Subscribe
Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Tamil Nadu Assembly witnessed fierce debates over social justice, caste representation, and political power on August 26 and 27. Ruling and opposition members sparred over the representation of Dalits, caste survey, and measures for the welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The exchanges came during the discussion on the demand for grants of the Social Justice Department, with Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) MLA Vanni Arasu raising questions about political representation and the implementation of social justice measures.
Minister for Public Works and Sports Development Aadhav Arjuna argued that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s claims of social justice should be examined against its record on caste enumeration and political representation.
He pointed out that states such as Telangana, West Bengal, and Karnataka had conducted caste surveys, including under former Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah, and questioned why the previous DMK government had not done so during its term. He said that state governments have the authority to conduct such surveys and could not simply place responsibility on the Union government to avoid the issue.
Responding to Aadhav Arjuna’s remarks, DMK MLA and former minister Govi Chezhian said the discussion was about the welfare of Scheduled Caste and other oppressed communities and that opposition members have a right to raise questions and make demands.
“Opposition members will come with questions and demands. They expect the government to act on them,” Chezhian said.
He invoked former chief minister CN Annadurai to describe the respective responsibilities of the Opposition and the government, saying that while it is fine for Opposition members to come “with just a ladle”, ministers in the ruling government must come with “ladles filled with oil”.
Chezhian also defended the previous DMK government’s record on social justice, citing the decision to observe April 14, the birth anniversary of Dr BR Ambedkar, as Samathuva Urudhi Mozhi Naal (Equality Pledge Day). He said the government had ensured that people from different communities stood together and took a pledge on equality.
Chezhian questioned Aadhav Arjuna’s remarks on the allocation of funds for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe welfare. Chezhian referred to the Tamil Nadu government’s announcement of Rs 25,000 crore for schemes benefiting SC and ST communities and asked whether the specific programmes for which the money was being spent had been examined. “Is there a policy note or an announcement on which schemes the Rs 25,000 crore is being spent?” he asked.
Defending the previous DMK government’s approach, Chezhian said the DMK’s social justice policies were not merely announcements on paper, and referred to the creation of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board as an example of measures intended to improve the living conditions of marginalised communities.
The debate also returned to the question of caste enumeration. Chezhian said the previous DMK government’s position had been that the Union government has the authority to conduct a caste census.
Pointing to how the caste survey conducted in Bihar faced subsequent legal challenges, Chezhian argued that the DMK government had proceeded within the framework of its powers rather than taking a position against caste-based enumeration.
The debate followed Vanni Arasu’s argument that political power-sharing should be treated as a principle rather than an act of sympathy. He pointed out how the VCK had four MLAs in the previous DMK-led Assembly without a ministerial position, while it currently has two MLAs, one of whom has been made a minister.
“Share in government and share in power should be the principle,” he said.
Rajmohan, another VCK MLA, invoked Ambedkar while arguing that opportunities and representation for oppressed communities should not be treated as charity. “No one needs to give anyone alms. We live on the rights given to us by Babasaheb Ambedkar,” he said.
The exchanges repeatedly prompted interventions from the Speaker, who asked members to maintain order and allow other members to complete their speeches.
