Justice Party (India)

The Brahmins in Madras Presidency enjoyed a higher position in India's social hierarchy. By the 1850s, Telugu and Tamil Brahmins comprising only 3.2% of the population began to increase their political power by filling most of the jobs which were open to Indian men at that time.[5] They dominated the administrative services and the newly created urban professions in the 19th and early 20th century.[6] The higher literacy and English language proficiency among Brahmins were instrumental in this ascendancy. The political, social, and economical divide between Brahmins and non-Brahmins became more apparent in the beginning of the 20th century. This breach was further exaggerated by Annie Besant and her Home Rule for India movement. The following table shows the distribution of selected jobs among different caste groups in 1912 in Madras Presidency.[5][7]

The dominance of Brahmins was also evident in the membership of the Madras Legislative Council. During 1910–20, eight out of the nine official members (appointed by the Governor of Madras) were Brahmins. Apart from the appointed members, Brahmins also formed the majority of the members elected to the council from the district boards and municipalities. During this period the Madras Province Congress Committee (regional branch of the Indian National Congress) was also dominated by Brahmins. Of the 11 major newspapers and magazines in the presidency, two (The Madras Mail and Madras Times) were run by Europeans sympathetic to the crown, three were evangelical non–political periodicals, four (The Hindu, Indian Review, Swadesamithran and Andhra Pathrika) were published by Brahmins while New India, run by Annie Besant was sympathetic to the Brahmins. This dominance was denounced by the non-Brahmin leaders in the form of pamphlets and open letters written to the Madras Governor. The earliest examples of such pamphlets are the ones authored by the pseudonymous author calling himself "fair play" in 1895. By the second decade of the 20th century, the Brahmins of the presidency were themselves divided into three factions.[8] These were the Mylapore faction comprising Chetpet Iyers and Vembakkam Iyengars, the Egmore faction led by the editor of The Hindu, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar and the Salem nationalists led by C. Rajagopalachari. A fourth non-Brahmin faction rose to compete with them and became the Justice party.[9]

Historians differ about the extent of British influence in the evolution of the non-Brahmin movement. Kathleen Gough argues that although England played a role, the Dravidian movement had a bigger influence in South India.[10] Eugene F. Irschick (in Political and Social Conflict in South India; The non-Brahmin movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916–1929) holds the view that British officials sought to instigate the growth of non-Brahminism, but does not characterise it as simply a product of that policy.[11][12] David. A. Washbrook disagrees with Irschick in The Emergence of Provincial Politics: The Madras Presidency 1870–1920, and states "Non-Brahminism became for a time synonymous with anti-nationalism—a fact which surely indicates its origins as a product of government policy."[13] Washbrook's portrayal has been contested by P. Rajaraman (in The Justice Party: a historical perspective, 1916–37), who argues that the movement was an inevitable result of longstanding "social cleavage" between Brahmins and non-Brahmins.[8]

The British role in the development of the non-Brahmin movement is broadly accepted by some historians. The statistics used by non-Brahmin leaders in their 1916 manifesto were prepared by senior Indian Civil Service officers for submission to the public services commission.[14] The Mylapore Brahmin faction rose to prominence in the early 20th century. England, while acknowledging its usefulness, was wary and supported non-Brahmins for several government posts. They sought to weaken the Mylaporean Brahmins by incorporating non-Brahmins in several government posts. An early example was the appointment of C. Sankaran Nair to a high court bench job in 1903 by Lord Ampthill solely because Nair was a non-Brahmin. The job fell vacant after Bashyam Iyengar left. V. Krishnaswami Iyer was expected to succeed him. He was a vocal opponent of the Mylapore Brahmins and advocated the induction of non-Brahmin members in the government. In 1912, under the influence of Sir Alexander Cardew, the Madras Secretariat, for the first time used Brahmin or non-Brahmin as a criterion for job appointments. By 1918, it was maintaining a list of Brahmins and non-Brahmins, preferring the latter.[13]

