l l , L.A., Governments a n d P a r t i e s i n C o n t i n e n t a l Europe,
Volume I , Longmans, G r e e n & Co., London, 1896, p.75.
6. S t a c e y , F., The Government o f Modern B r i t a i n , C l a r e n d o n P r e s s ,
C x f o d , 1 9 6 8 , p.320.
p o l i t i c a l power i n v a r i a b l y l e d t o f r a g m e n t a t i o n a n d d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n

o f t h e parties, e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g t h e e l e c t i o n s . I n such a p l u r a -

list system, t h e p o l i t i c a l parties w e r e l o o s e c o a l i t i o n s choosing

1
p o p u l a r i s s u e s t o increase t h e i r membership.

-
Political A s s o c i a t i o n s i n t h e Madras P r e s i d e n c y

'bough t h e Madras P r e s i d e n c y h a d a p l u r a l i s t social p a t t e r n

based o n a n c i e n t t r a d i t i o n s o f caste, r e l i g i o n and l a n g u a g e , t h i s

d i d n o t s t a n d i n t h e way o f v a r i o u s g r o u p s o r g a n i s i n g t h e m s e l v e s

u n d e r o n e b a n n e r i n t h e e a r l y p e r i d when t h e y h a d t o deal w i t h t h e

B r i t i s h Gwernment. The c o m m e r c i a l C o ~ n u n i t yt o o k t h e lead i n t h e

t h i r t i e s o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , Lirst i n e n c o u r a g i n g a n d t h e n

o r g a n i s i n g s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l p r o t e s t . O r i g i n a l l y , a branch of

t h e B e n g a l I n d i a n A s s o c i a t i o n was s t a r t e d i n l a 5 2 t o be f o l l o w e d

by t h e Madras N a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n . T h e a c t i v i t i e s of t h i s Associa-

t i o n w e r e d i r e c t e d m a i n l y by t h e u r b a n commercial g r o u p . The

l r s s o c i a t i o n went i n t o o b l i v i o n i n 1 8 6 2 , a n d t h e vacuum was t i l l e d

b y t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e l i t e which h a d t a k e n a d v a n t a g e o f w e s t e r n

education. I t r e v i v e d t h e Madras N a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n , b u t i t became

e x t i n c t once a g a i n due t o t h e o f f i c i a l antagonism t o I n d i a n h r e a u -

c r a c y t a k i n g part i n p u b l i c a f f a i r s . The Madras Mahajana Sabha w a s

a n o t h e r attempt a t o r g a n i s i q t h e 1-ladras p u b l i c i n 1 8 8 4 . This

o r g a n i s a t i o n w a s promoted m a i n l y by t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l e l i t e . Most
of i t s leaders w e r e m o f u e s i l b o r n , u n l i k e t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f t h e
2
Madras N a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n w h i c h w a s u r b a n o r i e n t e d .

The C o r q r e s s P a r t y
I t would be u n n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y t o g i v e
--..---------------------------------------------------
1. A p t e r , D. I?. , I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P o l i t i c a l A n a l y s i s , ! q i n t h r o p
P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . , Cambridge, M a s s a c h u s e t t s , 1 5 7 7 , p.354.
2. S u n t h a r a l i r y a m , R., P o l i t i c s and N a t i o n a l i s t Awakening i n
S o u t h I n d i a , 1852-1891, pp.47-213.
a d e s c r i p t i v e h i s t o r y of t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n and s u c c e s s i v e changes

and m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n t h e Congress P a r t y . I t may be s u f f i c i e n t

t o e n u m e r a t e t h e d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s t h a t developed w i t h i n t h e

party.
By 1884, t h e r e was a demand Lor o r g a n i s e d and a g g r e s s i v e

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n OF i n t e r e s t s and n o t j u s t s u b m i t t i n g p e t i t i o n s . I n

r e s p o n s e t o t h i s demand,the I n d i a n N a t i o n a l Congress was born.

The Madras Mahajana Sabha a n d t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l e l i t e p l a y e d a n

a c t i v e p a r t i n o r g a n i s i n g t h e Congress i n Madras. The p u r p o s e of

t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n was t o improve t h e p o l i t i c a l s t a t u s of t h e p e o p l e

of t h e country. The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s who a t t e n d e d t h e Concgress

belonged t o t h e dominant c a s t e s . They sought t o enhance t h e i r

i n f l u e n c e i n t h e p o l i t i c a l a n n a dominated by t h e a l i e n rulers. 1

Thus i t m s n o t an o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e c o l o n i a l n ~ l e .s o much a s a n

attempt t o enhame t h e p o l i t i c a l s t a t u s of t h e educate4 t h a t

g a v e a n impetus t o t h e e a r l y Congress movemnt.

The e a r l y Congress o r g a n i s a t i o n s had some semblance o f

t e r r i t o r i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , b u t i t d i d not seek t o r e p r e s e n t t h e

minority groups. I n a n a t t e m p t t o broaden t h e base of Congress

s u p p o r t i n t h e Presidency, t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n s of Muhanuiidans,

I n d i a n C h r i s t i a n s and Anglo-Indians were a l l wooed by t h e Congress

P a r t y i n Madras by promising t o e x c l u d e a l l q u e s t i o n s of s o c i a l

o r p o l i t i c a l w e l l b e i n g of any p a r t i c u l a r community. It a l s o

promised t h i t no s u b j e c t would be d i s c u s s e d which t h e Hindu o r

Muhammadan d e l e g a t e s o b j e c t e d to. I t s e f k o r t s met w i t h a l i m i t e d

s u c c e s s i n lt387. Even t h e n t h e r e were pro-Congress and anti-

C o n g r e s s groups. The l a n d e d a r i : ; t o c r a c y and t h e middle c l a s s e s

................................................................
1. Suntharalingam, R., P o l i t i c s and N a t i o n a l i s t Awakening i n
South I n d i a , 1 8 5 2 - 1891, p . 3 4 6 .
were s y m p a t h e t i c t o t h e Congress c a u s e . Ry 1894, t h e Congress

l o s t t h e s u p p o r t o f most of t h e m i n o r i t y g r o u p s . A f t e r an i n i t i a l

p e r i o d of c o o p e r a t i o n , r i f t s had developed between t h e I n d i a n

N a t i o n a l Congress and i t s e r s t w h i l e p a r t n e r s on a c c o u n t o f
1
communal d i f f e r e n c e s .

A f t e r some i n i t i a l e n t h u s i a s m , i t s a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e

P r e s i d e n c y w e r e s p o r a d i c t i l l t h e end o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y .

Between 1895 and 1916, t h e P r e s i d e n c y had been p o l i t i c a l l y

L
sterile. But by t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e new c e n t u r y , i t was
r e a l i s e d t h a t demands made t h r o u g h p e t i t i o n s w e r e n o t a d e q u a t e

f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f b r i n g i n g a b o u t p o l i t i c a l changes. The o l d e r

c o n s e r v a t i v e members who b e l i e v e d i n makirq r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

t h r o u g h p e t i t i o n s w e r e termed a s m d e r a t e s . The young and

r a d i c a l e l e m e n t s wanted t o e x p l o r e new avenues of a r t i c u l a t i n g

t h e i r demands and c a l l e d t h e m s e l v e s N a t i o n a l i s t s . To t h e i r

c r i t i c s , they appeared a s E x t r e m i s t s .
A f t e r 19..16,t h e d i f f e r e n c e s hetwecn t h e Mderates and t h e

D t t r e m i s t s i n t h e C o n g r e s s began growing. The younger extremist

m e m b e r s r e s o r t e d t o new methods or p o l i t i c a l p r o t e s t l i k e boy-

c o t t and wanted t o a d o p t t h e p o l i c y o f Swadcshi t o e n c o u r a g e

i n 3 i g e n o u s i n d ~ s t r i e s . ~The Swadi-shF movement t h a t was launched

l e d t o t h e f o r m a t i o n of t h e Swa~leshiSteam N a v i g a t i o n Company

and t h e p o p u l a r i s a t i o n of t h e V ~ LlzI w t h a r a m . These l e d t o t h e

widening of t h e d i f t e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e e x t r e m i s t s and t h e

Moderates. Leaders l i k c G. S u b r a ~ r ~ a n i*yyar

a encouraged the
...............................................................
1. S u n t h a r a l i n g a m , I?. , P o l i t i c s and N a t i o n a l i s t Awakening i n
S o u t h I n d i a , 1852-1891, pp.250-287.
2. Washbrook, D.A., The Emergence of P r o v i n c i a l P o l i t i c s , p.232.
3. Swadesamitran, 2 2 Decemkr 1906, NNR.
y o u n g e r m e m b e r s i n t h e i r q u e s t f o r new £ o m s of a c t i o n . In

t h e F i f t e e n t h P r o v i n c i a l Conference a t Vizagapatnam i n t h e y e a r

1 9 0 7 , N.K. Ramaswami Ayyar, a N a t i o n a l i s t a t t e m p t e d t o g e t t h e

Conference t o a c c e p t a r e s o l u t i o n t o b o y c o t t B r i t i s h goods. But

h e d i d n o t succeed.2 T h e r e was n o t much o f z e a l f o r Swadeshi i n

~adras.~
Nor d i d Madras h a v e a h i s t o r y of a n a r c h i s m , except f o r

a f e w p o l i t i c a l crimes i n t h e y e a r s f o l l o w i n g t h i s s p l i t . Even
t h e nxtremiste i n t h i s s o u t h e r n P r e s i d e n c y w e r e less m i l i t a n t
4
t.han t h e i r n o r t h e r n c o u n t e r p a r t s .

I n 1 9 0 7 a large c o n t i n g e n t o f C o n g r e s s delegates from t h e

P r e s i d e n c y c o m p r i s i n g o L t h e represmtatives or t h e two f a c t i o n s

a t t e n d e d t h e s u r a t Congress. During t h e s e s s i o n , the p a r t y s p l i t

i n t o E x t r e m i s t s a n d Moderates.' A t about t h e s a m e time, t h e

I4uhammadans s t a r t e d t h e Muslim Ixaque. This coincided with t h e

introduction of t h e Minto-Morley R e f o m s which g r a n t e d special

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o t h e Muhamma.lan cornrmnity. R u t t h e League did

n o t have much s u p p o r t i n t h i s P ~ s i i i e n c y .

