45

CHAPTER II

GROWTH OF NON BRAHMIN MOVEMENT

AND PARTY

2.1 Introduction

In this Chapter an attempt has been made to review Non- Brahmin

party, its role in framing its policies particularly in council politics, and

attempts and made were to revitalize the party from time to time. The term

Non- Brahmins includes all those castes that were denied due status and

various human rights in the then existing social hierarchy and were also

deprived of the fruits of progress. It included in its fold the Lingayats,

Marathas, and all other Non-Bahmin classes. No doubt Non-Brahmin

political role in Bombay Presidency was rather a slow process as compared

to that of Justice Party in Madras Presidency.

The Non-Brahmin manifesto was published in 1916, which mainly

posed the question of overwhelming majority of Brahmins in all spheres of

Political, Social, Economic and Religious life of of the community. It proves

with nececery statistics that the Brahmins with a negligible fraction of

population in the Madras presidency was far ahead of other communities in

the field of education, Government services, Legislative councils and

municipal and other services and enjoyed highest in the society, tied down

with old established traditions other communities were struggling to emerge

in the society in spite of numerous obstacles in their path. The manifesto

posed important question; why a small class which show a larger percentage

of English-knowing men should be allowed to absorb all the governmental

appointments great and small. High and low; though some of the Non-

Brahmin community had produced men of distinguished attainments and

unquestioned eminence. The manisto defined the attitude of important Non-

Brahmin communities towards “Indian Home rule Movement.”

46

It also suggested some important measures to be adopted to equalize

all the communities on a level. It remarked that future Indian constitution

should be broaden and deepened so that representatives of every class, caste

and community should be given fiscal freedom and legislative autonomy

affecting domestic policy and economic position of India. At the end of

manifesto appealed to the leades of the the Non-Brahmin commuities to

create strong public opinion regarding the existing pathetic conditions and

provide educational facilities, sponsor a well conducted news paper as their

bulletin and contribute in the “national building on the ground of self-respect

and perfect equality.” 1

The non-Brahmin movement was not communal in its attitude. In this

respect, V.R. Kothari wrote. ‘‘The aim of the movement was the socio

educational uplift of the Non–Brahmins and the downtrodden. But our

opponents used to accuse us as haters of Brahmins.’’2

In Many societies

there are differences like rich and poor, Knowledgeble and ignorant. The

differences like Brahmin, Ksahtriya, Vaisya, and Sudra are there in Hindu

religion and but such birth based social divisions are very rarely found in the

societies of the world. are found in Christianity and Muslim religions also.

Since these differences and divisions are the same and similar in all

religions, one may think that hence division like Brahmin and Non Brahmin

cannot be found elsewhere. There were many peoples’ movements in

Europe. The prominent among them were the king versus people, the Pope

versus reformers and rich versus poor etc. But the Non-Brahmin Movement

cannot be compared with the movement in Europe. The reason for this is

that the issues on which the movements in Western countries had stood were

not the same on which the Non-Brahmin movement had stood. The problem

of Non-Brahmin movement is peculiar to Hindu religion only because its

seeds are there in Hinduism itself and these are that the division among the

Hindus is based on merits and demerits of individuals. In addition to this,

caste- wise division is another factor in Hinduism. These divisions are not

found in any non-Hindu society.

47

If the division based on economic conditions is made, the two

divisions rich and poor can be found in all societies. But the limit of dividing

the society in case of non-Hindu society ends here only. But it is not the case

with Hindu society. In Hindu society, divisions like rich Brahmin, rich

Mahar, poor Brahmin, poor Mahar, Brahmin Labour, Mahar Labour, etc. can

be made. There is no scope to divide non- Hindu society in this manner. In

other societies the divisions are artificial, in which if a poor man improves

his economic condition, his division can change. But this cannot happen in

the case of Brahmin Non- Brahmin Group. These groups are castes and the

man in Hindu society brings his caste with his birth. This is an unchangeable

social status of a man that is given to him by his parents. Therefore, what is

applied to the division in other societies cannot be applied to the Brahmin

Non- Brahmin divisions in India.3

According to Rig-Veda, Lord Brahma gave birth to Brahmins; these

Brahmins built a wall of division around them first.4 The division of

Brahmins and Non–Brahmins took place at that time This division replaced

the earlier division based on merit and demerit. They established the system

of division of castes. In course of time, this process reached to the non-

Brahmins also and the caste divisions took place among them too, each

division claiming some Rishi as its progenitor. The non-Brahmins also

formed various castes among them. It would have been alright if the purpose

of fortification was only to show that each division is different from other

division, but the Brahmins who did this fortification first wanted to show

that they were superior to others. The non- Brahmins, also followed the

system of fortification of Brahmins, developed the feeling of inferiority and

superiority. Each caste developed the feeling of being different from other

castes. Not only this, each caste felt that it is superior to other castes in some

respect. Thus, high and low by birth is the system of Brahmanism in India.

The Non- Brahmins had started the struggle against Brahmins since the

ancient days. But the intensity of the struggle was not so strong. These

castes were meritorious and superior by birth. However, nobody should

48

think this merit and demerit of inferiority or superiority business is a God

ordained or Fait accompli.

The inferior or lower castes remained backward and degraded

because they were prohibited to improve their condition by law. These laws

were created by Manu in his Manusmriti. The social pattern was disturbed

in British era. Even among the Brahmins, low calibered people were born

while well educated and talented people were found among the Non –

Brahmins. The merits and monopoly of Brahmins were disturbed and that

added strength to the Non- Brahmin Movement There was a need to end the

system of Brahmanism. The non-Brahmins realized that because of

Brahmanism, they remained backward illiterate and fatalist. Everybody has

now realized that the Brahmanism has harmed the country. It was because of

Brahmanism that the doors of education were closed to the Non- Brahmins

and the Non- Brahmins remained illiterate for centuries together. The Non-

Brahmins were prevented to read the religious books like the Vedas, by

keeping the caste system birth- based. This killed the individual initiative

which is required for means of progress. By preaching that nothing happens

against the fate they made the people fatalist.

They were deprived of humanity by the ideas of purity and impurity,

touchability and untouchability. Those who told the people that the British

Anglican system has damaged this country are not perhaps aware that how

much damage Brahmanism had done to this country. Both the Anglical

system and Brahmanism were two sucking insects that were sucking the

blood of the country. The Anglicanism sucked the wealth of the country and

Brahmanism had sucked the humanity of the people of this country.

Brahmins joined all the movements and carried on the struggle but it was

surprising that they had not joined the Non- Brahmin movement. The

Brahmins are the originators of Brahmanism. As the stream of Brahmanism

went on widening itself, it covered many people within. But for those who

joined this stream; it did not mean that they should not make efforts to arrest

its growth.5

49

2.2 Growth of Non-Brahmin Party

A number of factors succinctly explained below led to the

establishment of the non-Brahmin party in 1920.

Mahatma Jyotiba Phule [1827-1890] Contributed for female

education. That was opposed by Chitpavan Brahmins. a great social

reformer was given public recognition for his service to the cause of female

education. The radical nature of educational campaign among the mali, and

other Maratha lower castes provoked virulent opposition from the Chitpavan

Brahmins. Phule practiced what he preached unlike most upper caste

reformers, by allowing access to his well to all defying apposition even from

his own caste members, Phuley challenged the Brahmanic caste ideology,

promoted Balirajya who represented equality of men as apposed to idea

‘Ramarajya’ based on Varnashramadharma and elaborated the ideology of

Dravidian origin to counter the Aryan theory of race among the Brahmins.

The Satyashodhak Samaj founded by Phule in 1873 spread his ideas

and activities throughout Maharasthra and laid the foundation of

transformation of socially lower castes into a common named called

Maratha. The issues of struggle were the same as those of all deprived of

education as means of emancipation, share in the political and administrative

power, pressurizing the administration to pay attention to the problems of

cultivators and diversification of occupation into trade and technical fields to

break the rigidity of caste system. The democratization of civil society to

enable the maximum number of people to enter the new political community

was the basic thrust of the Phule and Satya shodak movement.6

Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaja [1874-1922]. It was Chatrapati shahu

maharaja of Kolhapur who after Jyotiba Phule, undertook the task of

uplifting the non-brahmins and the depressed classes. He challenged the

Brahmin orthodoxy soon after he ascended the throne. Chatrapati Shahu

Maharaja revived Satya Shodak samaja in1911 and its activities in his state.

He tried to reduce the Brahmin domination in all fields. He made the Non-

Brahmins conscious of the need of political power. It was during his reign

50

[1894-1922] that the Satyashodak Movement degenerated into the

NonBrahmin movement.