Identity politics among linguistic groups was common in British India. In every area, some groups considered the British less threatening than a Congress–led independent government.[15] In 1909, two lawyers, P. Subrahmanyam and M. Purushotham Naidu, announced plans to establish an organisation named "The Madras Non-Brahmin Association" and recruit a thousand non-Brahmin members before October 1909. They elicited no response from the non-Brahmin populace and the organisation never saw the light of the day. Later in 1912, disaffected non-Brahmin members of the bureaucracy like Saravana Pillai, G. Veerasamy Naidu, Doraiswami Naidu and S. Narayanaswamy Naidu established the "Madras United League" with C. Natesa Mudaliar as Secretary. The league restricted itself to social activities and distanced itself from contemporary politics. On 1 October 1912, the league was reorganised and renamed as the "Madras Dravidian Association". The association opened many branches in Madras city. Its main achievement was to establish a hostel for non-Brahmin students. It also organised annual "At-home" functions for non-Brahmin graduates and published books presenting their demands.[8]

In 1916, Annie Besant, the leader of the Theosophical Society became involved in the Indian independence movement and founded the Home Rule League. She based her activities in Madras and many of her political associates were Tamil Brahmins. She viewed India as a single homogeneous entity bound by similar religious, philosophical, cultural characteristics and an Indian caste system. Many of the ideas she articulated about Indian culture were based on puranas, manusmriti and vedas, whose values were questioned by educated non Brahmins. Even before the League's founding, Besant and Nair had clashed over an article in Nair's medical journal Antiseptic, questioning the sexual practices of the theosophist Charles Webster Leadbeater. In 1913, Besant lost a defamation suit against Nair over the article.[8][19]

Besant's association with Brahmins and her vision of a homogeneous India based on Brahminical values brought her into direct conflict with Justice. The December 1916 "Non-Brahmin Manifesto" voiced its opposition to the Home Rule Movement. The manifesto was criticised by the Home rule periodical New India. Justice opposed the Home Rule Movement and the party newspapers derisively nicknamed Besant as the "Irish Brahmini". Dravidan, the Tamil language mouthpiece of the party, ran headlines such as Home rule is Brahmin's rule. All three of the party's newspapers ran articles and opinions pieces critical of the home rule movement and the league on a daily basis. Some of these Justice articles were later published in book form as The Evolution of Annie Besant. Nair described the home rule movement as an agitation carried on "by a white woman particularly immune from the risks of government action" whose rewards would be reaped by the Brahmins.[8][19]

On 20 August 1917, Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, proposed political reforms to increase representation of Indians in the government and to develop self-governing institutions. This announcement increased the division among the non-Brahmin political leaders of the Presidency. Justice organised a series of conferences in late August to support its claims. Theagaraya Chetty, cabled Montagu asking for communal representation in the provincial legislature for non-Brahmins. He demanded a system similar to the one granted to Muslims by the Minto–Morley Reforms of 1909—separate electorates and reserved seats. The non-Brahmin members from Congress formed the Madras Presidency Association (MPA) to compete with Justice. Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, T. A. V. Nathan Kalyanasundaram Mudaliar, P. Varadarajulu Naidu and Kesava Pillai were among the non-Brahmin leaders involved in creating MPA. MPA was supported by the Brahmin nationalist newspaper The Hindu. Justice denounced MPA as a Brahmin creation intended to weaken their cause.[8][18][20] On 14 December 1917, Montagu arrived at Madras to listen to comments on the proposed reforms. O. Kandaswami Chetty (Justice) and Kesava Pillai (MPA) and 2 other non-Brahmin delegations presented to Montagu. Justice and MPA both requested communal reservation for Balija Naidus, Pillais and Mudaliars (Vellalas), Chettis and the Panchamas—along with four Brahmin groups. Pillai convinced the Madras Province Congress Committee to support the MPA/Justice position. British authorities, including Governor Baron Pentland and theMadras Mail supported communal representation. But Montagu was not inclined to extend communal representation to subgroups. The Montagu–Chelmsford Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, issued on 2 July 1918, denied the request.[8][18][20]

