The Caste Conundrum, How Political Expediency is Betraying Tamil Nadu’s Legacy of Social Justice
Tamil Nadu, a state that proudly wears the badge of a social justice pioneer, finds itself at a critical juncture. It is a land that gave the nation the radical, anti-caste philosophy of Periyar E.V. Ramasamy and witnessed the groundbreaking governance of Chief Minister C.N. Annadurai, who legalized self-respect marriages. For decades, its political narrative has been dominated by Dravidian parties that built their identity on dismantling Brahminical hegemony and uplifting the oppressed. Yet, beneath this progressive veneer, a brutal and persistent reality festers: the deadly enforcement of caste endogamy through so-called ‘honour’ killings. The recent, hesitant move by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government to consider legislation against such crimes—only after immense pressure from its allies—is not a testament to its commitment to social justice, but a glaring indictment of its political timidity. It reveals a painful truth: instead of courageously addressing the sad reality of deep-seated casteism, political parties across the spectrum are actively reinforcing caste identities for electoral gain, betraying the very foundational principles they claim to uphold.
A Legacy Betrayed: From Self-Respect Marriages to ‘Honour’ Killings
The historical context is crucial to understanding the profundity of this betrayal. The Self-Respect Movement, initiated by Periyar in the 1920s, was a revolutionary crusade against the caste system. It advocated for rationalism, women’s rights, and, most pertinently, inter-caste marriages as a direct weapon to shatter caste hierarchies. This vision was institutionalized when the first DMK government, led by C.N. Annadurai, inserted Section 7-A into the Hindu Marriage Act in 1967, legally recognizing “self-respect marriages” solemnized without priests or religious rituals.
This was a radical piece of legislation, intended to emancipate society from the shackles of caste. The state has continued this tradition on paper; as recently as March 2025, the government reported that over 12,114 self-respect marriages had been registered since 2018. However, this official celebration of inter-caste unions rings hollow when young couples, especially those involving a Dalit partner, are hunted down and murdered for daring to love across caste lines. The state that legislated the freedom to marry is now paralyzed when it comes to legislating the freedom to live after that marriage.
The killings of Ilavarasan (2013), Shankar (2016), and the recent, sensational murder of Kavin Selvaganesh—a young Dalit software professional killed by the brother of the woman he loved from a dominant caste—are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of a systemic disease. P. Shanmugam, secretary of the Tamil Nadu CPI(M), revealed that since 2016, his party has fought for justice in 118 documented cases, estimating an equal number of unreported or suppressed crimes. This gruesome tally exposes the vast chasm between Tamil Nadu’s progressive self-image and its oppressive ground reality.
The Politics of Inaction: Fear of the Intermediate Castes
The DMK government’s initial reluctance to enact a specific law against ‘honour’ killings, with Chief Minister M.K. Stalin arguing that existing laws were “adequate,” is a classic case of political evasion. The formation of a commission headed by retired Justice K.N. Basha to “hold consultations” and “evolve a consensus” is, in essence, a maneuver to buy time, especially with Assembly elections looming in 2026. It is a tactic to defer a politically risky decision under the guise of due diligence.
The core of this reluctance lies in the formidable political and economic power of the intermediate castes—often referred to as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Most Backward Classes (MBCs) in Tamil Nadu. These communities, while beneficiaries of reservation policies and social mobility, often guard their perceived social status with ferocious zeal. Marriages between their members and Dalits are viewed as the ultimate transgression, a polluting of their bloodline and an insult to their caste pride.
Political parties, including the DMK and its principal rival, the AIADMK, are acutely aware that taking a firm, legislative stand against ‘honour’ killings could be portrayed as being “anti-caste pride” and alienate these crucial voter blocs. The fear of a backlash from these numerically strong and politically organized intermediate communities has created a bipartisan paralysis. When a killing occurs, the response from major parties is often muted, cautious, or framed as a generic law-and-order issue, deliberately avoiding a direct confrontation with the caste ideology that fuels the violence.
This political calculus reveals a cynical truth: the commitment to social justice ends where the electoral calculus begins. Parties are willing to celebrate the idea of inter-caste marriage in abstract terms but are unwilling to protect the individuals who embody that idea when it threatens their vote bank.
Reinforcing the Very Evil They Claim to Fight
The most profound hypocrisy, however, lies in how these same political parties actively reinforce the caste identities they purportedly seek to eradicate. This is done through a systematic and unapologetic politics of caste management:
-
Ticket Distribution: Candidates for elections are selected not solely on merit or ideology, but primarily based on the caste demographics of a constituency. Parties meticulously calculate the dominant caste in each area and field a candidate from that community, ensuring that caste loyalty becomes the primary determinant of electoral success.
-
Cabinet Formation: When a government is formed, the allocation of ministerial berths is proudly announced as a careful balancing act between various caste groups. Parties boast about “honouring” a particular community by giving it representation, thereby reducing governance to a form of caste-based appeasement and patronage.
-
Rhetoric of Caste Honor: The political discourse is saturated with references to caste. Leaders openly speak about protecting the “honor” and “interests” of specific communities, further entrenching caste as the most relevant marker of social and political identity.
In doing so, political parties have become the chief architects of the modern caste system in Tamil Nadu. They have taken the abstract notions of caste pride and given them concrete political expression and reward. By making caste the central axis of political mobilization, they have ensured that it remains the most potent force in social life. The young couple in love is not just fighting their families; they are fighting a entire political ecosystem that has validated and weaponized the very caste identity they are trying to transcend.