The r i f t b e t w e e n t h e M o l e r a t e s a n d t h e E x t r e m i s t s i n t h e

C o r v J r e s s w a s h e d ~ 4a r d m icdrl~c t o g e t h e r i n 1916. I n t h e meanwhile,

Annie B e s a n t f o u n d e d Home Rule Lzayue, t,lrcjugh which s h e e n t e r e d

Congress politics. The Plderate l e a d e r s d i d n o t l i k e it a s t h e y

t h o u g h t i t would weaken t h e ~ o n q r c s ; . ~ The P r o v i n c i a l C o m m i t t e e s

o f the C o n g r e s s P a r t y w e r e o r g a n i s e d o n 1 i n g u i s c ; i c basis, a n d
............................................................
1. Washbrook, ! l . A . , The Emergence of P r o v i n c i a l P o l i t i c s , p.245.
2 . Hindu. 8 J u n e 1907.
3 . Narar;imhan, V.K. , K a s t u r i Kanga I y e n g a r . Government o f I n d i a
P r e s s , F a r i d a b a d , 1963, p p . 4 1 4 2 .
4. Washbrook. D . A . . The Emergence o f i > r o v i n c i a l P o l i t i c s , p.247.
5. Narasimhan, V.K., K a s t u r i Ranga I y e n g a r , p.'79.
Majundar, R.C.. Ed., The H i s t o r y a n d C u l t u r e o f t h e I n d i a n
P e o p l e , S t r u g g l e f o r F r e e d o ~ n , Volume XI, B h a r a t i y a Vidya
Bhavan, Bombay, 1969. p p . 91 -95.
6. I b i d . , p.250.
t h i s i n due c o u r s e l e d t o a d e m n d f o r t h e f o r m a t i o n o f a s e p a r a t e

Andhra Province. I t was a l s o p a r t l y a c h a l l e n g e t o t h e d o n d n a t i o n

o f t h e T a m i l i a n s i n t h e p o l i t i c a l and b u r e a u c r a t i c s t r u c t u r e .
A s i m i l a r r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d o m i n a t i o n o f t h e Brahmans i n t h e

Congrees, a s w e l l a s i n t h e b u r e a u c r a c y , l e d t o t h e founding of

t h e non-Brahman movement an3, t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y i n 1917. The

n a t i o n a l i s t non-Brahmans formed t h e Madras P r o v i n c i a l A s s o c i a t i o n .

But t h i s A s s o c i a t i o n d i d n o t f u n c t i o n a s a r i v a l t o t h e J u s t i c e

Party. The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e m was o n l y i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e t o

comrmnal r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . The J u s t i c e P a r t y demanded cormnunal
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , whereas t h e Madras P r o v i n c i a l A s s o c i a t i o n wanted

only reservation o i s e a t s . T h i s A s s o c i a t i o n k c a n l c e x t i n c t soon

b e c a u s e t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y used t o i n v i t e a l l non-Brahmans to

t h e i r meetings i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e i r p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n s . 1

P r o p o s a l s f o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l reforms w e r ? soon a f o o t . The

Moderates w e r e s a t i s f i e d w i t h the reform p r o p o s a l s , h u t n o t t h e

Nationalists. Meanwhile, t h e enforcement of t h e M a r t i a l Law and

a p r o t e s t n e e L i ~ yr e s u l t e d i n t h e J a l l i a n w a l a h Bagh massacre a t

Amritsar. The B r i t i s h C;overnment4s f a i l u r e t~ t a k e propt-r

a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e o f f l c e r s r c ' s p o n s i h l e l e d t o t h e launching of

t h e non-cooperation moverrlrnt by Gandld. The M d e r a t e s d i d n o t

approve of t h i s p o l i c y of non-cooperation, and l a t e r t h e y formed

t h e L i b e r a l I1arty.
The s p e c i a l s e s s i o n of t h e Congress help1 a t C a l c u t t a i n

September 1920 d e c i d e d on a prcqramme of non-cooperation includ-

i n g b o y c o t t of t h e L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l s . However, t h e Nationa-

l i s t s o f Madras d i d n o t apllrove of t h i s p o l i c y . Thus t h e

..................................................................
1. Hindu, 22 May 1924.
C o r y r e s s t h e n c o n s i s t e d o f t h e N a t i o n a l i s t s , t h e ncn-cooperators

who followed Gandhi, a n 3 t h e C o o p e r a t o r s who wanted t o e n t e r t h e

Councils. The d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e N a t i o n a l i s t s u n d e r t h e

l e a d e r s h i p o f S . S r i n i v a s a ~ y y a n g a ron t h e o n e hand, a n d t h e non-

cooperators l e d by C. R a j a g o p a l a c h a r i a n d t h e K h i l a f a t Muhammadans
l e d by Yakub Hasan on t h e o t h e r , came i n t o t h e open. Many

N a t i o n a l i s t s r e s i g n e d fro111t h e P r o v i n c i a l C o n g r e s s Committee

and t h e G a n d h i a n s came t o c o n t r o l tile party executive with t h e

1
s u p p o r t of t h e Muhammadans.

Some N a t i o n a l i s t s l i k e S. S r i n i v a s a Ayyanyar am3 B . V . N a r a s i m h a

Ayyar who c o n t e s t e d and were e l e c t e d t o t h e C o u n c i l , resigned

later. The Mderates had by t h e n set u p .I separate o r g a n i s a t i o n

of t h e i r own. The Muhammsdans had a g r i e v a n c e a ~ j a i n s tt h e B r i t i s h

Government f o r b r e a k i n g u p t h e Ottorrran E m p i r e and a b o l i s n i n g t h e

C a l i p h a t e o f t h e S u l t a n o f Turkey. They organised t h e Khilafat

movement which w i e l r l e c l enormous i n f l u e n c e i n Malabar. It sparked

o f f a r e b e l l i o n by t h e M a p p i l l a Muhammadans t h e r e , and many

K h i l a f a t l e a d e r s were a r r e s t e d . The K h i l a f a t o r g a n i s a t i o n h e c ~ m e

i n a c t i v e o n c e t h e M a l a b a r r e b e l l i o n was p u t clown.

However i m p o r t a n t t!le role oi t h e i ' o r u ~ r e s s P a r t y might be

i n t h e n a t i o n a l s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t t h e B r i t i s h r u l e , by a d o p t i n g

t h e p o l i c y o f b o y c o t t o f t h e L e t ] i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l it d e n i e d i t s e l f

o n e i m p o r t a n t forum f o r a s s a i l i n y t h e B r i t i s h mle. Its acti-

v i t i e s o r d e c i s i o n s d i d n o t have rmch i n f l u e n c e on t h e work of

t h e k g i s l a t i v e Council. The a t t r a c t i c ; n of o c c u p y i n g p o s i t i o n s

o f power t h r o u g h the L e g i s l a t u r e 1Je.s t o u s t r o r r j f o r p e o p l e who

had h a l f - h e a r t e d l y
ayreed t o non-cooperation, e s p e c i a l l y as it
.............................................................
I. Hindu, 2 0 September 1 9 2 0 .
W i l l i n g d o n t o Montague, 1 5 September l 9 2 0 , W I 1lincjdon pa prs,
NAI .
was t h e means t o f u r t h e r t h e i r a m b i t i o n s a n d improve t h e i r

economic and s o c i a l p o s i t i o n . m e n b e f o r e Gandhi withdrew non-

c o o p e r a t i o n , p e o p l e l i k e S. S a t y a m u r t i were t r y i n g t o g e t t h e

C o n g r e s s a t t i t u d e c h a r q e d md bere a t t h e same t i m e engaged i n

f i n d i n g a way of i n f l u e n c i n g t h e B r i t i s h ~ o v e r m n t . ' Even

S. s r i n i v a s a Ayyarqar who had r e s i g n e d from t h e Council favoured

t h e C o u n c i l e n t r y and p l e a d e d t h a t t h e P r o v i n c i a l Congress

committee s h o u l d be g i v e n t h e r i g h t t o d e c i d e on i t . 2 Those who

wanted t o e n t e r t h e C o u n c i l f o r r e d t h e S w a r a j i s t P a r t y . They

claimed t h a t t h e i r new p a r t y was n o t s e c e d i r q , a n d t h a t it was

3
t o be a p r e s s u r e group w i t h i n t h e Congress, b u t n o t i t s r i v a l .

The N a t i o n a l i s t s who r e s i g n e d i n 1920 L r o r r ~ t h e P r o v i n c i a l

C o r q r e s s Committees had l o s t c o n t r o l of t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n . This

was i n t h e hands of t h c ncn-Coo,~erators. 'They r e f u s e d t o s u p p o r t

t h e Council e n t r y p r q r a m n s . They and t h e pro-Changers like

C.R. Das and M o t i l a l Nehm who wanted t o c a p t u r e t h e C o u n c i l s

opposed e a c h o t h e r . The S p e c i a l C o r g r e s s h e l d a t D e l h i i n

s e p t e ~ n b e r1923 p e r m i t t e d t h e s w a r a j i s t s t o c o n t e s t t h e e l e c t i o n s .

E.V. Ranlaswami Naicker and S. Ramamthan, S e c r e t a r i e s of t h e

TNCC resigned i n p r o t e s t against t h e resolution.* The

r e s o l u t i o n was a c c e p t e d by t h e APCC, b u t n o t by t h e T N C C . ~ Most

o f t h e members o f t h e s w a r a j i s t P a r t y from Tamilnad w e r e t h e

former N a t i o n a l i s t s . By 1925 t h e non-Cooperators had l o s t t h e i r

6
ground and t h e S w a r a j i s t s t o o k c o n t r o l o f t h e TNCC.
..............................................................
1. Andhra P a t r i k a , Madras, 2 9 A p r i l 1922, NNR.
Montague t o w i l l i n g d o n , 1 3 Gctoker 1921,
W i l l i n g d o n p a p e r s , NMML.
2. Hindu, 1 4 D e c e m b e r 1922.
3. Hindu, 2 J a n u a r y 1923.
4. Hindu, 1 7 September 1923; 1 ( x t o b e r 1923.
5. ~ i n d u ,1 4 , 1 6 J u n e 1923.
6. Arnold, D., The Congress i n Tamilnad, p. €35.
 Though t h e A l l I n d i a S w a r a j i s t P a r t y had p r o m i s e d t h a t

t h e y would n o t o c c u p y t h e i r seats i n t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s where t h e

Swarajists w e r e i n a minority, S w a r a j i s t s i n Madras d i d c o n t i n u e

t o sit i n t h e c o u n c i l . ' T h i s w a s r e s e n t e d by t h e Andhra l e a d e r s

l i k e T. Prakasam. But t h e Swarajists entered i n t o an a l l i a n c e

w i t h o t h e : members o f t h e O p p o s i t i o n i n t h e C o u n c i l t o form a

U n i t e d N a . i o n a l i s t P a r t y , and w e r e n o t uru:ompromisir'gly obstruc-

tive. They w e r e s e e k i n g t o work it t o t h e i r a d v a n t a g e a n d

2
protested a g a i n s t t h e i r Central Party' s decision a s inexpedient.

They however p r o d u c e d c o m p a r a t i v e l y l i t t l e e f f e c t upon t h e

a c t u a l course of business. They were n o t able t o c o n t r o l t h e

Government. They realised t h a t t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e t h e

l e g i s l a t u r e w a s b a r r e n O p p s i t . i o n , and i t was much more u s e f u l

t o function w i t .in the legislature. T h i s was a d i v e q e n c e from

t h e o r t h o d o x Swara j i s t l i w .