At a meeting held in Thanjavur, the party dispatched T. M. Nair to London to lobby for extending communal representation. Dr. Nair arrived in June 1918 and worked into December, attended various meetings, addressed Members of Parliament (MPs), and wrote articles and pamphlets. However, the party refused to cooperate with the Southborogh committee that was appointed to draw up the franchise framework for the proposed reforms, because Brahmins V. S. Srinivasa Sastri and Surendranath Banerjee were committee members. Justice secured the support of many Indian and non–Indian members of Indian Civil Service for communal representation.[18][21]

The Joint Select Committee held hearings during 1919–20 to finalise the Government of India Bill, which would implement the reforms. A Justice delegation composed of Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, Kurma Venkata Reddi Naidu, Koka Appa Rao Naidu and L. K. Tulasiram, attended the hearings. Ramarayaningar also represented the All India Landholder association and the Madras Zamindar association. Reddi Naidu, Mudaliar and Ramarayaningar toured major cities, addressed meetings, met with MPs, and wrote letters to the local newspapers to advance their position. Nair died on 17 July 1919 before he could appear. After Nair's death, Reddi Naidu became the spokesman. He testified on 22 August. The deputation won the backing of both Liberal and Labour members. The Committee's report, issued on 17 November 1919, recommended communal representation in the Madras Presidency. The number of reserved seats was to be decided by the local parties and the Madras Government. After prolonged negotiations between Justice, Congress, MPA and the British Government, a compromise (called "Meston's Award") was reached in March 1920. 28 (3 urban and 25 rural) of the 63 general seats in plural member constituencies were reserved for non-Brahmins.[18][21]

Unsatisfied with the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms and the March 1919 Rowlatt Act, Mahatma Gandhi launched his non-cooperation movement in 1919. He called for a boycott of the legislatures, courts, schools and social functions. Non-cooperation did not appeal to Justice, which sought to leverage continued British presence by participating in the new political system. Justice considered Gandhi to be an anarchist threatening social order. The party newspapers Justice, Dravidan and Andhra Prakasika persistently attacked non-cooperation. Party member Mariadas Ratnaswami wrote critically of Gandhi and his campaign against industrialisation in a pamphlet named The political philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi in 1920. K. V. Reddi Naidu also fought non-cooperation.[22][23]

This stance isolated the party—most political and social organisations supported the movement. Justice party's believed that he associated mostly with Brahmins, though he was not a Brahmin himself. It also favoured industrialisation. When Gandhi visited Madras in April 1921, he spoke about the virtues of Brahminism and Brahmin contributions to Indian culture.[23] Justice responded:

The meeting was presided over by local Brahmin politicians of Gandhi persuasion, and Mr. Gandhi himself was surrounded by Brahmins of both sexes. A band of them came to the meeting singing hymns. They broke coconut in front of Gandhi, burnt camphor and presented him with holy water in silver basin. There were other marks of deification and, naturally, the vanity of the man was flattered beyond measure. He held forth on the glories of Brahminism and Brahminical culture. Not even knowing even the elements of Dravidian culture, Dravidian philosophy, Dravidian literature, Dravidian languages, and Dravidian history, this Gujarati gentleman extolled the Brahmins to the skies at the expense of non-Brahmins; and the Brahmins present must have been supremely pleased and elated.[23]

Kandaswamy Chetty sent a letter to the editor of Gandhi's journal Young India, advising him to stay away from Brahmin/non-Brahmin issues. Gandhi responded by highlighting his appreciation of Brahmin contribution to Hinduism and said, "I warn the correspondents against separating the Dravidian south from Aryan north. The India today is a blend not only of two, but of many other cultures." The party's relentless campaign against Gandhi, supported by the Madras Mail made him less popular and effective in South India, particularly in southern Tamil districts. Even when Gandhi suspended the movement after the Chauri Chaura incident, party newspapers expressed suspicion of him. The party softened on Gandhi only after his arrest, expressing appreciation for his "moral worth and intellectual capacity".[23]

