On the birth of Andhra Pradesh (was Re: I HATE TAMILS)
D.Sreenivasa Rao
|In article <2A91AAD...@orion.oac.uci.edu> d...@balboa.eng.uci.edu (D.Sreenivasa Rao) writes:
|>vpr...@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes :
|>>par...@mse.cse.ogi.edu (R. Parthasarathy) writes :
|>> >
|>>> of Potti Sriramulu? He was a Telugu speaking man. He fasted to death
.....
|>>> states. [source: MJ Akbar's "India the Siege Within].
|>>>
|>> I find it very irritating that people blame Andhra Pradesh for being
|>> the first linguistic state in the nation and thus "setting a chain
|>> of linguistic carvings of the country". And Potti Sriramulu is being
|>> very unfairly criticized. Ever think of the logic behind his demand?
|>> Apparently not.
|>
|>Excellent article by Siva Prasad on the birth of Andhra Pradesh.
|>Emotions apart, there is a crying need to examine relevant history
|>as objectivley as possible. It is undeniable that the composite
|>Madras state was not exactly the beacon of tolerance and justice,
|>atleast as far as Andhras were concerned.
|>
|>The following are excerpts from an article I wrote long ago that
|>discussed this issue (in a much wider context, of course) that could
|>perhaps enable some factual analysis :
|>
|>------------------Begin included article-----------
[Long article deleted]
>
> MOST OF THE CHIEF MINISTERS OF MADRAS STATE WERE TELUGUS.
>
> SRINIVAS KONERU.
Well, not exactly. Here is a partial chronological listing
of chief ministers of Madras :
1920 - 1923 : Subbaryalu Reddy (Justice Party)
1923 - 1926 : Natesa Mudaliar (I could be wrong here, again Justice
Party)
1926 - 1930 : Dr. P. Subbarayan (Justice Party) (See footnote (1))
1930 - 1935 : B. Munuswami Naidu (Justice Party)
1936 - 1937 : Maharajah of Bobbili (I forget his name, again of
Justice Party)
1937 - 1939 : C. Rajagopalachari (Congress) (see footnote (2))
1939 - 1946 : Governor's Rule (World war and all that)
1946 - 1953 : C. Rajagopalachari (I am not sure about the dates
here; Congress) (see footnote (3))
1st October 1953 : Andhra was formed.
So you see that Justice Party was in power for a very long time.
Most of the leadership of Justice Party were Andhras, although
its main backing was in tamil regions. In the above list,
Subbarayalu Reddy and Munuswami Naidu, although of Andhra origin,
belonged to interior tamilnadu, leaving only the Maharajah of
Bobbili as the sole CM *from Andhra districts*.
Notes : (1) Dr. Subbarayan was actually an independent, but was
backed by Justice Party.
(2) Rajaji actually announced his retirement from public
life in 1935, but Congress leadership preferred him
over tanguTUru prakASam.
(3) In fact, Congress did not win majority in these polls.
UDF, headed by prakASam was the largest party, but did
not have absolute majority.
--sreenivas-- [8/20/92]
D.Sreenivasa Rao
>In article <2A94081...@orion.oac.uci.edu>, d...@balboa.eng.uci.edu
(D.Sreenivasa Rao) writes:
>>
>> 1st October 1953 : Andhra was formed.
> Methinks you are in error here; it must be 1st *November* 1953.
> Don't we celebrate "Andhra Pradesh AvathraNa dinOthsavam" on
> 1st November every year? Or is it that 1st November is the date
> the AP as it is today (including Nizam districts) formed? If the
> latter, did it take just one month for Telangana to join in AP?
> Looking for some more info.
>
> Siva Prasad. vpr...@uoft02.utoledo.edu
No, I got the date right - October 1953 was when Andhra was
inagurated by Nehru with capital in Kurnool. TanguTUru
Prakasam was the CM, and Sajiva Reddy the deputy CM. [This
ministry fell in Nov. 1954 on the issue of prohibition.]