I n t h e meanwhile, a r i f t d e v e l o p e d &tween C. hj a g o p a l a c h a r i
i
a n d h i s Brahman s u p p o r t e r s o n t h e o n e han3,dnd a g r o u p o f d i s -
s a t i s f i e d non-Brahman Corqreasmen l e d by E. V. Ramaswarni N a i c k e r

and S. Ramanathan o n t h e o t h e r , which widened a f t e r t h e a f f a i r

o f t h e S h e r m a d e v i G ~ r u k u l ~ mwhere
, t h e non-Brahman p u p i l s were

compelled t o cat s e p a r a t e l y . 3 Though sorre non-Brahman C o n g r e s s

leaders t h e m s e l v e s f o u n d n o t h 1 nq wrong i n i t , t h i s i n c i d e n t led

t o C. R a j a g o p a l a c h a r i and h i s a s s o c i a t e s r e s i g n i n g as a protest

from t h e T N C C . ~ A t t h e Talnilnad P r o v i n c i a l C o n f e r e n c e h e l d a t

C o n j e e v a r a m i n 1 9 2 5 , t h e non-Brahmans a s k e d t h e C o n g r e s s t o t a k e

i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e i r population s t r e n g t h f o r g i v i n g represen-
.................................................................
1. Hindu, 2 J a n u a r y 1924.
2. S w a r a j y a , Madras, 1 2 J a n u a r y 1924. NNR.
3. Hindu, 4 May 1925.
4. Hindu, 2.8 May 1925.
t a t i o n on t h e L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l and o t h e r bodies.' T h i s was

suggested a s a temporary e x p e d i e n t probably i n a n a t t e m p t t o

b r i n g i n t o t h e C o n g r e s s t h e d i s c o n t e n t e d p r o g r e s s i v e non-Brahmans
of t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e who w e r e a l r e a d y s i t t i n g
w i t h t h e Oppac i t i o l a n A n t i - M i n i s t e r i a l i s t s . E.V. Ramaswami

N a i c k e r and Rimana;han sought a base outside t h e p a r t y afte: the

Shermadevi a f i a i r .

The C o n g r 2 s s o f f i c i a l l y a d o p t e d t h e S w a r a j i s t programme i n

December 1925 a t t h e Cawnl~ores e s s i o n . A s a sequel t o this,the

S w a r a j i s t s i n t h e C o u n c i l began t o s i t and a c t a s a s e p a r a t e

group. The S w . ~ r a j i s t s ' s u p p o r t e r s w e r e v e r y few i n t h e Madras

P r e s i d e n c y , b u r t h e i r i n c r e a s i n g i n f l u e n c e was r e f l e c t e d i n t h e

Tamil P r e s s by a rise i n t h e number o f p a p e r s a d v o c ~ t i n gt h e

p o l i c y of t h e Swara jists, and a c o r r e s p o n d i n g f a l l i n t h e number

o f p a p e r s of t h e no-Change creed.' I n l a t e 1925, a s p l i n t e r

g r o u p o f s w a r a j i s t s who p r 3 f e r n z d r e s p o n s i v e c o o p e r a t i o n w e r e

t r y i n g t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r b a s e i n Madras. Member's of t h e U n i t e d

N a t i o n a l i s t P a r t y o t h e r t h a n t h e S w a r a j i s t s wanted t o a c c e p t
3
o f f i c e , and t h e S w a r a j i s t r e f u s a l t o d o s o i r r i t a t e d them.

Most of t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n a l i s t s j o i n e d t h e S w a r a j i s t P a r t y

o n t h e we o f t h e 1926 e l e c t i o n s a n d t h e y c o n s t i t u t e d t h e largest

element among t h e C o n g r e s s m e m b e r s r e t u r n e d t o t h e b g i s l a t i v e
Council. The C o n g r e s s which was r e t u r n e d i n a m a j o r i t y i n t h e

e l e c t i o n s t o t h e t h i r d b g i s l a t i v e Council r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t

office. The C o n g r e s s P a r t y ' s d e s i r e t o f u n c t i o n a s a normal

p a r t y w a s su:h t h a t t h e Governor s u s p e c t e d t h a t h a l f of them

.............................................................
1. H i d u , : 1 November 1925.
2. G.0.563, P u b l i c , 9 J u n e 1926.
3. Hindu, 1 9 September 1925.
Goschen t o a i r k e n h e a d , 31 D e c e m b e r 1925,Birkenhead papers,NMML.
might c r o s s o v e r t o t h e I d e p e n d e n t P a r t y i f t h e Gauhati
1
Congress t o 1= h e l d i n 1927 d e c i d e d a g a i n s t a c c e p t i n g o f f i c e .

N e v e r t h e l e s s C.V.S. Narasimha Ra ju from t h e Congress P a r t y was

e l e c t e d a s t h e P r e s i d e n t o t t h e C o u n c i l and Muthulakshmi Red&

as t h e Deputy P r e s i d e n t . I n t h e Congress P a r t y meetirg immediately

a f t e r t h e e l e c t i o n s , S. Venlcatachalam C h e t t i was e l e c t e d a s t h e

l e a d e r of t h e Council P a r t q. The Brahman m m b e r s r e s e n t e d

2
l o s i n g a l l t h e s e t h r e e i m ] o r t a n t p o s t s t o t h e non-Brahmans.

The Independent P a r t y , a motley crowd, c o n s i s t i n g of some f o n n e r

J u s t i c e P a r t y i m n w i t h nac i o n a l i s t c o m i c t i o n s and some old

3
Cong?x?ss n a t i o n a l i s t s , came t o power. It depended on t h e

s u p p o r t of t h e C o n g r e s s P a r t y i n t h e i n i t i a l s t a g e s f o r i t s

survival. T h e Congress a l s o s u p p o r t e d i t and h e l p e d i t t o

c o n t i n u e i n power i n t t ~ ahope of s u c c e e d i n r ~i t a t an e a r l y d a t e

when t h e C o n g r e s s would be allowed t o form a M i n i s t r y . in

a d d i t i o n t h e , a l s o wanted t o p r e v e n t ..he f o r m a t i o n of a c o r m n a l

~ i n i sry.
t ilence d u r i n g t h e k i r s t no-zonfiJence motion moved by

t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y , t h e Congress m e m b e r . . of t h e C o u n c i l e l e c t e d

t o remain n e u t r a l which c m i n f )r criticism by t h e Andhra

C o n g r e s s m n l i k e T. Prakasam and 8. Sambamurthi.

The J u s t i c e P a r t y ' s r e s o l u t i o n i n J u l y 1927 t o a l l o w t h e i r

members t o j o i n t h e Congress d i d n o t lead t o any c o n s i d e r a b l e

i n c r e a s e i n t h e membership. But i t l e d b o t h t h e C o r g r e s s P a r t y

.......................... -------------- --- -------

and t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y t o c o o p r a t e i n i t t e l n ~ t i n gt o d i s l o d g e the
-----em---

1. I r w i n t o Birkenhead, 6 J a n u a r y 1927, Birkenhead papers, NMML.

2. C.V. Venkataramana Ayyangar t o 5 . S a t y a m u r t i , 11 J a n u a r y 1927,
S. S a t y a m u r t i p a p e r s , NMML.
3. Hindu, 1 1 August 1927; 25 o c t o k e r 1927.
4. I r w i n t o Mrkenhead, 11 August 1927, Birkenhead p a p e r s , NMML.
George Joseph t o S. , s r i n i v a s a Ayyangar, 30 May 1927,
1 3 J u l y 1327, S . S r i n i v a s a Ayyanijar p a p e r s , NMML.
5 . s. Venkatachalam C h e t t i t o S. S r i n i v a s a Ayyangar,
27 F e b r u a r y 1927, S. S r i n i v a s a A n a n g a r p a p e r s , NMML.
Independent Ministry. I n Madras t h e C o n g r e s s P a r t y i t s e l f a t

this time c o n s i s t e d o f t h r e e g r o u p s ; tqose wh2 wanted t o p r e s e r v e

t h e M i r d s t r y u n t i l t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y lost i t s i n f l u e n c e w i t h t h e

public, the non-Brahmans who w e r e anti-Brahmans and wanted t o

cooperate wit,i t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y i n replacing t h e Indepenlent

M i n i s t r y , a n d t h e o l d n o n - C o o p e r a t o r s who were d i s c o n t e n t e d w i t h
L
the Swarajists.

> . n o t h e r g r o u p o f C o n g r e s s m e m b e r s i n t h e C o u n c i l l e d by

S. Muthiah M u d a l i y a r o f T a n j o r e w a s i n t e r e s t e d i n a c c e p t i n g

office.' I t i s t h i s g r o u p f r o m which t w o Ministers w e r e a p p o i n t e d

by t h e G o v e r n o r i n 1920 when R.N. Arcgyaswami M u d a l i y a r a n d

A. R a n g a n a t h a M u d a l i y a r r e s i g n e d on t h e i s s u e o f c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h

t h e Simon Commission. The M i n i s t e r s who r e s i g n e d and t h e i r

f o l l o w e r s formed t h e I n d e p e n d e n t N a t i o n a l i s t P a r t y which s a t w i t h

t h e C p p o s L t i o n i n the C o u n c i l .

The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s m o f t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y f o z e d t h e

Cow:.-ess P a r t y i n Madras t c c h o o s e t h e same t o o l t o f i g h t them

with. It c o u l d n o t a f i o r d t o b o y c o t t t h e C o u n c i l a l t o g e t h e r . So,

early i n 1 9 2 3 t h e Tamilnad C o n g r e s s C o r m i t t e e w u e s t e d t h e AICC

f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o t a k e o f f i c e i n Madras. Gut i t w a s turned dawn,

a d as a r e s u l t , t h e S w a r a j i s t s a s a group l o s t t h e i r primary

p o s i t i o n i n t h e Congress. But when t h e C o t q r e s s i s s u e d a direc-

t i v e a s k i n g t h e i r wnbers i n tihe L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l t o r e s i g n
i n protest a g a i n s t t h e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e term of the C o u n c i l ,
3
there w e r e L e h e w n t protests from many o f t h e C o n g r e s s m e m b e r s .

They h a d a l l e a d y s t a r t e d c a m p a i g n i n g f o r t h e e l e c t i o n s which t h e y

--------.-- -------- -----_-------------------------------

hoped wculd be h e l d by t h e e n d of 1929.
T h e r e f o r e , many a s k e d

1. GO1 583/1927 Home ( p u b l i c ) .

2. Hindu, 1 2 November 1 9 2 7 .
3* A 1 Amin, C a l i c u t , 1 2 May 1929: 2 0 J u n e 1 9 2 9 , NNR.
 L
f o r exemption : rom t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h i s r e s o l u t i o n . Hodever

a number of them s e n t i n t h e i r m s i g n a t i o n s . Some of t h o s e who

resigned, fc,rmed a Madras Swara j P a r t y a n 3 g o t t h e m s e l v e s

elected a g a i ? i n t h e b y e - e l e ~ b . i o n s . ~ I n 1929, many Moderates

and members of t h e Independenc N a t i o n a l i s t P a r t y to: e t h e r formed

t h e N a t i o n F i r s t P a r t y aimin$ t o c a p t u r e t h e L e g i s l a t i v e Council.

They w e r e t o work i n harmony w i t h t h e C o r g r e s s P a r t y . 3

P. V a r a d h a r a j u l u Nayudu, a Congressman who f e l l o u t w i t h

S. s r i n i v a s a Ayyangar, f o m d a Madras N a t i o n a l i s t P a r t y w i t h a

prcgrarnme of o f f i c e accep ;ance .4

G a n d h i ' s c a l l f o r c i v i l d i s o b e d i e n c e movement was launched

i n Madras by C. R a j a g o p a l a c h a r i i n A p r i l 1 3 3 0 by b r e a k i n g t h e

s a l t law. Many Corgressmzn w e n a r r e s t e d and a series of r e p r e -

s s i v e measures followed. T h i s t e n p o r a r i l y obscured t h e i r

sectional differences. The Muhammadans d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n

t h i s movement.