During the non-cooperation campaign, the Indian National Congress boycotted the November 1920 elections.[24] Justice won 63 of the 98 seats.[25] A. Subbarayalu Reddiar became the first Chief Minister, soon resigning due to declining health. Ramarayaningar (Raja of Panagal), the Minister of Local Self-Government and Public Health replaced him.[26] The party was far from happy with the diarchial system.[22] In his 1924 deposition to the Muddiman committee, Cabinet Minister Kurma Venkata Reddy Naidu expressed the party's displeasure:

I was a Minister of Development without the forests. I was a Minister of Agriculture minus Irrigation. As a Minister of Agriculture I had nothing to do with the Madras Agriculturists Loan Act or the Madras Land Improvement Loans Act... The efficacy and efficiency of a Minister of Agriculture without having anything to do with irrigation, agricultural loans, land improvement loans and famine relief, may better be imagined than described. Then again, I was Minister of Industries without factories, boilers, electricity and water power, mines or labor, all of which are reserved subjects.[22]

Internal dissent emerged and the party split in late 1923, when C. R. Reddy resigned and formed a splinter group and allied with Swarajists who were in opposition. The party won the second council elections in 1923 (though with a reduced majority). On the first day (27 November 1923) of the new session, a no-confidence motion was defeated 65–44 and Ramarayaningar remained in power until November 1926.[22][27][28] The party lost in 1926 to Swaraj. The Swaraj party refused to form the government, leading the Governor to set up an independent government under P. Subbarayan.[29][30]

Image taken in 1930s : (starting fifth from left after the woman) Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, C. Natesa Mudaliar, Raja of Bobbili and S. Kumaraswami Reddiar

After four years in opposition, Justice returned to power. Chief Minister B. Munuswamy Naidu's tenure was beset with controversies.[31] The Great Depression was at its height and the economy was crumbling. Floods inundated the southern districts. The government increased the land tax to compensate for the fall in revenues.[32] The Zamindars (landowners) faction was disgruntled because two prominent landlords—the Raja of Bobbili and the Kumara Raja of Venkatagiri— were excluded from the cabinet. In 1930, P. T. Rajan and Naidu has differences over the presidency and Naidu did not hold the annual party confederation for three years. Under M. A. Muthiah Chettiar, the Zamindars organised a rebel "ginger group" in November 1930. In the twelfth annual confederation of the party held on 10–11 October 1932, the rebel group deposed Naidu and replaced him with the Raja of Bobbili. Fearing that the Bobbili faction would move a no-confidence motion against him in the council, Naidu resigned in November 1932 and the Rao became Chief Minister.[32] After his removal from power, Munuswamy Naidu formed a separate party with his supporters. It was called Justice Democratic Party and had the support of 20 opposition members in the legislative council. His supporters rejoined the Justice party after his death in 1935. During this time, party Leader L. Sriramulu Naidu served as Mayor of Madras.[22][33][34][35]

Increasing nationalist feelings and factional infighting caused the party to shrink steadily from the early 1930s. Many leaders left to join Congress. Rao as inaccessible to his own party members and tried to curtail the powers of district leaders who had been instrumental in the party's previous successes. The party was seen as collaborators, supporting the British government's harsh measures. Its economic policies were also very unpopular. Its refusal to decrease land taxation in non-Zamindari areas by 12.5% provoked peasant protests led by Congress. Rao, a Zamindar, cracked down on protests, fueling popular rage. The party lost the 1934 elections, but managed to retain power as a minority government because Swaraj (the political arm of the Congress) refused to participate.[22][34]

In its last years in power, the party's decline continued. The Justice ministers drew a large monthly salary (Rs.4,333.60, compared to the Rs.2,250 in the Central Provinces) at the height of the Great Depression which was sharply criticised by the Madras press including Madras Mail, a traditional backer of the party, attacked its ineptitude and patronage.[36] The extent of the discontent against the Justice government is reflected in an article of Zamin Ryot:

