Talk:Justice Party (India)

Untitled

About Kula Kalvi Thittam - please give references from Governemnt decisions and Government orders as to what this 'policy' is? and how is this connected with Justice Party? This section is a pot of mess.

Anti-hindi

reverted unwanted comments had nothing to do with Anti-hindi Kandyboy 18:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

The POV stuff here has been highlighted in bold:

"Around 1937, Rajaji and the Congress Party defeated the Justice Party and took power in Madras. As part of a national policy, Hindi was introduced as a compulsory subject in schools. Non-Hindi speakers in southern India rebelled. Periyar, and the Self-Respect Movement wanted to put a stop to this turmoil. When the Justice Party was defeated in the 1937 general elections after being in power for a very long spell from 1921, most of its leaders were disheartened and became inactive. It was at this moment of crisis, Periyar accepted the leadership of the party because he always felt the need for the existence of a vigorous political party essentially oriented to work for the upliftment of the socially deprived sections of the people. At this critical movement, two of the old guards staunchly stood by him. They were Sir R.K.Shanmugam and Sir A.T. Panneerselvam. At the time, the former was the Dewan of the Princely State of Kochi (now a part of Kerala) and then became Independent India’s first finance minister in 1947. The latter was a member of the Governor’s council and then a minister in Madras province in 1930s. On 1st March 1940, Sir A.T.Panneerselvam lost his life in a plane crash while flying over Oman Sea on his way to London where he was to assume office as the first ever Indian adviser to the Secretary of State for India in the British Government. Periyar lamented that the sudden and tragic demise of Sir A.T. Panneerselvam was an irreparable loss to the people of Tamil Nadu."

"Periyar felt that it is a step backward into the Middle Ages and saw this as clever ploy against the Dalits,Scheduled Castes and Tribes and Backward Classes as there first generation was getting educated only then"

This appears like pro-Periyar POV:

" Periyar's struggles were well rewarded when Rajaji quit in 1954 and Kamaraj withdraw the Kula Kalvi Thittam after becoming Chief Minister."

These statements too comprise POV (though not controversial) and do not contain citations:

"In fact there was no word such as Dravida in Tamil. Tamils nor Telugus nor Kannadas ever had used a word called Dravida. It is mostly used by northern scholars who has not much knowledge about southern culture and its heritage. It was another much abused word like Aryan. There is no proper scientific background to both these words."

"Thus the Justice Party changed its name and became Dravidar Kazhagam. Its objectives were changed to social reform. It left the parliamentary democratic politics forever. In addition to the name change, the tactics and the rhetoric became more violent. The Justice Party was more like a debating club, whereas the Dravidar Kazhagam took the message to the streets in a very explosive manner."-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

some suggestions

the article seems to be slanting a little bit pro-Justice party. needs some balancing.. information such as

1. its support for British Raj,
2. complete dislike for Gandhi.
3. fractured relationship with Dalits (the fallout with M. C. Rajah and Puliyanthope riots).

either need to be included or expanded and certainly mentioned in the lead. Eugene F. Irschick's book has a lot of information. --CarTick 22:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I will try to add the above-suggested (by myself) information in the following weeks. if someone gets to add information on their legislative history (achievements and failures if any). --CarTick 18:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is one chapter in rajaraman's book about the laws, i will add them.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

query

1) Brahman or Brahmin? which term should we use? 2) Rajaraman spends a lot of time refuting washbrook's characterization of Justicites as British stooges. Should that be mentioned here?.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

1)I have thought about this issue before. lot of the books use the word Brahmans. Brahman (disambiguation) tells me, we should probably stick to Brahmins.

2)I dont think it is necessary to include either. the fact is that they supported British and we have it mentioned in a few places in the article and we should make sure we include in the lead when we work on it. whether they were stooges is anyone's interpretation. --CarTick 15:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

1)Agree. will use and change to brahmin everywhere 2) i will come back to this once i finish the other sections. Just downloaded Irschick. It is a big book. reading it side by side with Rajaraman to get a clear picture.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

that is great. washbrook's book is also very good. how did you download by the way? --CarTick 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

he has put up his books in his faculty page here [1]. The books are in PDF format (scans of the paper copy) and size is huge.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

useful. wonder why he makes it freely available though. maybe no one buys it anymore. his profile seems interesting. he was born in India. --CarTick 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Expansion roadmap