F o l l o w i n g t h e e l e c t i o n s i n October 1930 which t h e Congress

boycotted, R. Muniswarni Nayud~t, l e a d e r oi: t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y f o m d

t.he M i n i s t r y . I n Madras, :.alt makincj was abandoned, but p i c k e t i r g

o f l i q u o r and c l o t h s h o p s was r e s o r t e d t o e 5 By A p r i l 1332, t h e

c!ivll d i s o b e d i e n c e movement had f i z z l e d o u t . But i t had helped

t h e Corqres:: t c c a p t u r e t h e i r n a g i n d t i o ~of
~ tlle p e o p l e . Though

t h e i r p o s i t i o n d a s e c l i p s e d from 1930, t h e f a i t h of t h e former

S w a r a j i s t s i n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a c t i o n w a s unshaken. Hy t h e end of

1933, S . S a t y a m u r t i w a i ~ t c dt o ~ r q a n i s ea partjr f o r t h p~u r p o s e of

.---_-_---__-_--_---_-----_--__.--__-_--------_-------------------
1. Hindu, 6 J u l y 1929.
2. Hind J, 27 J a n u a r y 1930; 4 Marc11 1930.
3. The I n d i a n Review, Volulcr: E:, P!ay 1923, p.361.
G . 0.721. P u b l i c ( c e n e r a l ) , 11 June 1930.
4. Swarajya, Madras, 9 J u l y 1929, MNR.
5. Hindu, 3 J u n e 1930.
 educating t h e e l e c t o r a t e , t o pursue t 7e c o n s t r u c t i v e prcgramrne of

the Congress a.ld t o contest i n e l c c t i t ~ n s . He c a l l e d i t t h e

1
Corqreas Swaraj Party.

I n t h e mc!anwhile, some non-Brahmdn y o u t h s who were a c t i v e

i n Congress p o l i t i c s i n t h e d i s t r i c t s made a b i d t o g a i n c o n t r o l
o f t h e Tamilnad C o t q r c s s Committee i n 1930, h u t f a i l e d . Later
t h e y became t h e f o l l o w e r s o f S. S a t y a r m r t i , between whom and

C. R a j a g o p a l a c h a r i t h e r e was r i v a l r y f o r l e a d e r s h i p i n t h e

Congress. But, t h e l a t t e r ' s l i n k w i t h Gandhi g a v e him an advan-

t a g e aver t h e o t h e r l e a d e r s . I n adclition t h e r e w a s a l s o c o n s t a n t

f r i c t i o n between C. R a j a g o p a l a c h a r i and T. Prakasam, and between

2
t.he Tamil an,l Tt lugu g r o u p s .

The Congress was a l s o f i g h t i n g f o r 2 o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e f o n : s .

The c i v i l d i s o h ! d i e n c e moverrent and t h e economic d e p r e s s i o n a l s o

encouraged t h e g -owth of the S o c i a l i s t w i r x j i n t h e Congress P a r t y .

Even communists \ f o r k e d u n d e r t h e g u i s e of Corqressmen. The

S o c i a l i s t s were !lot p o l i t i c a l l y a c t i v e Lor a p e r i d , e x c e p t a t

g r a s s root l e v e l s . I t was r e v i v e d , though most of t h e o l d c r

3
Congressmen d i d r.ot l i k e S o c i a l i s m .

A f t e r w a n d e r i q i n t h e w i l d e m e s s o f c i v i l d i s o b e d i e n c e and

- a t t e m p t s a t wrecking t h e C o u n c i l s , t h e Congress c.me back t o

parliamentary p o l i t i c s . t'.avint~ dccirlvd t o c o n t e s t i n t h e elect-

i o n s , i t came o u t v e r y s u c c e s s f u l i n t h e C e n t r a l L e g i s l a t i v e

Assembly e l e c t i o n s where i t won a resounding v i c t o r y . In the

e l e c t i o n s h e l d t o t h e P r o v i n c i a l Assernbly i n 1937, t h e p a r t y came

, o u t w i t h f lyir'xj c o l o u r s .
Thougli most of t h e Corqressmen were i n
.................................................................
1. Hindu, 2, 30 Cctober 1933; 1 7 November 1'>33.
G O 1 F.No.3/6/1934 Home ( P o l i t i c a l ) .
2. AICC p a p e r s f i l e , P.33, 1935.
3. Madras Mai ., Madras, 1 4 August 1929, NNH.
f a v o u r o f a c c e p t i n g o f £ i c e , t h e y had t c w a i t t i l l the C o n g r e s s

High Ccmmand gave i t s con!;ent, which w a s d e p e n d e n t on t h e

G o v e r n o r ' s a s s u r a n c e t h a t h e would n o t u s e h i s s p e c i a l powers.

I n 1 9 3 7 , t h e ~ o n g r e s sformed t h e M i n i s t r y wit.h C. Raja-

g o p a l a c h a r i a s P r i m e M i n i s t e r an11 w e n t a h e a d w i t h t h e implemen-

t a t i o n of i t s programmes. The most s i g n i f i c a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

o f t h i s C o n g r e s s Government w a s the way t conducted i t s l e g i s -

lative business i n obedience t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h e Party

High Command. E1~3er s t r , t e s m n f e l t t h a t t h e l ? a d e r s of

t h e Government s h o u l d n a t i s i n f l u e n c e d e x c l u s i v e l y by p a r t y
1
considerations to t h e E X C ~ U Sof-
~ v
Oi ~
ta l national interests.

I n t h e i r a t t e m p t t o i n t r o d u c e p r o h i b i t i o n , t h e M i n i s t r y had to

i m p o s e a numker o f taxes. .'he d e m o n s t r a t i o n s a g a i n s t sales t a x

w a s a n i n d i c a t i o n o f h a < u n p o p u l a r t h e C o n g r e s s P a r t y had become.

But i n c o n t r o l l i n g t h e J - e g i s l a t u r e C o n g r e s s P a r t y , t h e Prime

M i n i s t e r was d i c t a t o r i a l i n h i s a t t i t u d e and h e r e s e n t e d a n y

criticism o f t h e M i n i s t e r i a l p o l i c i e s . which was r e s e n t e d by

o t h e r Congressmen. ~t l e d t.o the r e s i g n a t i o n o f l e a d e r s l i k e

2
S. j r i n i v a s a AyyaMJdr :ram t t e P a r t y .

The a v e r s i o n of t h e Congressmt-n i n Madras t o t h e S o c i a l i s t s

was m a n i f e s c i n t h e i r a c t i o n s . T h e y w e r e a l s o n o t v e r y sympa-

t h e t i c t o t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e i n d u s t r i a l worker^.^ Many

i n t e r n a l q u a r r e l s had developed w i t h i n t h e c o n g r e s s , between t h e

Andhras a n d T a m i l s , S o c i a l i s t s and o t h e r s , and betwem t h e

d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of t h e Congress o r g a n i s a t i o n s . Some o f t h e
...........................................................
1. C. R a j a g o p a l a c h a r i t o V. S . S r i n i v a s a S a s t r i , 9 S e p t e m b e r
1 9 3 7 , V.S. S r i n i v a s a S a s t r i p a p e r s , N A I .
2. S . s r i n i v a s a Ayyanqar's s t a t e m e n t , 2 8 A u < p s t 1939,
S. S r i n i v a s a Ayyanqar p a p e r s , N M i l L .
3. s o u t h I n d i a M i l l m n e r s A s s o c i a t i o n r(eso1ution. 10 November
1 9 3 7 , R . K . Shanmuka~i~ C h e t t i y a r p a p e r s , NMMI..
c o n f l i c t a r o s e because some of t h e m e m b e r s of t h e Congress w e r e

a 1 50 members c ~ fo t h e r p o l i t i c a l o r q a n i s a t i o n s . ' By t h e t i m e

t h e C o r q r e s s P a r t y l a i d down o f f i c e , C. R a j a g o p a l a c h a r i had
a c h i e v e d t h e r e p u t a t i o n of 'being t h e a b l e s t C o r g r e s s parliamen-
t a r i a n . For a p a r t y which had n e v e r h e l d o f f i c e b e f o r e , i t 3 abi-

l i t y t o work t h e M i n i s t r y s u c c e s s f u l l y w i t h i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

c o n s t r d n t s was a remarkable achievement. He had a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d

rapport with t h e c i v i l service. kt he had a l s o made many enemies.

The n a t l o n a l movemnt, i n i t s r e a c t i o n to f o r e i g n r u l e ,

passe6 through d i f f e r e n t phases of cooperation, responsive

c o o p e r a t i o n , non-cooperation, c i v i l disobedience, attempt to

wreck t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n by e n t e r i n i t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s , mass resis-

t a n c e , v i o l e n t o p p o s i t i o n and even t e r r o r i s m . But t h e s e p h a s e s

d i d not f o l l o w one a n o t h e r i n any o r d e r l y sequence. N o r did the

Congress a d o p t a l l of them. As t h e i r r e c o n s i l a b l e elements kept

t h e m s e l v e s o u t as non-cooperators, the l e g i s l a t u r e had an oppor-

t u n i t y t o work t h e reformed c o n s t i t u t i o n . A c t u a l l y , t h e non-
c o o p e r a t i o n which s t a r t e d w i t h a bang t o d e s t r o y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e

ended w i t h t h e whimper of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o p p o s i t i o n . In the

2
f i n a l a n a l y s i s , t h e Congress i n Madras was e s s e n t i a l l y moderate.

The J u s t i c e P a r t y
The non-Brahman movement was a l q i t i m a t e c h i l d of t h e s o c i a l

reform movement. The d i s c u s s i o n s on s o c i a l ref onn c o n t r i h t e d t o

t h e awakening o f cormhlnal and p o l i t i c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s of non--

~ r a h r n a n s . ~The f i r s t rumblings of t h e non-Rrdhrndn movement w e r e

h e a r d i n Madras and t h e s o u t h e r n districts about t h e end of t h e

1. S. S a t y a ~ n u r t it o Mahatmcl Gandl~l, 4 August 1939,

S. S a t y a m u r t i p a p e r s , NMMI,.
2. GO1 583/1927. Home ( P u b l i c ) , N A I .
3. Hindu, 9 February 1926.
 1, '2
0"

1
l a s t century.

O r i g i n a l l y it was n e i t h e r t h e e d u c a t e d c l a s s n o r t h e r i t u a l l y

dominant c l a s s of Brahmans t h a t took t h e l e a d i n t h e s o c i e t y o r

p l a y e d a dominant r o l e i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e Government. Having

been t h e f i r s t t o m i g r a t e t o t h e c i t y i n s e a r c h of commercial

o p p o r t u n l t i e s , i t was t h e commercial community which c o o p e r a t e d

w i t h t h e European commercial groups.' As a r e s u l t of t h i s , t h e y

a l s o assumed t h e l e a d e r s h i p and a c t e d a s i n t e r m e d i a r i e s between

t h e B r i t i s h and I n d i a n conununities. They were a l s o aware of t h e

a d v a n t a g e s o f u n i t e d act$on and o r g a n i s e d p r o t e s t . The awareness

grew f i r s t i n t h e u r b a n c e n t r e o f Madras, where l i f e rids s o

competitive t h a t it 12-1 t o a slow e r o s i o n o t t h c t r a d i t i o n a l

i n s t i t u t i o n s and h a b i t s , and c a l l e d f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s based on

f a c t o r s o t h e r t h a n k i n s h i p and c a s t e . Their leaders a l s o believed
3
t h a t w e s t e r n e d u c a t i o n was t h e key t o I n d i a ' s r e g e n e r a t i o n .

