Biography
Dakshayani Velayudhan, a trailblazer in many aspects, unfolded her life as follows:
Early Life:
Born on July 4, 1912, on the island of Bolgatty of Cochin.
Leader of oppressed Classes and the first woman from Scheduled Castes to graduate in India.
Science graduate, belonging to the Pulaya community.
| Attribute | Information |
|---|---|
| Full Name | Dakshayani Velayudhan |
| Date of Birth | July 4, 1912 |
| Date of Passing | July 20, 1978 |
| Party Affiliation | Not specified |
| Constituency | Madras |
| Mother Tongue | Malayalam |
| Education | Graduate |
| Committee Memberships | Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities, and Tribal and Excluded Areas |
Role in India’s Independence Movement:
Elected to the Cochin Legislative Council in 1945.
The first and only woman from a Dalit caste elected to the Constituent Assembly in 1946.
Fierce Gandhian and supporter of B.R. Ambedkar on issues related to Scheduled Castes.
Contribution to Constitution Making:
Advocated for ‘moral safeguards’ instead of separate electorates for Scheduled Castes.
Strong voice against forced labor, untouchability, and reservations.
Emphasized decentralization and a more decentralized system in the Draft Constitution debates.
Critiqued the centralizing tendency of the Constitution, highlighting potential domination by the central government.
Later Contributions:
Elected to the Provincial Parliament with her husband, possibly the first Dalit couple in the Parliament.
Continued civil society work, focusing on Dalit rights.
Established the Mahila Jagriti Parishad, a women’s rights organization in Delhi in 1977.
Key Speeches:
Emphasized that communalism was antithetical to nationalism during the Objectives Resolution debate.
Opposed separate electorates for Harijans (Scheduled Castes).
Called for a more decentralized system to strengthen India’s unity.
Strongly supported the inclusion of Fundamental Rights against exploitation and forced labor.
Advocated for addressing untouchability through sustained state propaganda rather than punishment.
Legacy:
The Kerala Government instituted the Dakshayani Velayudhan award in 2019, recognizing women’s contributions to the empowerment of others in the state.
Early Life and Inspirations
Born on the picturesque island of Bolgatty in Cochin on July 4, 1912, Dakshayani Velayudhan’s journey epitomizes resilience and determination. Hailing from the Pulaya community, an oppressed caste, her early life was marked by the shackles of discriminatory practices. The seminal Kayal Sammelanam of 1913, where Pulayas met on boats due to societal restrictions, profoundly impacted her perspective, earning her the title, ‘The Sea has no Caste.’
Role in India’s Independence Movement
Inspired by her family’s involvement in civil disobedience movements against upper-caste dictums, Velayudhan entered active politics. She emerged as a vocal critic of Congress politics, expressing her dissent in the AISCF’s weekly journal, Jai Bheem. Her critique extended to B.R. Ambedkar’s demand for separate electorates, showcasing her unwavering commitment to a unified society.
Contribution to Constitution Making
Elected to the Constituent Assembly from Madras at the age of 34, Velayudhan became the only Dalit woman member. Her alignment with B.R. Ambedkar on issues related to Scheduled Castes was evident in her advocacy for ‘moral safeguards’ over separate electorates. Her interventions during debates reflected a visionary outlook, calling for greater decentralization and endorsing the draft Constitution.
Later Contributions and Legacy
Beyond the Constituent Assembly, Velayudhan continued her activism, serving in the Provincial Parliament with her husband, possibly the first Dalit couple in the Parliament. In 1977, she founded the Mahila Jagriti Parishad in Delhi, championing women’s rights. Her lasting impact is acknowledged by the Kerala Government through the Dakshayani Velayudhan award, instituted in 2019 to honor women empowering others.
Key Speeches and Ideals
Velayudhan’s speeches resonate with ideals of communal harmony and the need for ‘moral safeguards’ for the emancipation of Harijans. Her opposition to separate electorates, criticism of centralization, and strong support for fundamental rights against exploitation exemplify her commitment to a just and egalitarian society.
