The Dravidian Years: Politics and Welfare in Tamil Nadu S. Narayan Available Full Chapters
The Dravidian Years: Politics and Welfare in Tamil Nadu S. Narayan Available Full Chapters
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-dravidian-years-politics-and-
welfare-in-tamil-nadu-s-narayan/
★★★★★
4.9 out of 5.0 (82 reviews )
ebookmass.com
The Dravidian Years: Politics and Welfare in Tamil Nadu S.
Narayan Pdf Download
EBOOK
Available Formats
https://ebookmass.com/product/ten-years-later-s-e-green/
https://ebookmass.com/product/feminism-and-the-politics-of-resilience-
essays-on-gender-media-and-the-end-of-welfare-angela-mcrobbie/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-politics-of-the-anthropocene-john-s-
dryzek/
https://ebookmass.com/product/crown-and-charter-the-early-years-of-
the-british-south-africa-company-john-s-galbraith/
Advances in the Practice of Public Investment Management
1st ed. Edition Narayan Bulusu
https://ebookmass.com/product/advances-in-the-practice-of-public-
investment-management-1st-ed-edition-narayan-bulusu/
https://ebookmass.com/product/oakeshotts-skepticism-politics-and-
aesthetics-1st-edition-eric-s-kos/
https://ebookmass.com/product/judicial-process-law-courts-and-
politics-in-the-united-states-7th-edition-david-w-neubauer-stephen-s-
meinhold/
https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-play-in-the-early-years-2nd-
edition/
The Dravidian Years
The Dravidian Years
Politics and Welfare in Tamil Nadu
S. NARAYAN
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trademark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries.
Published in India by
Oxford University Press
2/11 Ground Floor, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi 110 002, India
© Oxford University Press 2018
The moral rights of the author have been asserted.
First Edition published in 2018
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
ISBN-13 (print edition): 978-0-19-948817-9
ISBN-10 (print edition): 0-19-948817-7
ISBN-13 (eBook): 978-0-19-909359-5
ISBN-10 (eBook): 0-19-909359-8
Typeset in Trump Mediaeval LT Std 9.5/14.5
by Tranistics Data Technologies, Kolkata 700 091
Printed in India by Rakmo Press, New Delhi 110 020
CONTENTS
Preface
Introduction
Notes
Bibliography
About the Author
PREFACE
DRAVIDIAN PARTIES HAVE BEEN IN POWER IN THE STATE OF Tamil Nadu for fifty
years, beginning in 1967. In these fifty years, they have been responsible for
changing the social structure of the state, and for implementing a large
number of welfare programmes for the poor. In terms of economic
performance, social indicators, as well as creating opportunities for the
disadvantaged, Tamil Nadu sets an example for many other states. Scholars
and policymakers alike have lauded the performance of several
programmes, welfare-oriented as well as those that give opportunities to the
disadvantaged. Academic literature has analysed the performance of the
schemes, and the policies that drove these schemes. The welfare
programmes have been strongly identified with the ideas and personalities
of the state’s charismatic leaders— J. Jayalalithaa, MGR (Marudur Gopalan
Ramachandran), and M. Karunanidhi—who have been at the helm of affairs
in the state for most of these fifty years. Recent and forthcoming
publications on Jayalalithaa, MGR, and Karunanidhi also shed light on the
welfare policies of these Dravidian leaders. 1
The beginnings of Dravidian culture lie in the Social Reform Movement.
It eventually morphed into a political movement that gained power and
political support. As a person who lived through these changes, and was
part of the government machinery at that time, it is interesting to reflect on
the transition of the social reform and social justice demands from ideas to a
political ideology, and on the administration’s role and involvement in
enabling this. This book highlights the interaction between politics and the
administration. It examines a few programmes to understand political
motives, the eventual interpretation of these motives by the administration,
and whether the end result served the objectives of the political ideology
and the administration. The ideology of the Social Reform Movement,
which was adopted in governance by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
(DMK) and later by the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
(AIADMK), was to change the balance of social institutions and structures.
