Sharma : Now, do you think that 1937 in s kind of watershed in the politics of Maharashtra in the sense, as you said, that a new leadership took over? on the one hand, it put an end to Brahmin ascendency and on the other it also put an end to the elitist control over politics. Did this trend start from 1937 or a little later?
Chavan : I should say, the process had startes in 1930. With a large number of rural people participating in the movement, it changed the character of the movement. It changed the composition of the movement, numerically, quantitatively and qualitatively. people from the rural areas used to go and address public meetings in their own language and style and it had some impact. Though the people going from cities thought that they were the only people who could go and talk to the people about the independence movement. In this way, a very articulate leadership started coming up for the purpose of the movement in rural areas. So watershed was not that year. It was a transitional period, I would say, from 1930 to 1937. The year 1937 prove it by election.
Sharma : My point was that thought in the sense of participation the trend had changed, but still the masses or their leaders were not able to hold the levers of powers, or I put it differently, the corridors of power were still closed to them. They were opened only in 1937.
Chavan : Yes, in that sense, yes, one can say. It was not completely open to them even then, but the 1937 elections gave them confidence that they could do that. In that sense,if you want to call it a watershed,you can call it.
Sharma : What were your subjects in B. A. ?
Chavan : I was a student of history and economics. I was not a very regular student in my college life. I practically attended college through proxy. Most of the time I worked in my district, went to college for the last few months, prepared for the examination and got through.