The Justice Party has disgusted the people of this presidency like plague and engendered permanent hatred in their hearts. Everybody, therefore, is anxiously awaiting the fall of the Justice regime which they consider tyrannical and inauguration of the Congress administration...Even old women in villages ask as to how long the ministry of the Raja of Bobbili would continue.[36]

Lord Erskine, the governor of Madras, reported in February 1937 to then Secretary of State Zetland that among the peasants, "every sin of omission or commission of the past fifteen years is put down to them [Bobbili's administration]". Faced with a resurgent Congress, the party was trounced in the 1937 council and assembly elections. After 1937 it ceased to be a political power.[22][36]

Justice's final defeat has been ascribed variously to[37] its collaboration with the British Government; the elitist nature of the Justice party members,[38] loss of scheduled caste and Muslim support and flight of the social radicals to the Self-Respect Movement or in sum,[39] "...internal dissension, ineffective organisation, inertia and lack of proper leadership".[22][36]

In the 1926 elections, Swaraj emerged as the largest party, but refused to form the government because of its opposition to dyarchy. Justice declined power because it did not have enough seats and due to clashes with governor Viscount Goschen over issues of power and patronage. Goschen turned to the nationalist independent members. Unaffiliated, P. Subbarayan was appointed Chief Minister. Goschen nominated 34 members to the Council to support the new ministry. Initially Justice joined Swaraj in opposing "government by proxy". In 1927, they moved a no confidence motion against Subbarayan that was defeated with the help of the Governor–nominated members. Halfway through the ministry's term, Goschen convinced Justice to support the ministry. This change came during the Simon Commission's visit to assess the political reforms.[22] After the death of Ramarayaningar in December 1928, Justice broke into two factions: the Constitutionalists and the Ministerialists. The Ministerialists were led by N. G. Ranga and favoured allowing Brahmins to join the party.[40] A compromise was reached at the eleventh annual confederation of the party and B. Munuswamy Naidu was elected as the president.[17]

After its crushing defeat at the hands in 1937, Justice lost political influence. The Raja of Bobbili temporarily retired to tour Europe.[41] The new Congress government under C. Rajagopalachari introduced compulsory Hindi instruction. Under A. T. Panneerselvam (one of the few Justice leaders to have escaped defeat in the 1937 elections)[42] Justice joined Periyar E. V. Ramasamy's Self-Respect Movement (SRM) to oppose the government's move. The resulting anti-Hindi agitation, brought the party effectively under Periyar's control. When Rao's term ended, Periyar became president on 29 December 1938. Periyar, a former Congressman, had a previous history of cooperation with the party. He had left Congress in 1925 after accusing the party of Brahminism. SRM cooperated closely with Justice in opposing Congress and Swaraj. Periyar had even campaigned for Justice candidates in 1926 and 1930. For a few years in the early 1930s, he switched from Justice to the communists. After the Communist party was banned in July 1934, he returned to supporting Justice.[22][43] The anti-Hindi agitations revived Justice's sagging fortunes. On 29 October 1939, Rajagopalachari's Congress government resigned, protesting India's involvement in World War II. Madras provincial government was placed under governor's rule. On 21 February 1940 Governor Erskine cancelled compulsory Hindi instruction.[44]

Under Periyar's leadership, the party embraced the secession of Dravidistan (or Dravida Nadu). At the 14th annual confederation (held in December 1938), Periyar became party leader and a resolution passed pressing Tamil people's right to a sovereign state, under the direct control of the Secretary of State for India.[45] In 1939, Periyar organised the Dravida Nadu Conference for the advocacy of a "separate, sovereign and federal republic of Dravida Nadu". Speaking on 17 December 1939, he raised the slogan "Dravida Nadu for Dravidians" replacing the "Tamil Nadu for Tamils" that had been used earlier (since 1938).[46] The demand for "Dravidistan" was repeated at the 15th annual confederation in August 1940.[47][48] On 10 August 1941, Periyar stopped the agitation for Dravida Nadu to help the government in its war efforts. When the Cripps Mission visited India, a Justice delegation, comprising Periyar, W. P. A. Soundarapandian Nadar, N. R. Samiappa Mudaliar and Muthiah Chettiar, met the mission on 30 March 1942 and demanded a separate Dravidian nation. Cripps responded that secession would be possible only through a legislative resolution or through a general referendum.[49][50] During this period, Periyar declined efforts in 1940 and in 1942 to bring Justice to power with Congress' support.[51]

A cartoon from 19 March 1923, evaluating the first Justice Ministry. It mentions Prohibition, Andhra University, irrigation schemes, industrial development and more local self-government among the unfulfilled expectations of the people.