The attempt was to create a society that was more reflective of the diversity
of the Tamil population and to move away from the dominance of the
forward communities. This was achieved through the adoption of welfare
policies, programmes, and projects. Interestingly, the administration was
soon part of this process of change—and in many cases, it even
spearheaded these changes. In some cases, political ideology used the
administration to achieve its ends, and in others the administration used the
ideology to create programmes for the public good. Public pressure for
services, which served to enhance the effectiveness of delivery, as well as
deliver a political agenda to the people, accentuated this interesting
interplay. The interplay between politics, the administration, and the people
appears to be unique to Tamil Nadu in the sense that, in other states of
India, there is no evidence of a distinct social ideology driving development
during this period.
This book draws from archival material as well as personal interactions
with several senior colleagues involved in the programmes. The narrative is
personal, as several of the actors were close acquaintances. The approach
adopted is to examine the political motivation behind every programme,
contextualize it within the objectives of the government at that time, look at
how the administrative machinery took up and implemented the
programme, and finally comment on whether the end result served political
ends, public needs, or both. It is seen that in several programmes, even
though the origins may be purely political, the way they were implemented
resulted in public welfare enhancement that served political ends along with
ensuring that sustainable development initiatives were put in place. Such
programmes have often survived several changes in governance, primarily
because they enhanced public good. The motivations of the politician in
charge at that time, those of the key people who implemented them, and the
interactions between the two are examined to illustrate the interplay
between the administration and politics, and to attempt to explain why these
programmes have been successful in Tamil Nadu. Finally, there is clear
evidence that public awareness and public pressure have sustained several
of these programmes.
I was both witness to and a participant in the changes in the social
structure of the state, the enhanced access of the backward classes to higher
education and to government jobs, and the evolution of several programmes
focused on social welfare delivery. I came to Chennai in 1958, having
completed my schooling in Kolkata (then Calcutta). Chennai and Tamil
Nadu were not familiar territory for me at that time. Until 1965, all through
my BSc and MSc, and two years of teaching Physics afterwards, I lived in a
hostel in my college, the Madras Christian College. My hostel, St. Thomas
Hall, had over 200 inmates, and all of us had single—albeit small—rooms.
Early on, I came in contact with the political sentiment in the state at that
time. Some of the students came from English-medium schools from urban
spaces within India, there were others from Sri Lanka and Malaysia
(Singapore became independent only in 1965), and a majority of students
were from Tamil Nadu, of whom several had studied in Tamil-medium
schools. Political discourse for this group was centred around E.V.
Ramasamy Naicker (popularly known as EVR or Periyar), the Justice Party,
and the young DMK. The discourse mainly revolved around opportunities
for the backward classes, opposition to Hindi, and pride in the Tamil
identity. EVR was more focused on social change in these years, and
believed that political change would follow social change. Annadurai 2
differed on this, and broke away to form the DMK in 1949, as he wanted to
achieve social change through political power. The DMK considered the
Congress to be a representative of the old social order, and was politically
in opposition to the Congress. EVR, however, felt that the Congress under
K. Kamraj, the then chief minister, would advance the cause of social
justice for the backward classes, and announced his support for the
Congress in the 1957 elections. The DMK was a party opposed to the
Congress’ ideology, and the 1957 elections saw the DMK and Periyar in
opposite camps. 3 The Election Commission did not recognize DMK as an
official party until 1962, but in 1957, the party won 13 seats through
independent candidates. Karunanidhi won from Kulithalai, and when I
came to Madras, his speeches in the Legislative Assembly, especially those
espousing causes like those of the beedi workers in Nangavaram and of
agricultural wage labourers, were part of the hostel discourse in my college.
Surprisingly, there was much less empathy for left wing movements like
those witnessed in Kerala at that time. 4 Madras was full of Tamil sentiment,
and there was opposition to Kula Kalvi Thittam, 5 which was considered to
be an attempt to perpetuate the dominance of the upper classes, especially
Brahmins. The Social Reform Movement of EVR, and the subsequent
discourse leading to the formation of the DMK, had reached the youth in
colleges and schools and there was a wave of sentiment wanting change in
the existing social order.
DMK oratory, the film dialogues of Annadurai and Karunanidhi, and the
movies of MGR were the undercurrent of debates in a college that was still
run on staid and conservative Scottish discipline by the Principal, Rev
Boyd, and later Rev McPhail.
