Krishnasamy backs Tamil Nadu department’s renaming but seeks consistent use
Puthiya Tamilagam leader K. Krishnasamy has supported Tamil Nadu’s decision to rename the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department as the Social Justice Department, arguing that the former title referred to only one community. He criticised continued use of the old name in legislative documents, while VCK leader D. Ravikumar disputed his interpretation.
Puthiya Tamilagam founder K. Krishnasamy has called for the name “Adi Dravidar Welfare Department” to be changed, arguing that it does not represent all communities listed as Scheduled Castes. In a statement reported by The Hindu, Krishnasamy welcomed the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to rename the department the Social Justice Department.
He said the new title was appropriate because the department deals with the welfare and interests of Scheduled Caste communities more broadly. Krishnasamy said the Union government used the generic name “Social Justice Department” for comparable departments in 28 States. He argued that Tamil Nadu’s earlier terminology referred to “one particular” community rather than the full Scheduled Caste category.
According to his statement, the State’s list contains 76 castes under the Scheduled Caste category, but the term Adi Dravidar was associated with the Paraiyar community. He said the term had been adopted during the British period and did not denote the other communities covered by the category. Krishnasamy also criticised what he described as the continued use of the old name in the Policy Note on the Demands for Grants for the Social Justice Department presented in the Legislative Assembly.
He said the department and its commission should not operate under the name of a particular caste. The interpretation has been challenged by D. Ravikumar, general secretary of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi.
In a post on X, Ravikumar said “Aadi Dravida” was an identity that rejected caste, rather than the name of a caste. He also said “Devendrakula Vellalar” was an identity created in rejection of a caste name. The disagreement highlights the competing political interpretations surrounding the department’s nomenclature.
While Krishnasamy wants the new title used consistently, Ravikumar disputes the historical and social basis of his criticism.
This independently written report is based on information supplied by the named publisher. Vertrix News has not independently verified the source report.