Download - GROWTH OF NON BRAHMIN MOVEMENT AND PARTY
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.