The British Rulers in Bombay and madras, encouraged the non

Brahmins and depressed classes to demand separate representation and a

reserved share in the services. This moral posture of the British as the

guardians of the masses created a stir among the have-nots. 7

The Maratha League was set up in 1918 and its basis was the

Satyashodhak organization. It had put forth certain demands, it demanded 10

seats for the Marathas, 04, for Lingayats, 01 for Jains, 04, for the Depressed

classes 10 for the Backward Classes in the forthcoming Reforms.

The result of Mont ford reforms 1919 was that it provided in the

Legislature seven seats reserved for Maratha and other similar castes in

Bombay presidency. Thus served as a powerful weapon to the political

activities of the Non- Brahmins. With the extension of political democracy,

Non-Brahmins could no longer remain aloof from the institutions of politics.

In the wake of new reform Non-Brahmi leaders worked to destroy mental

slavery of the Non-Brahmins based on Brahmanical religions dogmas and

then take them over the politics. 8

For strengthening Non –Brahmin movement a conference was held at

Hubli in 1920, Sir P. Tyagaraj Chetty presided, President of the Reception

committee was Sir Siddappa Kambli who said that, “Non Brahmin

Communities are 95 percent in population and still we are neglected in the

Legislature, the fruit of our labour is enjoyed by the 5 percent Brahmins, the

women from Brahmins are not at all Laboring like our women not only that

our women are working in the fields both in rainy or summer season so

where is the Justice for our Non Brahmins there must be equality and for

that we will fight in the Legislature. Sri. Panditappa R Chikodi a Non-

Brahmin leader and Reception committee chairman, of Hubli Non-Brahmin

conference said, In Bombay and Madras provinces Non-Brahmin Movement

was spreading very fast, and he urged to strength the movement come

together, eschew mutual hatred. And he advocated necessity of joining

51

together for educational development through which social upliftment would

be possible.9 In his inaugural address, Chhtrapati Shahu maharaja in the

beginning thanked the Brahmins for preserving the knowledge and keeping

it alive, but the keys of the treasure of knowledge was only in the hands of

the Brahmins and had they that time been liberal minded men like Ranade,

Gokhale and Agarakar, they would have imparted that knowledge to others

also. And what happened due to their selfish – interest others were not

taughthad they done it the distinction between Brahmin and non-Brahmin

would have disappeared long back and there would have been no need to

organize a separate conference of the Non-Brahmins one like this. He also

supported Class to Caste and appealed to stop injustice to the Non-

Brahmins. He further stated that he would persuade and educate them from

his point of view. He would convince them and consider them as brothers.

According to him Chaturvarna based on merit and demerit tried to establish

superiority based on birth which was wrong. Rishis like Vashistha were born

in low families but because of merit and good act, they became Brahmins.

Had this tradition continued down to our own, day-today social degradation

and social divisions would not have been seen at all.10

He said “If the free and compulsory primary education was available,

we would have attained progress in one or two generations only. Our

Lingayat brothers were extending their co-operation by giving education and

training in trade and commerce to those people who are disgusted, harassed

and suppressed. I am very much happy to see this. We also love them; they

also love us on occasions like this. Once we used to get help in our work

from the liberal minded Brahmins, like Ranade, Gokhale Agarkar, etc. But

that, light is almost extinguishing and we should make effort to see that we

start receiving co-operation once again in our work.” He demanded moral

progress of society. He was against the physical, mental and intellectual

degradation, caused by ill practices in society. He advocated the progress of

the Nation through character building of the citizens. He appealed to choose

proper leaders for making the reform successful through Council Elections.

52

He criticized the caste distinctions and advocated education to all, and all are

equal in their right to religion.12

While criticizing the evils of Brahmanism DR. B. R. Ambedkar said

that existing social system Hindus had formed themselves in three social

classes, namely Brahmins, Non –Brahmins and Depressed classes. Similarly

if the attention was paid, it would be seen that it had produced different

effects on different Castes. Of course, the Brahmins who were the highest in

social grade felt that they were God on earth. According to him Brahmins

dominated the other castes. They have got this because of Knowledge and

writings of religious scriptures. He criticized the mentality of scripture

writers and their inequality in their practices. He admitted the impact of

shastras on the minds of the people. The Brahmins confined the knowledge

to them alone. They even punished the Non-Brahmins who tried to acquire

Knowledge either openly or secretly. Because of lack of knowledge Non-

Brahmins remained ignorant poor and backward. He criticized the policy of

Brahmins for not caming forward to produce a scholar like Voltaire who had

the intellectual honesty to rise against the doctrines of the Catholic Church

in which he was brought up. This happened because of their selfish intrest in

the Brahmanism.13

Dr Ambedkar was of the opinion that the intellectuals, never allowed

Non-Brahmins to share their intellect of India He suffers from these internal

limitations. As a result of which he does not allow his intellect full play

which honesty and integrity demands. For, he fears that it may affect the

interest of his class and therefore his own.

But what annoys one is the intolerance of a Brahmin scholar towards

any attempt to expose the Brahmanic literature. He himself would not play

the part of an iconoclast even where it is necessary. And he would not allow

such non-Brahmins as have the capacity to do so to play it. If any non-

Brahmin were to make such attempt, the Brahmin scholars would engage in

a conspiracy of silence, take no notice of him, condemn him outright on

some flimsy grounds or dub his work useless. As a writer engaged in the

53

exposition of the Brahmanic literature, I have been a victim of such mean

tricks. 14

With August declaration of 1917, Shahu Maharaja, inspired, Political

ambitions among NonBrahmins, he also awakened them about the

desirability of getting political rights. The Montford-Reforms were granted

in1919and immediately after that politically awakened non-Brahmins

quickly set up their political organization known as the non- Brahmin

Political Party in 1920, to actuate due advantage of the Montford Reforms

for the Non-Brahmin masses. Because of the massive numerical strength of

non-Brahmins and the pro- British Policy consistently pursued by their

leaders, the British rulers toyed with the idea of using the force of the non-

Brahmins as an instrument to counterbalance the powerful influence of the

Indian National Congress in Bombay province. 15

A newspaper war broke out, over the candidature of V. R. Shinde

who had founded the depressed classes Society mission in1906 at Poona. He

was bitterly criticized by Walchand Kothari through his paper “Jagruk’’

1917. As per the advise of B. V. Jadhav, Keshavrao Jedhe wrote to all the

prominent leaders of non- Brahmins on 12th

december 1920 and invited

almost all the leading Non –Brahmin leaders in Bombay at his residence,

Jedhe Mansion in Poona. Consequently the Deccan Brahmanetra Sang [The

Deccan league] came into being which soon came to be called as Non-

Brahmin Party.16

2.2.1 All India Non- Brahmin Congress at Amaravati: 26 Dec.

1925.

In the All India Congress conference held at Amaravati in 1926,

Siddappa Kambli, Chikkodi, Latthe, Angadi, Gavai, and Desai from

Belgaum were present from of Bombay Karnataka They tabled the following

resolutions in this conference: 1) Women education should be propagated 2)

Alcoholism prohibition imposed 3) Support to given Joshi Bill 4) In all

Provinces, educationally backward people should be afforded their rights. 5)

54

Congratulations be conveyed to the King of Panagal for passing the religious

endowment Bills 6) Attempts to pass similar Bill in this Province be made.17

2.2.2 Ninenth Non-Brahmin Confederation, Madras: 19 Dec.

1925.

Since the NBP of Bombay Province is affiliated to the All India Non-

Brahmin Congress, the All India Non-Brahmin Congress held in Dec. 1924

under the Chairmanship of a Ramswami Mudaliar was arranged by the NBP

here; whereas the Conference held in Dec.1925 at Madras under the

Chairmanship of Bhaskararao Jadhav was arranged by the ‘Justice’ Party

there.

In the All India Non-Brahmin Congress there were 26 elected

members from Madras Province the division being 15 from Maharashtra, 2

from Bombay City, 8 from Madhaya Prant Varhad and 1 from Nagpur. In

his Presidential speech delivered by Bhaskarrao at Madras, he expressed

gratefulness to the Governor of Bombay Sir Leslie Wilson for his favourable

inclination towards NBM in the Province and for granting him permission to

visit Central Province Varhad, for canvassing.

Satyashodhak Samaj had no aversion for Brahmins; the NBP,

however was aversed to Brahmins. In the All India committee of the Non-

Brahmins there would be a Muslim like Haji Abdulla Kasim. Similarly in

Bombay Provincial NBP there used to be a Parsee like Cooper. The

Rashtraveer says that the NBP should not take help of Muslims even for

defeating Brahmins as it would be suicidal for them.18

In the Non-Brahmin Conference held at Amaravati towards the end of

December 1926 under the Presidentship of the King of Panagal, one

Sharifuddin, a Muslim was selected as joint Secretary. Bole, Vandekar,

Surve etc. leaders of the NBP issued a circular in April 1926, stating that,

they would hold a conference of the Bombay Provincial NBP to decide upon

the aims and objectives to be adopted for the political development for the

Non-Brahmin castes.