The Two Faces of Caste Violence and the Specter of Misuse
The nature of the violence itself is twofold, as noted in the analysis. The first involves the killing of one’s own family member—a daughter or a son—to purge the perceived stain on the family’s honor. The second, more insidious form, involves the killing of a member of another community, typically a Dalit man, to avenge the “dishonor” brought upon the dominant caste family. This is not just a crime of passion; it is an act of casteist terror, designed to send a chilling message to the entire Dalit community to stay within their prescribed social boundaries.
The common argument against a separate law, often whispered in political circles, is the potential for misuse. This is a familiar trope deployed to stall progressive legislation, from laws against domestic violence to those protecting Scheduled Castes and Tribes (the Prevention of Atrocities Act). While a robust legal framework must have safeguards against false complaints, using the specter of misuse to deny protection to vulnerable groups is a dereliction of democratic duty. It prioritizes the hypothetical inconvenience of the powerful over the very real and mortal danger faced by the oppressed.
The Path Forward: From Political Expediency to Moral Courage
The solution requires a fundamental shift from political cowardice to moral and ideological conviction.
-
Enact a Strong, Specific Law: Tamil Nadu needs a dedicated law against ‘honour’ killings and caste-based hate crimes. This law must define the crime clearly, establish special fast-track courts, prescribe stringent punishment, and hold not just the immediate perpetrators but also the family members and community elders who conspire or abet the crime accountable.
-
A Political Awakening: The allies of the DMK—the CPI(M), CPI, and the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK)—who pushed for the commission must maintain relentless pressure to ensure it results in concrete legislation. They must mobilize public opinion and ensure the issue remains at the forefront of the political agenda.
-
Reclaiming the Dravidian Legacy: The DMK and other Dravidian parties must be held accountable to their own history. They must be compelled to choose between the radical, anti-caste vision of Periyar and Annadurai and the cynical, caste-based electoral pragmatism they practice today.
-
Beyond Legislation: A law alone cannot eradicate a mindset that is centuries old. It must be accompanied by a massive public awareness campaign in schools, colleges, and villages, championing inter-caste marriages and celebrating them as acts of courage and liberation. The state government can institute awards and recognition for inter-caste couples.
The struggle in Tamil Nadu is a microcosm of a larger Indian dilemma. It demonstrates that urbanization, education, and economic development alone cannot erase deep-seated prejudice. The battle against caste is ultimately a political and ideological one. The question is whether Tamil Nadu’s political class will find the courage to lead this battle, or whether it will continue to be part of the problem, reinforcing the very walls of caste that its founding icons swore to tear down. The memory of Kavin Selvaganesh and countless others demands nothing less than a courageous answer.
Q&A: Caste, Politics, and ‘Honour’ Killings in Tamil Nadu
Q1: Why is the DMK government’s move to form a commission seen as hesitant and politically timed?
A1: The DMK government, after months of inaction and initially claiming existing laws were sufficient, only agreed to consider legislation under pressure from its allies. The decision to form a commission to “study” the issue and “build consensus” is widely perceived as a delaying tactic, especially with state elections approaching in 2026. It allows the government to appear active on the issue without actually committing to a potentially controversial law that might alienate powerful intermediate caste vote banks, effectively kicking the can down the road.
Q2: What is the historical significance of self-respect marriages in Tamil Nadu, and how does it contrast with the current situation?
A2: The Self-Respect Movement, led by Periyar, and the subsequent legislation by the DMK government under C.N. Annadurai that legalized self-respect marriages (under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act), were revolutionary acts aimed at dismantling the caste system. They promoted inter-caste, ritual-free marriages as a direct challenge to caste hierarchy. The current prevalence of ‘honour’ killings against inter-caste couples represents a profound betrayal of this legacy, showing that the state’s progressive laws are being violently undermined by deep-rooted social prejudices.
Q3: Who are the “intermediate communities,” and why are political parties afraid of alienating them?
A3: “Intermediate communities” refer to politically and economically empowered Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Most Backward Classes (MBCs) in Tamil Nadu. These groups are numerically strong and highly organized, making them a crucial vote bank for all major political parties. They often fiercely protect their caste status, and inter-caste marriages, particularly with Dalits, are seen as a threat to their social prestige. Parties fear that enacting a strict law against ‘honour’ killings could be interpreted as an attack on their “caste pride,” leading to a massive electoral backlash.
Q4: In what ways do political parties actively reinforce caste identities?
A4: Political parties reinforce caste identities through:
-
Caste-Based Ticket Distribution: Selecting electoral candidates based on the dominant caste in a constituency rather than merit or ideology.
-
Caste-Based Cabinet Formation: Proudly distributing ministerial positions as a way to “balance” and “honor” different caste groups.
-
Caste-Centric Rhetoric: Publicly appealing to caste-based interests and pride, thereby continuously validating caste as the primary identity for political mobilization.
Q5: What are the two types of ‘honour’ killings mentioned, and why is the distinction important?
A5: The two types are:
-
Killing a member of one’s own family (e.g., a daughter) for marrying outside their caste.
-
Killing a member of another community, typically a Dalit man, for being in a relationship with a person from a dominant caste.
This distinction is crucial because the second type is not just a crime of ‘honour’ but an act of casteist terror and an atrocity against a historically marginalized community. It is intended to enforce caste boundaries through violence and intimidate the entire Dalit community, making it a more severe social and political crime.