Dakshayani Velayudhan’s indomitable spirit, from challenging societal norms to contributing significantly to constitutional discussions, leaves an enduring legacy. Her life’s narrative is a testament to the power of perseverance, courage, and a vision for a more inclusive India.
Selected Speeches from Constitutional Assembly Debates:
An Appeal to Dr. Ambedkar[1]
Shrimati Dakshayani Velayudan (Madras: General): Mr. Chairman, before I express my views on the Resolution, let me pay my humble homage to our Revolutionary Father, Mahatma Gandhi (applause). It is his mystic vision, his political idealism and his social passion that gave us the instruments to achieve our goal. I submit that a Constituent Assembly not only frames a constitution, but also gives the people a new framework of life. To frame a constitution is an easy job, because there are many models for us to imitate. But to renew a people on a new foundation requires the synthetic vision of a planner. The Independent Sovereign Republic of India plans a free society. In our ancient polity, there were conflicts between absolutism and republicanism. The slender flame of republicanism was snuffed out by the power political States. The Lichavi Republic was the finest expression of the democratic genius of our ancients. There, every citizen was called a Raja. In the Indian Republic of tomorrow, the power will come from the people……
We could understand the attitude of the Princes in this matter from the statement made by the members of the Negotiating Committee who represent the Chamber of Princes. But here comes a Maharaja with a historic message to his people. I mean the Maharaja of the Cochin State, which is one of the most advanced States in India and I am proud to say that I belong to it. Here is a part of the message:
“I believe in pure constitutional rule and, throughout my life, I have sedulously cultivated an attitude towards life and institutions which are antipathetic to autocracy and personal rule.”
From this message it is obvious that the power comes from the people. In the Indian Republic there will be no barriers based on caste or community. The Harijans will be safe in a Republican State of the Indian Union. I visualise that the underdogs will be the rulers of the Indian Republic. I therefore appeal to the Harijan Delegates of this Constituent Assembly that they should not harp on separatism. We should not make ourselves the laughing stock of our future generations by harping on separatism. Communalism, whether Harijan, Christian, Muslim or Sikh, is opposed to nationalism. (hear, hear) What we want is not all kinds of safeguards. It is the moral safeguard that gives real protection to the underdogs of this country. I am not at all afraid of the future of the Harijans. It is not safeguards that go to improve the status of the Harijans.
The other day we heard Mr. Churchill waxing eloquent over the question of the Harijans. He said that the British Government is responsible for the life and welfare of the so-called Scheduled Castes of India. I would like to ask him one question. What has the British Government done to improve the social status of the Harijans? Did they ever pass any legislation to remove the social disabilities of the Harijans except producing some chaprassis and butlers? And Mr. Churchill also complained that the Harijans were thrown at the mercy of the Caste Hindus, their oppressors. Mr. Churchill cannot take the 70 million Harijans of this land to Great Britain to give them protection. He may give protection to a few communalists who might fly to England. Mr. Churchill should understand that we are Indians. The Harijans are Indians and they have to live in India as Indians and they will live in India as Indians. We also heard recently that the Scheduled Castes are considered as a minority. Nothing of the sort is mentioned in the State Paper of May 16. I refuse to believe that the 70 million Harijans are to be considered as a minority. Neither Lord Pethick-Lawrence, the Secretary of State for India, nor even the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, nor even the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Churchill, is going to improve the condition of the Harijans. What we want is the removal, immediate removal, of our social disabilities. Only an Independent Socialist Indian Republic can give freedom and equality of status to the Harijans. Our freedom can be obtained only from Indians and not from the British Government.
Let me make a personal appeal to Dr. Ambedkar to join the nationalist forces of this country. He is the only leader of the Harijan community and his non-cooperation with the nationalist forces is a great tragedy to the Harijans; his co-operation with the nationalist forces will enhance the emancipation of the Harijans. Here is a unique occasion for you Sir, (addressing Dr. Ambedkar) to place your services before the country.
The Harijans will be free only in a Socialist Republic India, and let us all support the Resolution and work for its implementation even if it demands the utmost sacrifices from us.