55

On 1 and 2 May Bombay Provincial Non-Brahmin Conference was

held under the Presidentship of Dongersing Patil but it had poor attendance.

Yande Shetaji in his Presidential address said: “In our functions, permission

should not grant to non-Hindus to participate therein.” Thereupon an

important decision was taken by the executive Council of All India Non-

Brahmin Conference held in July 1926 according to which the dimentions of

NBP were not limited to only Hindus.

Any one who accepted the aims, objects, rules and way of working of

that Party was eligible to be a member of that Party, may he be of any caste,

any religion, any creed, except Brahmin.19 The Non-Brahmin leader of

Central Provice Pandharinath Patil sent a Telegram dated 21 May 1926 to

Siddappa Kambli and Babasaheb Bole for attending the Non-Brahmin

Conference in Chikhali.

2.2.3 All India Non-Brahmin Women’s Conference, Amaravati:

26, Dec.1926.

Under the Presidentship of Mrs. Laxmibai Naidu an All India

Womens Conference was held at Amaravati on 28 December 1926. This

conference was held with the sole intention that Non-Brahmin women

should become competent by taking education and participating in the social

and economic activities. Women must try to be on equal footing as men and

as far as possible be fore-funners in all fields. The All India Non-Brahmin

Women Conference was held out of the sole desire to bring home to them

that their progress is in their own hands. In this Conference Laxmibai Naidu

says, “In India 98 percent women are illiterate. And 2 percent educated

women would be found only in Brahmin community.” We complain that we

take shelter under the pretext that Brahmin community had blocked our road

to education. But the Brahmin community of that kind will not remain in the

British rule.20

56

2.2.4 Non-Brahmin Conference in Varhad Central Province 17-18

May, 1936.

The Non-Brahmin Conference in Varhad Central Province was held

on 17 and 18 May 1936 under the Presidentship of Keshawarao Marutirao

Jedhe. The chief guest of this conference was Siddappa Kambli the

Education Minister. He said in his speech “NBP and Non-Brahmin people

must progress.

Today their is a split in the NBP due to differences of opinion.

Forgetting all differences we must help to strengthen the Party; a

revitalization of the Party must take place. People from all castes are asking

for castewise representation. But the vacant seats in Bombay Province must

be filled in with appropriate candidates from Non-Brahmin communities

after discussion. In the Varhad Central Province Non-Brahmin Conference,

Kambli had demanded castewise representatives.21

2.2.4 Veershaiva Mahasabha Conference, Raychur, 2-3, June,

1936

On 2 and 3 June 1936 a conference of the All India Veershaiva

Mahasabha was held at Raichur under the Presidentship of Shri Kambli; the

Minister for education of Bombay Government. The President said in his

speech: “A central federation of traders should be established for

Veershaivas. Attempts should be made unitedly to send maximum number

of representatives in the Legislature because All India Veershaivas have

approved of the principle of castewise representation. There is a room for the

illusion that Veershaivas have dominance of Congress over them. Since,

however, the Veershaiva community is going to fight the elections on the

castewise representation as directed by the Veershaiva Mahasabha, they have

more inclination towards castewise representatation.22

Similarly when it was

said that Veershaiva representation should be there in District Local Board,

someone present at the conference said that Raobahadur Angadi Party is in

power in Belgaum District Local Board Latthe was playing the game of

57

breaking in to fragments the Angadi Party in the Belgaum District. It Local

Board was published in ‘ Dnyanprakash’ of 6 June 1936, that the Angadi

party is in minority and still the Southern Commissioner gave all the

nominations to that Party, which is injustice and partiality, and it has

emanated from the Governor’s hunting camp in Karwar.

Latthe had a strong desire to get elected on congress seat - at least one

Jain member in the whole district; and on this background Narendra Patil, a

Jain was given congress seat in the Chikkodi Taluka.23

But in the Chikkodi

Taluka Congress Party did not get its candidate elected. Latthe company had

to keep it in mind that the non-Brahmin society in Belgaum is very prompt,

which would come to be proved incidentally. Because, just as Angadi Party

is of Non-Brahmin Society, so also it is of responsible caste representatives

24

The eleven representatives selected by Angadi were: Nagaonkar,

Mahajan, Adv.Lad, Adv.Patil, Bhimappa Dharwad, Siddharamappa

Jamkhandi, Khansaheb Patil, Raosaheb Karale, Rao Mallunaik Patil,

Shrimant Yargattikar Desai and Shrimant Tallurkar Desai.25

2.2.5 Non-Brahmin Politics

The Non-BrahminMovement in Bombay Karnataka spread

particularly in the districts Belgaum, Bijapur, Dharwad and North Canara.

The movement aimed at spreading the education among the backward

castes, breaking – down the Brahmanic monopoly in the field of education

raising a voice against the cultivators’ exploitation at the hands of the land

holders and agitating for the inclusion of the Non-Brahmins in Government

jobs.

2.2.6 Provincial Legislative Elections: 1923

The elections to the Legilstive Council had to be fought in 1923. The

Congress Party had not participated in the Provincial Legislative Council

elections held in Nov. 1920. The Moderates or Progressive Paty had made

58

coalition with Brahmins. This coalition also had cracks. In this situation

Latthe wrote a letter to Rajaram Maharaj to guide the Party. Latthe says: “To

fight with all extremists who were against Governemnt, including the Non-

cooperators, some people feel that it will be convenient and useful for the

NBP to go in for alliance with the Progressive Party.

For many reasons I feel such an alliance may not be possible. The

progressive or Moderates are so small in the south that their influence on the

voters will be negligible. Many of the Progressive members being Brahmin

they do not concur with the views of non-Brahmins. Non-Brahmin members

are extremely ununited. That party had no good leader, no definit policy, no

programme, due to which their entry in the Legislative council has not

yielded any result.

If there would be no united backing to the Non-Brahmin members in

Maharahstra, the extremist congress members will penetrate in to the

Legislative Council. After the sudden sad demise of Chh.Shahu, our most

unassailable difficulty is that there is no leader who could put pressure or

influence on the Marathas, as also other non-Brahmin castes. As the son of

the deceased leader, ony you could take care of this legacy.”26

Latthe was not in favour of alliance with Progressive Party. But,

when in August 1923 the Maratha leadership in NBP gave support to

Bhujangrao Dalvi a Maratha against Latthe, he decided in favour alliance

with Progressive Party. Latthe intended to contest the Bombay Legislative

Council elections in 1923. The Belgaum District NBP, with the consent of

Bhosale, the ‘Rashtraveer’ publishers and Birje, the two Maratha leaders had

unanimously selected in June 1923 Panditappa Chikodi and Latthe as Party

candidates. But all of a sudden the name of Bhujangrao Dalvi was brought

forward in August.27

Since two posts of entrusted ministers in the Governor’s executive

council, held by Sir Ibrahim Rahimtulla and Chunilal Mehta fell vacant,

attempts were started to install Bhaskerrao Jadhav on Deewan’s position. If

Latthe were to win the elections, he would have been appointed Deevan.

59

Therefore, Bhujangrao Dalvi a Maratha was proposed to stand against

Latthe so that the former would win against the latter, in which case Latthe

would be humiliated.

In this situation there was no alternative before Latthe but to get

support of Moderate Party or Progressive Party and establish a Unionist

Party if he were to contest the election. Latthe being a Jain and the

population of Jains beign very poor, it would not have been possible for him

to win the election without the support of other non-Brahmin castes and that

of the Brahmins of Progressive Party. Before the elections Latthe resigned

the Presidentship of Non-Brahmin League and did not withdraw the

resignation after his losing the elction. In Satara District the NBP won two

seats instead of three and Acharekar the candidate supported by Latthe lost

the election. Bhaskrrao Jadhav and Cooper got elected.28

In the Bombay Legislative elections, Dalvi and Angadi from

Belgaum District Maratha, Lingayat alliance won the elections. Bhaskrrao

Jadhav and Cooper got elected from Satara, Siddappa Kambli from

Dharwar, Namdeorao Navle and Sardar Thorat from Nagar and

G.M.Kalbhor from Poona were also elected. Latthe, Panditappa Chikkodi,

Acharekar, Shamrao Ligade, Dajirao Vichare etc., the NBP candidates, were

defeated.29

2.2.7 Provincial Legislative Elections: 1926

At the time elections to the Bombay Legislative Council, groupism

reached its zenith in the NBP among which the following groups were

prominent: Coopers group, Bhaskarrao Jadhav’s group, Acharekar-

Ramchandra Bapurao – Shinde- P.R.Chikkodi group supported by Latthe

who had been appointed Diwan of Kolhapur in the beginning of Jan. 1926,

Bhaurao Patil and Keshwarao Vichare group, Siddappa Kambli and

B.L.Patil group, Shanmukhappa Angadi- Bhujangrao Dalvi- Sangappa

Sardesai group.