• 1) In Office section to be expanded from election articles of 20,23,26,30 and 37
• 2) In opposition to be rewritten from AHA of 1937-40 and Simon commission antics of JP during 26-30
• 3) Legislative Achievements section to be added (sourced from Rajaraman chapter 7). Female franchise, communal GO, HR & CE, mid day meals, land tax
• 4) WW II section to be merged with "In Opposition" section
• 5) Name change and transformation section to be rewritten (sourced from thimuka thondriyathu aen by malarmannan)
• 6) Issues and policies section - relationship with Dalits to be added, relationship with British govt to be added (cozyness with willingdon, loggerheads with Goschen, cooling of relationship with Erskine)
• 7) legacy and criticism section : legacy - suburbs of Madras, reservations, dravidian movement. Criticism - nepotismce, corruption, Tamil-Telugu rivalry, Zamindar-non zamindar rivalry, crown loyalism etc
• 8) Organisation section ( sourced from Rajaraman). a note on various annual confederations. Presidents section will be subsumed into this.
• 9) Electoral history to be left alone
• 10) Photographs to be added from individual subject articles?
• 11) Lead rewrite and infobox to be added.

--Sodabottle (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

that will make it a GA for sure. good. I am glad u have access to the book as well. Washbrook's ideas should be incorporated as well. he denies some of the claims made by Irschick. for example, Irschick claims non-Brahman movement is a political expression of a long-standing social rivalry which Washbrook totally disagrees. --CarTick 11:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides, we should probably have a separate section for the founders, Nair and T.Chetty and Periyar's entry. It would also look good to make {Dravidian parties} template to place it horizontally at the bottom. --CarTick 16:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

you are right about the dravidianparty template. it is disruptive in a vertical mode. Will expand periyar's entry in the "name change and transformation" section. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

wonder if such a template already exists, wikiality or spacemann should know. --CarTick 17:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The original template was itself horizontal but I changed it after a couple of months since at that time most of the articles were short stubs (and the vertical template was ornamental in a sense :D). It might be better to amend it with collapsible sections like this. Or we can have more than one kind of navigation boxes like what they have done with topics such as Ayyavazhi (Template:Ayyavazhi large and Template:Ayyavazhi Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of having more than one template. horizontal template is very useful in articles with an infobox. --CarTick 00:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox for Justice party doesnt add much value to the article (i tried and was able to fill only five or six fields in the current template). so we can dispense with a infobox.) I like the collapsible ayyavazhi template. It makes navigation easier and it is not long like the current DP template.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. I will create a few navigation templates in the weekend (or if someone can it earlier thats fine too). I think the current one also doesn't have anything on pre-EVR politics. I would have assumed that people like Iyothee Thass and to an extent Rettamalai Srinivasan had a great influence on setting the stage for Dravidian movement. Also that, if we are to include Justice Party as a Dravidian party then how about the CMs from this party? If all these are to be in a template we will have to make it collapsible anyways (horizontal or vertical). On the lighter side, it is ironical that the current template was designed based on Template:Hinduism. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I vote for a collapsible vertical section. :-). And the pre-EVR articles can be covered by a "fore runner" subsection. And yes the Justice CMs should be added to the template.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A template has been created. DK flag has been removed. Not sure if this is too wide. Also does the colour scheme seem appropriate? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

looks good. if black and red color scheme can be worked in some how, it will even better.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Horizontal template to sit in the bottom of the articles is also ready. Next task on this issue would probably be to add one of the new two templates to these pages and get the old one deleted. Is there any image that can go with the templates? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 13:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

both look fine. now which one goes where?. Horizontal one for lengthy articles and vertical one for shorter articles? --Sodabottle (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess so. Horizontal navigation looks good with articles which don't have pictures too. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

DK

the salem conference and name change seems to have happened in August 27, 1944 according to Irschick, see page 347. --CarTick 13:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah got it. Typo.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

section order?