Regarding the amendment brought forward by the Right Hon’ble Dr. Jayakar, I think those who support the amendment get their inspiration from Whitehall and not from the people of this land. Recently we heard much about the postponement of the Constituent Assembly from different quarters Lord Wavell pleaded for it, Mr. Jinnah insisted on it. I feel that Dr. Jayakar by moving this amendment, is questioning the very validity of the Constituent Assembly and is strengthening the argument put forward by Mr. Churchill the other day in the House of Commons.
Dr. Jayakar also expressed a pious sympathy for the people of the States. If by the term ‘States’ the Hon’ble Members mean the real representatives of the States, I can assure the Hon’ble Member that the people of the States are behind the Congress and the Constituent Assembly, (applause) and any decision made by the Constituent Assembly will be acceptable to the people of the States.
I think, I should make some reference to the views expressed by the Communist leader. In the historic Resolution moved by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, I think every provision is made for the development of every individual in this land. And now the Party which called the war as the People’s war, has come here to advise the Constituent Assembly to postpone the consideration of this Resolution for some time. If I am wrong there, I may be excused. The so-called Communists, instead of emancipating the Harijans, are only exploiting them. They promise pieces of land to the Harijans and in that way they try to take them away from the nationalist forces. I think the Communist Party is getting its inspiration from some outside quarter and so it is not for us to accept the views of the Communists. We cannot depend on such a party for our emancipation and our emancipation lies in the national forces which are represented in this Assembly. I therefore hope that in the future independent India the Harijans will have an honourable place as every other citizen of this land.
Harijans as Hindu Candidates from Muslim Provinces[2]
Shrimati Dakshayani Velayudan (Madras: General): Mr. President, I wish to bring to the notice of this House that there is provision for 7 members to represent the Hindus in the Muslim provinces. Sir, I find that no Harijan’s name is included among the Hindus. We, Harijans, consider ourselves one with the Hindu community and we have every right to represent the Hindus in the Muslim Provinces. We have every right to represent the Hindus in Bengal or the Hindus in Sind or in the Punjab. Somebody remarked now that there are already 7 members of the Harijans in the list. That does not mean that the Harijans have no right to represent the Hindus in the Muslim majority provinces. So I simply wanted to bring to the notice of this House that they should not go with the impression that the Harijans here have come only to represent the Harijans of India. We claim that we belong to the Hindu fold. It is the duty of the Caste Hindus to see that the promises that they made should be put into practice by including a Harijan in the list, to represent the Hindus in the Muslim majority provinces. But nobody should be under the impression that I came to speak in this manner here in order that my name may go into the list. I have no desire of that sort, because I do not want to represent those provinces, but there are Harijans, who have come from the Muslim majority Provinces, who have every right to represent the Hindus in their Provinces. So I hope that this House will take into consideration that my opinion is not against the fundamental principle that we are expected to follow.
Freedom from Forced Labour[3]
Shrimati Dakshayani Velayudan (Madras: General): Mr. President, I have great pleasure in commending Clause 11 because it is a clause which mostly relates to a community, a vast regiment of people who are subjected to untold miseries for so many centuries. Sir, even nowadays we find traffic in human beings in some parts of India and this clause will have a great effect on the underdogs of this land who will have a voice when India gets her independence. This clause will bring about an economic revolution in the fascist social structure existing in India. All the disabilities of the underdogs of this land are mainly due to the economic backwardness of the unfortunate brethren of the neglected community. It is unfortunate that a section of the people of this land will have to work without getting any remuneration whatsoever, even for their daily maintenance and the people who work in the fields or in other places will have to go back to their homes even without getting a single pie. They have not got the right to demand the wages even though they will work for day and night. If the people are called upon to work and if they do not go for that work they will get punishments. That is what we find in certain Provinces of India like the United Provinces. Even if there is not the system of ‘begar’ in other parts of India, almost a similar sort of compulsion exists throughout India and the majority of the people are subjected to exploitation, economical and in all sorts of ways. The underdogs of this land are deprived of the facilities that make life happy. This system ought to have been abolished even before the provinces got self-government. Even if there are rules and regulations regarding this in certain provinces, the system still prevails and the people who are subjected to the system have no voice whatsoever in deciding their fate. So, this clause when it comes into existence will give great relief to a great number of people who are subjected to economic exploitation. When this sort of economic exploitation is eliminated from this land, the underdogs also will rise up and will be in a position to assert their rights and keep up their self respect and dignity and they too will have a right to enjoy like the people belonging to the upper class and upper caste. I have great pleasure in supporting this clause.