60

A competition was going on among all these groups. Even though

Cooper-sheth, Bhaskarrao Jadhav and Ramchandra Shinde belonged to the

NBP and were aspiring for the three Satara seats, there was a total discord

among the three. Bhaurao Patil and Prabodhankar Thakare who had done

canvassing for Cooper in the elections of 1923 were now planning strategies

for the defeat of Cooper. Taking cognisance of the propaganda being made

agaist him Bhaskarrao explained: “My ill-wishers and the extremists do not

want me in the Council.” Though he got himself elected with the highest

number of votes, Cooper and Shinde were defeated and Raoji Ramchandra

Kale and M.L.Deshapande got elected.30

2.2.8 Groupism and Politics of Non-Brahmins in Bombay

Karnataka: An Accusation

Among the leaders of NBP in Bombay Karnataka there was internal

groupism. In that, Chikkodi and Angadi had a dispute over the issue of

selecting members for the Taluka Local Board and District Local Board, due

to which there occurred strife among them in elctions of 1926. 31

Chikkodi was power-hungry, selfish politician. Because during the

elctions 0f 1926 he had helped Belvi, a leader of Congress Party and that

was going on from behind the curtain. The intention behind his helping

Belvi was to get himself (Chikkodi) elected in the legislature and to protect

his side in District Local Board and School Board. After the electons, of

1926, competition began for the Dewanship. Names of B.Jadhav, S.,

Kambli, Chikkodi, and Khasesaheb Pawar came to the forefront.

Then the progressives said that Deewanship should not be given to

Jadhavrao and purporting that there is no other capable person in the NBP,

the post should be given to Paranjape. In this regard ‘Rashtraveer’ wrote an

editorial entitled ‘Mumbai Sarkaras Dhokyachi Suchana’ (Dangerous Signal

to Bombay Government) in the 7 December, 1926 issue of the paper. It was

mentioned in the editorial that, with a view to affording Deewanship to

61

Panditappa Rayappa Chikkodi, some Swaraj loyalists have done a lot of

slandering to NBP, Jadhavarao, Shrimant Khasesaheb Pawar and Kambli.

One gets wonderstruck to see situation of Non-Brahmin Party like

Unroofed Platform as. Brahmin dominated Congress Party in Belgaum

District has secretly tied up with Chikkodi, to protect caste-interest in

Belgaum District Local Board, School Board and Municipality, And also the

praise of Chikkodi by the Swaraj loyalist papers it will be obvious to see

that. Notwithstanding the fact that, because of Panditappa Chikkodis

reputation and prestige of Belgaum Dsitrict Congress have gone totally in

dust, Swaraj loyalist newspapers have been shamelessely expecting

Deewanship to Chikkodi as Swarajists said that Jadhav was not capable for

Diwan’s post.

As for Khaserao Pawar with the hope of getting Deewanship he has

entered the council and as such if he is disappointed a weighty family from

Maratha community will pay more attention to the national good which will

be beneficial to the Congress. Since the capability both Raobahadur Kambli

and Jadhavrao is the same, Chikkodi’s capability has weighed heavier. The

strategy of Swarajists is clear from the statements made by their Party-

organs.The Say make Chikkodi, the Diwan and Swaraj party will support

him in the legislature.32

On 18 December 1926 Dr.B.R.Ambedkar wrote a

letter to Khaserao Pawar saying tha the work done by Jadhavrao as

education Minister has disgusted the untouchables and hence the

untouchables want another education Minister. A meeting was held in this

regard and a resolution passed incorporating the said request. Therefore

while appointing as Minister, BhaskarRao Jadhav was not given the

portfolioof education but was given the portfolio of Agriculture and

Revenue.33

2.2.9 Non Brahmin Party and the Problems of Peasants:

In the first half of the year 1928, the Bombay Government presented

a Bill against fragmentation of agricultural land in small holdings and a

62

proposition to increase the land cess. The Non-Brahmin leaders, Karmaveer

Shinde, Jedhe Brothers, Angdi, Chikkodi, Dalvi, and Latthe etc. felt it

necessary to raise united opposition to both the proposals. Since these

proposals were going to harm the farmers’ ownership of their land, it was

decided to hold a Mumbai Ilakha Shetakari Parishad (Agriculturists

Conference) on 25 July 1928 in Poona to oppose the Bill. In those days, the

agriculturists were staging an agitation in Bardoli Taluka under the guidance

of Sardar Vallabhai Patel.

The idea of holding an agriculturists’ conference was, therefore,

upheld by Gangadharrao Deshapande, Shivarampant Paranjape, and

Tatyasaheb Kelkar etc. Karmaveer Shinde was the President of the

conference. The Government appointed an officer in 1925 to prepare a

scheme of constructing small canals and channels. Out of the 25

constructions suggested by him, only 18 were sanctione. Actual work started

only at 11 places.

Though a budgetary provision for this work was of 13 lacs, only Rs. 3

lac. were spent. The Governemnt was getting Rs.2 crores and 62 lakhs by

way of agricultural cess in the lands in Bombay Province in 1918-19. Within

only seven years the income was increased by 51 percent and in 1924-25

this amount reached 4 crore mark. According to the new Bill the

Government was going to get the right to recover half of the rent as land

revenue. “When agriculture has become non-viable where from to pay the

agricultural tax?” The President of the conference stated that both the Bills

were unacceptable and called upon the MLAs of the NBP to vote against

them. On behalf of the Congress Swarajya Party Barrister Nariman assured

that his Party will do all efforts for the good of the agriculturists and

suggested that simiar assurance should be obtained from Bhaskarrao Jadhav

who declared that even though he is in favour of the Bills, if the conference

passes a resolution with a majority of vote to the effect that the Bills should

be opposed, personally he and the other members of the NBP will vote

against the Bills.34

63

While extolling Bhaskrrao Jadhav in his speech Navale the MP

started criticizing Swaraj Party. This was not liked by the audience and they

were in no mood to listen to his lecture. So he had to conclude his speech

with an assurance that the NBP will not be disloyal to the farmers.

Thereafter Shetkari Sangh was established and its head office was opened at

Bardoli. The President of the Sangh was Sardar Vallabhai Patel. The total

number of members was 15, of which Panditappa Chikkodi was a non-

Brahmin.35

After his hurried visit to England in 1929, Jawalkar wrote a letter to

Bhaskarrao Jadhav making him some suggestions. He suggested that the

NBP should change its caste-demonstrating name and assume ‘Shetakari

Paksh’ as its new name. On 23 aJuly 1929 Bombay Province Land League

was established under the Presidentship of Vallabhai Patel.

Tatyasheb Kelkar was the vice President of this League. Vitthal

Ramji Shinde opined that Bombay Province Shetkari Parishad of Non-

Brahmins should cooperate with the new organization established by the

Congress Party. Baburao and Keshwarao Jedhe brothers’ were agreeable to

this in the beginning. After being persuaded ny Vitthal Ramji Shinde,

Keshawarao Jedhe, Bhaurao Patil, etc. started working for the Land League

rigorously. After the sad demise of Chh.Shahu the NBP leaders concentrated

their attention only to the work of Legislature, due to which their other

works came to a halt. Due to the false propanganda indulged in to by

Jawalkars through his paper ‘Kaiwari’ for cooperating with Land League,

V.R.Shind, D.V.Gokhale and Keshawarao Jedhe openely criticized him.

Once upon a time bosom friends, Jedhe and Javalkar developed antagonism.

An advertisement was published in the ‘Kaivari’ of 28 Septmeber 1929 to

the effect that the second edition of the book ‘Deshache Dushman’ is going

to be published. As a publisher of that book Keshawarao Jedhe gave a legal

notice to the future preface writer Keshawarao Bagde and Jawalkar that if

the said book was published, a legal action will be taken. 36

64

Bhaskrrao Jadhav convened a secret meeting of the MLAs of the

Bombay Legisalture, belonging to NBP, on 8 October 1929. It was expected

that after the Simon Commission’s visit for study British rulers will release

second installment of Reforms. In that situation it was decided that Jawalkar

and Gupte should be deputed to England to plead our case there. Around this

time a meeting of the NBP members in the Bombay Legislature was held at

Poona on 8 October 1929. In this meeting it was decided that a delegation

should be sent to England to convey the NBP’s views about the future

constitution and for protecting the interests of Karnataka Non-Brahmins.

This decision was taken unanimously by Jadhav, Kambli, Angadi,

Chikkodi, Bole, Latthe, Navale and Zunjarrao. After this stormy

development on 19 Nov. 1929 Keshwarao Jedhe wrote an open letter to

Bhaskarrao Jadhav in ‘Dnyanprakash’ of 12 October warning him clearly

that if GupteJavalkar delegation goes to England on behalf of the Party, the

NBP will be disdained there,.37

The meeting in which Jawalkar and Gupte

were selected was attended by only four persons including Bhaskarrao

Jadhav. This startling revelation was made by Bole, V.P.Chavan and Surve

by writing letter to the Times of India. Bhaskrrao Jadhav asked to Baburao

Jedhe, the Chief Secretary of the Party to convene a meeting of the

Executive council in Bombay to duscuss this dispute. The Chief Secretary

called a meeting on 10 November 1929 in Jedhe Mansion at Poona.

