Despite getting exposed left, right and centre, Dravidianists seem unapologetic in pushing their false narrative about Brahmins. Rather than reassessing their position, they appear to be recalibrating their strategy following the collapse of the carefully constructed image of E.V. Ramasamy Naicker, (hailed as ‘Periyar’ by his followers) and the Dravidian ideology. But in an age where data speaks loud and clear, stealing the achievements of others and crediting them to their ideological figurehead simply won’t hold up.
A glaring example of this desperation is Kolathur Mani, President of Dravidar Viduthalai Kazhagam (DVK), who has long displayed open hostility toward Brahmins. Now, he’s resorting to spreading falsehoods to keep Dravidian loyalists clinging to the collapsing ideology. At a public event organized by the Cuddalore DVK, Mani boldly made a series of baseless claims—twisting historical facts beyond recognition and passing off personal opinions as absolute truth. His speech not only attacked the Indian education system during the British era but also shamelessly hijacked the legacy of Rettamalai Srinivasan, a respected Scheduled Caste activist from the Madras Presidency, crediting his contributions to EVR with a completely fabricated narrative. This isn’t just distortion—it’s intellectual theft. And no matter how many layers of lies are added, the truth always rises above.
Attacking Dharampal’s Findings
In a clear attempt to distort the well-documented findings of Gandhian thinker, historian, and political philosopher Dharampal, Kolathur Mani has taken aim at The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth Century. Dharampal’s work, based on exhaustive research of original British colonial records—surveys commissioned by the East India Company and preserved in archives across the UK—exposes the deep-rooted and decentralized education system that existed in India prior to British rule. His findings dismantle the popular “Brahmin-dominated villainy” narrative, revealing that education was widespread and inclusive, with a large number of non-Brahmin students and teachers.
Ironically, the very followers of EVR who once propagated the falsehood that India had no education system before the British, now find themselves reluctantly acknowledging that not only did such a system exist, but it was in fact more diverse than they had claimed. And yet, unable to digest this historical truth, Kolathur Mani has launched a desperate attack to discredit Dharampal’s research—labeling it as RSS propaganda.
At a recent event, Kolathur Mani claimed, “Our people will even say now, ‘Did only Macaulay come and give us education?’ It was before that. There’s a book called ‘The Beautiful Tree,’ written by an RSS man. He has written about the state of education in India. Our people speak without reading it right. Some speak after learning about it on WhatsApp, while others just read the headlines of articles and talk without delving deeper. No one reads about the book; only if you read will you come to know. In the book, he claims that there were schools present—it discusses the number of schools in each districts, the number of girls enrolled, and everything is true, and also included the subjects taught. But what were the subjects? Astrology, cooking, and the Vedas—this was the syllabus. While learning these they claim to have had schools, were they really schools? It’s a gurukulam. Gurukulam means you go to someone’s house, work there, eat, and learn from them.”
He then brings up ‘Sivananda Gurukulam’ and pushes the worn-out claim that only Brahmins were permitted to study the Vedas—another baseless narrative intended to stoke division and sustain the falsehood that traditional education was exclusively for a certain caste. Mani also claimed that the British enacted a law in 1835 granting Scheduled Castes the right to sit on chairs—an assertion with no historical evidence to support it. He went further, saying the British also gave them the right to purchase land, again without citing any credible data or sources to back such claims.
The Truth?
Upon closer scrutiny, it becomes evident that there was no specific British law that explicitly granted lower castes the right to sit on chairs, as the two-bit Dravidianist Mani claims. The often-cited Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1850 did not deal with social customs like seating rights but was instead aimed at removing legal disadvantages for those who converted from Hinduism to other religions—primarily to ensure legal protections for converts, particularly in matters of property and inheritance. The British motive was clearly centered on encouraging conversions, not on promoting social justice.
In a similar vein, the two-bit propagandist Kolathur Mani continue to push the distorted narrative that pre-British India lacked a proper educational system. This claim doesn’t hold up against the depth of historical research.
The Reality Of The Beautiful Tree
The title of Dharampal’s book, The Beautiful Tree, actually comes from Mahatma Gandhi’s 1931 address at Chatham House in London. There, Gandhi lamented that India had become more illiterate under British rule than it was in earlier centuries. He criticized British officials for uprooting an already-functioning native education system, calling it “a beautiful tree” that was destroyed when colonial administrators dismissed indigenous institutions as inadequate and replaced them with their own rigid models.
Dharampal’s motivation wasn’t to vilify British rule but to understand how Indian society and institutions functioned in the 18th and early 19th centuries. His work revealed that education in India was delivered through diverse institutions like pathshalas, madrasahs, and gurukulas, and that these were often maintained by local communities—including even illiterate villagers—through shared contributions. Referring to Sir Thomas Munro, then Governor of Madras, Dharampal quotes: “Every village had a school.” He further argued that using the word “school” does not fully capture the social and cultural role these institutions played.
