Andhra Pradesh- A Case Study For Political Students - Part 3 .

Disclaimer :
previously in the second part i went into the historical significance and political rise up  of cong in   andhra region ......now i want to go into the nizam rule in telagana and of course the role of cong political party .....if any wrongs in the post .....free to express


For this post i have verified many books including the pradesh- 2 book written by unknown author and Language, Emotion, and Politics in South IndiaThe Making of a Mother Tongue by Lisa Mitchell

Nizams’ Rule in Telangana

Politics in Telangana started very late when compared to Andhra.The simple reason for this was the fact that the Nizam never permitted any political parties or national movements. Liberal education and Leftist movements were unknown in the Nizam’s rule. The Telugu people in nine districts of Telangana did not command any respect. Urdu was the medium for every thing including administration. Muslim students used to go to the Aligarh University and Hindus to Madras and such other places. The villages were in dire poverty. Bonded labour was prevalent everywhere. Jagirdars bossed over the people.

Osmania University which was founded in 1918 had Urdu as the medium of Instruction. The Nizam ruled with the support of the British by paying them taxes. The National movements all around the State, could not penetrate the native State of Hyderabad. Maharastrians were treated with respect of course, next to Muslims. The Kanarese and Telugu speaking people were regarded as third rank citizens. Krishna Deva Raya Bhasha Nilayam was founded by Kommaraju Lakshman Rao and Ravichettu Ranga Rao in 1902. Later, they started the Vignana Chandrika Grandha Mandala.

Hyderabad Zilla Congress had its origin in 1918 under the presidentship of Vaman Nayak. It existed only in name. Madapati Hanumantha Rao, Burgula Ramakrishna Rao and Konda Venkata

Ranga Reddy used to attend Congress Sessions though they did not influence the people in any way in the early days. Even the Arya Samaj failed to have its effect on the Telugu people of Telangana in the beginning.

The Telugu people were humiliated in Telangana. Telugu did not carry the same value as Marathi or Kannada. Madapati Hanumantha Rao and Alampalli Venkata Rama Rao made their speeches in Telugu on the occasion of Hindu Social Reform meeting held in Vivek Vardhini Narisetti Innaiah School of Hyderabad on 12th November 1921. Both of them were insulted very badly which prompted them to meet in Tekumukkala Ranga Rao’s residence and start the Andhra Association, with Shyamala Venkata Reddy, as the President and Madapati as the Secretary. That was the beginning of the Andhra Movement in Telangana. This association turned its attention to the problems of the Telugu people not through politics but in the name of a Library Movement. Hence, the Nizam did not raise any objection to it.

In 1924, the Library Conference (Maha Sabha) was organized in Madhira, Khammam district with Pingali Venkata Rami Reddy in the Chair. The second Library Mahasabha was arranged in Suryapet under the leadership of Lokadindi Narayana Rao. The Brahma Samaj influence in Suryapet enabled a Social Reform meet with Gadepalli Suryaprakasa Rao in the Chair. These efforts moved the upper and middle class Telugu people. They arranged the Andhra Maha Sabha in 1930. Even the women’s meet was clubbed with this. In those days they not only needed prior permission of the rulers but the proceedings were also censored. Therefore, they could discuss only the problems like social reforms, educational opportunities and women’s problems. Golkonda Patrika was started by Suravaram Pratap Reddy in 1925 and it gave an immense boost to the Andhra Movement in Telangana.

The Brahmins, the Vysyas and then the Reddys in Telangana made their entry into politics in respective order. The first conference of the Telugu people was held at Jogipet, Medak district in 1930.Suravaram Pratap Reddy presided over the meetings. The Women’s Conference took place simultaneously with Mrs. Nadimpalli Shreedevamma as President. In the conference, a resolution was proposed in support of Government Acts banning child marriages and permitting widow remarriages. The opponents to these resolutions were Sesha Charyulu, Anantha Venkata Rao, Venkateswara Gupta, Ravikoti Vittala Sastry and Venkata Bhujanga Sastry. There was bitter resentment to another resolution proposed by a Harijan, Bhagya Reddy Verma, for the abolition of untouchability. Many of the upper class people even detested a Harijan sitting with them in the

Conference. With the intervention of Vaman Naik the situation was brought under control.

