MN Srinivas (and KT on kammas and Reddys)
V. Chowdary Jampala
and Kammas:
On 2 May 1994, he wrote
> I think the anonymous writer has indeed touched an important issue
> that when addressed in the framework of history and the development
> of the society will shed light on the power-structure of AP.
> A good source book is that of MN Srinivas on Caste in Modern India.
> MN Srinivas dwells at length on the development of caste and caste
> politics in the southern states. He has a full chapter on AP.
> According to MN Srinivas, Reddy and Kamma rivalry can be traced
> as for back as 13th century AD.
I was intrigued by the above comments of Sir KT. I took the advice that
Sir KT later gave to Ramana Juvvadi and went to the library to get the book by
MN Srinivas. Given Sir KT's reluctance to actually reproduce the relevant
sections of this book, and the interest it generated in a few of the netters,
I will attempt to put the book and its material in perspective. I will comment
on how the book supports/does not support the comments of KT. I will also
express my opinions when I feel that they are pertinent.
1. MN Srinivas's "Caste in Modern India"
-------------------------------------
The book, "Caste in Modern India) by MN Srinivas was published in
1962 by Asia Publishing House, New Delhi. The book is a collection of essays,
and the title Essay, Caste in Modern India, was read as the Presidential
Address to the Anthropology and Archaeolgy Section of Indian Science Congress
at Calcutta in January 1957. Obviously, the essay was not peer reviewed, and as
the author himself noted,"... there was a deadline, and as everyone knows,
meeting the deadline involves a compromise with one's conscience".
In this essay, "Caste in Modern India", the author tried to 'highlight
the part played by caste in the democratic processes of modern India, and in
administration and education'. This essay, which is the only one dealing with
caste issues in Andhra, runs about 26 (5.5" x 8.5" size) pages of which four
deal with Andhra and Telangaana. Most of this part quotes 'extensively' from
a paper by Selig S. Harrison entitled "Caste and the Andhra communists"
(American Political Science Review (June 1956), pp 378-404). I have not been
able to get my hands on this paper. If any of you have an access to this paper,
I would like to see it.
Before we go farther, I would like to make a few comments. First, I
thank KT for pointing this book out. Second, given the time of this essay and
Harrison's paper, Andhra here refers to circars and raayalaseema and does not
include telangaana. Third, this is a social sciences paper from mid 1950s. I do
not know if other social scientists concur with the conclusions of either of
these essays. It is particularly important to note that in Social Sciences,
theories sometimes masquerade as established truths and one has to be
particularly vigilant.
2. Can 'kamma and reddy rivalry be traced back to the 13 th century?'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The source of this comment by KT appears to come from a single sentence in MN
Srinivas's essay which in turn gets this idea from a single sentence in
Harrison's paper. This is al that MNS says on this subject (p.26) (the stuff
between asterisks is MNS quoting from Harrison):
"...Kamma-Reddi rivalry is an old affair, and the present-day political
competetion between them *"is only a modern recurrence of an historic pattern
dating back to the fourteenth century" (p.382). " Both Kammas and Reddis were
probably warriors in the serivce of the early Andhra kings. Later, they became
farmers, some feudal overlords and others small peasant proprietors who to this
day take part in the cultivation of their land. Between them they dominated
rural Andhra, leaving Brahmins beyond the pale of economic poewer in the
coutntryside" (p.383) *
KT is off by a century, but that is probably a minor detail. MNS does
not offer any evidence here except for quoting blithely from Harrison. I
haven't seen harrison's original paper yet, but I suspect that he probably did
not have any substantiation of his assertion either. I say this based on the
word 'probably' in MNS's second quote of Harrison in the above paragraph. That
suggests to me that Harrison himself was not entirely sure of the antecedents
of kammas and reddys. However, MNS (and KT) bought that first quote without
further questioning. I think this is another case of an opinion or a biased
conjecture getting propagated as 'truth'.
In my own readings of early andhra history, I have not come
across any other references to this so called rivalry between kammas and
reddis in 13th or 14th century. I will, however, admit that my interest in
andhra history is, however, not of a professional, but of an amateur. (For that
matter, it does not appear that neither Srinivas or Harrison are historians. I
think that they are both sociologists. The book didn't describe what they do).
> In the preindependence India, The Kammas as a community settled
> largely in the circar districts and controlling as much as 90%
> of land holding (controlling means owning) aligned themselves
> with the communist party of India.
Srinivas says (actually, quotes harrison) 80% of the delta area
(as opposed to 90% of circar districts), again a discrepancy of minor
importance. However, as people from the Delta area or circar districts will
attest, even 80% is an exaggeration.
> The Reddys who were largely
> from the Raayalaseema aligned themselves with the Congress party
> and its politics. Following independence, Brahmin elements
> in the Congress party (like Ananthasayanam Iyengar, Allaadi
> Krishnaswamy Iyer, PattaaBhi Seetaramaiah (?) etc. gave up
> power in favour of the emerging power politics.