Against Separate Electorate or Reservations for Harijans[4]
Shrimati Dakshayani Velayudan (Madras: General): Mr. President I find that for the Motion four Members have given their names and first comes the name of the Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. I am surprised to find that a Member who came in as a result of a joint electorate came forward to move this amendment whereas a member who was all the while standing for separate electorates and for the so-called percentage is not to be seen in the House today. If there was any sincerity in moving this amendment we could have found the person who headed the list, and I do not know why another member took up that responsibility. There may be some reason behind the scene. The mover of the amendment, Mr. Nagappa said when they come to the Assemblies as a result of joint electorates, they may not be coming with the votes of the community and so they are not entitled to represent the community. If Mr. Nagappa thinks that he has come here as a result of such an election, the wisest and the best thing that he ought to do would be to withdraw his candidature or his membership from this Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies (hear, hear). If anybody thinks that he is unfit to speak for the community when he comes on the vote of the community or the vote of the people in general, the best way to do service to the community is to disappear from the scene and not to take part in any political activities whatsoever and I think Dr. Ambedkar was wise enough to be absent on the occasion because he knew that this is not going to be carried in the Assembly today or on any day. As the Chairman of the Minority Committee spoke yesterday these things were passed in the committee by majority of votes and, whatever reasons that he may bring forward here, it may not be carried out. So without wasting his time, he has gone for his work as he is engaged in Cabinet work. Somebody has come forward with an excuse that if this form of electorate exists, the real representatives of the people will not be able to come. If we analyse the demand for a percentage of the votes of the community, we will come to the conclusion that it is nothing but unadulterated separate electorates (hear, hear). I must ask the Honourable Members who moved the amendment whether they are giving any meaning to the votes that will be cast by the members of other communities. In practice, we have to take into account only the votes that will be cast by the community. If a candidate gets 34 percent and another candidate gets 35 percent of the votes of his community, if the first candidate gets 200 votes from the general public and the next candidate gets 100 votes from the general public, and if we take into account the percentage of votes cast by the community, certainly the second candidate should be elected. Then it comes to this that there will be no meaning to the votes cast by other communities though it amounts to double the number of votes which the second candidate gets from the general people.
Then there is another reason for my opposing this amendment. Even if the Harijans are given this percentage of votes, and this kind of electorate system, the Harijans are not in a position to withstand the attractions that they will have to face at the time of elections. So many parties can set up candidates and they can purchase the Harijans and put up any candidate they desire, and any candidate can come up in the assembly and certainly he may not represent the community though he may get percentage of votes that is desired by this system. As long as the Scheduled Castes, or the Harijans or by whatever name they may be called, are economic slaves of other people, there is no meaning demanding either separate electorates or joint electorates or any other kind of electorates with this kind of percentage. (cheers). Personally speaking, I am not in favour of any kind of reservation in any place whatsoever. (hear, hear). Unfortunately, we had to accept all these things because the British Imperialism has left some marks on us and we are always feeling afraid of one another. So, we cannot do away with separate electorates. This joint electorate and reservation of seats also is a kind of separate electorates. But we have to put up with that evil because we think that it is a necessary evil. I wanted to oppose this amendment because it will be standing in our way and because when the system is put into actual working it will be standing in the way of Harijans, getting a correct ideology. It is lack of correct ideology among Harijans that has led them to bring this sort of amendment here. If they think that they can better their lot by standing apart from the other communities, they are in the wrong. They can do better by joining with the majority community and not depending on the votes of their own community. I must assure the Mover of the amendment that the Harijans are not going to gain anything, if you get this sort of electorate system. So I oppose this amendment and I hope that nobody in this House will support the amendment. (cheers)