In the 1962 elections, a number of my college mates and friends actively
participated in electioneering for the DMK, and anti-Congress sentiments
were already palpable. There was strong objection to Hindi, and my
familiarity with that language was looked down upon. In 1963 and 1964, I
had been elected Chairman of the College Union, and subsequently
Secretary of the University Students’ Council and could see that these
sentiments were common across all colleges in Madras state, 6 and students
were fervently following the speeches and doctrines of the DMK. In my
tenure with the University Students Council, I could also see the differences
in the attitudes of students from some city colleges, who were more in tune
with the earlier colonial and high-caste sentiments, and those of students
from Madras Law College and Pachaiyappa’s College, representing the new
social reality.
Then came the food shortages of 1964 and the anti-Hindi agitations of
1965, in which a large number of my friends and students from the Madras
Law College participated, and it was evident from the point of view of the
younger generation that the days of the Congress government in Madras
were numbered.
I wrote the examinations for the IAS in 1964, as soon as I was eligible in
age, and joined the service in 1965. After a year at the National Academy of
Administration in Mussoorie under probation, I was posted in 1966 as
Assistant Collector (Training) to Salem in Madras. It was in 1967, after the
elections that swept the DMK into power, that I was given my first
independent posting. Several of my college mates contested on DMK
tickets in the elections, and I could see the palpable change in the approach
of the administration after 1967.
Over the next two decades, I was intimately involved in the happenings
of the state at different levels, as Assistant Collector, Collector, Director of
Rural Development, and Secretary In Charge of Rural Development
Programmes, which gave me the opportunity to witness policy changes at
close quarters. During the DMK regime that lasted from 1967 to 1976, I
saw existing institutions being revamped and a new social structure being
put in place through reservations for appointments and in higher education
for the backward classes. The beginnings of welfare programmes for the
poor, including subsidized rice at government outlets, assistance and
pensions for the poor and the widowed, and other schemes laid the
foundations for welfare programmes in future regimes. I witnessed the
social justice agenda being slowly dominated by the upper strata of the
backward classes (noted by several academics), 7 and the growth of
corruption that eventually led to the dismissal of that government. The
subsequent MGR regime that lasted until 1987 carried the social welfare
programmes forward, and focused on nutrition and mid-day meals in
schools as the instruments to reach the poor and the rural disadvantaged,
and there is little doubt that there was a political motive behind these
programmes. MGR had risen to power on a populist wave that was
enhanced by the fact that he frequently played the role of a saviour of the
poor in his films. The big growth in social welfare programmes targeted
towards the poor in rural areas arose out of his genuine concern for the poor
as well as the image he portrayed on screen.
The Jayalalithaa regime that followed, between 1991 and 1996, focused
on the political advantages of the welfare programmes, and was less
concerned with the Social Reform Movement ideology. Dilution in policy
of the original Dravidian ideology was in evidence in this and subsequent
regimes. Subsequent governments, which alternated between the DMK and
the AIADMK, carried the concept of social welfare into the realm of
granting freebies for election gains.
There is a lot of academic literature on Tamil Nadu for this period. There
has been analysis of individual programmes, of their relevance and
effectiveness, especially of the nutrition and the noon meal programmes.
The midday meals programme was the brainchild of MGR, and involved
the supply of hot cooked meals to all children between the ages of 2 and 15
years in the state. Such a massive feeding programme had not been tried
earlier, and initial criticisms focused on the waste of resources. However,
the discourse gradually changed over the years from the sharply critical to
the cautiously laudatory. Other scholars have looked at ethnic mobilization
as well as sub-cultures and their changing influence on policy and politics
in this period. In later years, the pressures of the Most Backward Classes
and the Dalits on governments for greater concessions and opportunities are
also well documented. There are a large number of micro studies that look
at disadvantaged groups and their struggle for political mobilization as well
as asserting their claims to public services. There are comparisons with
other states, which invariably highlight how Tamil Nadu has effectively
implemented many social welfare programmes, in comparison to several
other states.
