P. Kakkan in the Constituent Assembly
By Dr. D Ravikumar
According to the records from November 1949, 49 members from the Madras Province participated in the Constituent Assembly. While prominent leaders such as K. Kamaraj, N. Sanjeeva Reddy, and C. Subramaniam were among them, not all played an active role in the deliberations. For instance, Raja Sir Muthaiah Chettiar spoke only once. Only a few—like N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, and T.T. Krishnamachari—made significant contributions to the debates.
Among those who participated were two members from the Adi Dravida community: V.I. Muniswamy Pillai and P. Kakkan. While it is widely known that Kakkan served as the Home Minister in Tamil Nadu during Kamaraj’s tenure and earned a reputation for integrity and administrative skill, it is less known that he was also a member of the Constituent Assembly and contributed to the framing of the Indian Constitution.
P. Kakkan was one of the senior leaders of the Indian National Congress. He contested the first general elections in 1952, was elected to the Lok Sabha, and served effectively. He later contested and won in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections of 1957 and 1962. In the cabinets led by K. Kamaraj, he held key portfolios, including Home and Public Works, and discharged his duties with distinction.
Even before these accomplishments, Kakkan had begun his public life by contesting and winning a District Board election in 1941–42. A close associate of Kamaraj, he was nominated to the Constituent Assembly as a Congress representative.
Thumbaipatti is a small village near Melur, close to Madurai. There, a man named Kakkan worked as a village priest and a revenue department official. On June 18, 1909, he had a son, also named Kakkan. Soon after the birth of his next child, his wife Kuppi passed away. The elder Kakkan later remarried. Despite losing his mother early in life, young Kakkan was raised lovingly by his father, who was determined to educate him.
At that time, it was rare for children from the Adi Dravida community to complete schooling. Nevertheless, Kakkan persevered and passed all grades, although he struggled to clear the final examination. He attempted it more than once but was unsuccessful. During this time, he came under the influence of Mr. Vaidyanatha Iyer, a Congress leader involved in social reform activities in the Madurai region. Iyer wanted to appoint Kakkan as a caretaker at the students’ hostel in Melur. However, as the position was already filled, Kakkan was appointed as an assistant.
Kakkan’s patience, dedication, and character earned him the respect of those around him.
When Gandhiji assumed leadership of the Congress, the national freedom struggle gained new momentum and echoed across the country. This was also a time when leaders like Periyar and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized that a national liberation devoid of social emancipation was meaningless. Even the British acknowledged this principle, compelling the Congress to respond.
Under Gandhiji’s leadership, the Congress began engaging in social reform initiatives, including the abolition of untouchability and campaigns for temple entry. In Tamil Nadu, these efforts led to the promotion of Scheduled Caste leaders who were aligned with the Congress as representatives of the broader Dalit community. In contrast, the Congress sought to block the entry of Ambedkar and other leaders from the All India Scheduled Castes Federation (AISCF) into the Constituent Assembly. Despite these efforts, Ambedkar not only gained entry but was later accepted by the Congress as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee—a story in itself.
Though elected as a Congress member, P. Kakkan held great respect for Dr. Ambedkar. While he had limited opportunities to speak in the Constituent Assembly, he made good use of the occasions when he did.
The Constitution Drafting Committee submitted a draft of the Constitution to the Chairman of the Constituent Assembly on 21 February 1948. It consisted of 315 articles, 18 parts, and 8 schedules. Copies of the draft were distributed to the provincial governments, Union ministers, the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the members of the Constituent Assembly, and their comments were invited.
On 4 November 1948, the Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, introduced the draft in the Constituent Assembly. From 15 November onwards, the draft was debated article by article. The debate continued until 17 October 1949. The amendments proposed during the debates were incorporated, and a revised draft was presented to the Constituent Assembly on 14 November 1949. This draft too was debated in detail.
Article 10 of the draft Constitution had four key provisions. It mandated equal opportunity for all in government employment. No citizen of India was to be denied employment on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or any other such criterion. At the same time, the article clarified that it would not prevent the state from making provisions for the reservation of appointments in favour of socially and educationally backward sections of society.
On 29 November 1948, Article 10 of the draft Constitution was taken up for discussion in the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar intervened and said, “We can postpone the [discussion on] Article 10 and first discuss and decide on the amendments brought in Article 11. Then we can take this up.”
Article 11 stated: “Untouchability is abolished in all its forms. Its practice in any form is prohibited. Any disability arising out of untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with the law.” Based on Ambedkar’s suggestion, the proposed amendments to Article 11—namely 370, 371, 372, 373, 375, and 378—were taken up for consideration.
Amendment 372 was moved by Nazruddin Ahmed from West Bengal. He proposed that “No one shall be considered untouchable on the basis of religion or caste. If so, it shall be an offence punishable by law.” He explained, “Untouchability is not a term defined in law. That is why I am moving this amendment.” Several members, including V.I. Muniswami Pillai, participated in the discussion. Mano Mohan Das from West Bengal, Shantanu Kumar Das from Orissa, Dakshayani Velayudhan (elected from the Madras Presidency), and K.T. Shah, among others, also spoke on the amendment. However, Dr. Ambedkar did not accept it. The amendment was put to vote and rejected. Following that, Article 11 was declared adopted. At that moment, the members raised the slogan, “Jai to Mahatma Gandhi!”