The second Andhra Mahasabha was organized in Devarakonda with Burgula Ramakrishna Rao as the Chairman. The Government suspecting the motive behind the Conference, tarried long to permit

it. It was resolved in the meeting that there should be no ban order on meetings where they were only making resolutions. Panditha Keshava Rao spoke in favour of a ban on child marriages.He was opposed by Vaman Naik. These meetings increased Government suspicion about their validity. It took two years to organize the third Andhra Conference as the Government withheld permission to all such meetings. Even after two years the organizers had to assure the Government about their non-political activities, to get approval for the meetings. This conference was chaired by Pulijala Ranga Rao in 1934. The women’s section met with Mrs. Yellapragada Seethakumari in the Chair. These meetings were strongly opposed by the orthodox men. The Government prohibited them from making any resolutions.

The fourth Andhra Conference was held with Madapati as the Chairman at Sircilla, Karimnagar district in 1935. The Government partially restricted this meeting. The main features of this meeting

were the presence of Ravi Narayana Reddy who later became a Communist, and the speech made by Arige Rama Swamy regarding Harijan problems. The women also met and Mrs Joginepalli Radha Bai presided. Baddam Yella Reddy, a budding Communist attended the conference. The new-comers evinced their love for Telugu by making their speeches in that language.The Government started realizing the implications of these conferences. Mandumala Narasing Rao, through his paper ‘Raithu’ gave encouragement to the Andhra Mahasabha.Konda Venkata Ranga Reddy was the President of the fifth Andhra Conference held at Shadnagar, Mahaboob Nagar district.The meeting debated the need for deciding the boundaries of Telangana.

 The Government of Hyderabad Native State too introduced certain reforms in view of the changing times. A committee of reforms was appointed. The Praja Parishath was founded with Madapati as

Chairman in order to represent the feelings of Telugu people to the Reforms Committee. But Praja Parishath could not function with the same intensity as the Ithehadul Muslimeen - a Muslim organization. This time the Telangana Andhra Conference was held in Nizamabad and the Government imposed many restrictions on it. Mandumala Chaired the meeting. The language problem was discussed, V.B. Raju and Mandagiri Venkat Rao on one side and Ravi Narayana

Reddy on the other put forth sound ideas in these discussions. V.B. Raju insisted on speaking only in Telugu but Konda Ranga Reddy and his men did not approve of any such restrictions.

In 1937, an effort was made to establish a Hyderabad branch of the Congress but the Government prohibited it as an illegal organisation. A Satyagraha was staged by Ravi Narayana Reddy,

Mandumala Narasing Rao against the attitude of the Government. Burgula Rama Krishna Rao and others retraced after seeing the unrelenting dictatorial attitude of the rulers. During the Satyagraha of 1938, many courted arrests and Communists like Arutla Rama Chandra Reddy and Baddam Yella Reddy were jailed.

Meanwhile, the Arya Samaj and the Hindu Mahasabha too started expanding in Telangana. For the first time, the students of Osmania University defied the Nizam’s law by singing ‘Vandemataram’. The Nizam proposed that he would lift the ban order on State Congress if they changed its name but the Satyagraha prisoners were released only after a year. The Communist Party was just shooting up in Nizam’s domain. Puchalapalli Sundaraiah and Chandra Rajeshwara Rao promoted the party through their parleys with Ravi Narayana Reddy, Baddam Yella Reddy, Devulapalli Venkateswara Rao, Sarvadevabatla Ramanadham. Mandumala Narasing Rao was the Chairman of the Andhra Conference at Malkapuram, in 1940. Ravi Narayana Reddy, Kalojee Narayana Rao, N.K. Rao and Pollampalli Venkata Rao were insisting upon the opposition of reforms introduced by the Government. The Rightists like K.V. Ranga Reddy, Madapati Hanumantha Rao and Pulijala

Venkata Ranga Rao welcomed the reforms. In this conference, the differences between the Rightists and Leftists came up openly. 