They c o n t i n u e d t o p l a f a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n t h e p o l i t i c a l a f f a i r s

of Madras, t i l l t.he b i r t h o f t h e I n d i a n N a t i o n a l Congress.

The r e s e n t m n t c r e a t e . 2 by t h e Brahman , l o m i n a t i o n i n Govern-

ment s e n r i c e became i n t e n s i f i e d when t h e r e was a s h a q r i s z i n

l i t e r a c y between 1901 and 1921. There was i n c r e a s e d demand f o r

Government atlpointnlents which w e n t h e o n l y o]ierlings a v a i l a b l e

f o r t h e educated c l a s s c s . Eloreovcr the.;e o i t l c e s were r e g a r d e d a s

a s o c i a l l e v e r o f t h e h i g h e s t Importance, a n J t h e non-Brahmans

wanted a f a i r s h a r e o f them. )mother f a c t o r t h a t influenced t h e

f o r m a t i o n of t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y wdr; t h e g r o w t h of a number of C a s t e

o n j a n i s a t i o n s between 1901 and 1910.

They were o r g a n i s e d not f o r
.................................................................
1. Subba Kao, K., Revived Memories, Canesh and Co., Madras,
1933, p.185.
2. S u n t h a r a l i n g a m , R., P o l i t i c s dnd N a t i o n s l i s L Awakening i n
South I n d i a , pp.26-32.
3. I b i d . , pp.38-41.
 t h e p u r p o a e of u p h o l d i n g t h e i r c a s t e rules, b u t f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g

a g r o u p i d e n t i t y , f o r a s s e r t i n g t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s and f o r
i m p r o v i n g i t t h r o u g h economic a g g r a n d i s e m e n t . These i n t e r e s t s

s o l i d i f i e d l a t e r i n t o p o l i t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n s t h e r e b y politicisirrg

t h e apolitical i n t e r e s t s . 2 The Government a l s o t o o k c c g n i s a n c e

o f t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e s e g r o u p s .

T h e r e w a s u s u a l l y a mushroom g r o w t h o f t h e s e o r g a n i s a t i o n s ,

when p o l i t i c a l r e f o r m s were i n t h e o f f i n g . There w a s i n t e n s e

a c t i v i t y i n t h e s e a s s o c i a t i o n s h o p . n g t h a t t h e r e would be a n o t h e r

i n s t a l m e n t of reforms a f t e r t h e world w a r . The i m n e d i a t e i m p e t u s

f o r t h e b i r t h o f t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y w a s t h e e l e c t i o n s h e l d i n 1916

t o t h e L o c a l a n d t h e I m p e r i a l L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l s , when t h e

B r a h w n s c a p t u r e d 9 o u t ot 10 seat: i n t h e Local C o u n c i l , and a l l

t h e 3 s e a t s t o t h e I m p e r i a l L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l from Madras. The

r e a l i s a t i o n o f t h e Brahman c o m p l i c i t y i n t h e d e f e a t o f mans; non-

Brahman l e a d e r s s u c c e e d e d i n b r i n g i n g t g e t h e r r i v a l non-Brahman

l e a d e r s l i k e P.T. C h e t t y a ~ Td. N . Nayar t o s t a r t a n o r g a n i s a t i o n

f o r p r o t e c t i n g t h e non-Brahman interests. Another important

e l e m e n t i n t h i s d e v e l c p n e n t was p r o v i d e d b y t h e p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e

o f t h e l e a d e r s d u r i n g t h e m e e t i n g s of t h e Madras Mahajana S a b h a a n d

t h e I n d i a n N a t i o n a l C o n g r e s s , w h e r e t h e Brahmans a v o i d e d t h e

company of the non-Brahma~ls w h i l e t a k i n g m e a l s . kaders like

3
C. s a n k a r a n Nayar s a i ~ lt h a t t h e i r p o s i t i o n w a s n o t v e r y agreeable.

A s t h e y d i d n o t want t o c r e a t e a s c e n c , most of; t h e m s t a y e d away

f r o m t h e C o n g r e s s as e a r l y as 189'1.

r h e social i n s u l t s w e r e keenly t c l t i n t h e background of t h e

...................................................................
1. C e n s u s o f I n l i a , Madras, P a r t 1 R e p o r t , 1311, p.178.
2. W a s h b r o o k , n . A . , l l ~ ~ e n c eo f P r o v i n c i a l P o l i t i c s , p p . 264-269.
3. Menon, ':.F. S., C. S a n k a r a n N a i r , Publication D i v i s i o n , M i n i s t r y
o f I n L o r m a t i o n and ~ r o a c l c a s t i n g , Governmcrlt o f I n d i a ,
1967, p.35.
 s e n s e o f i m p o r t a n c e g a i n e d from t h e s t u d i e s o f T a m i l l i t e r a t u r e

and D r a v i d i a n c i v i l i z a t i o n by writers l i k e Rok-rt C a l d w e l l ,

B e s c h i a n d G.U. pope.' T h i s h e l p e d t h , . non-Brahmans t o assert

t h e i r right to equality. T h i s a l s o l e u t o t h e demand f o r s o c i a l

j u s t i c e and s o c i a l r e f o r m s . The C o n g r e s s s e s s i o n s a v o i d e d touch-

i n g o n t h e problems o f s o c i a l r e f o r m m a i n l y d u e t o t h e Brahman
C
indifference.

By t h e n , t h e Home k l e movement u n d e r t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f Annie

B e s a n t w a s demanding s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t f o r T n d i a . The r e a c t i o n t o

t h e Brahman d o m i n a t i o n o f t h i s movement was a n a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r

t h a t p r e c i p i t a t e d t h e f o r m a t i o n of t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y . The

B r i t i s h o f f i c i a l s also encouraged t h e f o r m a t i o n of t h e p a r t y a s
3
a c o u n t e r t o t h e Brahman d o m i n a t e d b u r e a u c r a c y a n d Co?gress P a r t y .
9 4
The a c c u m u l a t e d g r i e v a n c e s o f c e n t u r i e s :=nrlered i t i n e v i t a b l e .

I n N o v e m h r 1 3 1 6 , t h e p a r t y w e s o r g a n i s e d u n d e r t h e name o f

' S o u t h T n d t a n L l i - ~ r a lF e . 3 0 r a t i o n 1 , a n d i n d u e c o u r s e came t o be

p o p u l a r l y known as t h e ' J u s t i c e P a r t y ' . It i s s u e d a m a n i f e s t o

i n which i t c l a i m d t h a t i t r e p r e s e n t e d 40 m i l l i o n non-Brahmans

o f t h e P r e s i d e n c y , who were w i t h o u t a n y p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e o n

a c c o u n t of t h e i r n e g l e c t of Knglisn e d u c a t i o n , which had

r e s u l t e d i n t h e Brahmans m o n o y , o l i s i n ~ ~ajl l t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a n d

political positions. The m a n . i f e s t o a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t i f t h e

B r i t i s h g r a n t e d Home h l c i m r m l i a t e l y , t h e Brahmans would mono-

p o l i s e a l l t h e p w e r a n d i n f l u e n c e , a n d k e s p t h e non-Brahmans i n

1. I r s c h i c k , E.F., P o l i t i c s a n d S o c i a l C o n r l i c t i n S o u t h I n d i a ,
pp.296-298.
2. Hindu, 1 4 May 1893.
3. N e w I n d i a , Madras, 1 4 Decernl~cr1 9 2 0 , W J R .
~ u s t i c eP a r t y G o l d e ~J ~u b i l e e > o u v e n i r , Madras, 1968, p . 6 8 .
W i l l i r q d o n t o Montague, 8 P c i x u a r y 1 3 2 0 , . J i l l i n g d o n papers,NAI.
4. ~ i r d u , 29 A p r i l 1 9 2 5 .
s u bj u g a t i o n , and t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d r e f o r m s s h o u l d be p o s t p o n e d .

I t f a v o u r e d d e m o c r a t i s a t i o n of t h e p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s i n

I n d i a , b u t w a n t e d t h a t t h e r e f o r m s s h o u l i be g r a d u a l . I t main-

t a i n e d t h a t t h e B r i t i s h m l c was b a s i c a l l y j u s t , and t h a t it

a l o n e c o u l d h o l d t h e scales e v e n b e t w e e n t h e v a r i o u s c o m p e t i n g
1
c a s t e s and communities of India.

A d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n oi- t h e h i s t o r y of t h t ? J u s t i c e P a r t y

d o e s n o t f a l l w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y and t h e r e -

fore, o n l y a Mre m e n t i o n of t h e i m p o r t a n t d e v e l o p m e n t s w h i c h h a d

a d i r e c t e f f u c t o n t h e w o r k i n g of t h e ' 2 g i s l a t u r e i s a t t e m p t e d
here. I n 1 9 1 7 t h e Secretary o f S t a t e f o r I r r i i a announced t h a t

f u r t h e r r e f o r m s w o u l i be g r a n t e d t o I r 3 i a . The S o u t h I n d i a n

Uberal F e d e r a t i o n p r e s e n t e d a n a d d r e s s t o t h e V i c e r o y s t a t i n g

t h a t t h e t i m e had n o t coi?e f o r llorne Rule t o kc ggcantcd t o T d i a ,

am3 demanded t h a t a n y reforms s h o u l d p r o v i d e f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

o f t h e non-Brahmans o n a communal b a s i s . ' The B r i t i z h commercial

i n t e r e s t s and a g r o u p o f I n d i a n C i v i l S e r v a n t s , and l a t e r t h e

Government o f I n g i a w e r e a l s o i n f a v o u r olr t h e non-Urahman c l a i m s .

The p r o - C o n g r e s s non-Brahinm l e a d e r s of Mad--as w ; ~ oopljosed

t h e p o l i c y o f t h e J u s t i c e Part,:r form-d a n a s s c c i a t i o n u n d e r t h e

name of t h e Madras Presidency A s s o z i s t i o n . I t t o o advocated t h e

need f o r s p e c i a l r e p r e s s e n t a t i o n f o r t h e non-Brahmans, b u t p r e s s e d

o n l y f o r r s s e r v a t i ~ no f s e a t , . 'rile Governnlent o: I n l i a A c t of

1 3 1 9 p r o v i d e d f-or r e s e r v a t i o n o f seats i n t h e g e n e r a l non-

Muhammadan c o n s t i t u e n c i e s t o t h e ncn-Bral~rn.~nsi n tiad r a s . The

Meston Award p r o v i d e d t h a t 2 4 scats s h o u l d be r e s e r v w i l o r them.