During its years in power, Justice passed a number of laws with lasting impact. Some of its legislative initiatives were still in practice as of 2009. On 16 September 1921, the first Justice government passed the first communal government order (G. O. # 613), thereby becoming the first elected body in the Indian legislative history to legislate reservations, which have since become standard.[66][67][68] The Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act, introduced on 18 December 1922 and passed in 1925, brought many Hindu Temples under the direct control of the state government. This Act set the precedent for later Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Acts and the current policy of Tamil Nadu.[68][69]

The Government of India Act of 1919 prohibited women from becoming legislators. The first Justice Government reversed this policy on 1 April 1921. Voter qualifications were made gender neutral. This resolution cleared the way for Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddi's nomination to the council in 1926, when she became the first woman to become a member of any legislature in India. In 1922, during the first Justice ministry (before relationships with Scheduled Castes soured), the Council officially replaced the terms "Panchamar" or "Paraiyar" (which were deemed derogatory) with "Adi Dravidar" to denote the Scheduled Castes of the presidency.[68]

The Madras Elementary Education Act of 1920 introduced compulsory education for boys and girls and increased elementary education funding. It was amended in 1934 and 1935. The act penalised parents for withdrawing their children from schools. The Madras University Act of 1923 expanded the administrative body of the University of Madras and made it more representative. In 1920 the Madras Corporation introduced the Mid-day Meal Scheme with the approval of the legislative council. It was a breakfast scheme in a corporation school at Thousand Lights, Madras. Later it expanded to four more schools. This was the precursor to the free noon meal schemes introduced by K. Kamaraj in the 1960s and expanded by M. G. Ramachandran in the 1980s.

The State Aid to Industries Act, passed in 1922 and amended in 1935, advanced loans for the establishment of industries. The Malabar Tenancy Act of 1931 (first introduced in September 1926), controversially strengthened the legal rights of agricultural tenants and gave them the "right to occupy (land) in some cases".[68]

Rivalry between the Tamil and Telugu members of Justice party led to the establishment of two universities. The rivalry had existed since the party's inception and was aggravated during the first justice ministry because Tamil members were excluded from the cabinet. When the proposal to set up Andhra University (long demanded by leaders like Konda Venkatapayya and Pattabi Sitaramaya) was first raised in 1921, it was opposed by Tamil members including C. Natesa Mudaliar. The Tamils argued that it was hard to define Andhras or the Andhra University. To appease the disgruntled Tamil members like J. N. Ramanathan and Raja of Ramnad, Theagaraya Chetty inducted a Tamil member T. N. Sivagnanam Pillai in the second Justice ministry in 1923. This cleared the way for the passage of Andhra University Bill on 6 November 1925, with Tamil support. The institution opened in 1926 with C. R. Reddy as its first vice-chancellor.[70] This led to calls for the establishment of a separate, Tamil, University, because the Brahmin–dominated Madras University did not welcome non-Brahmins. On 22 March 1926, a Tamil University Committee chaired by Sivagnanam Pillai began to study feasibility and in 1929 Annamalai University opened. It was named for Annamalai Chettiar who provided a large endowment.[70][71]

Map of Madras city in 1921, before the draining of Long Tank

Madras city in 1955, after Long Tank had been drained out

The second Justice Chief Minister, Ramarayaningar's years in power saw improvements to the infrastructure of the city of Madras – particularly the development of the village of Theagaroya Nagar. His administration implemented the Madras Town Planning Act of 7 September 1920, creating residential colonies to cope with the city'srapid population growth.[72]