In 1941, Andhra Mahasabha met under Ravi Narayana Reddy’s Chairmanship. The Andhra Conference was held in Dharmavaram,in 1942. Madiraju Rama Koteswara Rao presided over it. He was a Rightist. The Communists and Rightists had heated discussions regarding the Second World War. But the Communists did not reveal themselves as yet.

The 11th Andhra Mahasabha met in Bhuvanagiri, Nalgonda district with Ravi Narayana Reddy as the Chairman. There was a clear cut demarcation between the Rightists and the Leftists. The 11th Andhra Mahasabha was almost completely dominated by the Communists. The Rightists banned it but many Communists from the Krishna district attended the conference as invitees. The women’s conference took place with Nimmagadda Satyavathy in the Chair. Even the working committee was full of Communists and their sympathizers. The Rightists like Mandumala Narasinga Rao, Konda Venkata Ranga Reddy, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao, Madiraju Rama Koteswara Rao and P. Sreenivasa Rao tried to organize the Rightists. Andhra Conference had succeeded in having it in 1945 at Mudigonda near Warangal.The 13th Andhra Conference was held in Kandi, Medak district in 1946 and Jamalapuram Keshava Rao was the Chairman. After the Conference at Bhuvanagiri, Nalgonda district in 1942, the Communists tried to strengthen their party ranks. Nizam Nawab banned the Communist party in November 1946 as he sensed danger from it.

The Nizam’s Government had to lift the ban on Hyderabad State Congress keeping in view the changed circumstances in the country. Qasim Razvi, with the intention of continuing Hyderabad State as a Muslim State, employed very cruel measures and so the Communists started fighting against the landlords for the liberation of the peasants and labourers. The people became the victims of violence both by the Razakars, muslim militia under Nizam in the day and the Communists at night. The question of Hyderabad State joining the Indian Union came up and Qasim Razvi was against it. The Congress insisted upon joining the Union. 

On 4th May 1948, Nizam Nawab lifted the ban on the Communist Party. Their role had become dubious.The people thought that the Communists sided Nizam so that Hyderabad need not seek unity with the country, hence the ban on them was lifted. The Indian Government annexed the Hyderabad State to the Indian Union through the Police Action. Many of the communists who stood against the military forces had to sacrifice their lives. Temporarily, the military ruled Hyderabad State under General Chowdary. A year late, on 12th June 1950 the State Ministry was formed with M.K. Vellodi as the Chief Minister. Burgula Rama Krishna Rao and V.B. Raju were among the Ministers. K.V. Ranga Reddy, Dr. Channa Reddy and Arige Ramaswamy were nominated to the Parliament. There arose a big rift among the Communists of Telangana over the armed-struggle. They were not willing to be led by the Andhra leaders. Makineni Basavapunnaiah and Chandra Rajeswar Rao went secretly to Russia to seek Stalin’s advice. Stalin told them to decide the matter according to local convenience. He looked at the Indian map and is reported to have wondered how they were going to liberate Telangana which was in the middle of the country. They had no answer to that and returned home without a solution.

The banned Communists took part in the General Elections in 1952 under the People’s Democratic Front. The State Congress was divided into two groups by then, due to the differences. Ramananda Thirtha, leading the Progressive Group, removed Burgula Ramakrishna Rao and K.V. Ranga Reddy from the congress with the pretext that they had connived with the Nizam. Somehow the centre patched up the differences. Burgula who was with the Reddys till then, joined hands with Ramananda Thirtha. Ramananda Thirtha led the election committee.The Reddys were displeased and the Centre had to come to their rescue once again. The Congress took 96 seats in the elections and 39 seats went to the Communists (PDF). Burgula Ramakrishna Rao was selected by the Centre to be the Chief Minister as there were factions in the Hyderabad Congress. Ramananda Thirtha and K.V. Ranga Reddy were the two group leaders. The Telugu speaking Cabinet members were Konda Venkata Reddy (Revenue), Dr. Channa Reddy (Agriculture), V.B. Raju, P. Hanumantha Rao, M.S. Rajalingam, Arige Rama Swamy and Sangam Lakshmi Bai.