This meeting was attended by Jedhe brothers, Navle, Kambli, Angadi,

Chikkodi, Zunjarrao, Bole, Bagde, V.R.Shinde and Bhaurao Patil. Jadhavrao

declared in the capacity of President, that the meeting was illegal and

cancelled it. At first the meeting was declared as legal by voting, 10 votes

going in favour and 1 against and after declaring support to Land League,

protest was registered against Jadhav’s decision to depute Gupte and

Jawalkar to England as representatives of the Party.38

Bhaskarrao’s stand was that, as the meeting of the executive council

was illegal, the Resolutions passed therein became null and void. Thereupon

a majority of the leaders and workers of NBP denunciated the activities and

65

the impolite letters of Bhaskarrao in a Public meeting. It was also reiterated

that Jawalkar and Gupte were to go to England for their private work and not

as a delegation of the Party, and that they were asked to do canvassing as

members of the Party. ‘Jagrutikar’ wrote under the caption “Jadhav

Javalkaranchi Pap” (sinfull activities of Jadhav Jawalkar’s) “Jawalkar who

once did not afford to purchase railway ticket, is now travelling twice in a

week by second class. Bhaskarrao Jadhav, English loyalist, Dhanajishah

Cooper, Siddappa Kambli, Chikkodi, Angadi, Latthe etc. group became

politicaly lifeless.” 39

2.2.10 The Politics of Local Board in Bomaby Karnataka:

Shri Bhimrao Potdar and his cohorts installed Chikkodi on the

Presidentship of Belgaum District Board. Bhimrao Potdar thought that those

non-Brahmins who were with them will act according to the plans of that

group. But when the post of Chairman of the District Board went against

Potdar group i.e. to the opposition group leader Chougule, attempts were

started by the Brahmins to see that atleast the Adminstrative Officer should

be a Brahmin. When a resolution came before the School Board to confirm

the existing officer N.Ramchandra, Potdar etc. Brahmin members unitedly

opposed the resolution. But having realised their wicked plans, their Non-

Brahmin colleques voted in favour of N.Ramchandran. Angadi presented a

resolution in the Belgaum District Local Board meeting held earlier.

The resolution demanded that on the post of personal assistant to the

District Board engineer, a backward class candidate should be appointed.

On the arrival of the resolution Non-Brahmins in the Brahmin Party gave

their approval notwith standing the opposition of the Brahmin members.

Because the Bombay Legislative meeting was fast approaching. 40

Right up to August 1932 the Group of Potdar, a Vaishnav Brahmin

was holding power in Belgaum Municipality and the District Local Board.

The leadership of opposition of Potdar group in Municipality was done by a

Saraswat, Brahmin Mujumdar by name. In the District Local Board, the

66

leadership of opposition to Potdar-Chikkodi group was done by Angadi.

Latthe was held as the supporter of Potdar group. When in August 1932 he

was appointed as member of the Government in the Belgaum Municipality,

the Potdar group lost its majority in the Municipality and under the

leadership of Bhujangrao Dalvi the group of NBP came in power.

This time Latthe withdrew his support from Potdar group and gave it

to Dalvi group. Many people started saying that Potdar group refused to give

Presidentship of Municipality to Latthe and hence he changed the Party.

Thereupon Latthe wrote six articles in ‘Rashtraveer’ between 4 October and

15 November in which he discussed the competition based on personality

cult in the Party. In the very first article he confessed that “until recently he

was supposed to be of Potdar Party; all my friends in this district were in

that Party only. Even today it is my opinion that casteism and partyism are

harmful to the national and to interest also people’s interests.” Non-

Brahmins, Latthe said, were divided in to the Party in Power and the

opposition Party may it be Municipality or the District Local Board.

According to Latthe, all the parties in Belgaum are based on personality

rather than on principles, due to which local self government is devastated.

While explaining why he went from Potdar group to Dalvi group he

wrote “The chief officer’s post is being given to a person from forward class

and now it should be given to somebody from the Non-Brahmins. When I

told this to a well known Brahmin man he replied diplomatically that my

statement was justifiable but he said, the person to be appointed must be a

capable engineer. I agreed to his suggestion. But it so happened that,

immediately after my above mentioned talk with that man a movement

started to keep the Presidentship this year also with the Brahmin community.

In the Municipality all the higher posts, except Pawar appointed recently,

have gone to only one community from the white-collar society.

Therefore, to end the Brahmin monopoly in the Belgaum

Municipality it was in the fitness of things to Join Dalvi group that had taken

a vow to end the monopolistic affairs in the Municipality.” Immediately

67

after the Local Board elections Latthe made alliance with Angadi and Dalvi

and founded a new Party called ‘Lokpaksha’.

After the conversion of this Party into NBP and Political Movement

though all the Satyashodhaks Joined the NBP, all in the NBP were not

Satyashodhaks. Though Jedhe advocated Satyashodhak Movement, he was

also an office-bearer of NBP, so that he was not averse to politics. The vow

of ‘Salt Satyagraha’ (Passive political resistance) should be taken by those

capable to cope with it. Even though he opined that by resorting to Passive

political resistance the political opinion of Satyashodhak Samaj is not

disturbed, he was not prepared to resort to Satyagraha like Keshwarao Jedhe.

41

During a week from 10 April to 16 April, V.R.Shinde, Keshawarao

Jedhe etc. moved around twenty six villages in the vicinity of Poona on foot

and made propaganda of Salt Satyagraha. They concluded their week long

propagation drive by holding a meeting in the Shivaji Mandir Poona, under

the Chairmanship of Raobahadur Dongare a faithful officer of Chhatrapati

Shahu. “We are going to have Mahatma Phule Pathak; non-Brahmins are

going to participate in the Satyagraha; we want Swaraj forever; we want it

for the farmers. The stand taken by Karmaveer V.R.Shinde and Keshawarao

Jedhe in regard to Salt Act violation was not acceptable to those Non-

Brahmins who were favourably inclined to the Government. Owing to

Tatyasaheb Kelkar’s resignation of membership of Central Legislature

election was to be held for the vacant seat. In that the Non-Brahmin leader

of Nashik Shri R.D.Shinde declared that the policies of Shri Jedhe and

Karmaveer Shinde were not liked by him.42

A meeting of executive council of the All India Non-Brahmin

Congress was held on 23 February 1930 in the Chh.Shahu Maharaja’s

bungalow in Bombay. Dr.Ambedkar was also present at this meeting. A

resolution was tabled that the Non-Brahmin Congress should take part in the

Round Table Conference.

68

While speaking on this issue Ramswami Mudaliar of Madras referred

to Mahatma Gandhi as Mr. Gandhi. Some members of the audience raised

objection to it and forced him to say Mahatma Gandhi. When the President,

Sir A.P.Patro declared the resolution as passed without putting it to vote, a

chaos took place; then the President ordered that those who do not accept the

resolution should vacate. Shinde, Patil, Acharekar, Sawant, Kharvakar, etc.

vacated the Hall shouting the slogans hailing Gandhiji and Nehru. Jedhe also

vacated through this group. The resolution of the Non-Brahmin Congress to

take part in the Round Table Conference was declared as unacceptable and

another resolution demanding complete independence was passed. In Poona

District Shinde, Jedhe etc. held propaganda meetings and when they violated

Salt Act, Shinde and Joshi were awarded six months punishment.

Bhaskarrao Jadhav and Shinde had gone to meet them in the jail; but they

(Shinde and Joshi) refused to come out till the completion of jail term.43

On 30 April 1931, a meeting of the executive council of the Non-

Brahmin Congress was held in Jedhe-Mansion under the Chairmanship of

K.S.Naidu. and resolution passed about the progress of NBP. The

Programmes of propagation of Khadi and Prohibition of liquor were granted

permission. A resolution was passed condemning the Governemnt for

suppressive acts in Bombay Karnataka, Karhad in central Province as

complaints about increase in rent and jungle acts from farmers were

received.

For making enquiries in that regard a fourteen - member committee

was appointed. Keshawarao Jedhe was of the opinion that though the

supported Salt-Satyagraha; if Congress started Kar-Bandi (No-Tax payment)

movement the farmers should not take part in it.’ Keshawarao feared that if

farmers took part in such movements, the Government will confiscate their

lands and the highclass people will purchase them. Bhaskarrao Jadhav

conveyed this opinion of Keshawarao Jedhe to Times of India.