The J u s t i c e P a r t y was t i i e the o n l y m a j o r [ , a r t y tldt contested

1. J u s t i c e P a r t y Golden ul,.iloc 3 o u v e n i r . 1111.20-21.

2. bid., p . 3 2 .
i n t h e e l e c t i o n s , a p a r t from t h e LLberal p a r t y . I t came o u t

s u c c e s s f u l w i t h 64 members c l a i m i n g t o belong t o i t . On t h e

recommendation o f t h e i t s l e a d e r I'.T. C h e t t y , t h e Governor namina-

t e d A . Subbarayulu Reddiyar a s t h e F i r s t M i n i s t e r . A f t e r a few

months h e r e s i g n a d due t o ill h e a l t h , and was succeeded by Rama-

r a y a n i n g a r who l a t e r became t h e Raja o f Panagal. Some o f t n e

J u s t i c e P a r t y l e a d e r s had e a r l i e r condoned t h e B r i t i s h a c t i o n a t
J a l l i a n w a l a h Bagh, though t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e p a r t y condemned it.
1
2
Many of i t s l e a d e r s l i k e P.T. C h e t t y were v e r y c o n s e r v a t i v e .

The a t t i t u d e of t h e l e a d e r s c o n t i n u e d t o be c o n s e r v a t i v e d u r i n g

t h e P a r t y ' s tern i n o f f i c e , a s c o u l d be seen from t h e i r r e a c t i o n

t o t h e q u e s t i o n s i n t h e C o u n c i l on c l maintenance
~ of law and o r d e r

and t h e t r e a t r e n t meted o u t t o t h e p o l i t i c a l p r i s o n e r s . 3

Many l e a d e r s o f t h e J u s c i c e r a r t y had b c n i n the Congress

earlier. But from i t s i n c e p t i o n , t h e p a r t y c o n c e n t r a t e d i t s

a t t e n t i o n on provirpcial problems. Taking i n t o a c c o u n t t h e e x i s t e n c e

o f d i f f e r e n c e s &tween v a r i o u s c a s t e s , t h e party l e a d e r s d u r i n g

t h e non-Brahman c o n f e r e n c e h e l d i n 1 9 2 2 e x p r e s s e d t h e nesd t o r

b r i n g i q a l l t h e c a s t e s to,ether. They c l a i m 4 t h a t t h e i r aim was

Justice - s c c i a l and political, i n i l u e n e j b t r s o c i a l reform and

democracy. * T h i s l e d ' T h e Hindu' t o comment t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l

r e a c t i o n a r y p r i n c i p l e s w i t h w h i c h t h e J u s t i c c : P a r t y was s t a r t e d

was a p a s s i q phase, and i t had 3 e v e l c l e u 2 sted l i l y growlng s e n s e

5
o f p a t r i o t i s m and n a t i o n a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s .
-------------------------------------------------------------.-------
I. I r s c h i c k , E. F., P o l i t i c s a n ' ' . o c i a l C o n f l i c t i n
s o u t h I r d i a , p.135.
H i d u , 2 1 September 1920.
2. I.iolony, J . C . , A Book o f sout11 TnJia, methu~?nLi Co., London,
1 9 2 6 , p.154.
3. Under S e c r e t a r y Safc S e c r e t F i l e 3 6 7 . 1 2 :it:ptenlbt.r 1922.
4. HiMu, 8 A p r i l 1 9 2 2 .
5. Kindu, 2 5 A p r i l 1 9 2 2 .
 But t h e p a r t y was dominated b]. r i c h l a n d l o r d s , and t h e

l e a d e r s a d o p t e d a d i c t a t o r i a l a t t i t u d e i n making d e c i s i o n s i n

t h e p a r t y and i n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e i r p a r t y members.' 1Lke any

p a r t y i n power i t had t o f a c e d i s c o n t e n t among i t s mmbers.

Appointments t o t h e Local Self-Government i n s t i t u t i o n s which

w e r e i n t h e hands of t h e M i n i s t r y a l s o c r e a t e d f r i c t i o n w i t h i n
t h e party. The s i t u a t i o n was made worse by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e

J u s t i c e Paxty l a c k e d p r o p e r o r g a n i s a t i o n . 2 A l l these led t o a

r i f t between t h e o l d e r , c o n s e r v a t i v e m e n b e r s and the younger

progressive elements.
-
r)

The l a t t e r r e g f i t t e d t h a t t h e p a r t y was

n o t showing n o u g h i n t e r e s t i n t h e w e l f a r e of t h e r r ~ a s s e s . ~The

f a c t t h a t a l l t h r e e M i n i s t e r s were fro111 Teluyu s p e a k i n g d i s t r i c t s

o f t h e P r e s i d e n c y l e d t o t h e a l i e n a t i o n of t h e Tamil speaking
5
mernlxrs of t h e p a r t y .
BY May 1923, t h e d i f f e r e n c e s hail c c r n e i ' t m t ~ l eopen. 'The non-

Brahinan workers c o n t e r e n c e h e l ~ it h a t y e a r g a v e a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o

t h e d i s c o n t e n t e d e l e m e n t s t o i n s i s t . t h t~ t h e i r g r i e v a n c e s s h o u l d

be h e a r d and t h a t t h t d i v e r g e n t v i e w s :jhoulcl ix t a k e n i n t o
6
l t b.? a u t o c r a t i c .
c o n s i d e r a t i o n and t h e l e a d e r s s l ~ o u l ~n o

T.A. Ramaliqarn C h e t t i y a r , a non-Brahman clembc:r oi- t h e Council

s e n t a l e t t e r d e t a i l i n g these grievances. :Some 7 o r O m e r n k r s

e v e n g a v e n o t l c e of a motion f o r r e d u c t i o r ~oi s a l a n of t h e

Ministers. They q u e s t i o n e d t h ? M i n i s t e r ' s a c t i o n i n a!Inouncing

a voluntary r e d u c t i o n of t h e i r s a l a r : ~ without c o n s u l t i q t h e
...............................................................
I. Hindu, 29 May 1923.
2. Hindu, 26 May 1923.
3. Hindu, 1 8 August 1923.
W i l l i n l d o n t o P e e l , 30 April. 1923, ~ : i . l l i n g ' i o np a l , e r s , S A T .
4. C. R.Reddi t o A.P.Patro, 6 b m n a r ; ' 1923,!4. I J . P a t r o papers,NMML.
5. Mahajana Nesan, C o i m h a t ~ ~ r!' , J u l y 1'123, N N R .
6. Dravidan, Madras, 29 Play 1023, W!R.
Swarajya, Madras, 2 8 Play 1927, NNI?.
p a r t y members. The M i n i s t e r s a p o l q i s e d and p r o m i s e d t o a p p o i n t
1
a c o m m i t t e e which t h e y would c o n s u l t i n a l l i m p o r t a n t m a t t e r s .

T h i s f e e l i n g o i d i s c o n t e n t led to t h e c o n v e n i n g of a Tamil

non-Brahman c o n f e r e n c e i n ~ r i c h ys o o n a f t e r . The Raja of riarnnad

who p r e s i d e d o v e r it c l a i r ~ ~ etdh a t i t was n o t a r e v o l t from t h e

p a r e n t a s s o c i a t i o n , b u t o n l y a n e x p r e s s i o n of t h e idea t h a t t h e

Tamils should have a d i s t i n c t p o l i t i c a l p a r t y f o r t h e i r advaixe-

ment a n d t o s a f e g u a r d t h e i r i n t e r e s t s . The a i m of t h e p a r t y w a s

s a i d t o be t o g e t r i d of t h e a p a t h y o f the non-Brahmans and t o

d r a f t a programme and p o l i c y . A conunittee was a p p o i n t e d t o d r a f t

a c o n s t i t u t i o n f o r t h e S o u t h I n d i a n Literal F e d e r a t i o n . 2

The D e p r e s s e d C l a s s e s a l s o w e r e d i s c o n t e n t e d w i t h tlle a t t i t u d e

of t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y l e a d e r s . rhey f e l t t h a t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s

w e r e n o t p r o p e r l y l o o k e d a f t e r and t h a t t h e M i n i s t e r s w.?re d i s -
3
c o u r a g i r g t h e i r r e p r e ~ e n t ~ l t i v efrom
s v e n t i l a t i r q t h e i r grievances.

T h i s came i n t o t h e open d u r i n g t h e a c r i m o n i o u s d i s c u s s i o n s i n t h e

C o u n c i l o n t h e s t r i k e i n Buckingham and C a r n a t i c M i l l s .

F o r t h e time k i n g , t h e d i s c o n t e n t e d members d e c i , ~ ? dn o t t o

f o r c e t h e i s . u e i n view o r t h e a ! , p r o a c . ~ i m ]e l e c t i o n s . The

c o n t e n t s of t h e 1 3 2 3 e l e c t i o n m a n i l e s t o of th,- J u s t i c e P a r t y

i n d i c a t e d t h e clrange t h a t had cow o v e r t h e n t h ~ it t was no l o n g e r

a p u r e l y corrmunal p a r t y . 4 I n tllc e l e c t i o n s , t h e p a r t y w d s

r e t u r n e d w i t h a r e d u c e d m a j o r i t y owinq t o t h e p o o r an.! i n e f f e c t i v e

cornpaignirrj by i t s l o c a l o q a n i s a t i o n s . Some d i s s i d e n t rieniL>ero

contested t h e e l e c t i o n s a x n t i - r . : i n i s t e r i a l i s t s .
Irwne~iately
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Hindu, 26 May 1923.
Hindu, 1 J u n e 1 9 2 3 .
2. Hi-du, 18, 20, 21 August 1 3 2 3 .
3. Hindu, 2 5 S e p t e m b e r 1 9 2 2 .
S u d a r s i . d , N a r a s a p u r , 1 5 J u n e 1,923, N N R .
4. T a m i l Nadu, Salem, 4 March 1923, NNR.
a f t e r the elections, t h e Raja o f P a n a g a l c a l l e d f o r a m e e t i t q of

t h e p a r t y t o which t h e Muhamnadans a l s o w e r e i n v i t e d . ' Wlt the

p a r t y had a l r e a d y e a r n e d t h e d i s p l e a s u r e of t h e Muhammadans due

t o i t s a t t i t u d e towards t h e p o l i t i c a l p r j s o n e r s and o v e r t h e
L
q u e s t i o n of appointments. Many o f t h e d i s s i d e n t s however w e r e

n o t i n v i t e d t o t h i s meetitq. This l e d t o t h e repudiation of t h e

l e a d e r s h i p by t h e d i s s i d e n t e l e w n t s who set a b o u t o r g a n i s i n g

t h e m s e l v e s a s a p a r t y w i t h a p r c g r e s s i v e programme, b u t w i t h o u t
3
s a c r i f i c i n g t h e non-Brahman interests. *en t h e Raja of Panagal

was c a l l e d upon t o form t h e M i n i s t r y , they d e c i d e d upon a no-

confidence motion a g a i n s t t h e Ministry. They a l s o t r i e d t o c o n c i -

l i a t e t h e Muhammadans.

The O p p o s i t i o n i n t h e s e c o n d C o u n c i l was much strower i n

numbers, o r y a n i s a t i o n and d e b a t i n g power t h a n i n t h e f i r s t C o u n c i l .

I n view of t h i s , some l e a d e r s of t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y wanted t o

remedy i t s weakness. I n t h e s e v e n t h non-Brahman confeileration

h e l d i n 1924, M. Rathnaswami made a s t r o r q a p p e a l t o t h e p a r t y t o

work t h e r e f o r m s a l o n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a 1 l i n e s w i t h o u t comnunal

considerations .* A r e s o l u t i o n a l s o was p a s s e d r e g r e t t i n g t h e

m i s u n d e r s t a n d i t q among t h e m e m b e r s , and .nvit-iny t h o s e who had

seceded t o r e j o i n t h e party.' The a n t i - M i n i s t e r i a l i s t s felt that

t h e y c w l d n o t d o s o , u n l e s s t h e b a s i c d i f k e r e n c e s were r e s o l v e d .