 In the 1952 elections, Jalagam Vengala Rao, Bommakanti Satyanarayana and Sidda Reddy contested with no success, as independents because they could not get Congress seats. They were dismissed from the Congress Party for six years as they went against the party rules. Burgula’s Ministry did not run smoothly. D.G. Bindu canvassed that Burgula did not have the majority support and would not last long. V.B. Raju and K.V. Ranga Reddy tried unsuccessfully to topple Burgula as the Chief Minister. As a consequence, V.B. Raju was dropped from the cabinet, inspite of his efforts to have himself retained.

In the elections to the President of the Congress, Nimmagadda Satyanarayana stood against Venkata Ranga Reddy and the latter won as the President. J.V. Narsinga Rao who had just then entered politics was on good terms with Ranga Reddy’s group. Burgula ruled till 1956. He saw to it that protection to the Tenants Act and the Agricultural Reforms Act were passed in his time but they failed in implementation. The Bhoodan Movement was first started here by Vinoba Bhave when Vedire Ramachandra Reddy donated 100 acres land to the Movement.

By the time Andhra Pradesh was formed, the political parties, groupism and casteism were already established in Telangana. When compared to Andhra,  there were no elections in Telangana for the local bodies, so disputes and disagreements had not cropped up at that level. Their experience in the Legislature too was only six years old. With this background, both Andhra and Telangana were to be merged into one, Andhra Pradesh. Burgula later worked as Governor of Kerala and died in the year 1967.

In the next post .....i would like to bring notice to you on how cong politics worked from the state of andhra pradesh is formed

Andhra Pradesh- A Case Study For Political Students -Part 1 -Introduction

Disclaimer : The views expressed are taken from the govt records ,books and of course the journals....please if you have information ,do pass it on   .....

Andhra pradesh -Formation

 

Opening Statement By Myron Weiner and Marshall Windmiller,1968

 

 The importance of studying State politics in India ,is so evident that the case hardly needs to be   argued. the importance of the study of regional politics as part of the study of political development  in underdeveloped areas is so apparent that here, too, the case is clear.This is particularly significant and has acquired added importance in view of the fact that political power in post-Nehru India is  passing into the hands of the new regional leaders at the State level.Andhra makes an interesting case study for several reasons.

 Andhra was the first state to be set up in response to linguistic agitation, and that in spite of its linguistic homogeneity the State was cursed with caste and regional tensions. It was Hugh Tinker who pin-pointed Andhra, as a state 'where the fight between the Communist and the Congress parties has been particularly bitter: here again, the division is largely based on the rivalry between dominant castes, the Kammas and Reddis. Referring to Andhra he pointed out that "group politics had, by the early 1960s, begun to take group leaders from the State to the summit of national
power."  

As Tinker observed, the State of Andhra Pradesh has been active on the Indian scene in group politics as well as in agricultural production since 1960. And it is also certain of Andhra Pradesh replacing the Uttar Pradesh .

  What Ambedkar said about Andhra Pradesh and Linguistic States:

 

Article on Linguistic States  From: The Times of India, dated 23rd April, 1953

The British who ruled India for more than 150 years never thought of creating linguistic States although the problem was always there. They were more interested in creating a stable administration and maintaining law and order throughout the country than in catering to the cultural craving of people in multilingual areas. It is quite true that towards the end of their career they did realize that the administrative set-up which they had built required some adjustment from the point of view of linguistic considerations, at any rate in cases where the conglomeration was very glaring. For instance, they did create Bengal, Bihar and Orissa as linguistic States before they left. It is difficult to say whether if they had continued to rule, they would have followed the path of forming linguistic States to its logical conclusion. 