The big-wigs in the NBP remember farmers when elections are fast

approaching. In this regard Madhavrao Khanderao Bagal said that “farmers

69

are remembered for their votes when elections approach. Before elections

there will be meetings every where, in which the most constructive part is

self-extollation and opponents’ criticism. If any one has done a little of

organizational and constructive work in the NBP, mention must be made of

V.R.Shinde, Pandharinath Patil, Anandaswami, Bhaurao Patil of Satara and

Jedhe brothers. Comparatively nothing has been done by the elected degree

holders in the council. How have farmers been banefitted by Diwanship and

fat salaried and dignified posts?” When Madhavrao criticized like this in

the ‘Hunter’ paper, elections had not been declared, so lectures of leaders

like Bhaskarrao Jadhav were not there anywhere. In September 1930 when

elections of central and Provincial Legislatures approached the snobbish

leaders of NBP started remembering the farmers persecuted by the blow of

world recessation. 44

In July 1936 Dinkarao Jawalkar returned from England. As soon as

he returned to the motherland he issued a circular addressed to the Maratha

community: “From 12 March the new era of Political Movement started in

India. Use of Swadeshi (Indigenous), boycotting British goods, propaganda

of Khadi etc. were the main aspects of the movement and people were free

to choose any aspects of their liking and feasibility and wholeheartedly

devote themselves to the task. The illusion of cooperation with the

Governement has been clearely wiped out from my eyes.”45

On 19 July 1936 the executive Concil of the NBP decalred that the

Simon Commission’s report was disappointing, but it was added that the

Party supported the Round Table Conference and welcomed the Viceroy’s

speech. None but only Jedhe protested the policy of the NBP of appeasing

the Government. A meeting of the executive council was again held on 30

September 1930 in Jedhe Mansion. Jawalkar was accused of making

propaganda against Namdeorav Navle, the successful candidate of the Party

in Ahemadnagar.

Keshawarao Bagade brought to the notice of Bhaskarrao Jadhav that

Jawalkar had himself confessed in his letter to the President of the Party that

70

he had canvassed among the voters that they should not vote any of the Non-

Brahmin candidates including Bhaskarrao Jadhav and that they should not

vote Brahmin candidates too. Bhaurao Patil suggested that, as the secretary

of the party and as a member Javalkar should be suspended and then

removed from the Party. Jedhe wrote a letter to Jawalkar on 12 September

1930 asking him to remain present at the meeting of the Party on 30

September 1930 to explain his behaviour. But Jawalkar wrote to Bhaskarrao

Jadhav on 27 September 1930 that owing to pre-occupation he would not be

able to attend the meeting.

This letter of Jawalkar has been published in Bombay Chronicle of 3

October 1930. He suggested that NBP should boycott the Legislature and

should not co-operate with the Government. Jawalkar had alleged that the

resorting to positive disobedience is being ignored. Jawalkar also questioned

as to why Punekar fights (Jedhe), who has been shouting against Jungle Act,

which is burdon some to farmers, Salf-tax, excise duty etc. has not yet gone

on Satyagraha and then jail? His target was Jedhe. Eventhough colonial

independence in the aim of NBP, if other Parties gain complete

independence by other means it need not he refused by the NBP as the

Resolution does not say so.46

Bhaskarrao Jadhav felt that Kambli should get ministership in his

place and that Diwan of Kolhapur Dadasaheb Surve should go to England

for the Round Table Conference. On the background of this divisive tactics

among Brahmin Legislators Jawalkar held a meeting in the market in Pune

on 14 October in which he called Jedhe brothers as coward, and protested

them for supporting the Round Table Conference. Keshawarao Jedhe held a

meeting to give reply to Jawalkar. He also held another meeting on 12

November behind the Market under his Chairmanship in which he tabled a

resolution protesting the Round Table Conference.

On 18 November when an Arrest Warrant was issued against him, he

went to the Faraskhana Police station in procession. He was arrested and a

suit was filed against him, in which he was awarded punishment of fine of

71

Rs. 1,000/- and 3 months rigorous imprisonemen. In protest against his

punishment, a strike was declared in the city and was a meeting called

congratulating him, in which Karmaveer Shinde and Balu Kaka Kanitkar

exclaimed that with the event of Keshawarao going to jail, the Non-Brahmin

controversy in Maharashtra has come to an end. After the disintegration of

NBP, in Bombay Province – Maharashtra, Karnataka, South Kannada

Districts, the Congress was pestered by Brahmin- Non-Brahmin dispute. 47

Karmaveer V.R.Shinde, Keshawrao Jedhe, Jawalkar Madhavrao

Bagal etc. who supported the Civil Disobedience Movement of Congress

believed that farmers’ welfare could be taken care of by the congress. On the

contrary Bhaskarrao Jadhav, Mukundrao Patil, Rashtraveerkar Shamrao

Desai, Vijayi Marathakar Shripatrao Shinde, Siddappa Kambli,

Shanmukhappa Angadi, Vibhakarkar Panditappa Chikkodi, Balasaheb More

from Pandharpur etc. were giving warning that the congress has gone in the

clutches of a particular caste group and the Non-Brahmins will have to

forget their self respect and be the slaves of this vicious circle it they wish to

have a place for them.

Madhavarao tabled a resolution that the money-lenders and

cooperative credit societies should not take more than 8 percent interest

from farmers, where upon it was complained that the resolution will create

class conflict, is against particular castes and smacks of Brahmins -Non-

Brahmin conflict. On 6 June 1931 a farmers’ conference was held at

Borgaon in Walwa Taluka, under the Chairmanship of Vitthal Ramji Shinde.

In this regard Madhavrao Patil said, “Non-Brahmin leaders are not taking

part in Congress, and that is why the forwad-class people became its leaders.

I had myself tabled a resolution in the Satara District Congress conference to

the effect that changes should be made in the village arganiztions and

programmes of eradication of untouchability, but it was not accepted for

want of time. The Resolution brought fourth by me about farmers was

opposed by forward class people. At least for the sake of breaking the

monopoly of a particular class the NBP should penetrate in to the Congress

72

and spend their energy for the masses. On 9 May 1931 Dinkarrao Jawalkar

started a new weekely named ‘Tej’. The Non-Brahmins are commiting the

sin of cajoling the money-lenders-capitalists just because they are Non-

Brahmins. If the money-lenders or their protages are dropped the whole of

the Movement is of farmers.” About this time, on 11 May 1931 a

Shivachhatrapati Vanabhojan (a picnic) was arranged in Belgaum. In that

meet, Bahirjee Shirolakar, a ballod singer, sang a ballod based on how the

farmer would improve and how they should work. 48

In the 4th

conference of the Bombay Provincial NBP on the 29 May

1931, at Kulaba District, under the Presidentship of Khasesaheb Pawar, the

members expressed concern over the indiscipline developed in the Party. A

Resolution was passed that it was no longer necessary for the reservation of

7 seats in the Bombay Legislature for the Marathas and similar other

castes.49

On 24 September 1933 a function was arranged by Maratha

community to felicitate Sir Fredarik Hue Sykes by awarding him a scroll of

hounour at the hands of Bhujangrao Dalvi, Dalvi said in his speech that “ the

Governor should pay attention to the interests of Non-Brahmins and take

decisions for their progress so that the Non-Brahmins will have prestige in

the society. Then the Governor said in his speech “Progress of the Non-

Brahmins is the aim of the British Governement. The Non-Brahmin youth of

today must take education and be clever in the society. He must gain name

and fame in all fields.

In these days it is the Non-Brahmin leader Dalvi who is responsible

for the progress of the Non-Brahmins that is why I am appointing him as the

Assistant Judge of the Thana District. He is a strong leader of Non-

Brahmins.” This statement of the Governor received thunderous applaud

from the audience. This programme was attended by leaders of Maratha

society namely, Adv. Ptil, Shamrao Desai, Khemajirao Godse, Laxmanrao

Rane, Baburao Patil, Shambhurao Ovulkar, Siddhojirao Kakatakar, Shrimant

P.G.Desai, Kovadkar, Nageshrao Patil, Gerlagunji, Laxmanrao Randive,

73

Maruti Ravan, Shamrao Talawade, Then election for the vacant post in

Belgaum Municipality was held, and out of the two contestants, viz.

Appajirao Jadhav and Damodarpant Angolkar, the latter got elected.

Angolkar got 473 votes. 50

2.2.11 Politics in Hubli Municipality:

The new municipal board, Hubli selected Sardar Mehboob Alikhan as

President. Few Brahmins had been creating controversy between Lingayats

and Non-Lingayats by their pen and how the discriminatory atmosphere is

creating rift in the two communities and how this turbid atmosphere in the

Municipality is becoming harmful to the development of the citizens is seen

in an extract of an article in the ‘Samyukta Karnataka Newspaper which is

dated 18 Sept. 1935. The extract goes: “Lingayats have so far been enjoying

powers in the Municipality in collusion with the Muslims.