On 30 November, Article 10 was taken up for discussion again. The amendments moved—namely 326, 327, 330, 331, 333, 335, and 337—were disallowed by the Deputy Speaker as they were considered repetitive.
Loknath Mishra from Orissa moved an amendment to delete subsections (2), (3), and (4) of Article 10. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar also moved an amendment. V.I. Muniswami Pillai stated that he would not insist on the amendment he had proposed. Aziz Ahmed Khan, a Muslim member from the United Provinces, moved an amendment to delete the words “backward classes” from Article 10.
Mr. Kakkan spoke in support of Article 10. He recorded his opinion as follows:
“Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I am very glad to support Article 10. The poor Harijan candidates hitherto did not get proper appointments in government services. The higher officers selected only their own people, but not the Harijans. Sir, even in the matter of promotions, we did not get justice. The government can expect necessary qualifications or personality from the Harijans, but not merit. If you take merit alone into account, the Harijans cannot come forward. I say in this House that the government must take special steps for the reservation of appointments for the Harijans for some years. I expect that the government will take the necessary steps to give more appointments in police and military services also. For example, in Kashmir, the poor Harijans are fighting with great vigour. I say in this House that the Harijans must be given more jobs in this government and be encouraged by the government. With these few words, I finish my speech, Sir.”
While participating in the debate on Article 14 of the draft constitution, P. Kakkan drew attention to the caste discrimination prevailing in prisons. Pointing out that caste-based discrimination is shown in prisons and work is allocated on the basis of caste, Kakkan highlighted that ‘if a prisoner belongs to a scheduled community, he is asked to do cleaning work, he is forced to do scavenging work without considering his economic status or educational level.’ He stressed that steps should be taken to prevent such discrimination.
A historian named David Arnold has extensively studied and written about the caste discrimination prevailing in prisons during the colonial period. Arnold has described in his research article how caste discrimination existed in Indian prisons in the 19th century and how caste Hindus rioted when the custom of prisoners eating together at the same table was introduced.
“The British administration found it politically necessary to recognize caste discrimination among prisoners. Although it had no official place in the colonial penal system, they could not regard caste as something to be ignored in everyday prison life. (It was not until the early nineteenth century that a judicial reform decreed that Brahmins could be sentenced to death). One reason for granting such caste-based privileges was the open riots in prisons in the 1840s and 1850s by Rajputs, Brahmins, and Kayasthas. It was believed that all Indians, unlike Europeans, were naturally divided into castes. While the upper-caste prisoners were given their due respect, the lower castes, such as the barbers, the washermen, and the scavengers, were forced to do their traditional jobs,” notes David Arnold. “They were forced to do menial work for other prisoners. Thus, the prison was another expression of the colonial government’s recognition of the social order that existed outside.”
This situation has continued not only during British rule but also in independent India. Even now, the Supreme Court has confirmed that such caste-based allocation of work in prisons and confinement in cells is still ongoing (WP 1404 / 2023 Sukanya Shantha Vs Union of India & others Dt 03.10.2023). The judgment has ordered that sections emphasizing caste discrimination should be removed from the prison manuals used by state governments.
A journalist named Sukanya Shantha filed a case in the Supreme Court based on research. “It can be seen that in the Palayamkottai Central Jail in Tamil Nadu, prisoners belonging to the Thevar, Nadar, and Pallar sections are kept in separate cells on the basis of caste, which is a blatant example of caste discrimination,” she stated in her petition. It was in that case that the Supreme Court gave this judgment.
Pointing out that most prison manuals used by state governments of India, including Tamil Nadu, contain provisions emphasising caste discrimination, the Supreme Court said, “We are of the view that the reservation of cleaning duties to SCs, STs and the reservation of cooking duties to upper castes is nothing but a violation of Article 15 of the Constitution. Even though caste is not explicitly mentioned, the use of such indirect expressions targeting the so-called Scheduled Castes is illegal.”
“No social group is born to do cleaning work. No one is born to do or not to do menial work,” the Supreme Court said, and ordered that “caste markers should be removed from prison records.”
The Supreme Court not only gave this judgment but also filed a suo moto case to monitor the implementation of this judgment by state governments.
It was Kakkan who raised this issue 75 years ago in the Constituent Assembly. Out of the many members in the Constituent Assembly, it was only Kakkan who insisted on removing the caste discrimination that existed in prisons.
