Thread by @Indumakalktchi

The myth 3℅ ruling over others....

The original problem that Justice Party had was that Brahmins in Madras Presidency were dominating Judiciary, clerk jobs. But they could handle that because they were rich landlords. When dyarchy was introduced,

some form of popular vote had to be introduced.

Before popular vote, the positions were by nomination. Panagal Raja was on Viceroy's Council. But after vote was introduced, Sir Pitti Theagaraya Chetty and Dr T M Nair lost elections in Madras Corporation.

Brahmins won the popular vote because they had a system called the Mylapore Club, which lobbied and gerrymandered Brahmin votes. There were separate constituencies for lawyers, tax payers, land owners, business men and so on and so forth.

Now, it looked as though Brahmins would take political power also.

This was a problem for the British since Brahmin lobby worked against them in Bombay Presidency. The leaders of 1857 were Chitpavan Brahmins like Tatya Tope and Nana Phadnavis.

In Madras Presidency, VVS Iyer came back from London, he formed contacts with other extremists in India such as Shyamji Krishna Varma and Savarkar. He started the Abhinava Bharatam, a secret society to overthrow British rule by military methods.

The British were afriad that this extremist lobby will start winning elections also.

So, they raised this bogey of 3% ruling over others.

This is 1919, before Montagu-Chelmsford Act, it was debated in British House of COmmons and House of Lords.

At that time, Justice Party went to England to lobby for Communal Award. It was British parliamentarians Lord Pentland, Lord Watney who came up with this 3% vs 97% formula

This 3% vs 97% formula was identified by Sir Valentine Chirol, a British journalist who travelled in India and wrote a book called Indian Unrest in 1910