Meanwhile, in the 1952 elections in Hyderabad state, Burgula
Ramakrishna Rao became the CM. After repeated attempts by
many leaders of Andhra and Hyderabad states, Nehru formed the
States Reorganization Committee (SRC) in Dec. 1953. The
Commission felt that "the advantages of the formation of
viSAlAndhra are obvious, and nothing should be done to impede
the realization of this goal". It however, recommended a
6-year waiting period for the merger. The Commission's report,
(about other states as well) were not received well by the
public. The congress high command had to retract its previous
support for the report.
Eventually, an agreement was reached between the leaders of the
governments of Andhra and Hyderabad, and the state of Andhra
Pradesh was formed on November 1st, 1956, with Sanjiva Reddy
as the chief minister.
--sreenivas-- [8/20/92]
D.Sreenivasa Rao
me giving chronological listing of chief ministers of Madras state) :
> Also Mr. Sreenivasa Rao made an error in the list of the chief ministers of
> Madras state from the period 1946-1953. It was Prakasam for 11 months from
> 1946-1947(I forget the months)before he was defeated by a no confidence motion
> I forget again who occupied the position later(He was from Tamil Nadu).Rajaji
> became chief Minister in 1952.
>
> Gopal
Yes, my apologies for the mistake. The corrected list would
read :
>>> 1920 - 1923 : Subbaryalu Reddy (Justice Party)
>>> 1923 - 1926 : Natesa Mudaliar (I could be wrong here, again Justice
>>> Party)
>>> 1926 - 1930 : Dr. P. Subbarayan (Justice Party) (See footnote (1))
>>> 1930 - 1935 : B. Munuswami Naidu (Justice Party)
>>> 1936 - 1937 : Maharajah of Bobbili (I forget his name, again of
>>> Justice Party)
>>> 1937 - 1939 : C. Rajagopalachari (Congress) (see footnote (2))
>>> 1939 - 1946 : Governor's Rule (World war and all that)
1946 - 1947 : T. Prakasam (Congress, less than a year)
1947 - 1949 : O. P. Ramaswami Reddiar (Congress)
1949 - 1951 : P. S. Kumaraswamy Raja (Congress)
1952 - 1953 : C. Rajagopalachari (Congress)
>>> 1st October 1953 : Andhra was formed.
--sreenivas-- [8/20/92]
Sreehari Nimmala
Andhra Pradesh? Many feel, taking into consideration the
geographic and linguistic factors, that Madras should have
gone to A.P. during the formation of the states. Any comments?
---Sree
Ananda Kishore
aanDhra raashtra janma_dhinam
aktoebaru fastu
adhi thvaraloe varalu viSaa
laanDhraaniki trastu
...
karnoolae raajaDhaani
kaavadamadhi sthuthyam
marnaadae kaangiraesu
poevadamadhi sathyam
...
prajaa_svaamikam paerita
padhavulakai poetee
paripaalana caesae_dhika
poeleesula laatee
He seems to have coined the word 'fastoebaru' for this important
date...He wasn't happy that Karnool was made the capital. He also
wrote:
aanDhra_manthri_vargam pani
kaarambham eppudu?
karnooluku haidhraabaadh
kadhali_vacci_nappudu
ee manthrula hayaam_loena
raama_raajya_meppudu?
padamati dhikkuna sooryudu
poducu_kocci_nappudu
in 'sipraali', 1981, Houston. (Later published by virasam)
['sipraali' is abbreviation for 'siri siri muvvalu', 'praasa
kreedalu', and 'limaRkkulu'.]
kishore
D.Sreenivasa Rao
vpr...@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes :
> In article <9...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, che...@emory.edu (Sreehari Nimmala)
writes:
> Whatever I write here is purely from memory and some of it is based on
> ......
> During the struggle for formation of AP, Madras was largely inhabited by
> Telugus (a majority). So, Telugu leaders agitating for separate Andhra
> included Madras in their plans. Rather presumptuously, it turned out.
> It proved to be a major bone of contention. In particular, Dr. C.
> Rajagopalachari was dead against conceding Madras to Andhra. A plan to
> share the Madras city was also scuttled and spurned by TN leaders.