I n a n a t t e m p t t o b r i n g about r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , the confederation

Y e t the difierences persisted,

adopted a c o n s t i t u t i o n . 6 with
..............................................................
1. Hindu, 10, 11 November 1'323.
2. Azad Hind, Madras, 20 November 1923, Null.
I r s c h i c k , E.F., P o l i t i c s and s o c i a l C o n i l i c t i n South I n d i a ,
p. 258.
3. Hindu, 1 3 November 1923.
Andhra P a t r i k a , Madras, 1 7 Ncrvember 1923, NtJR.
4. Hindu, 11 October 1924.
5. Hindu, 1 3 October 1723.
6. Hindu, 22 December 19241 9 February 1925.
r i v a l c o n f e r e n c e s b e i n g h e l d by t h e Ministerialists o n t h e one

hand , a n d t h e N a t i o n a l i s t s i n c l u d i n g t h e a n t i - M i n i s t e r i a l i s t

non-Brahmans on t h e other. The N a t i o n a l i s t s ' c o n f e r e w e which

w a s a t t e n d e d by members i i k e C.V.S. Narasimha Raju and C.R.Reddi,

censured t h e ini is try.' But by 1 9 2 6 , t h e a n t i - M i n i s t e r i a l i s t s

lost t h e i r vigour.
The J u s t i c e P a r t y m a n i f e s t o d u r i n g t h e t h i r d g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n s

i n c l u d e d prograrrunes w h i c h were more p r q r e s s i v e , i n order t o

c o u n t e r t h e c a m p a i g n carried o n by t h e C o r q r e s s P a r t y . Y e t the

P a r t y f a r e d even worse t h a n i n t h e p r e v i o u s e l e c t i o n . and won

o n l y 21 s e a t s . I n s p i t e o f t h i s , t h e p a r t y l e a d e r s made s e r i o u s

attempts t c j fonn a Ministry. The f a i l u r e o f t h e P a r t y i n i t s

attempt, set o f f a c h a i n o f events. The I n d e p e n d e n t P a r t y which

t o o k o f f i c e i n November 1926 d u r i r q t h e t h i r d term c o n s i s t e d o f

many non-Congress n a t i o n a l i s t s , many o f whom b e l o n g e d t o t h e

J u s t i c e P a r t y i n t h e f i r s t Council. The y o u n g e r m e m k r s o f t h e

J u s t i c e P a r t y f e l t t h a t t h e i r o n l y hope l a y i n j o i n i n g t h e

Congress. They w e r e able t o get t h e Party confererlce held a t

Coimbatore i n J u l y 1927 t o p a s s a r e s o l u t i o n permittincj t h e

m e m b e r s t o j o i n t h e C o r y r e s s P a r t y and n o t t o a c c e p t o f f i c e till
p r o v i n c i a l autonomy w a s g r a n t e d . The C o n g r e s s i t s e l f was s p l i t

i n t o g r o u p s and t h e J u s t i c e LJarty wanted t o t a k r a d v a n t a g e of i t

t o c a p t u r e pmer w i t h i n t h e C o n g r e s s I1art:/. leopl.;. l i k e FJ-Varadha-

r a j u l u Nayudu a n d 1t.K. Shanmukam C h e t t i y a r p l a y e d a n i m p o r t a n t

2
r o l e i n b r i r q i n g about t h i s d e c i s i o n .
Those i n t h e J u s t i c e P d r t y wilt :dere o],poucd t o j o i r l i n g t h e

not only r 5 s u l t i n t h e
C o n y r e . ; ~ f e l t t h a t s u c h a s t e p woul: non-
...................................................................
1. Hindu, 22 August 1925.
2. GO1 583/1927 Home ( P u b l i c ) .
Hindu, 26 J u l y 1927.
Brahman p a r t y l o s i n g i t s i d e n t i t y , b u t would a l s o amount t o

accepting defeat. They f e l t t h a t t h e Coimbatore c o n f e r e n c e had

o v e r s h o t t h e mark and had a l i e n a t e d t h e s u p p o r t of t h e Zamindars,

b i g m e r c h a n t s and t h e n o n - b f f i c i a l European community.' They

d i s s o c i a t e d t h e m s e l v e s from t h e r e s o l u t t o n and formed a p a r t y

u n d e r t h e l e a d e r s h i p of K.V. Reddi, c a l l i r q t h e m s e l v e s c o n s t i -

t u t i o n a l i s t s who w e r e t o work a s a wing of t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y .

2
They a l s o p a s s e d a r e s o l u t i o n welcoming t h e Simon Commission.

some members a l s o l e f t t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y and joined t h e

3
Ministerialists.

A s a r e s u l t t h e r e were t h r e e g r o u p s i n t h e Justice Party-

t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y , t h e M i n i s t e r i a l i s t s and t h e J u s t i c e C o n s t i -

tutionalists. There was a c o n f e r e n c e of t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y and

t h e M i n i s t e r i a l i s t s i n 1929 t o b r i n g a b o u t u n i f i c a t i o n , but
4
n o t h i n g came of it.

A f t e r t h e d e a t h o f t h e Raja of Panagal, t h e o u t l o o k of t h e

P a r t y s t a r t e d s l o w l y becoming l i b e r a l . The rSrecutive Council

o f t h e SILF recomnended t h a t t h e m m b e r s h i p of t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y
5
s h o u l d be thrown open t o a l l c l a s s e s includiing t h e Brahmans.

B. Muniswam~ Nayudu proposed i t a g a i n i n t.hc e l e v e n t h Non-Brahman

C o n f e d e r a t i o n h e l d i n N e l l o r e i n 1929. Non-nrahrnan leafiers l i k e

P. bubbarayan and George J o s e p h irom o t h e r p x r t i e s a l s u a t t e n d e d

t h e meeting. I t was approved by t n e Three P a r t i e s Committee,

---------- ------ .................................

~ i h i l et h e o e-----------
b u t was r e l e c t e d bx t h e c o n i e d e r a t i o r i . 6
i n i o n of
1. UrJer S e c r e t a r y S a f e S e c r e t (Conf. ) F i l e 5 t ? 3 , 10 August 1327.
2. P. Subramaniam Chettjr t o C. . :I R e d 4 i , 1 Auqust 1927,
C. R. Reddi p a p e r s , NMML.
Hindu, 1 9 O c t o b e r 1927; 1 4 1:'ehmciry 192R.
3 . Hindu, IF? August 1927.
4. Hindu, 11 J a n u a r y 1929: 2 F e b r u a r y 1329.
5. Hindu, 18 Ilarch 1929.
Chitraqupt.1, Bangalore, 22 March 192'3, NWR.
6 . Hindu, 5, 7 October 1329.
Times of I n d i a , 5 o c t o b e r 1729, N e i i s p a ~ ~ ecrl l p p i n ~ j s ,
i4.R. J a y a k a r papers, N A I .
the Andhras w a s i n f a v o u r o f t h e c h a r q e , t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e
Tandls was against it. S t i l l t h e e f f o r t s t o securx? t h e Brahman
1
e n t r y continued.

I n 1 9 3 0 , t h e SILF m e t t o decide on t h e a t t i t u d e t o be t a k e n

towards o t h e r p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s w i t h a v i e w t o i n i t i a t i n g t a l k s
a b o u t t h e Round T a b l e C o n f e r e n c e . I t d e c i d e d t o preserve i t s

i d e n t i t y within t h e Presidency, but w a s w i l l i n g t o cooperate with

o t h e r parties o n A l l I r d i a q u e s t i o n s . It w a n t e d t o h a v e a n

u n d e r s t a n d i r q w i t h t h e non-Brahman p a r t ~ e sof Bornlay and C e n t r a l

P r o v i n c e s a b o u t t h e i r a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e Round T a b l e Conference.

The non-Brahmans o f Madras made it clear t h a t n o i s s u e o f a

c o m n a l n a t u r e w i l l be i n t r o d u c e d by them a t any a l l p a r t y

Though t h e p e o p l e h a d become d i s i l l u s i o n e d w i t h t h e

J u s t i c e P a r t y , i t w a s p r a c t i c a l l y unopposed d u r i n g t h e e l e c t i o n s ,

a s t h e Congress P a r t y d i d not c o n t e s t . B. Muniswarni Nayudu who

w a s elected a s t h e l e a d e r i n t h e N e l l o r e c o n f e r e n c ? , &came t h e
F i r s t M i n i s t e r i n 1930. Under h i s l e a d e r s h i p t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y

was bocomtng more liberal. H e was s a i d t o Imve g i v e n a n a s s u -

r a n c e t h a t h e would t a k e a t l e a s t o n e Zamindar i n h i s M i n i s t r y .

But h e d i d n o t d o s o a n d w a s a l s o a l l e g e d t o t a v e f a i l e d t o

s a f e g u a r d t h e i n t e r e s t s o i th,? Z a n i n d a r s d u r i n g t h e p a s s a g e o f

t h e E s t a t e s Land A c t Amendment 13ill.' Phe N a y d r a t h a r s ancl t h e

Muhamadans were a l s o d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e c o m p o s i t i o n of t h e

Ministry. During t h e J u s t i c e P d r t y c o n f e r e n c e a t r a n j o r e , the

s u p p o r t e r s o f B. Muniswami Nayudu a n 3 t h e R a j a o f B o b b i l i were

...............................................................
1. ~ i n & . 1 6 J u n e 1930.
2. Times o f In.4ia. 2 P e b n ~ a r y1930, Newspapt?r clippings,
M. R. J a y a k a r papers, N A I .
3. MLCP, Volume IXIII, 7 Novitmker 1932. p.546.
a t l o g g e r heads.' '-1s was n o t due t o any p o l i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e

b u t only due t o s e c t a r i a n considerations.2 liis c o n t i n u e d e f f o r t s

t o l i b e r a l h e t h e p a r t y by throwing open i t s membership t o

Brahmans, and h i s championing t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e r y o t s came Up

f o r criticism. H e was accused of being a S w a r a j i s t s y m p a t h i s e r .

A l l t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s a n t a g o n i s e d t h e l a ~ d e dd r i s t o c r a c y which

formed a p o w e r f u l g r o u p i n s i d e t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y . Attempts at a

compromise f a i l e d , and t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y members t h e m s e l v e s gave

n o t i c e of a no-confidence motion a g a i n s t t h e F i r s t M i n i s t e r
3
B. Muniswarni Nayudu. H e r e s i g n e d dn:i was succeeded by t h e Raja

of Bobbili. B. Muniswami Nayudu formed a J u s t i c e Democratic

p a r t y w i t h 20 rrembers, which s a t w i t h t h e Opposition. I t was t o

f o l l o w t h e main p r i n c i p l e s of t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y , b u t i t s member-
4
s h i p was t o be open t o a l l c o m u n i t i e s .