From the point of view of one involved in administration and
implementation, there appears to be one discourse that is missing. Between
policy formulation and public claims for services, there is the realm of
implementation and the role of institutions and hierarchies that convert
ideas into action. The first decade of rule of the Dravidian parties involved
significant changes in the social and administrative fabric, and it is relevant
to look at how the administration coped with these changes. In the
background is the hypothesis (supported by some academic literature) that
there was politicization of the bureaucracy, and also that over time, the
ideas of social justice of the political class were accepted and adopted by
the administrative class, and this constitutes a major reason for the success
of the programmes, and also for the administrative changes that followed.
Efficiency in administration and programme delivery was always a strength
of the Tamil Nadu structure; now that was turned towards achieving goals
that were more oriented towards achieving social justice and social welfare.
Fifty years is a long time, and it is a period that has seen a large number
of development initiatives, changes in policy and governments. In pursuing
this hypothesis, the attempt has been to pick up those initiatives that have
had significant impact, that is, the flagship interventions. Further, since the
political ideology was based on social justice and social welfare, the choice
of cases has been biased towards these, rather than industry, infrastructure,
energy, or agriculture. The programmes discussed are those with significant
government outlay and expenditure, and a substantial organizational
structure. These are programmes that have been commented on by
academics, multilateral institutions, and the Government of India and, in
several cases, used as models for other states. The study is biased towards
specific successful programmes, only because it serves to illustrate the
advantages of synergies among politics, administrative capability, and
public pressure in achieving welfare goals. There is also an attempt to select
programmes from different regimes—Karunanidhi, MGR, and Jayalalithaa,
to illustrate the unity as well as diversity in policy and implementation.
The focus of the following chapters is detailed along these lines: at the
forefront is the political objective of the programme, which is a reflection of
the political ideology, the nature of leadership, as well as the pragmatic
politics of that time. The Karunanidhi and the MGR governments were
different, and an attempt is made to underscore the differences in approach
and the causes thereof. Jayalalithaa set a different trend, which has been
followed by successive governments, and the reaction of the bureaucracy to
these changes is documented.
There has been an attempt at examination of the extant literature, as well
as examination of government documents in the Tamil Nadu archives about
the recorded origins of some of the programmes discussed here. There have
been several interactions with senior officers in the Indian Administrative
Service (IAS) who served in these administrations, as well as other senior
people in the know. The files also speak about the way in which the
bureaucracy grasped the reins after the formulation of the policy, and the
detail and manner in which it ensured execution. The motives for this
involvement varied, from the nature of the people involved to a professional
drive to perform. Two major programmes, the midday meals programme
and the nutrition programme, are examined in detail, as they offer contrasts
in ideological origins. One was driven by the chief minister, the other by the
World Bank. Yet, at the implementation level, they finally converged on a
political objective that was acceptable to politics and participants alike, and
therein perhaps lies the uniqueness of Tamil Nadu. Discussions with senior
officers involved in implementation have helped piece together a political
economy narrative of development. Personal experiences over these years
as a witness to such changes, especially from close quarters, on several
programmes with anecdotal notes are also documented.
There were also other initiatives, like the public distribution system,
separation of public health (with medical education being made a separate
organization), and medical education, that were implemented over time and
over regimes, and have drawn approbation across the country. The origin
and development of these somewhat apolitical programmes is also
discussed briefly, to outline the success of the administrative capability of
the administrative machinery in Tamil Nadu.
Tamil Nadu was also developing rapidly on all fronts, and the story
would not be complete without looking at information on improvements in
standards of living, health, education, and infrastructure. Public awareness
and participation was an important ingredient in the success as well as
sustainability of these programmes, and there is discussion about how this
participation gradually developed over the years, synchronizing with rising
prosperity, literacy, prosperity, and urbanization.
The current state of politics and administration forms the concluding
piece, arguing that the programmes today are but a deteriorated form of the
earlier ones, administered by an ever more politicized bureaucracy. The
changes in the motives for current policies are also commented on.
While the narrative is intended to inform the general reader, the author
has referred to, among other sources, academic work done on these issues,
which gives the content its depth. There are chapters where the narrative
would be incomplete without reference to academic work done in these
areas. There are others, where the narrative flows more from the
examination of the decision-making process as found in government files,
as well as discussions and interviews with colleagues.