Kakkan spoke:
Sir, what I have got to say concerns the jail administration. In the jails they make a distinction between prisoners and prisoners in allotting duties in the jails. If a prisoner belongs to the Harijan community he is compelled to do scavenging work, no matter what his class or rank or education is. Prisoners belonging to other communities are not similarly forced to do scavenging work. On this occasion I desire to express my opinion and my feeling that this distinction in the matter of the allotment of work to prisoners inside the jails should be removed forthwith. Sir, I know from experience that the members of the Harijan community are treated in jails very cruelly, as if they are God’s creatures and that He created them for doing scavenging work. I earnestly hope that this distinction will be removed hereafter and that Harijans will get impartial treatment everywhere. It is with this object that I have stated in my amendment that no person convicted for any offence shall be compelled to work in jail (caste war) in respect of religion, caste, race or class.
After the draft of the Constitution was read twice in the Constituent Assembly and amendments were made, the Assembly met on 17 November 1949. The Chairman of the Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, invited Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to propose a resolution. Ambedkar proposed the resolution that “The Constitution is being passed as decided in this Assembly.” Immediately, everyone in the Assembly cheered.
A member named Mahavir Tyagi congratulated Ambedkar. Another member, H.V. Kamath, requested, “Let Ambedkar speak first.” However, Ambedkar replied, “It is not customary for me to speak first; I will speak last.” Dr. Rajendra Prasad noted, “Seventy-one members have given their names to speak on this resolution, and some have given their names this morning. Each one should be given at least 20 minutes.” He then called on the members to speak. When someone suggested that they should be called in order of their names, Dr. Rajendra Prasad rejected the idea, stating, “I will choose myself as I usually do,” and first invited V.I. Muniswami Pillai, a member of the Adi Dravida community elected from the Madras Presidency, to speak. His speech was historic.
Following his address, a member named Seth Govind Das spoke, followed by K. Hanumanthaiah, K.T. Shah, R.K. Sidhwa, and many other members. After three days of continuous debate, on 22 November, Mr. P. Kakkan had the opportunity to speak.
Mr. P. Kakkan addressed the assembly as follows:
“Mr. President, Sir, I stand here to support the motion moved by Honourable Dr. Ambedkar. I also want to express my heartfelt thanks to you and the Drafting Committee for giving all kinds of help to the Harijans by this Constitution. As you know, Sir, Gandhiji, the Father of the Nation, changed the mind of the Caste Hindus and showed a way to abolish untouchability by joint electorate system.
Now we have achieved our goal by the joint electorate system. I believe, Sir, that the Congress Party is the only party which is working for the uplift of the Harijans; not any other party. So from this august Assembly, I appeal to the Harijans of the Union to join the Congress and work for the uplift of the Harijans. In this connection, I would also appeal to Dr. Ambedkar to join the Congress and work for the uplift of the Harijans within the ten years.
I am very glad, Sir, that the Panchayat system has got a place in this Constitution. I hope that the Government of India will take necessary steps to bring the Panchayat system into every nook and corner of this vast country and develop grama swaraj according to the wishes of Mahatma without any distinction of caste, creed, or colour.
Lastly, Sir, we have given power to the villagers by the introduction of the adult franchise system. I hope the voters in future will not misuse their voting power. I also believe, Sir, the people of India will not forget Gandhism which is not only for India but for the whole world. I would pay my tribute especially to the Honourable Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, and Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari who have come from Madras Province because they have done a great service to this country as members of the Drafting Committee.”
Mr. Kakkan knew very well what Ambedkar’s position was regarding the Congress. Even so, the fact that Kakkan invited Ambedkar to join the Congress party shows his loyalty to Gandhi and the Congress.
Although many members from the Scheduled Caste (SC) community were part of the Constituent Assembly, their contributions to advancing SC rights were limited, often due to their affiliation with the Congress Party. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar expressed regret over this situation.
On his 55th birthday, celebrated in Delhi on April 14, 1947, Ambedkar noted “Although we do not have the political security we need in full, I believe we will succeed in getting it to a large extent.”
He expressed satisfaction that his report to the committee on fundamental rights had been accepted but lamented the unfavourable conditions for SC individuals in the Minorities Sub-Committee. Ambedkar stated, “I regret to say that two SC members of the Minorities Sub-Committee have submitted a report which contains views contrary to the general opinion of the people of that community. One of them has recommended a Joint Electorate instead of a separate Electorate. He has put forward a distributive system of voting in a joint electorate. This is nothing but political slavery.” The individuals he referred to were Babu Jagjivan Ram (1908–1986) and P.R. Thakur (1904–1967), both Congress members representing Bihar and West Bengal, respectively.
In contrast, P. Kakkan did not act against the interests of the SC community. He effectively highlighted issues such as reservations and caste discrimination in prisons—topics that received little attention in the Constituent Assembly. Kakkan’s contributions have been a source of pride not only for the Adi Dravida people he represented but also for the Congress Party and Tamil Nadu.
(Dr. D. Ravikumar is the General Secretary, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK), Tamil Nadu, MP for the Villupuram Lok Sabha constituency, and former President of PUCL – Tamil Nadu & Puducherry.)
Read more about P. Kakkan on the Constitution of India website by the Centre for Law and Policy Research, Bangalore.