Long before the British thought of creating linguistic provinces the Congress under the aegis of Mr. Gandhi had already in the year 1920 framed a constitution for itself on the basis of linguistic provinces. Whether the ideology underlying the constitution of the Congress as framed in 1920 was a well thought out ideology or whether it was a sop to draw people inside the Congress fold, one need not now stop to speculate. There is, however, no doubt about it that the British did realize that linguistic considerations were important and they did give effect to them to a limited extent.

Upto the year 1945, the Congress was, of course, not called upon to face the responsibility which it had created for itself by its constitution of 1920. It was only in the year 1945 when it assumed office that this responsibility dawned upon the Congress.

Looking into the recent history of the subject the necessary momentum to the issue was given by a member of Parliament by moving a resolution for the creation of linguistic provinces in India. 

The duty of answering on behalf of the Government to the debate fell on me. Naturally I took the matter to the higher authorities in order to ascertain what exactly their point of view was. Strange as it may appear, it became clear to me that the High Command was

totally opposed to the creation of linguistic provinces. In these circumstances, the solution that was found was that the responsibility to answer the debate had better be taken over by the   Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in reply to the debate made statement promising the creation of an Andhra State immediately. On the basis of the statement made by the Prime Minister, theresolution was withdrawn. The matter rested there.

   
Second Time

As Chairman of the Drafting Committee, I had to deal with the matter a second time. When the draft Constitution was completed, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking him whether I could include Andhra as a separate State in Part A States of the

Constitution in view of what he had said in the course of the debate on the Resolution. I have nothing with me here to refresh my memory as to what exactly happened. But the President of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, appointed a Committee to investigate into the formation of linguistic States, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Dhar, a lawyer from U.P.

 

People will remember the Dhar Committee for one thing if not for any other. The Committee said that under no circumstances should Bombay City be included in Maharashtra if Maharashtra was made a linguistic State. That report was then considered by the Jaipur session of the Congress. 

The Jaipur Congress appointed a Three- Man Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel and Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya. They produced a report, the gist of which was that an Andhra province should be created immediately but the city of Madras should remain with the Tamils. A committee was appointed to go into the details. It produced a more or less unanimous report. But the report was opposed by substantial elements among the Andhras including Mr. Prakasam who were not prepared to relinquish their claim to Madras, and the thing lay dormant there. 

 After that comes the incident of Shri Potti Sriramulu who had to  Sacrifice his life for the sake of an Andhra province. It is a sad commentary on the ruling party that Mr. Sriramulu should have had to die for a cause the validity of which was accepted by all Congressmen. The creation of a new Andhra province now being thought of is only a pindadan to the departed soul of Mr. Sriramulu by the Prime Minister. Whether such action on the part of the Government would have been tolerated in any other country is a matter on which there is no use speculating.

There are, in my opinion, three conditions which must be satisfied before a linguistic State is brought into being. 

The first condition

 It  must be a viable State. This rule was accepted as absolute

when the question of the merger of the Indian States was under consideration during the making of the Constitution. Only those Indian States which were viable were allowed to remain as independent States. All others were merged into the neighbouring States.

A Sahara?

Is the proposed Andhra State a viable State? Mr. Justice Wanchoo had very candidly admitted that the annual revenue deficit of the proposed Andhra State will be of the magnitude of Rs. 5 crores. It is possible for the proposed Andhra State to reduce this gap either by increase of taxation or decrease in expenditure? The Andhras must face this question. Is the Centre going to take the responsibility of  meeting this deficit? If so, will this responsibility be confined to the proposed Andhra State or will it be extended to all similar cases?

These are questions which are to be considered.

The new Andhra State has no fixed capital. I might incidentally say that I have never heard of the creation of a State without a capital. Mr. Rajagopalachari (the staunchest Tamilian tribesman) will not show the Government of the proposed Andhra State the courtesy of  allowing it to stay in Madras city even for one night—courtesy which is prescribed by the Hindu Dharma on all Hindus for an atithi.The new Government is left to choose its own habitat and construct thereon its own hutments to  ransact its business. What place can it  choose? With what can it construct its hutments? Andhra is Sahara and there are no oases in it. If it chooses some place in this Sahara it is bound to shift its quarters to a more salubrious place, and the money spent on this temporary headquarters would be all a waste.

