This July 29 marked the 70th anniversary of a sensational day in the history of the Tamil Nadu (then Madras) Assembly. In a rare occurrence, a motion moved by the ruling party (the Congress) was defeated in a vote and instead an amended motion put forth by the Opposition was passed. Yet, Chief Minister C. Rajagopalachari not only brushed aside the criticism by the Opposition about the propriety of his continuing in power despite losing the vote but even refused to implement the amended motion. The motion was on an extraordinary issue whose impact on Tamil Nadu politics cannot be overstated. It was the Modified Scheme of Elementary Education (MSEE), infamously known as Kula Kalvi Thittam, the term used by its most fiery opponents — the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) — to drive home their point that its true aim was perpetuation of caste hierarchy.
The scheme
On April 16, 1953, without taking the Cabinet into confidence and with the knowledge of only Education Minister M.V. Krishna Rao and a few officials of the Directorate of Public Instruction, Rajaji introduced the scheme, his brainchild, through a circular. Under the scheme, implemented at 35,000 elementary schools in rural areas, students would be divided into two batches. Each batch would spend only three hours at school and the other half of the day on either helping their parents (if they belonged to occupational classes) or learning the trade from a farmer or craftsman in the village.
The opposition was widespread. Even eminent Congress leaders K. Kamaraj, O.P. Ramaswamy Reddiyar and P. Subbarayan were against it. When the scheme came into force in June, protests intensified, with the DK and the DMK in the lead. The DMK had not entered electoral politics then.
Though the Assembly was in session since June 27, 1953, and despite raging protests, the government kept postponing a full-fledged discussion until July 29, the penultimate day of the session, when Krishna Rao introduced the motion that “The Modified Scheme of Elementary Education be taken into consideration.” The Opposition expressed concerns about the inadequate time given for the discussion and the wording of the motion. Communist Party of India (CPI) leader M. Kalyanasundaram termed it “vague and indefinite”. Nevertheless, it was taken up the same day, with four hours set aside for discussion, including one hour for Rajaji to reply.
Many Opposition members moved amendments to the motion. The most significant were the ones demanding that the scheme be dropped and referred to an expert committee. Rao opened the discussion and argued how the shift system would help in increasing the enrolment, which was less than 50% at that time, without much additional expenditure.
As many as 20 other members spoke. Barring three, including Raja of Chettinad Muthiah Chettiar, all others vehemently opposed the scheme, highlighting the “undemocratic” manner in which the scheme was being pushed through, the lack of consideration of the practical difficulties in implementing it and its negative impact on the education and progress of children of the downtrodden communities in the long run.
While the Communists’ criticism was largely economic, a few members of the Tamil Nadu Toilers’ Party and the Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party (KMPP) and Independent MLAs criticised the scheme from a caste perspective. These members, who included A. Govindasamy Nayagar, S.P. Thangavelu, A. Rathinam, M. Dharmalingam and K.R. Viswanathan, said the scheme would be most disadvantageous to the Scheduled Castes and other backward communities.
Rajaji made an impassioned defence of the scheme. Kalyanasundaram said, “...the Hon. Chief Minister took us to a fairy land for over an hour... Mere eloquence or cleverness in expounding a scheme will not produce results.” To this, Rajaji quipped, “Word for word and letter by letter, Mr. Kalyanasundaram is more eloquent than me, sir.” After the discussion, the amendments moved by the Opposition were put to vote. CPI leader K.P. Gopalan’s motion demanding that the scheme be dropped was the first. It was a tie with 138 Ayes and 138 Noes. Speaker J. Sivashanmugam Pillai gave his casting vote in favour of the government, arguing that the Speaker could do so to ensure that the “status quo” is maintained. The Opposition argued that in this case, only dropping the scheme would mean “status quo”. Pillai rejected the argument, pointing out that the scheme was in force.
Dropping vs staying
When Viswanathan’s amendment for staying the scheme and referring it to an expert committee was taken up, the Speaker expressed doubts about its need since the House had just voted against “dropping” the scheme and “staying” would mean the same. Finance Minister C. Subramaniam immediately said there was no need to take it up since “staying” and “dropping” were the same propositions. T. Viswanatham of the KMPP and T. Nagi Reddi of the CPI argued that “dropping” and “staying” meant different things. Pillai put the amendment to vote and the government lost by a wafer-thin margin of 139 Ayes versus 137 Noes. The single vote that made the difference was that of R. Siddanna Gowd, an Independent candidate representing the reserved constituency of Madakasira in the present day Andhra Pradesh. On the earlier amendment for “dropping”, he had voted in favour of the government. The Speaker said the amended motion that “The MSEE be stayed and referred to an expert committee of officials and non-officials in the education field” was “put and carried”.
Refusal
The Assembly was adjourned for the next day. The Hindu reported the next day, quoting Rajaji, that the amended motion “is only a recommendation of the House”. When the House reconvened on July 30, the last day of the session, Viswanatham of the KMPP tried in vain to have a debate through a point of order, stating that the government could not continue in office after losing the vote “under the spirit and terms of the Constitution”. Rajaji said it must be left to the government to consider and not a matter of debate. Later, Viswanatham, Nagi Reddi, and Kalyanasundaram argued that the amended motion passed by the Assembly was not “recommendatory” but “mandatory” and urged the government to implement the “verdict of the House”. Rajaji refused, saying the scheme could not be “interrupted” and an expert committee would be appointed in “due course”. He challenged the Opposition to bring in a motion of no confidence, if needed, knowing well that it would not succeed. The Assembly session came to an end. Owing to mounting pressure, the government, however, formed the R.V. Parulekar committee to study the scheme in August. While Rajaji refused to scrap the scheme until his resignation on March 26, 1954, Kamaraj dropped the scheme after becoming the Chief Minister.
COMMents
SHARE