T h e r e was an a t t e m p t t o form a common f r o n t i n 1934 w i t h t h e

u n i t e d N a t i o n a l i s t P a r t y which was i n C p p o s i t i o n i n t h e f o u r t h

C o u n c i l f o r t h e purpose of c o n t e s t i n g .n t h e e l e c t i o n s t o t h e

C e n t r a l L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly. P. Sub1 a r a y a n , t h e l e a d e r o f t h e

O p p o s i t i o n i n s i s t e d t h a t t h e ban on t h e Brahmans s h o u l d be removed

and t h a t t h e p o l i c y of t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y sliould kw more i n conso-

nance w i t h t h e n a t i o n a l i s t Qpinion. The J u s t i c e P d r t y f i n a l l y

a d o p t e d t h e o f t r e j e c t e d p r o p o s d l t o a d m i t t h e 3rahmari.z i n t o it5

fold.' E v e n a t k e r t h e e l e c t i o n s , t h e d i a l o g u e w i t h P. Subbarayan
6
t o come t o an un.3erstan.linq c o n t i n u e d .
................................................................
1 . P e1360,
n m a l , N., Robbili,
pp. 43-49.
The T o ~ ~ i c aHook
l Co., Coimbatore,

2 . Times of ..ndia, 11 Octoher 1 9 3 2 , newspaper cliprl.llqs,

M. R. J a y 3 k a r p a p e r s , N h I .
3. Hindu, 1, 2 Novemher 1932.
4. Hindu, 5 November 1332.
5. Hindu, 21 May 1 9 3 4 , ; 2 9 J e p c e ~ n k r1931.
'rimes of I n d i a , 29 :jepternber, 1 3 3 4 , Newspa!srr c l i p p i n g s ,
M.R. J a y a k a r p a p e r s , N A T .
6 . E r s k i n e t o Willingdon, 1 5 March 1935, Krskine p a p e r s , NMML.
 A f t e r t h e d e a t h of B. ~ u n i s w a m iNayudu i n December 1934,

t h e J u s t i c e I k m o c r a t s were f a v o u r a b l e t o r e j o i n i n g t h e J u s t i c e

P a r t y and s a n e of them d i d so.' But il s p l i t developed d u r i n g

t h e e l e c t i o n t o t h e C e n t r a l L e g i s l a t i ~ ~Assembly.
e M.A. Muthiah

Chettiyar, t h e Chief Whip of t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y was a l l e g e d t o

have h e l p e d t h e Congress c a n d i d d t e s g e t e l e c t e d t o the L e g i s l a t i v e

Assembly a g a i n s t t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y c a n d i d a t e s . H e was t h e r e f o r e

c e n s u r e d and h e r e s i g n e d from t h e Justice P a r t y . He and h i s

s u p p o r t e r s formed a n i n & p e n d e n t g r o u p and s a t w i t h t h e Opposition.

H e was a l s o a l l e g e d t o have p e r s u a d e d t h e Leader of t h e Oppo-

s i t i o n t o move a no-confidence
2
mc~tiona g a i n s t t h e B o b b i l i M i u s t r y .

The J u s t i c e P a r t y ' s p o o r performance i n t h e C e n t r a l k g i s -

l a t i v e Assembly e l e c t i o n s l e d t o a r e t h i n k i n g on i t s p a r t about

i t s o r g a n i s a t i o n and p o l i c i e s . Fhe P a r t y e x p l a i n e d t h a t i t was

d u e t o t r e a c h e r y w i t h i n t h e p a r t y and a l s o due t o t h e campaign of

m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n c a r r i e d on by t h e The Governor f e l t

t h a t i t was r l a i n l y because i t was a p r o v i n c i a l p a r t y and d i d n o t

p u t much e f f o r t i n t o t h e f i g h t , and t h e i r c a n d i d a t e s d l s o were

r e l a t i v e l y unknown. H e f e l t t h a t both thc Corqress and the

J u s t i c e P a r t y were n o t p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s , f o r t h e y we= not based

on economic p r i n c i p l e s ,
and t h a t t h e Brdhnans dorninatzd t h e
4
former, w h i l e t h e non-Brahmans dominate1 the l a t t e r .

A f t e r t h e C e n t r a l E g i s l a t i v e Assembly elections, t h e

Congress P a r t y c o n c e n t r a t e d i t s a t t e n t i o n more o n a t t a c k i n g t h e

J u s t i c e P a r t y t h a n t h e Governmcnt. F e a r i n g t h a t the , J u s t i c e P a r t y
.................................................................
1. HirIdu, 31 December 1934; 2 2 March 1935.
2. Hindu, 4, 11 December 1934; H Marc11 1935.
E r s k i n e t o Willingdon, 11 March 1935, E r s k i n e papersiNMML.
3. I n d i a i n 1933-34, Report t o P a r l i a m e n t , D e l h i , 1935, p.38.
4. E r s k i n e t o King of G r e a t B r i t a i n , 4 A p r i l 1935,
E r s k i n e p a p e r s . NI4ML.
was l o s i n g i t s h o l d , t h e Raja o f B o b b i l i m a n i p u l a t e d t h e l o c a l

board e l e c t i o n s a n l o r g a n i s a t i o n , i n an e f f o r t t o strengthen t h e
Party. An a t t e m p t was made t o b r i n g M.A.Muthiah Chettiyar i n t o

t h e Party, and he was made a M i n i s t e r when S. Kumaraswami

1
R e d d i y a r r e s i g n e d due t o ill h e a l t h .

T h e r e was a s u g g e s t i o n i n 1935 t h a t t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y should

c h a n g e i t s p o l i c i e s and g e t a b s o r b e d i n t h e Congress. gut t h e

members f e l t t h a t t h e r e w e r e fundamental d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n them

and t h e Congress i n p r i n c i p l e s and method of work and a p p r o a c h

t o s o c i a l and economic problems and t h e Congress had h e e n changing

2
i t s p o l i c i e s often.

The J u s t i c e P a r t y was s o t o m by d i s s e n s i o n s t h a t i t managed

t o win o n l y 21 s e a t s i n t h e new Madras L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly u n d e r

t h e 1935 A c t . Its weakness w a s due t o want o t p o i i t i c a l wisdom

and f a r s i g h t e d l e a d e r s h i p . It had s t a y e d away from t h e main

s t r e a m of A l l I n d i a p o l i t i c s . I t s l o n g t e n u r e i n o t t i c e had made

it unpopular. When a p a r t y h a s been i n powc.r, i t s p r c q r a m s i n -

v a r i a b l y l o s e t h e i r appeal. Once i t had s e r v e d o r a c h i e v e d t h e

p u r p o s e f o r which i t was formed, namely the p r o t e c t i o n of t h e

non-Brahman i n t e r e s t s , it was bound t o d e c l i n e . &fore the

e l e c t i o n s , some members o t t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y who f e l t t n a t t h e

P a r t y was p o l i t i c d l l y b a n k r u p t forrwd a 1eo]>le1sl,.i t y u n d e r t h e

3
l e a d e r s h i p of The Rdja o f l ) i t l ~ a p u r a m . K.V. Reddi Formed a

N a t i o n a l Democratic P a r t y w i ~ i &wa.; t o be a nnr~-co~nr~~un;il

consti-

t u t i o n a l party. 'These p a r t i c s c a p t u r e d a f e w s e a t s i r t~ h e

Legislature. A s s u c h , O p p o s i t i o n t , , t h e Congress PartywhLLch had an

________________-_________-__---____-_-_
1. Hindu, 11 D e c e m k r 1935.
2. Times o f I n d i a , 30 March 1935, Yewspapc?r C l i p p i n g s ,

3.
M. R. J a y a k a r p a p e r s , NAI
Hindu, 27 J u l y 1936.
.
enormous m a j o r i t y was riot e f f e c t i v e .

B u t i t i s i n t e ~ s t i n qt o n o t e t h a t t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y , r e a l i s i n g

t h a t any p r o v i n c i a l o r y a n i s a t i o n would f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o f i g h t

a n A l l I n d i a o r g a n i s a t i o f i l i k e t h e Congress, a t t e m p t e d t o o r g a n i s e

t h e Opposition 011 a wider b a s i s . R.K. Shanmukam C h e t t i y a r who had

more t h a n once changed p a r t i e s , i s s u e d a n i n v i t a t i o n t o M.A.Jinnah

i n t h e hope t h a t c o o p e r a t i o n ketween t t ~ enon-Brahman p a r t y of

Madras and t h e Muslim -ague would r e s u l t i n a p o w e r f u l combination.

The o b j e c t i v e s of t h e two o r g a n i s a t i o n s were i d e n t i c a l , a s t h e y

1
wanted t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e i r communal i n t e r e s t s .

For a t i m e t h e P a r t y hobnobbed w i t h E.1'. Ramaswami Naicker,

a Congressman t u r n e d Commnist a f t e r h i s lloscow v i s i t , who had

popularised h i s seli-r?spect movement. The J u s t i c e P a r t y accomo-

d a t e d t h i s movement i n o r d e r t o g i v e some l i f e t o t h e p a r t y . But

when t h e J u s t i c e P a r t y was i n t h e 1 3 p p o s i t i o n ~ h had

e toned dadr

h i s v i t r i o l i c campaign a g a i n s t t n e Brahmans i n o r d e r t o avoid

c a u s i n g embarassment t o i t . But h i s a n t i - H i n i i a g i t a t i o n , not

o n l y c a u g h t t h e i m a g i n a t i o n o r t h e Tamil i > o p u l a t i o n b u t a l s o

u l t i m a t e l y l e d t o h i s dermnd l o r d sepa .dtc statc? i ? c r Qravidians

f o l l o w i n g t h e example set by M.A. J i n n a i ~ . T h i s movement l a t e r

l e d t o t h e l o r m a t i o n ok t h e Dravida Kaz.~gam.

A s a n O p p o s i t i o n p a r t y i n t h e L-?gislatur?, i t was i n e f i e c t i v e .

The f e e l i r - r ~o f impotence o f t h e o p p o s i t i o r ~p a r t i e s l e d t o t h e i r

e n c o u r a g i n g anti-government c \ c t i v i t i a s out:;ide t h e 1ecjisLature.

The anti-Brahman t i r a d e oi t h e s e l f - r e s 1 ) e c t movement, t h e a n t i -

H i n d i a g i t a t i o n s , t h e a y i t d t i c m f o r Antlhra i ' r o v i n c e w e r e a l l

c a r r i e d on w i t h i t s a p p r o v a l .
.................................................. -------------
1. R.K. Shanmukam C h e t t i y a r - t o N.:i. J i n n a h , 1 2 May 1938,
R,1<. Shanmukarn C h e t t i y a r p a p e r s , NMML.
2. E:J. Ramaswand N a i c k e r t o l i . i < . Shanmukarn C h e t t i y a r ,
2 Septemke r 1737, I?. I:. Shdnmukarn C h e t t i y a r p a p e r s , NMML.
 The Justire P a r t y ccnironted t h e G o v e r n m n t o n t h e same
i s s u e s o n which the C o r q r e s : ; P a r t y c o n f r o n t e d t h e J u s t i c e M i n i s t r y i r

1721, Like t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e C r i m i n a l L a w Amendment A c t ,

arrest o f a n t i - I I i n d i a y i t d t o r s dnd t h e i l l e g a l s e a r c h OF c e r t a i n

n e w s p a l l e r o f tices . A i t e r t h e re;lgnatioii of the C o n q r e s s

M i n l s t r y i n 1939, t h e i n t e n s i i i e d a g i t a t i o n f o r I n d i a n i n d e p e n -
d e n c e s l o w l y e c l i p s e d the J u s t i c e P a r t y .