Draft Constitution: Imprint of the Government of India Act, 1935[5]
Shrimati Dakshayani Velayudan (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, now that the draft is before us for general discussion, I request you to permit me to express my views on the same. The able and eloquent Chairman of the drafting Committee has done his duty creditably within the scope of the general set up of the new State of India. I feel that even if he wanted he could not have gone beyond the broad principles under which transfer of power took place and I therefore think that any criticism that is levelled against him is totally uncharitable and undeserved. Even if there is any blame — and I think there is — it should go only to those of us who are present here and who were sent for the purpose of framing a Constitution and on whom responsibilities were conferred by the dumb millions of this land who by virtue of their suffering for independence had great hopes when they sent us to this Assembly. But this does not mean that I have not got any criticism about the Draft. I fear that the Constituent Assembly from the very beginning of its formation showed more interest in things other than making a Constitution. We hear daily speeches made by our great leaders and their ideals and principles but in the Constitution we find that it is barren of their ideas and principles. We have got leaders of national and international importance but in our Constitution we find that those principles and ideals are absent and it is a great tragedy to find that such a draft has been placed before us and I do not think even the members of the Drafting Committee have completely read the Draft that is placed before us.
The general criticism is that the draft is a replica of the 1935 Act, but we cannot forget the fact that we have got a legacy of the British Imperialist administration which goes by the name of the Parliamentary system of Government. The trouble was that we were depending on it and we will have to depend on it even after the Constitution is put into operation. The trouble arose from one point, viz., just as the British administrators who wanted to keep India centrally and provincially as a single unit, we in our bewilderment and anxiety tried to bring India centrally and provincially as a strong unit and this centralisation of power has led to all the troubles. There are two ways of making India a strong unit. One is by the method of centralisation of power and the other is by decentralisation; but centralisation is possible only through parliamentary system which now goes under the safe words ‘democratic methods’, but in this draft we can’t find anything that is democratic and decentralisation is totally absent. It is a great tragedy that in making the Constitution of a great country with thirty crores of people, with a great culture behind it and the great principles and teachings of the greatest man of the world on the surface, we were only able to produce a Constitution that is totally foreign to us. The arguments put forward by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee are not at all convincing. He has said that we are very late in making the Draft Constitution. But I can cite examples which will show that his arguments are not sound. The Drafting Committee recommends that the President of the Union can nominate fifteen members to the Council of States. Then another plea is that the term of the legislature should be more than four years. There is another misnomer in the Draft and that is about the selection or the election of the Governors. The Committee feels that if the Governor and the Chief Minister who is responsible to the Legislature are elected by the people then there will be friction between the two. But the remedy they have suggested is worse than the disease. There is a panel and the President is to select from the four, one person as a Governor. If the Centre happens to have a Congress President and if a province is having a Socialist majority, suppose the Socialist Party recommends three from their party and one from the Congress, certainly the President at the Centre will select the Congress man to be the Governor. Certainly this will lead to friction. We find that this direct recruitment to Governorship is taken from the Government of India Act and it shows that we have not left out even a comma from it.
Then, Sir, I cannot understand why there should be Centrally Administered areas under the new Constitution. The British kept these areas simply to have the military rule in the country. But I do not understand why we should have such areas under the present Constitution. It is better that these provinces are merged with the adjoining provinces and thus we will not be losing anything. We find that the draftsmen included such a clause and as a result it has come before us for discussion.