The Long Tank, a 5 km (3.1 mi) long and 2 km (1.2 mi) wide water body, formed an arc along the city's western frontier from Nungambakkam to Saidapet and was drained in 1923.[73] Development west of the Long Tank had been initiated by the British government in 1911 with the construction of a railway station at the village of Marmalan/Mambalam.[73] Ramarayaningar created a residential colony adjoining this village. The colony was named "Theagaroya Nagar" or T. Nagar after just–deceased Theagaroya Chetty.[73] T. Nagar centered around a park named Panagal Park after Ramarayaningar, the Raja of Panagal.[73] The streets and other features in this new neighbourhood were named after prominent officials and party members, including Mohammad Usman, Muhammad Habibullah, O. Thanikachalam Chettiar, Natesa Mudaliar and W. P. A. Soundarapandian Nadar).[73][74][75] Justice governments also initiated slum clearance schemes and built housing colonies and public bathing houses in the congested areas. They also established the Indian School of Medicine in 1924 to research and promote Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani schools of traditional medicine.[68][76]

The Justice party served as a non-Brahmin political organisation. Though non-Brahmin movements had been in existence since the late 19th century, Justice was the first such political organisation. The party's participation in the governing process under dyarchy taught the value of parliamentary democracy to the educated elite of the Madras state . Justice and Dravidar Kazhagam were the political forerunners of the present day Dravidian parties such as Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which have ruled Tamil Nadu (a successor state Madras Presidency) without interruption since 1967.[11][12][22]

The Justice party began as a political organisation to represent the interests of non-Brahmins. Initially it did not accept Brahmins as party members. However, along with other groups including Europeans, they were allowed to attend meetings as observers.[77] After the defeat in 1926, calls were made to make the party more inclusive and more nationalist in character. Opponents, especially Periyar E. V. Ramasamy's self-respect faction protected the original policy. At a tripartite conference between Justice, Ministerialists and Constitutionalists in 1929, a resolution was adopted recommending the removal of restrictions on Brahmins joining the organisation. In October 1929, the executive committee placed a resolution to this effect for approval before the party's eleventh annual confederation at Nellore.[40] Supporting the resolution, Munuswamy Naidu spoke as follows:

So long as we exclude one community, we cannot as a political speak on behalf of or claim to represent all the people of our presidency. If, as we hope, provincial autonomy is given to the provinces as a result of the reforms that may be granted, it should be essential that our Federation should be in a position to claim to be a truly representative body of all communities. What objection can there be to admit such Brahmins as are willing to subscribe to the aims and objects of our Federation? It may be that the Brahmins may not join even if the ban is removed. But surely our Federation will not thereafter be open to objection on the ground that it is an exclusive organization.[40]

Former education minister A. P. Patro supported Naidu's view. However this resolution was vehemently opposed by Periyar and R. K. Shanmukham Chetty and failed. Speaking against letting Brahmins into the party, Periyar explained:

At a time when non-Brahmins in other parties were gradually coming over to the Justice Party, being fed up with the Brahmin's methods and ways of dealing with political questions, it was nothing short of folly to think of admitting him into the ranks of the Justice Party.[40]

The party began to accept Brahmin members only in October 1934.[43]

The pressure to compete with the Justice party forced the Congress party to let more non-Brahmins into the party power structure. The party's policies disrupted the established social hierarchy and increased the animosity between the Brahmin and non-Brahmin communities.[12]

