The Non-Brahmin Movement
The
hierarchical Indian society and the contradictions within, found expression in
the formation of caste associations and movements to question the dominance of
higher castes. The higher castes also were controlling the factors of
production and thus the middle and lower castes were dependent on them for
livelihood. Liberalism and humanism which influenced and accompanied the
socio-religious reform movements of the nineteenth century had affected the
society and stirred it. The symptoms of their awakening were already visible in
the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The Namasudra movement in the
Bengal and eastern India, the Adidharma movement in North Western India, the
Satyashodhak movement in Western India and the Dravidian movements in South
India had emerged and raised their voice by the turn of the century. They were
all led by non Brahmin leaders who questioned the supremacy of the Brahmins and
other ‘superior’ castes.
It first
manifested itself, through Jyoti Rao Phule’s book of 1872 titled Gulamgiri. His organization, Satyashodak
Samaj, underscored the necessity to relieve the lower castes from the tyranny of
Brahminism and the exploitative scriptures. The colonial administrators and the
educational institutions that were established indirectly facilitated their
origin. Added to the growing influence of Brahmin – upper caste men in the
colonial times in whatever opportunity was open to natives, the colonial
government published census reports once a decade. These reports classified
castes on the basis of ‘social precedence as recognized by native public
opinion’. The censuses were a source of conflict between castes. There were
claims and counterclaims as the leaders of caste organizations fought for
pre-eminence and many started new caste associations. These attempts were
further helped by the emerging political scenario.
Leading
members of castes realized that it was important to mobilise their castes in
struggles for social recognition. More than the recognition, many of them their
caste brethren and helped their educated youth in getting jobs. In the
meantime, introduction of electoral politics from the 1880s gave a fillip to
such organisations. The outcome of all this was the expression of
socio-economic tensions through caste consciousness and caste solidarity.
Two
trends emerged out of the non-Brahmin movements. One was what is called the
process of ‘Sanskritisatian’ of the ‘lower’ castes and the second was a radical
pro-poor and progressive peasant–labour movements. While the northern and
eastern caste movements by and large were Sanskritic, the western and southern
movements split and absorbed by the rising nationalist and Dravidian–Left
movements. However all these movements were critical of what they called as
‘Brahmin domination’ and attacked their ‘monopoly’, and pleaded with the
government through their associations for justice. In Bombay and Madras
presidencies clear-cut Brahmin monopoly in the government services and general
cultural arena led to non-Brahmin politics.
The
pattern of the movement in south was a little different. The Brahmin monopoly
was quite formidable as with only 3.2% of the population they had 72% of all
graduates. They came to be challenged by educated and trading community members
of the non-Brahmin castes. They were elitist in the beginning and their
challenge was articulated by the Non-Brahmin Manifesto issued at the end of
1916. They asserted that they formed the ‘bulk of the tax payers, including a
large majority of the zamindars, landlords and agriculturists’, yet they
received no benefits from the state.
The
colonial government made use of the genuine grievances of the non-Brahmins to
divide and rule India. This was true with the Brahmanetara Parishat, and
Justice Party
Of Bombay
and Madras presidencies respectively at least till 1930. Both the regions had
some socially radical possibilities as could be seen in the emergence of a
radical Dalit-Bahujan movement under the leadership of Dr Ambedkar and the
Self-Respect Movement under the leadership of Periyar Ramaswamy.
The nationalists were unable to understand the liberal democratic content in the awakening among the lower strata of Indian society. While a section of the nationalists simply ignored the stirrings, a majority of them and particularly the so-called extremists–radicals were opposed to the movements. A few of them were even hostile and labelled them as stooges of British, anti-national etc. The early leaders of the non-Brahmin movement were in fact using the same tactics as the early nationalist leaders in dealing with the colonial government.
Related Topics
Privacy Policy, Terms and Conditions, DMCA Policy and Compliant
Copyright © 2018-2023 BrainKart.com; All Rights Reserved. Developed by Therithal info, Chennai.