i feel "tranformation into DK" should immediately follow "in opposition" section (to keep the chronological flow as straight as possible). what say you?--Sodabottle (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

transformation happened after most of the achievement and controversies were over. besides, that marks the end of the Justice party. ofcourse, a legacy section can follow. --CarTick 16:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

i was thinking about getting the history over with in one flow and then moving on to the judgemental part - achievements,controversies and performance. And not putting in a separate legacy section as most of it would be covered in the achievements section itself. performance sort of feels like an appendix, so it could be at the end.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

i dont see fault in either way. it is a matter of choice i believe. unless a third opinion tilts the balance. --CarTick 16:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

i will leave it as such for now (once a particular narrative structure gets into my head, it becomes to difficult to achieve "strategic distance" and see it in a different way). once the rewrite is done, we will ask ravi and san roze, what they think.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

it is a good idea. we may ourselves feel different after a couple of days. In the meantime, if you is difficult deviating from your narrative, you are welcome to revert my edit as well. --CarTick 17:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

After 1952

I don't think the party disbanded after 1952. It was still around in 1968 to publish a golden jubilee souvenir and had branches in kovilpatti and tenkasi [2]. And PT Rajan contested the 1957 elections as an independent. I guess this is what happened - After 1952, party loses recognition from Election Commission. In 57, Rajan contests as independent and party becomes a letterpad katchi. So i propose we change the text to "After 1952 the Justice party did not contest any elections", instead of mentioning disbandment.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

sounds right. now the question is when did it cease to exist? --CarTick 12:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Long tank

what is it? --CarTick 12:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Periya Kulam. The area which is now t nagar, choolaimedu, anna nagar, kk nagar was a series of irrigation canals. as the city grew, one by one the tanks were drained and converted to residential colonies. it was the east west growth of the city. once anna nagar was constructed in the 70s, growth started along the north south axis.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict

sorry. I am glad we both are equally enthusiastic. --CarTick 11:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

hee hee.. i should be the one to apologise, i ate large parts of your text :-). anyway i need a bread from JP. i will go read something else--Sodabottle (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

what is JP? --CarTick 11:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I reckon it was "a break from Justice Party". I'm sure a bread from them wouldn't be by any means fit for consuption. lol Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 13:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

begining

John McLane in his book The political awakening in India in page 163 says, "The origin of the Dravida Kazhagam movement is usually traced back to the founding of an organisation in Madras in 1910 by Dr. C. Natesa Mudaliar, called the Dravidian Association". This seems to contradict the current narrative. --CarTick 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

mclane is wrong . in this we can trust rajaraman and irschick, as they have done their research from vernacular sources of that period.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

. ok, i will double check with both books. --CarTick 16:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

got hold of the Golden Jubilee celebration book. looks like Karunanidhi and Annadurai didnt attend and Hardgrave and Irschick seem to have given speeches. --CarTick 17:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats great!!. Annadurai was sick in 1968, and MK is too much of an ego to go unless they make him the centre of attraction. Hardgrave and Irschick seem to have been around a lot in India at that time :-)--Sodabottle (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

does the book say who was running the party (and what it was doing) in 52-68?. And it has list of KV Reddi Naidu's ministers in the interim govt of april-july 1937. Should be added to the 37 election article--Sodabottle (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

lemme see. it is a big book. I see T. M. Nair's image, we can surely use. It has images of all Justice leaders. --CarTick 17:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

it has all cabinet information till 1968. is there anything else missing? --CarTick 17:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Great work!. The missing ones are bobbili's cabinet changes after 34 and the 3 cabinets in 46-52--Sodabottle (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

i will enter them later. As per 1957 election, we just have the speech given by P. T. Rajan. he says he contested the 1957 and lost it. He was elected to the MLC though. looks like people were running away from the party and he seems to be regreting that a lot in his speech. --CarTick 18:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

what next

feels like we have a good coverage. --CarTick 12:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

yes it is more or less complete now. needs some uninvolved copy edits (i am waiting a week before rereading this, so as to achieve the "strategic distance"), and then list for GAR. --Sodabottle (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

sounds good. --CarTick 12:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Successor state to Madras Presidency

Is it right to call TN as above? In a very likely scenario that Telangana will be carved out of AP. TN and Andhra would be the successor states. Or am I wrong? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

we could say one of the successor states. --CarTick 12:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ah yes, "one of the successor states" is more accurate.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