Chapter 1 gives an overview of the Social Reform Movement and how
the DMK evolved as a political party. There is reference to several
academic studies in this chapter to contextualize the movement and its
implications. The references are illustrative, not exhaustive. Chapter 2 is
about the years of DMK rule between 1967 and 1977 and is an attempt to
narrate how the social reform ideals of the party were converted into policy
and implemented, bringing about a fundamental change in social structures
of administration, education, and governance. It also explains the origins of
the welfare programmes that became significant signposts of the policies of
that and succeeding governments. The reference is to government files and
decisions. Chapter 3 deals with the MGR years of 1977 to 1987 and the
ascendancy of social welfare programmes in the policy agenda as well as
the gradual reduction of the Dravidian agenda. During this period, there
were two important programmes that were started, the midday meal
programme and the Tamil Nadu Integrated Nutrition Programme (TINP).
One was the chief minister’s initiative, the other, a World Bank initiative.
The political agenda, administrative response, and public acceptance for
these are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 respectively. Though distinct in
concept, they were merged into the social, administrative, and political
agenda, and are presented as two distinct case studies. Chapter 6 deals with
the first five years of the Jayalalithaa administration, from 1991 to 1996,
and is a chapter where there is continuity as well as change—from a social
welfare objective to a political one. I had left the state in 1992 and returned
for a year during 1996–97, and after 1997 was continuously posted to the
central government in Delhi. Though my remit in later years did involve
periodic interactions with the state government, its bureaucracy, and
ministers, I was no longer involved with the state administration. The
narratives in Chapters 7 and 8 are based on information from government
files and from secondary reports. Chapter 7 deals with the period 1996 to
2006 and Chapter 8 with 2006 to 2016, in an attempt to look at how
governance and policies were slowly overwhelmed by the need to have
freebies to give to the electorate. The last chapter, Chapter 9 , looks at
politics in Tamil Nadu in 2017, and the road ahead for politics and
governance. All through the narrative is an assessment of how the
administration and bureaucracy adapted to the changing political
expectations, and the extent to which they were successful in converting
these policies into genuine welfare programmes. There is also mention of
the aberrations and corruption that occurred during these periods. In the last
chapter, there is an attempt to examine the revival of Tamil sentiment and
also look at the policies and potential performance of the state in the years
ahead. There is a distinct revival of caste sentiments, and of issues of Tamil
identity. It is a function of developments in politics as well as economic
development in the state. The implications of these developments appear to
be significant for politics as well as development in the coming years.
This work is a personal view of the social transformation of the state of
Tamil Nadu, from the point of view of one who has lived through it. It is for
everyone who has an interest in Tamil Nadu and other states, and in how
programmes were implemented there. As it includes public policy and
governance case studies, it would be of relevance to academics and
policymakers alike. For the general reader, the narrative offers an insight
into the people, the times, and the programmes. It is also intended to fill a
gap in the academic literature that has so far largely ignored the role of
implementation. Youth today, growing up in the post-1967 world, may be
interested in how these leaders proceeded to achieve their goals. Most
importantly, for the younger generation, this would hold up a mirror to the
society they live in, and explain how a transformation happened over the
last fifty years.
1
THE SOCIAL REFORM MOVEMENT
Early Years
THE DMK CAME TO POWER IN TAMIL NADU IN THE 1967 elections, ending
decades of Congress rule. In the fifty years since then, Dravidian parties—
either the DMK or the AIADMK—have been in power in the state, and
have shaped the political, social, and economic agenda of the state. The
changes in the social structure of the state and the development
opportunities that have been offered to the backward classes in these two
generations have created a social fabric that is quite distinct. It is important
to understand the origins and growth of the Dravidian movement in the
state, and its metamorphosis from a social justice platform to one focused
on economic development and social welfare initiatives.
The origins of the Dravidian movement lay in the Self Respect
Movement, which, in many ways, provided the social and political
background that led to the growth of the Dravida Kazhagam (DK) and
eventually, the DMK. The Dravidian movement had its origins in the
struggle between the Brahmins, who were the first to benefit from English
education in the southern states of India, especially in the Madras
Presidency, and the non-Brahmins, who were later entrants to English
education. The movement originated as a protest against the dominance of
Brahmins in administration, education, and public services, and sought
equal opportunities for all communities. In the British administration, the
ruling class belonged mostly to the higher castes that had an interest in
protecting their own hegemony. Rich non-Brahmins served as traders and
entrepreneurs. They even helped the English-speaking Brahmins get
coveted administrative posts so that they could later make use of them for
commercial purposes.