Then I want to say a few words about the Socialist demand at this stage. The Socialists are the second party which wants to come as an Opposition to the official bloc. We cannot deny the large following that they are having in the country. They have declared that they want to be a Constitutional Opposition in the future. But I must say that I do not agree with their demand that this Constituent Assembly should be buried. I have to make one suggestion. The present Constitution, when it comes into force, will be put before the public by way of the General Elections. Then this Constitution can be made an election issue either for its acceptance or rejection. If the majority of the electorates accept the Constitution, then we can take it that the whole country has accepted it. If the majority of the electorates reject it then we must take it that the whole country has rejected it, and the party that comes into power, and the Legislature that will be formed thereafter, can take up the Constitution and makes the amendments that are necessary. I think, Sir, the Congress Party that is in power today will accept such a policy and see that we are not blamed for being undemocratic in our approach to Constitution making.
Beyond Constitution: Need for a Campaign Against Untouchability[6]
Shrimati Dakshayani Velayudan (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, we cannot expect a Constitution without a clause relating to untouchability because the Chairman of the Drafting Committee himself belongs to the untouchable community. I am not going into the details of the history and the work done by all the religious heads from time immemorial. You know that all the religious teachers were against the practice of untouchability. Coming to a later period, we found a champion in the person of Mahatma Gandhi and one of the items of the constructive programme that he placed before the country is the abolition of untouchability. While I was a student in the College, one of my classmates approached me for subscribing to a fund for the abolition of untouchability. My reply was, ‘you people are responsible for this and therefore it is for you to raise the money and it is not proper that you should ask me for money’. Even from my younger days, the very thought of untouchability was revolting to me. Even in public places like schools, untouchability was observed whenever there was a tea party or anything of that kind. What I did on those occasions was that I always non-cooperated with those functions. The change of heart that we find in the people today is only due to the work that has been done by Mahatma Gandhi and by him alone. We find that there is a vast change in the outlook and attitude of the people today towards the untouchables. Nowadays what we find is that the people who are called caste Hindus dislike the very idea of, or the very term, ‘untouchability’ and they do not like to be chastised for that, because, they have taken a vow that they are responsible for it and that they will see that it is abolished from this land of ours. Even though there is a large improvement on the part of the so-called caste Hindus, we cannot be satisfied with that. When this Constitution is put into practice, what we want is not to punish the people for acting against the law, but what is needed is that there should be proper propaganda done by both the Central and Provincial Governments. Then only there will be improvement that we want. If the Provincial and Central Governments had taken action previously I think there would have been no necessity for an article of this kind in this Constitution. Last year I brought a resolution before the Constituent Assembly for declaring that untouchability should be made unlawful. When I approached Panditji, he said that this is not a Congress Committee to move such a resolution, and that it will be taken up in course of time. My reply was that if a declaration was made in the Constituent Assembly, it will have a great effect. Even people in South Africa were chastising us because we were having this practice here. If a declaration is made by the Assembly here and now, it will have a great effect on the people and there will be no necessity for us to incorporate such a clause in the Constitution.
Mr. Vice-President: You have exceeded the time-limit. It is only because you are a lady I am allowing you.
Shrimati Dakshayani Velayudan: The working of the Constitution will depend upon how the people will conduct themselves in the future, not on the actual execution of the law. So I hope that in course of time there will not be such a community known as Untouchables and that our delegates abroad will not have to hang their heads in shame if somebody raises such a question in an organisation of international nature.
[1] Debate over Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s Resolution regarding Aims and Objectives, C.A.D., Vol. I, L.S.S., 19 December 1946, pp. 151-152
[2] On the occasion of the Election of the Advisory Committee, C.A.D., Vol. II, L.S.S., 24 January 1947, pp. 342-343.
[3] Discussion on Clause 11 of Interim Report on Fundamental Rights pertaining freedom from ‘Forced Labour’nas one of the Rights of Freedom, C.A.D., Vol. III, L.S.S., 1 May 1947, pp. 480-481.
[4] Discussion on the Report on Minority Rights, C.A.D., Vol. V, L.S.S., 28 August 1947, pp. 263-264
[5] Discussion on the Motion by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on the Draft Consitution, C.A.D., Vol. VII, L.S.S., 8 November 1948, pp. 310-312.
[6] Discussion on Article 11 of the Draft Constitution, regarding ‘untouchability’, C.A.D., Vol. VII, L.S.S. 29 November 1948, pp. 667-668
