How Social Justice Movement transformed Tamil Nadu in the last 100 years

The SILF was led by Dr C Natesa Mudaliar, T M Nair, P Theagaraya Chetty, and Alamelu Mangai Thayarammal. The party introduced several reforms to level the playing field for non-Brahmins and marginalised communities, including the historic Communal Government Order (GO) of 1921, which was finally passed in 1928, that ensured proportional representation for all communities in government employment and education. It remained in effect till the Constitution of India came into effect in 1950.

Dravidian politics expert Prof A Karunanandham said the Social Justice Movement was never an anti-Brahmin movement but a non-Brahmin one. “Its early leaders, except Nair, were not atheists but leaders who continued practising local customs. They united against the systematic monopolisation of power by Brahmins in offices, education, and religious practice. They viewed it as a deliberate plan and their demands focused on social reforms, a secular attempt to reset the social order unlike in northern India, where reforms were religious in nature,” he said.

Unlike northern India and Bengal, where social reform movements remained confined to elites, in Tamil Nadu, leaders such as Vaikunda Swamy and Ramalinga Vallalar connected with the masses, most importantly with the non-Brahmin majority. While the Brahmo Samaj of Raja Ram Mohan Roy retained its religious character, Tamil Nadu’s non-Brahmin movement was largely secular.

“The Justice Party believed that religious reforms alone would not suffice; practical reforms that included power-sharing among all sections of society were necessary,” Karunanandham said.

Periyar’s entry and reforms

The movement took a radical new dimension with the entry of E V Ramasamy, better known as Periyar, who launched the Self-Respect Movement in 1925 after resigning from the Congress.

Periyar’s vision expanded the Justice Party’s goals. He believed that political movements and reservation alone were insufficient and that people’s mindsets also needed to change. He introduced reforms such as caste-less, priest-less, and ritual-less marriages, which were revolutionary at a time when marrying outside one’s caste was a punishable offence.

Periyar fought for women’s rights, demanding equal inheritance, education, and jobs. He championed family planning, insisting women decide whether to have children, quite a radical position for the 1930s. He abolished caste surnames and caste markers and the Self-Respect Movement pushed for a shared social identity. At Congress conferences, he introduced non-Brahmin and Dalit cooks, forcing northern Congress leaders to bring their own Brahmin cooks to the South.

The Justice Party’s reforms ended segregation in public spaces such as railway stations, canteens, and public transport. Justice Party leaders warned transport owners of license revocations if they continued such discrimination.

They also reformed college admissions, increasing the number of non-Brahmin students. A Labour Department was created for “Shudras and Panchamas”, as defined by Manu, leaving out caste names. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1925 took away temple control from upper castes. The abolition of the Devadasi system in October 1947 triggered a backlash from nationalists, who saw it as cultural destruction. “All these were secular reforms, not atheistic ones,” Karunanandham said.

The movement’s legacy

The Social Justice Movement stands out for being grounded in self-respect, a concept central to its ideology.

“Periyar’s Self-Respect Movement is considered unique in world history. Unlike the Soviet Revolution or the French Revolution, which emphasised political independence, liberty or fraternity, the self-respect movement focused on human dignity, an essential issue in India’s caste-based society,” said Dr Gopalan Ravindran, who teaches media and communications at the Central University of Tamil Nadu in Thiruvarur, about 310 km from Chennai.

Dr Ravindran pointed out that Periyar advocating for women’s control over reproductive choices was an idea not mainstream even among Western feminists at the time.

“Unfortunately, the public perception of the movement has often been reduced to its anti-God, anti-North Indian rhetoric. The movement’s original purpose shifted as it grew and adapted to new social and political realities and it was only later that the movement evolved into what became known as the Dravidian or Social Justice Movement,” he said.

The political entities that subsequently sprang up from the movement, such as the DMK and the AIADMK, came to be mistaken for it. Periyar had criticised C N Annadurai’s shift toward politics. Still, Annadurai was committed to carrying Periyar’s ideals forward. Despite tensions, he sought to implement Periyar’s wishes and after coming to power declared his government would work to fulfil the reformer’s vision. “This included legalising self-respect marriages and renaming the state Tamil Nadu, both seen as victories for the Self-Respect Movement,” Ravindran said.

From the beginning, the movement was not only a Tamil Nadu phenomenon. It also united people across south India, including Telugu people, Kannadigas, and Malayalis, with leaders such as Nair playing a pivotal role in this pan-South unity.

All India Federation of Other Backward Classes Employees’ Welfare Associations’ general secretary G Karunanidhy said, “After the Justice Party captured power in 1920, they started implementing their significant reforms that laid the foundation of everything that we see today. One of the first significant steps towards women’s empowerment was the introduction of women’s franchise in 1921. The Communal GO introduced reservation for various communities, a crucial step in ensuring that reservation for OBCs and other marginalised groups in education and public employment.”

On the legacy and impact of the movement, Karunanidhy said, “Today, Tamil Nadu’s Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education is around 50%, a target for India by 2035. The state’s doctor-patient ratio stands at 250:1, far better than the national average of 1000:1. Amartya Sen and Jean Drèze attribute Tamil Nadu’s success to the participation of underprivileged communities, especially in rural areas, whereas dominant castes typically hold sway in the north. The movement has notably improved the state’s socioeconomic standing.”