The Justice party was loyal to the British empire. In its early years, Justice opposed the Home Rule Movement. It did not send representatives to the Central Legislative Assembly, the national parliamentary body. During 1916–20, it focused on obtaining communal representation and participating in the political process. During the non-cooperation period, it joined with the Madras Mail in opposing and denouncing Gandhi and the nationalists.[19][64] Sir Theagaraya Chetty, President of the party from 1916 to 1924, publicly expressed his view on the floor of the assembly that "political prisoners were worser than dacoits and robbers" amidst opposition from nationalists including members of his own party as A. P. Patro.[78] The then Justice Party government headed by the Raja of Panagal banned the publication and distribution of poems written by Indian nationalist Subramanya Bharathy.[79] However, by the mid-1920s, the party adopted more nationalist policies. It discarded its earlier disdain of spinning thread by hand and Swadeshi economics. In 1925, the party's annual confederation passed a resolution supporting "indigenous industries" and "swadeshi enterprise". This shift enabled Justice to better compete against Swaraj to whom Justice was slowly losing ground.[80] The term "Swaraj" (or self-rule) itself was included in the constitution. Madras branch president C. R. Reddy led this change. To Justicites, Swaraj meant partial self-government under British rule, not independence. The constitution stated: ".. to obtain Swaraj for India as a component of the British Empire at as early a date as possible by all peaceful and legitimate and constitutional means.."

The historical record does not clearly indicate whether Justice condemned the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.[17][23][81] The party's shift toward nationalist policies was reversed in the 1930s, during the terms of Munusamy Naidu and Raja of Bobbili. During the civil disobedience campaign, the Justice governments did not protest the polices' harsh measures.[36] However, with nationalism growing in the country and a string of Congress victories in local elections in 1934, the party reversed course again towards nationalism. Justice turned to Periyar E. V. Ramaswamy as its champion. Ramaswamy had drifted away in the early 1930s. In exchange for their support in campaigning and propaganda, the Justicites included the Self-Respect movement's socialist "Erode" program in their election manifesto. The new program had much in common with Congress' nationalist policies such as Prohibition.[34]

Justice party, which had captured power in 1920, claiming to represent all non-Brahmins in the presidency gradually lost the support of many communities. Under Theagaraya Chetty and later Panaganti Ramarayaningar, the party came to represent a few non-Brahmin Shudra castes, alienating Scheduled Castes and Muslims. During the first Justice ministry, Muslim council members supported the government, but withdrew in a disagreement over appointments.[82] Explaining the Muslim disillusionment with the Justice party, Abbas Ali Khan, a Muslim member said in late 1923:

I have found out from actual experience that whenever the question of experience came in, they always preferred a Mudaliar, a Nayudu, a Chettiar, or a Pillai but not a Muhamaddan[82]

Justice party never regained Muslim support, because it failed to convince the group that high-caste Hindus had not received a disproportionate allocation of jobs opened up by communal reservation.[83]

The fracture with Scheduled Castes came during the same time period. After T. M. Nair's death, Adi Dravidas were slowly pushed out of the party. The "Pulianthope incidents" (also called as the "B&C Mill strike") soured the relationship of non-Brahmin Sudra castes like Vellalas, Beri Chettis, Balija Naidus, Kammas and Kapus with Paraiyars. On 11 May 1921, bots and caste Hindus went on strike in the Carnatic textile mill. On 20 June, workers in Buckingham Mill followed. The Paraiyars were quickly persuaded to end the strike, but the caste Hindus continued to strike. This created animosity between the two groups. In an ensuing clash between the police and caste Hindus, several were killed. Justice leaders accused the Government of creating problems by pampering the Paraiyars.[23] The party paper Justice claimed:

Public opinion...holds the present deplorable state of affairs has been brought about partly at all events by the undue pampering of the Adi-Dravidas by the officials of the Labour department, and partly by the, perhaps, unconscious encouragement given to them by some police officers.[23]

O. Thanikachala Chetty raised this issue in Madras Legislative Council on 12 October, which led to an acrimonious debate between Justice members and S. Srinivasa Iyengar, a Brahmin law member of the Governor's executive council and Lionel Davidson, the Home member. Davidson blamed Justice, saying, "it is no longer merely a labour dispute confined to strikers and non-strikers, but a faction fight inflamed by caste prejudices." M. C. Rajah, the main representative of Scheduled Castes in the Council agreed with Davidson. An Adi Dravida reader of the Madras Mail condemned Justice in the same way that T. M. Nair had once condemned the Brahmins. Soon after the Pulianthope incidents, Rajah and Paraiyars left the party.[23][84]