English education was more widespread in the south as compared to the
presidencies of Bombay and Bengal, possibly due to the services of
Christian missionaries. In 1852, Madras had 1,185 mission schools with
around 38,000 students, while the Bombay and the Bengal presidencies
together had only 472 mission schools, with around 18,000 students.
Brahmins formed the majority of students educated in the Madras
Presidency, even though they formed less than 3 per cent of the population.
The Madras Brahmin was far ahead of his counterpart in the northern states.
Between 1892 and 1904, out of 16 Indian Civil Service (ICS) 1 candidates
selected, 15 were Brahmins. In the case of engineers, 21 of the 27 selected
candidates were Brahmins. It was a similar picture among Deputy
Collectors and even the lower rungs of revenue administration in the
Madras Presidency. During the years of the freedom movement, the
Congress party in the south, in its initial years, was keen on securing senior
positions for Indians, which inevitably meant that Brahmins benefitted the
most.
There were earlier movements in Tamil Nadu led by the upper castes that
led to the abolition of the Devadasi system, suttee, and child marriages.
Urban centres also witnessed movements for women’s rights.
Muthulakshmi Reddy and Annie Besant were at the forefront of several
social initiatives.
However, the most significant movement for social reform was a
movement for self-respect among non-Brahmin communities, who felt
alienated from the processes of administration and governance. It was a
movement specifically against the Brahmins, who occupied positions far in
excess of the numerical proportion they made up of the population.
Brahmins dominated in all government jobs, the bar, the university, and
the Government Secretariat. Their mastery over English was considered a
passport to power, influence, and a means to profit. Brahmins domination
was felt even in private business companies and mercantile houses. Most of
the leading journalists were from the Brahmin community. They virtually
controlled the High Court of Madras. 2 Sixty-seven per cent of those
receiving baccalaureate degrees from Madras University were Brahmins.
Those who occupied the higher rungs of the non-Brahmin castes chafed at
this hegemony and wanted the benefits of political and social positions for
themselves as well. 3
The Madras Presidency was not unique in witnessing the growth of
social reform movements. The early 1900s witnessed several social reform
movements in the Indian subcontinent. The spread of Western education
and English in schools carried with it ideas of egalitarianism, rationalism,
and a scientific approach. Christian missionary schools questioned the
ritualistic behaviour of traditional Indian society. Organizations like the
Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj strove for a less ritualistic society, one in
which the upper castes did not dominate. There was also apprehension that
the colonial government in power was advocating social
compartmentalization between religions and between classes in an attempt
to divide Indian society, so that the freedom movement could be weakened.
The focus in Madras was somewhat different. Rather than reforming
social and religious structures, the movement focused on the removal of the
dominance of Brahmins in government. In this sense, the movement was
very different from the rest of the country, where there was no such move
against a single dominant class in a concerted manner.
The non-Brahmin movement advocated the allocation of government
jobs according to the numerical strength of the communities, a vision that
was immediately attractive to all non-Brahmins. In 1916, the Dravidian
association that was formed claimed its purpose to be the establishment of a
Dravidian state under the British Raj—a government by and for non-
Brahmins. The South Indian Liberal Federation (SILF) became the Justice
Party in 1917. In 1920, the first elections under the Montague-Chelmsford
reforms saw the Justice Party being elected to power in the Madras
Presidency. The Congress party had boycotted the elections in the wake of
nationalist sentiment around the inadequacy of the Montague reforms in
ushering in self-rule. The Justice Party at this time was supportive of
colonial rule, and readily participated in the Madras Presidency elections.
The Justice Party, while in power, ushered in a number of reforms that were
part of its social reform agenda, including the introduction of a communal
rotation roster for government jobs and reforms in temple administration.
The party was supportive of British rule, and even its social reform agenda
for non-Brahmins was limited to being within the existing structures. The
members of the party were largely rich merchants, or from the landed
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
Education - Complete Guide
Fall 2021 - Center
ebookmasss.com