The first sentence reflects the book. However, the book implies that
kammas and reddis worked together to divest power from (as opposed to giving
up power by) Brahmins, who dominated the congress party until mid 1930s.
> Because Reddys
> had the longest association with the Congress party, and because
> people perceived the Congress party as responsible for attaining
> freedom, Reddys continued to dominate the political scene in
> AP.
The first two phrases of the sentence are not from the book.
> Yes! Reddys are a land-owning community owning much of the land
> (if not 90%, close to it) in RaayalaSeema. They acquired those
> lands by a varierty of means including inheritance, and in part
> as sale deeds in the course of the services they rendered.
The book describes Reddys as a alnd-owning community. The rest is not
from the book.
> In the post independent India, the Kammas who were aligned with
> the Communist party of India saw their power base eroded along
> with that of the communists. So if the Kammas hold a grouse
> against the Reddys, it is partially that they backed the wrong
> horse.
The book says that Kammas dominated the Andhra communist party. The
rest of the sentences are not from the book.
Selig Harrison's paper appears to be an analysis of communist's bid for
power in andhra in 1951 and 1955. He also seemed to have touched on the same
subject in another book also. In Dr. Innayya's book that I referred to in an
earlier article, he refutes harrison's contention that Kammas in the delta area
were voting for communists (even though Andhra communist party was dominated by
kammas). As many of the kammas in delta area were landowners, it is against
their self-interest to support communists regardless of the caste of the
leaders of the communist party. In my earlier posting on this thread, I gave
my reasons for not supporting KT's (Srinvias/harrison's) views on this subject.
Let me state a few other points.
1) the communists of 1940s and 50s were idealists rather than
casteists. In fact, the first communist to be elected to the Andhra
legislature was a brahmin, Pillalamarri Venkateswarlu (in 1946).
2) Of the three prominent leaders in andhra communist party two
(chanDra raajESwara raavu who died last month and maakinEni basavapunnayya)
were kammas and the third (puccalaplli sundarayya) was a reddy.
3) The opposition to communists in coastal andhra in 1955 elections was
provided by NG Ranga, a kamma. Aiding him was the newspaper Andhraprabha under
the editorship of Narla venkatEswara rao, another kamma.
4) the main target of communists in Krishna district was the raja of
callapalli, a kamma. the raja was a congressman (and was a minister in, I
think, brahmaandanda reddy's cabinet).
5) congress in Andhra area always had a sizable number of kammas among
its leaders.
For these reasons, among others, I believe that Harrison was
simplistic in his approach and that Srinivas (and KT) bought Harrsions'
arguments wholesale without critically looking at the facts. I have to qualify
the above by reiterating that my knowledge of the Harrison's work is second
hand and I may change my views if the original works are convincing.
more later (may even be sooner :-)
...vcj
Ramana Juvvadi
> I was intrigued by the above comments of Sir KT. I took the advice that
>Sir KT later gave to Ramana Juvvadi and went to the library to get the book by
>MN Srinivas. Given Sir KT's reluctance to actually reproduce the relevant
>sections of this book, and the interest it generated in a few of the netters,
>I will attempt to put the book and its material in perspective. I will comment
>on how the book supports/does not support the comments of KT. I will also
>express my opinions when I feel that they are pertinent.
>
>
Thank you very much for reproducing the relevant portion from MN
Srinivas. Just as suspected, the claim looks largely unsubstantiated.
This is probably a good illustration of the caution one has to
exercise in reading history, especially Indian history. One person
simplifies the matters because the information is too complex
to deal with. Another person believes it naively without any
questioning. Tomorrow, an opportunist might use it to flame the passions
if it suits his purpose.
> In my own readings of early andhra history, I have not come
>across any other references to this so called rivalry between kammas and
>reddis in 13th or 14th century. I will, however, admit that my interest in
>andhra history is, however, not of a professional, but of an amateur. (For that
>matter, it does not appear that neither Srinivas or Harrison are historians. I
>think that they are both sociologists. The book didn't describe what they do).
>
>
As another amateur interested in history, let me make a few comments.
There are two main reasons why we tend to believe Western historians
more than Indian historians. The first reasons is that academia was
just emerging in India in 30s and 40s whereas it was already well
established in the West and hence carried more credibility and
respect. The second reason is that because Westerners didn't have
any partisan interest they were supposed to be impartial observers.
However, impartiality alone does not lead to deeper understanding.
Some times it leads to simplistic analysis like the above. As
our academia develops more and more competent and conscientious historians
will emerge leading to better understanding of our history in future.
Till then vigilance is our only recourse.
Thank you again Jampala Choudary for digging out the reference and taking
the trouble of posting it.
>more later (may even be sooner :-)
>...vcj
>
Ramana