Has the Government considered this aspect of the case? Why not right now give them a place which has the possibility of becoming Their permanent capital.

It seems to me that Warangal is best suited from this point of view. It is the ancient capital of the Andhras. It is a railway junction. It has got quite a large number of buildings. It is true that it lies within that part of Andhra which is part of Hyderabad State. As a matter of principle Hyderabad State which is a monstrosity should have been broken up and a complete Andhra State might have been created. But if the Prime Minister has some conscientious objection to the proposal, can he not create an enclave in the Andhra part of Hyderabad and join it to the new Andhra State and make a way to Warangal? An enclave is not a new thing in India. But the Prime Minister wants to work against the will of God in Hyderabad as well as in Kashmir. I am sure he will very soon learn the consequences of it.

First Condition

This is just incidental. My main point is that a linguistic State must be viable. This is the first consideration in the creation of a linguistic State. The second consideration is to note what is likely to happen within a linguistic State. Unfortunately no student has devoted himself to a demographic survey of the population of India. We only know from our census reports how many are Hindus, how many are Muslims, how many Jews, how many Christians and how many untouchables. Except for the knowledge we get as to how many religions there are this information is of no value. What we want to know is the distribution of castes in different linguistic areas. On this we have very little information. One has to depend on one's own knowledge and information. I don't think it would be contradicted if   it is said that the caste set-up within the linguistic area is generally such that it contains one or two major castes large in number and a few minor castes living in subordinate dependence on the major castes.

Communal Set-up

Let me give a few illustrations. Take the Punjab of PEPSU. The Jats dominate the whole area. The untouchables live in subordinate dependence on them. Take Andhra—there are two or three major communities spread over the linguistic area. They are either the Reddis or the Kammas and the Kappus. They hold all the land, all the offices, all the business. The untouchables live in subordinate dependence on them. Take Maharashtra. The Marathas are a huge majority in every village in Maharashtra. The Brahmins, the Gujars, the Kolis and the untouchables live in subordinate co-operation. There was a time when the Brahmins and the banias lived without fear. But times have changed. After the murder of Mr. Gandhi, the Brahmins and the banias got such a hiding from the Marathas that they have run away to the towns as safety centres. Only the wretched untouchables, the Kolis and the Malis have remained in the villages to bear the tyranny of the Maratha communal majority. Anyone who forgets this communal set-up will do so at his peril. In a linguistic State what would remain for the smaller communities to look to? Can they hope to be elected to the Legislature? Can they hope to maintain a place in the State service? Can they expect any attention to their economic betterment? In these circumstances, the creation of a linguistic State means the handing over of Swaraj to a communal majority. What an end to Mr. Gandhi's Swaraj ! Those who cannot understand this aspect of the problem would understandit better if instead of speaking in terms of linguistic State we spoke of  a Jat State, a Reddy State or a Maratha State.

 

Third Issue

The third problem which calls for consideration is whether the creation of linguistic States should take the form of consolidation of the people speaking one language into one State. Should all Maharashtrians be collected together into one Maharashtra State?
Should all Andhra area be put into one Andhra State? This question of consolidation does not merely relate to new units. It relates also to the existing linguistic provinces such as U.P, Bihar and West Bengal.

Why should all Hindi-speaking people be consolidated into one State as has happened in U.P.? Those who ask for consolidation must be asked whether they want to go to war against other States. If consolidation creates a separate consciousness we will have in course  of time an India very much like what it was after the break-up of Maurya Empire. Is destiny moving us towards it?

This does not mean that there is no case for linguistic provinces.What it means is that there must be definite checks and balances tosee that a communal majority does not abuse its power under the garb of a linguistic State.

  
 if you have any suggestions and write up ,do leave in comment box ...

  Source of the above paras :
1.selected works of dr B.R.Ambedkar by
2.andhra pradesh assembly election observers for the 4th general assembly held in 1967

In next blog post ,we would learn about the political situation during the formation of andhra pradesh