Though Lingayats were counted as NBP, the minority community of

Hindus had no place in their religion; interests of minority communities

were being neglected. New that the relations between Muslims and

Lingayats could not be cordial nor could there be cordiality of relations

between Muslims and Muslims Nawabsaheb of Muslim community, in

cooperation with minority Hindus formed a powerful Party, due to which a

dashing leader of Lingayats Raobahadur B.L.Patil was smashed.Dr.

Hardikar and Diwakar called Munje for discussing this issue and the

Brahmins in the Samyukta Karnataka of Belgaum ascribbed to Lingayats the

responsibility of Hindu-Muslim crookedness.

All Lingayats including those from Hubli should learn a lesson from

this. They ought to know that the Brahmin strategy is to create a rift between

Lingayats and non-Lingayats. It is also true that every caste tries for their

leaders to rise. Due to this the minority communities did not get opportunity

to progress during the ancient and middle age period; ‘might is right’ was

the rule of the day. A general meeting of the Dharwad Municipality was held

on 30 July, 1936, in which Shri. Karveerappa Kulkarni, a Lingayat, was

74

appointed as President for one year after being voted 14:11. Setting a side

Sakhare a Lingayat in Dharwar Municipality, one Mandagi was selected as

fellow on the Senate of Bombay University. Gaususaheb Langoti seconded

Karveerappa’s election, which, means the Muslim community which was,

until last year stuck in Brahmin Politics, deserted them and joined the

Lingayat community where they were earlier.51

The Mysore Backward Class leaders inspired by the activities of

Justice Party in Madras mustered enough courage to form an a association

called Praja Mitra Mandal in 1920.52

Many leaders got elected to Assembly

in 1927. They became the prominent leaders of the Non –Brahmin party. V.

Venkatappa, H. C. Darappa, and H. B. Gundappa Gouda, B. S. Puttaswamy,

K. C. Reddy, T. Siddalingaya, T. Mariappa were among them. The old Non-

Brahmins who had founded ‘the caste associations and the Mandali had been

in positions in the State administration. The new elected members of the

party established a new association called ‘Praja Paksha’. The Praja paksha

also pledged to strive for the attainment of a full responsible Government in

Mysore under the aegis of the Mysore Maharaja.53

During early 1930`s, several leading members of the Praja Paksha

had developed network of supporters within their home Districts. They

started organizing their rural brothers by holding ryoat conferences. The

Government, by banning the conferences forced the otherwise reluctant

leaders to clash with the Divan and even demand his dismissal.54

Again

during mid 1930`s however, the efforts of Praja Paksha came to seem as

increasingly hallow. Hence to give a new life, the leaders of Praja Paksha

established in January 1935 a new political party called the ‘Peoples

Federation’ or ‘Praja Samyukta Paksha’ under the leadership of K. C

Reddy, Praja Paksha the old Non- Brahmin party, and Praja Mitra Mandali

merged into the Peoples Federation.55

Thus, by 1940, there was no Non –

Brahmin political Party as such in Mysore.56

Non-Brahmin movements and attempts of Untouchable castes to

organize for social and political purposes have occurred in other parts of

75

India. The Non–Brahmin Movement of Madras actually had more coherent

history and an earlier in point of time than that of Maharashtra.57

Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj tried his best in 1920 to prepare Non

Brahmins for elections. He wrote to Montgomery, that the Hubli conference

was a great success. The non-Brahmins are under the influence of Brahmins.

They do not dare to contest the elections. There should be communal

representation for at least 10 years. He further said, “I read in ‘Sandesh’

dated, 18th

-instant, I think Mr. Montague also says the same thing. I have

given communal representation in municipal committee here, but I find that

the Brahmins are misrepresenting my object by telling whatever false stories

they like to the non-Brahmins and the latter are gullible enough to believe

.But in two or three elections, the non-Brahmins will soon learn to think for

themselves and did not blindly believed what the Brahmins tell them.”58

If no communal representation was given, it would take another 20

Years for the non-Brahmins to learn the same thing. I have already written to

you what I learnt from Hubli conference. As there should be headers in a

wall to hold it together and pillars for the arches to support them, So the

Jahagirdars, Sardars, chiefs and all responsible persons should try to get

themselves elected for the council to strengthen its body. Even responsible

European merchants and European officers from departments like education

which had not much to do with the administration should be nominated in

the new council. I should like to tell you a funny incident that occurred

while I was at Hubli.’59 He gave the examples of a Kulkarni, Lingayat by

caste, and their distrust as Kulkarnis in non-Brahmin movement in Hubli. He

admired the work of leaders at Madras.

He also wrote to Adam on 20th

August 1920 that activities of the

Brahmins at Mumbai were insulting. They tried to dominate the non-

Brahmins since the ancient days by making Social and Religious practices

the compulsory bondage for them. He quoted the fresh incident happened at

Mumbai and Poona. They forced to take off the caps turbans and hats of

non-Brahmins, European ladies as homage to Tilak at his funerel. They also

76

broke the images of Nandis and burnt some shops of Non-Brahmins hurting

the feelings of high castes Marathas. They have also stolen the private orders

regarding the worship of family gods of mine and tried to ruin me. He

furtheradded that,‘’I do not know if this consistent with the policy of

noninterference in social and religious matters or of holding the balance

evenly between the different communities laid down by the noble great

Queen Victoria.60

In his note Chhatrapati gave to Mr. Montgomery when he was at

Poona to see His Excellency, he said given the circumstances in which he

came to pass the order and kept a copy of the note. Whenhe was in Poona,

met Excellency but then did not explain to His Excellency the circumstances

of the attack made on him, by some Brahmin chiefs and Brahmin public. The

chief of Miraj called every Maratha including Princes and chiefs as Sudra.

But they did not complaint it to the Government. The Brahmins are hurting

the felings of Non-Brahmins and may lead to reprisals. The Brahmins tried

to preach obscene things under the garb of religion through Kirtans and

puranas but opposed it when the same is said in Satya samaj Jhalasas about

the Brahmins.61

Non–Brahmins once upon time cut the noses of the Shetajis ad

Bhatjis and burnt the houses of them in the Ghat area.62

,

The governing body of Non- Brahmin party consisted of 23 members.

On 14th

may1921, a major Conference of the non Brahmins was held at

Belgaum. It included many caste groups including untouchable leader Mr.

Gholap. D. D. It drafted an elaborate Constitution of its own to give definite

form to the non-Brahmin organization.63

The Non-Brahmins party contested first election held in1920 under

the Montford reform of 1919 and extended its support to the scheme of

Diarchic government and returned their candidates to the Bombay legislative

council. The system is known as Diarchy Under it the executive of the

province was divided into Governor in Council and the Governor in

Ministry. Under the system the subjects were marked as provincial from the

77

centre. The subjects marked as provincial were further divided into reserved

and transferred. The reserved subjects were in charge of Governor in council

and transferred in charge of the Governor in ministry. The provincial

executive is not answerable to the provincial Legislature in matters of

reserved subjects. Executive here is not removable by legislature in that

sense the executive is a non- parliamentary executive. The other part of the

provincil executive, namely the ministry in charge of transferred subjects is

recruited from the elected members the provincial Legislature, which is

made responsible to the provincial Legislature, based on a more or less

popular franchise, and is removable by it, and in that sense is a

parliamentary executive. 64

The party contested first election held in 1920 and secured 10 seats.

They cooperated with Liberals. They also contested the election in 1923.

They won 13 seats. In the third council election, Siddappa Kambli,

Ramachandrarao Asawale, Shankarrao Zunjarrao, Sadasivrao jiajirao Pawar,

R V Wandekar, Shamrao Ligade, Deogarsingh Patil, Namdev eknath

Navale, Bhaskarrao Jadhav, Panditappa Chikodi, shanmughrao Angadi, And

SangappaDesaigot elected from Non-Brahmin partyheldin 1926. In all Non-

Brahminsbagged12seats.65

2.3 Decline of Non-Brahmin Party

The Non-Brahmin movement in Bombay state advised its followers

in its meetings and conferences to keep away from Congress. A group of

Non-Brahmin young men had founded, Bharatiya Yuva sangh at Dharawad

in 1927 under the leadership of Gudleppa Hallikeri and Sidlingaya

Kariswamy and undertook many activities. 66

In one of the meeting whether the Non Brahmins of Bombay

Presidency should join Congress or not as was resolved by the Non

Brahmins at Madras. The president opined that those who were keen to join

congress might do so It was also resolved to convene a special meeting and

it was held at Poona. A special session at Bombay was held on 27, 28

78

August 1927 and shri B K Dalvi a Government Pleader from Belgaum

presided and about 200 delegates attended it and prominent among them

were shi BV Jadhav, shri Aswale, Shri Shankarrao Zunjarrao. Shri Anand

Thorat, Shri R A Gole Shri R G Kalekar Shri D S Javalkar and Shri.