British role

i have seen role of British in atleast three different independent books, all western authors. only Rajaram or Tamil historians seem to deny this. i see it more as agenda driven as it is understandable that it may be embarassing to admit that the party had no independent origin. --CarTick 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

they have their agenda is denying the british role completely. But one has to admit, they wrote the primary sources from which Irschick, washbrook and others have written their english histories (washbrook for one has been accused of ignoring most of the tamil material). The majority of tamil language books deny the link at all or give a very limited role to the british. Exceptions are ones like "Dravida mayayum ariya mayayum" by p. ramamurthy and the current revisionist histories pumped out by thuglaq and tamil hindutvavadis (the other extreme to the DK books). I read someone arguing if Justice was a creation of the british, why wasn't gov.pentland more of their friend and why were they fighting tooth and nail with gov. goschen. It is a great muddle. Even my opinion is biased (probably because i read the Tamil historians first). --Sodabottle (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

it is not not necessarily pure creation by British. you can not create what can not be created. devision was already there. It increased more as many more non-Brahmins became educated and realised what they were missing. British saw this opportunity and poured some gasoline over it. I can not imagine British not doing this. If i was ruling a country like British did, i will use every oppurtunity and do anything to keep it under my control. --CarTick 13:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The question now is how to we represent the difference between the non indian academics' and the Tamil political historians' views on the extent of british role. I would prefer to keep it out of the lead and add more depth to the "seeds of communal division" section. It can be done in two ways : 1)chronological presentation. irschick (1969) stays neutral; washbrook (77) says british product; rajaraman (86) denies this etc. or 2)idelogical presentation. Dravidian party line denies all links to british, but most of the non indian scholars assign some degree of british role with washbrook going the most distance. They are supported by some non dravidian tamil historians like ramamurthy. etc.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

sure we can work on it to present it on the most accurate way. if i remember correctly, even Washbrook does not say it is pure creation. If you dont have access to the book, i can refer to the book and post relevant texts here sometime. --CarTick 13:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

that would be great. i read washbrook three four years back, so have forgotten what i read (i am not even sure if it was washbrook that i read). so the relevant excerpts would be great.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the British role is kinda over played in many cases. Or at least that is my opinion. Founder of Indian National Congress was himself a British gentleman. By late 1800s and early 1900s it would have been very much impossible to have any major organisation in India without British involvement anyways. Moreover, British animosity to Brahmins had already been in place after the Indian rebellion of 1857 and Congress should have only added fuel to the fire. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

not only that. Indian National Congress annual meeting in those days used to have speeches made by the party president full of praise for British. In fact Indians were so fascinated by British, some became too critical of Indian culture. W. C. Banerjee called Hinduism by all bad names. Many western educated Bengal Brahmins used to throw stones at orthodox Indian homes. So, many Indian Brahmins were for British before they became anti-British. --CarTick 02:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that including a sentence that the Congress party too had British involvement (with appropriate reference) would be fair enough to balance the argument. However, we might get bogged-down by some as POV pushers. It is a bit dodgy ground on deciding what would be the best option. Not mentioning about British involvement in Congress would be an unbalanced view since Congress was JP’s political adversary, but mentioning it might be debunked as WP:UNDUE. To be or not to be: that is the question. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

well, I am not sure if it important to include it here. may be. but, INC article already mentions something in that line. it could be expanded there certainly as a separate section. --CarTick 16:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

template

peer review-good idea. the article ought to have a template. how about improving this {{Infobox Indian political party}}. --CarTick 12:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am making {{Infobox Defunct Indian political party}}. added founders and presidents to it. please feel free to add and remove relevant and irrelavant fields. --CarTick 14:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The links at the bottom. Are they relevant here? i mean they deal with post independence politics.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

well, i dont care for it so much. but i see the point why it can be here. --CarTick 21:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

copyedits

Finished this. Future editors could look to removing other duplicate material, and ensuring that each section sticks to its subject. Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit :-)--Sodabottle (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stevens. thanks for the great help. --CarTick (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Justice Party (India). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120707160515/http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/hardgrave/rlh.html to http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/hardgrave/rlh.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108054013/http://indiainteracts.com/columnist/2006/10/09/RESERVATION-Part2/ to http://indiainteracts.com/columnist/2006/10/09/RESERVATION-Part2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106092251/http://www.hrce.tn.nic.in/ to http://www.hrce.tn.nic.in/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Justice Party (India). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721182606/http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/3327/4/MAU-1981-035-3.pdf to http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/3327/4/MAU-1981-035-3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721181607/http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/handle/2009/4745 to http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/handle/2009/4745

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)