In the Madras Province, under British rule, the Communal Government Order (G.O.) was in effect from 1928, providing reservations in education and employment for backward classes.
India’s Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950. In 1951, Champakam Dorairajan, a Brahmin woman, filed a case in the Madras High Court, claiming her daughter was denied a medical college seat despite higher marks, while a student from a backward class with lower marks was admitted. She argued this violated Article 15 of the Constitution, which ensures equality for all. The case was argued by the renowned lawyer M.K. Nambiar. The Madras High Court ruled that caste-based reservations were unconstitutional, as they contradicted the principle of equality.
The Madras government challenged this in the Supreme Court, which, through a seven-judge bench, upheld the High Court’s ruling, declaring caste-based reservations invalid.
This verdict sparked outrage in Tamil Nadu, led by Periyar. It was Periyar who, in 1928, had designed and implemented the Communal G.O., enabling many from oppressed families to access higher education and jobs, a success he deeply cherished. The halt of reservations—effective for nearly 25 years in his state—after independence caused him immense anguish.
The Tamil community shared Periyar’s pain and anger, recognizing the looming threat. Protests and dharnas erupted across Tamil Nadu, shaking the state. Tamils worldwide expressed opposition to the verdict. Periyar protested the Constitution’s use of “equal rights” to deny oppressed groups the right to equality with others.
Understanding Periyar’s movement and the constitutional issue, Jawaharlal Nehru, then Prime Minister, consulted Law Minister Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to address the complications arising from Article 15. On Neumann’s advice, Dr. Ambedkar proposed an amendment, Article 15(4), which became the first amendment to the Constitution (along with two others).
This amendment clarified that while all citizens are equal, the equality clause does not apply to programs aimed at uplifting oppressed groups to the level of others. During parliamentary debates on this amendment, Nehru and Ambedkar defended it:
Jawaharlal Nehru: “We cannot blame the current generation for many reasons; the responsibility lies with past generations. Many people are economically, socially, and educationally backward. Some may be advanced in one aspect but lag in others. We must encourage the backward and do something special for them. Someone remarked, ‘80% of India’s population is backward; how many can you uplift?’ If 80% are in that state, leaving them as is isn’t a solution. We must provide opportunities—economic, educational—and allow them to grow.”
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: “I am bound to follow a judge’s verdict but not to respect it. When reservations are given to one caste or group, those excluded belong to another caste or group—that’s a fact. In this country, reservations cannot be provided without excluding some people.”
The Article 15(4) amendment, enacted in June 1951, enabled state and central governments to provide reservations for backward and marginalized communities.
Without this amendment, the Supreme Court’s Champakam Dorairajan verdict (1951) would have permanently barred reservations for backward classes in India.
Periyar, Nehru, and Dr. Ambedkar, who ensured this didn’t happen, remain unforgettable. Today, Sanatana proponents, filled with venom, constantly vilify them, and one major reason is this historic constitutional amendment.
They spread vile accusations against Periyar, claiming he burned the Constitution or married his daughter. It’s true Periyar burned certain sections of the Constitution to protest the issues it caused, an act of defiance for which he served jail time.
The claim that he married his daughter is false. Periyar’s first wife died in 1933 when he was 54. To protect his valuable assets and ensure his movement’s continuity, in 1948, at age 68, he married Ponniyamma, a 30-year-old party worker. She was younger but neither his daughter nor granddaughter—just an ordinary party worker assigned at age 25 to assist him. She had no familial relation to Periyar.
Periyar lifelong criticized Hinduism fiercely, so Sanatana proponents falsely propagate that he married his own daughter. In reality, Periyar had no children. A wealthy man, he married Ponniyamma to safeguard his assets and advance his party, as adoption laws didn’t exist then, and only a wife could legally inherit property. For legal reasons, at 69, Periyar married 30-year-old Ponniyamma.
After Periyar’s death in 1973, Ponniyamma led his Dravida Kazhagam party until her death in 1978. Using inherited assets, she established schools and orphanages. Sanatana proponents on WhatsApp, lacking integrity, spread the lie that Periyar married his daughter for petty gains. This is despicable
.
By Bolloju Baba
No comments:
Post a Comment