Atmananda shri Ramaswami Mudaliar of Madras.67

In this conference the resolution to join congress met with a

considerable apposition, however finally after hours of heated discussion a

compromise was arrived and it was decided that it was not desirable for the

Non Brahmin Party members to join the Congress. However Individual

members were allowed to do so Shri B V Jadhav however strongly apposed

the idea of joining Congress.He made it clear at the Conference and said, his

apposition to join Congress was based on the fear that the Non Brahmin

party will lose its entity. It is not a question of anybody loosing his

leadership and influence. The Non Brahmin movement even though it was

losing its ground was represented at the Second Round Conference. Shri B

V Jadhav made an earnest effort in july 1933 to unite Non Brahmins and

also to consolidate the Non Brahmin party again with a view to retrieving its

former prestige. Non-rahmin party of Bombay has always remained outside

the congress politics and not take part in the civil disobedience Movement.

Sri BhaskarRao Jadhav therefore advised all the members of Non Brahmin

party and Non Brahmins in general to stick to lawful methods of

constitutional agitation whatever turn political activities may take in

future’’68

No doubt, Non Brahmin movement forced the Government to take

steps in favor of Non Brahmins. Finally but after 1925 when the Non

Brahmin Party Joined Congress Party, this led to the disappearance of the

movement. The Non-Brahmin party would have risen to the full height of its

great mission of struggling for the freedom of toiling masses of the great

Non-Brahmin community that party had in its germs of the great principle of

Democracy. Its leaders unfortunately did not realize their duties and

responsibilities and allowed the party to be smashed to bits under the double

79

influence of Government and Congress patronage. So Non-Brahmins

committed a political suicide. Under the influence of the ideals of the

leaders, like Jyotiba Phule, Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaja and Dr. B.R.

Ambedkar the Movement against untouchability and Hindu Caste system

continues even today in which Non-Brahmin Movement merged itself partly

and its remaining part it merged itself in the power politics of the states and

the nation. And consciousness has been at its formidable position among the

lower castes in the socio economic Political fields.

80

REFERENCES

1. Kasinath Kavalekar, Non-Brahmin Movement. Shivaji University

Kolhapur p. 73-74

2. Kothari V R Opcit Junya Athavanya. p1

3. Dr B. R. Kamble Bahishkrit Bharat a news paper in Marathi by Dr.

Ambedkar translated to English. 2011. pp.153

4. Ibid p.154

5. Ibid p. 155-58

6. Aloysius G. “Nationaism withought a Nation in India’’ 1997, P-61

7. Durgadas “India from curzon to Nehru and After’’ p.81

8. Gail Omvedt Cultural revolt in a Colonial society [The non-

Brahminmovement in western India [1873-1930] p.187

09. Letter no. 12491 Shahu Dafter, Record office Kolhapur

10. Ibid

11 Opcit

12 Opcit

13. Dr. B.R. Kamble Mooknayak, A news paper in Marathi, by Dr B. R.

Ambedkar, translated to English. P. 03

14. Opcit

15. Kothari VR. Junya Athavany p78.

16. RasthraVeer 1JUNE1921

17 Smaran Samput (Kannada) Akhil Bhartiya Veershaiva Mahasabha

Samiti, 1983, p. 32.

18 Bhaskar Dhatvakar,(ed) Chh.Rajaram Maharaj Yanche Nivedak

Adesh, Maharashtra State Archives, Mumbai,p- 67. Rashtraveer,

2Jan, 1925. The Indian Annual Registrar,An Annual Digest of

81

Public affairs of India, 1919-1947, edited by – H.N.Mitra,(1919-

1925) and N.N.Mitra (1926-1947),Vol- 7, 8, Gyan Publishing House,

Delhi, 2000. pp. 228-230.

19 Home Department Files, 363(4), II, 1926, Brahmin-Non-Brahmin,

Deshache Dushman, Non-Brahmin Leader Dinkarrao Javalkar, p. 38.

Maharashtra State Archives, Mumbai.

20 Rashtraveer 5 Jan.1926 p-6, Jay Karnataka, (Kannada) Monthly.

Dharwad, 1926-27, pp. 704-05.

21 Rashtraveer., 24 May. 1936.

22 Ibid., 16 June, 1936.

23 Samyukta Karnataka, 22 June, 1936.

24 Rashtraveer 16 June, 1936.

25 Ibid., 11 Aug, 1936.26)

26 Correspondence of Latthe: Letter to Rajaram Maharaj From Latthe,

A.B., 7th

September, 1922

27 Ibid., 5 November, 1923.

28 Prabodhanakar K.C.Thakare, Mazi Jeevangatha, 1973, p-300-301.

29 Ibid

30 Samyukta Karnataka, (Kannada) 15/6/1933.

31 Samyukta Karnataka, (Kannada) 22/2/1932.

32 Rashtraveer, 7, 14Dec. 1926. Patil. B, Vachan Sahitya, P.G.Halakatti

(Kannada) Mahalingapur, 2002, p- 45.

33 Keer, Dhananjay, Lokhitkarte Babasaheb Bole, Vidya Prakashan ,

Pune, 1978, p- 197, K.M.Shivalingayya, Maji Adhksharagalu

Bhashan Sangrah, Akhil Bharat Veershiva Mahasabha, (Kannada)

Mysore, 24 April, 1983, p-12.

32 Belgav Samachar, 30 July and 6 August 1928.

82

35 Belgali D.N. ‘Chikodi Panditappanavaru’ (Kannada) Veershaiva

Adhyan Sansthe, Dambal, Gadag, 1982, p. 45.

36 Times of India, 6 June 1929, Phadake, Y.D, Dinkarrao Jvalkar

Samagra Wangmay, Samata Pratisthan, Pune 1992, p.56.

37 Mahesh, C.K, (Kannada) Bahujan Samaj Vs Brahman, Vimochan

Prakashan, Chitradurga, 1994, p. 135.

38 Jagruti, 16 Nov.1929. Rashtraveer, 23 Nov. 1929.

39 Rashtraveer, 20 May 1930. Kalivir Shridhar, Bahujan Samaj Pakshad

Siddhanta Mattu Karyakramagalu, (Kannada) Karnataka Dalit

Sangharsh Samiti, Bangalore, 1994. P. 146.

40 Rashtraveer 1 April, 1930, V.Munivenkatappa, Dalit Chalavali:

Vandu Avalokan, (Kannada) Vicharvadi Prakashan, Mysore, 1998, p.

167.

41 Samyukta Karnataka, 14 Aug 1933, Rajput Tulajaram, Belgavi

Jilheya Dalit Chalavali: Vandu Adhyayan (Kannada),Unpublished

M.Phil dissertation , Karnataka University, Dharwad, 1996, p. 67.

42 Phadake, Y.D, Keshawarao Jedhe, Vidya Prakashan, Pune, 1982 p.

78.

43 Times of India, 26 May, 1930.

44 Omvedt Gail, Cultural Revolt in a Colonial Society, The NBM in

Western India, Scientific Socialist Trust, Bombay, 1976, p. 172.

45 Ibid., p- 175.

46 Phadake, Y.D, Twentieth Century Maharashtra (Marathi),Vol-4

(1930-39), Shri Vidya Prakashan, Pune, 1993, p- 256-259.

47 Kesari 22 November, 1930,

48 Rashtraveer 18 May. 1933, Samyukta Karnataka, 24 May, 1933.

49 Dinmitra 6 July, 1932.

83

50 Ibid., 14 Nov. 1933, Samyukta Karnataka, 2 Dec. 1933.

51 Ibid., 11 Aug. 1936.

52 Karnataka state Gazetteer p. 475

53 James, Political change in an Indian state, Mysore, 1917-1955,

Manohar Pub. New Delhi 1977, P. 67

54 Chandrasekhar S. Dimensions of socio-political change in Mysore

1918- Ashis pub. HouseNewdehli1985. p.7.

55 Ibid p.179

56 Mallappa, G. S. History of freedom movement in Karnataka Vol. II

Govt. Of My sore 1966, p. 166

57 Eleanor Zelliot, from untouchables to Dalit. ManoharNewDehli .2005

p33

58 Letter Number 19494 Rumal Number45 Pudka 01 Record office

Klhapur.

59 Letter no. 12314 Shahu Dafter record office Kolhapur

60 Opcitp

61 Opcitp

62 Opcit

63 Dr B. R. Kamble Bahishkrit Bharat a news paper in Marathi by Dr

Ambedkar translated to English2011 p.52.

64 Kothari V R Junya Athavanya. P39

65 Home Department Files Government of Maharasthra 1936-1930

66 Ibid

67 Gazeteers of India Karnataka Staye Gazeter part I Chief

Editor,Suryanath Kamat pariksa printers Nagappa street palace

Guthalli Bangalore -1982 p362.

84

68 Home Department Files Government of Maharasthra 1936-1930

69 Ibid.