The Comprehensive Survey
The backbone of Dharampal’s research was a comprehensive survey of indigenous education in the Madras Presidency, conducted between 1822 and 1825. This survey, overlooked by previous scholars, collected responses from District Collectors across 21 districts. It recorded not only the number of students and teachers but also detailed their caste, gender, and religion. The categories included Brahmins, Vaishyas, Shudras, Muslims, and “other castes”—a group that likely included many who would today be recognized as Scheduled Castes. Dharampal observed that schools were predominantly filled with students from non-Brahmin and lower caste backgrounds.
Students typically began their studies between the ages of five and eight and could spend five to fifteen years in school. School days started at dawn and continued until sunset, with short breaks in between. A wide array of books were used to teach subjects like reading, writing, and arithmetic. For instance, the District Collector of Bellary listed texts such as the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Panchatantra, and various regional Puranas. Other schools used Arabic and Persian texts like the Quran and Gulistan, especially in madrasahs.
Teachers also came from a variety of caste backgrounds. According to an 1836 British report from Bengal, while many educators were Brahmins or Kayasthas, a significant number came from lower castes, including Dalits like the Chandals. While higher education in Sanskrit religious texts was mostly restricted to Brahmins, other disciplines—such as medicine, astronomy, and ethics—attracted students from broader caste groups.
Education for girls was limited, though not absent. In most regions, girls, especially those from Muslim and lower caste families, were taught at home by relatives or private tutors. Exceptions existed in places like Malabar and Vishakhapatnam, where more girls from upper caste and Muslim communities attended school. The decline of indigenous education wasn’t due to a lack of quality, but rather the British taxation system, which cut off the revenue streams that had historically sustained local educational institutions.
Based on the above, it’s clear that propagandist Kolathur Mani not only dismisses well-documented historical research but also distorts the true nature of India’s traditional education system, reducing it to a mere caricature. Rather than confronting facts with reasoned critique, he resorts to labeling a scholarly work as ideological propaganda—revealing both an intellectual weakness and a deliberate misrepresentation of history.
Lies About ICS Peddled By Kolathur Mani
Kolathur Mani didn’t stop at his distortions at surface-level; he went further to allege that the Indianisation of the Indian Civil Service (ICS) was primarily driven by non-Brahmin associations and Dravidian ideologues. Mani claimed, “There were no high-ranking positions for Indians in this country—no Indian held posts such as Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Deputy Collector, or Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO); all such were occupied by the British. Then, a demand arose. The Congress started a party, but it was not originally a party formed for India’s independence. It was more a association like a residents’ welfare association—an association of Indians that merely raised demands and nothing more. The first demand they (Non-Brahmin Association) kept was to provide service (administrative) to Indians. Their resolution called for the Indianisation of public services. What did that mean? It meant they were asking for posts like RDO and DSP to be opened to Indians. At that time, Indians were not allowed to sit for the ICS exams. They made the demand—and eventually, it was granted.”
However, this narrative is historically misleading.
The Truth?
The Charter Act of 1853 had already laid the foundation for Indian entry into the ICS by opening up the service to Indians and separating the executive and legislative functions of the Governor-General’s council—decades before the Non-Brahmin Movement formally began in 1916.
In reality, several key figures and organizations championed the cause of Indian representation in the civil services. Dadabhai Naoroji, often referred to as the Grand Old Man of India, persistently argued that excluding Indians from the ICS was both unjust and economically harmful. As an MP in the British Parliament (1892–1895), he advocated for the exams to be held in India.
Likewise, Surendranath Banerjee, an Ex-ICS officer turned nationalist leader, mobilized public sentiment through the Indian Association, founded in 1876, making the demand for holding the ICS exams in India a central issue. The Indian National Congress (INC), from its earliest sessions in the 1880s, passed consistent resolutions pushing for simultaneous exams in India and Britain and sought adjustments in age and qualification criteria to allow broader Indian participation.
Leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Annie Besant also played vital roles in this reform movement. Besant, despite being British, supported Indian self-rule and advocated for administrative reforms, including local conduct of ICS exams, through the Home Rule Movement. Even some British-led bodies, such as the Islington Commission in 1912, acknowledged the demand, although they often offered only partial support. The breakthrough came in 1922 when the ICS exams began to be conducted simultaneously in India and England.
Amidst all these efforts, one significant yet often overlooked figure was Rettamalai Srinivasan, a Scheduled Caste activist from Tamil Nadu played a pioneering role even before every others in the state by submitting multiple petitions to the colonial government demanding that the ICS exams be held in India—well ahead of many others and without the backing of elite organizations, making his contribution especially notable.
Yet, without hesitation, Mani attempted to appropriate the legacy and achievements of national leaders to support his misleading narrative—that E.V. Ramasamy (EVR) and the Dravidian movement were solely responsible for India’s major milestones. This narrative, like many others he promotes, is a distortion of historical facts.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.