> [ North Madras was almost exclusively populated then by Telugus and
> South Madras was by Tamilians]. Remember that Madras was then, the hub
The question of inclusion of Madras in Andhra state was a
contentious issue right from the beginning; and was deftly
used by both sides to further their cause. Although the seeds
of Andhra movement were sown in early 1900's, it picked up
momentum only with the formation of Andhra Mahasabha. The
leaders from all parts of Andhra were unanimous on the urgent
necessity for a telugu state (there were some significant
dissenters, of course), but the leaders from districts like
Nellore, Chittor, Anantapur, etc., where people had close
business and other interests in Madras city, were not prepared
to give up their claim to Madras for the sake of a separate
state. This naturally led to a rift between the leaders of
circars and rayalaseema, and the congress high command, acting
through leaders like Rajagopalachari was quick to cash in on
this rift. Congress leaders would encourage (and provide, say,
cabinet posts for) leaders from coastal areas, thus fueling the
suspicions of rayalaseema leaders.
This basic disagreement led to delaying of the separate statehood
question for a long time. It cost congress party dearly in elections
in AP. Immediately after independence, GOI constituted a committee
consisting of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhai Patel and Dr. Pattabhi
Sitaramayya to consider the question of linguistic provinces. The
committee opposed, 2 to 1, formation of such states within India.
But it made an exception in the case of Andhra, saying that "owing
to the highly emotional nature of the issue, Andhra should be
granted a separate province, provided Andhra leaders give up their
claim to Madras city as capital". Prakasam strongly disagreed to
such an arrangement, and the govt., looking for an excuse to shelve
the issue, was more than glad to take note of this dissenting voice.
Thus, when the agitation was again intensified in 52-53, the leaders
were forced to consider Madras out of their bounds, and the rest
is history. [Read Gopal's article about changing demographics of
Madras city, inclusion of large areas of South Madras, etc., which
made it impossible to lay any further claim to Madras at this time].
So as you can see, the JVP committee and the congress party in general
were the ones crucial in deciding the fate of Madras. It was naturally
decided in favor of tamilnadu because leaders like Rajagopalachari
were more influential than their telugu counterparts.
--sreenivas-- [8/22/92]
D.Sreenivasa Rao
ku...@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes :
>>
>> What do you want to do about it? Morally, the Dravidians
>> [O.K I'll stick to Tamizhs] should not feel a part of India.
>> [to be ruled by North Indians]
>>
>> Morally, Brahmins have no business in Dravidaland.
>> Rather looking at it today, I would say morally Telugus
>> had no business to enter Madras. Morally, they should not
>> have been given a safe haven in what is T.N today.
>>
>> Nor should they be allowed to enter Madras[T.N] in the future
>> because they'd become a Majority.
>>
>>
> Cheers, Balaji. *raises beer mug*
> When will people realize that ethnic purification, and
> borders erected for the purpose of ethnic purification,
> are -and always have been- the most important weapons
> in the oppression of human beings by other human beings.
> It is sad that any borders should exist at all but for
> management purposes, ie. one can't eat a whole pie in
> one bite; it must first be cut into manageable pieces.
Equating the formation of linguistic states in India to
ethnic purification is an outrageous distortion, to say
the least. (Either that, or you had too many beers...:-)
Self-determination is the oldest craving of mankind, and
if something is going blatantly wrong, it is a natural
reaction to stand up and cry foul. In the Madras Presidency,
for example, 40% of the population, 52% of the area and
more than 40% of the revenues were coming from Andhra dts.
(figures in 1932, I don't think they were significantly
different between 1947-53). Does it not sound a little too
unfair that you take my revenue and put the money somewhere
else? Ever heard of the saying "sommokaDidi, SOkokaDidi"?
Howelse would you explain the lack of any infrastructure
in Andhra districts, not even educational institutions? There
was pure neglect of this region, the communication gap arising
out of language differences was making any assimilation almost
impossible. In the Guindy Engg. college, for example, each
Andhra dt. was allotted only *two* seats, while there was no
such limit for students from tamil-speaking regions. Madras
Medical college was even worse. (These two are experiences of
my family members, you can consider them authentic). If you
think such discrimination deserves nothing but inaction, well,
you are not in very good company. Although your concern seems
to be more on the lines of "why dig it up all now?", I would
still disagree for the simple reason that such a view would
amount to running away from history.
True, borders should exist for nothing more than management
purposes. But managemant of what, and by whom? Let the people
being managed decide that; they are quite capable.
--sreenivas-- [8/22/92]