Fight For Telugu People , Share This Video

[ticket]

“Madras Manade” – How Chennai remained with Tamil Nadu

 

 

Chennai Illai, Madras: Tales from the City

(A chapter titled, ‘”Madras Manade” — How Chennai remained with Tamil Nadu” by A.R. Venkatachalapathy in a volume edited by him titled, “Chennai Not Madras: Perspectives on the City”)

Chennai is now well-entrenched as the capital of the modern state of Tamil Nadu. Not only is it the administrative headquarters but it has also evolved over a century and a half since at least the mid-19th century as the social, political, and cultural capital of the Tamil country. Despite its cosmopolitan nature and a significant minority population, no Tamil could possibly imagine that Chennai could be anything but Tamil. But for some years in the mid-20th century the pre-eminent place of Madras as the Tamil capital came to be challenged by Telugu politicians. “Madras Manade” (“Madras is Ours”) captures this controversy in an alliterative Telugu slogan.

Though Telugu speakers, at about 15 per cent of the population compared to about 70 per cent of Tamil speakers, constituted a clear minority in the city of Madras, for a variety of historical reasons they had high visibility. Proximity to Telugu regions, the dominance of the Telugu elite in the early history of Madras, their prominence in early nationalist politics where some of them founded organizations such as the Madras Native Association, and their preponderance in trade and business gave, at least to some, an illusion of Madras as a Telugu city. This was further accentuated by the disproportionate power Telugu speakers wielded in an electoral world where enfranchisement was based on property holding and direct taxation. With the gradual rise of Indian nationalist politics, at the threshold of its mass phase, legitimate demands were voiced for a separate province of Andhra for Telugu speakers. It is said that such demands were articulated as early as 1913. The Andhra Maha Sabha was a major voice in the articulation. By 1920, with its Nagpur session, the Indian National Congress had reorganized itself on linguistic lines and the newly-formed Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee demanded that the city of Madras come under its jurisdiction. Similar claims were made on Madras when a separate Andhra University was formed in 1926. Though such demands were articulated through the subsequent two decades, the issue came to a head only as Indian independence became imminent. The Telugu demand for Madras unfortunately got tied to the formation of a separate Andhra state and consequently became a running sore for over half a decade.

In June 1948 the Constituent Assembly of India appointed a commission headed by S.K.Dar, with Panna Lal and Jagat Narayan Lal as members, to examine the formation of the new provinces of Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala, and Maharashtra. Interestingly no mention was made of Tamil Nadu as it was erroneously assumed that the Madras Presidency was representative of Tamils. In the event the Dar commission recommended reorganization not on “linguistic consideration but rather upon administrative convenience.” This was a view that was close to Jawaharlal Nehru’s heart despite the many assurances the Congress had made over the years, and especially during the 1937 elections, on linguistic reorganization of provinces.

The Congress in turn, in its Jaipur session (December 1948), appointed a Linguistic Provinces Committee with Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitarammaya (hence commonly known as the JVP Committee after their initials). The committee, which presented its report in April 1949, more or less accepted the Dar Commission’s views by recommending the postponement of linguistic reorganization by a few years. But Andhra was an exception. “In some ways,” the JVP Committee observed, “the demand for an Andhra Province has a larger measure of consent behind it than other similar demands,” and added ominously, “Yet there is a controversy about certain areas as well as about the city of Madras.” While the JVP Committee argued that Greater Bombay should not be part of any linguistic province, it placed Madras on a different footing despite its apparent analogous nature:

to a large extent what we have said about Bombay city applies to Madras. At the same time there is a difference in that it is a clear Tamil majority area. It seems impossible to restrict the aspirations of the majority to the confines of the city and as far as we can see its isolated existence would be a perpetual source of conflict between Andhra and Tamilnad.

Therefore the decision of the Congress leadership was clear and unequivocal right from the beginning: “On the whole, therefore, we feel if an Andhra Province is to be formed its protagonists will have to abandon their claim to the city of Madras.” But there precisely lay the problem. Inextricably linked with the demand for Madras, the declaration of Andhra province came to be delayed by a few more years. Further, it also occasioned unnecessary and tragic loss of lives and property and caused teething problems for the fledgling nation state.

Pressure began to mount as is clearly recounted in the voluminous Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru. By September 1949 Nehru had received at least three deputations: one an Andhra deputation led by P. Ramamurti, another of the Tamil members of the Constituent Assembly, and a third of the Andhra Maha Sabha. Meeting these delegations only further convinced Nehru of his position articulated in the JVP Committee. In November the Congress Working Committee, following the JVP Committee’s views, recommended to the Government of India that an Andhra state be formed but without Madras city.

As Nehru wrote shortly later to P.S. Kumarasami Raja, the Chief Minister of Madras Presidency, “it now appears that the way to the formation of the Andhra Province is not as easy or clear as we had thought it was.” An eight-member Partition Committee had been formed in November 1949 and the Madras Cabinet had approved its report in January 1950, “based on a large measure of agreement.” But this was mired in controversy, with T. Prakasam (“one leading member from Andhra” in the words of Nehru) signing a note of dissent that the apparatus of the new province should reside in Madras city until a new capital was ready, clearly a ploy to subvert the federal decision not to grant Madras to Andhra.

In the ensuing months the movement for Andhra hotted up. In the coastal districts and Rayalaseema, support was welling up for a separate Andhra province. Apart from numerous public meetings, one Swami Sitaram even undertook a fast portending perhaps the subsequent fast of Potti Sriramulu which ended tragically. Given Nehru’s view that “Personally I am opposed to bringing in fasting as a method of finding a solution for political problems” and his categorical statement in Parliament that “Government will … submit to facts and not fasts,” the fast was broken only with the intervention of Vinoba Bhave. During the course of this fast it all once again boiled down to one issue: while the protesters demanded a separate Andhra state and the government was more than eager to grant it, the doubtful claim over Madras was what stalled the issue. In Parliament on September 14, 1951 the government said as much when N.G. Ranga, the prominent Andhra Congressman, made an intervention in the debate.

As the agitation for a separate Andhra got protracted, the fault lines within the Andhra Congress began to be more visible. It became obvious that the interests of Rayalaseema and the coastal districts of Andhra were not in tandem. (Here it should be mentioned that, even after the so-called police action in Hyderabad which ensured its integration in the Indian union, its amalgamation with the Telugu state of Andhra was scarcely discussed.) Given their close proximity and other material interests in the city of Madras, Rayalaseema and Nellore could not envisage an Andhra province without it. Further, their people were also apprehensive about due representation to them in the new province and therefore demanded a proportionate share in the new legislature and other government offices. This amounted to putting a spoke in the Andhra wheel. The elite of the coastal districts of Andhra had a far larger stake in the creation of a separate state than in a faraway city. As Nehru observed in a letter to Swami Sitaram on September 29, 1951, “On the Andhra side, there appear to be varying opinions. Some people say that they were prepared to give up the city of Madras wholly; others are not prepared to do so; yet others … want to reserve consideration of this to a later stage.” To this may be added the view that Madras city should become a Chief Commissioner’s province, effectively under the control of the Central government.

If this was the political division within the Andhra government, the situation in Tamil Nadu was even more complex. While the Congress was deeply faction-ridden, and the other dominant force, the Dravidian movement (both the Dravida Kazhagam under Periyar E.V. Ramasamy and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam under C.N. Annadurai), with their commitment to a Dravidian homeland consisting of the whole of southern India, did not divert adequate energy to the issue. The Communists on the other hand, emerging afresh from underground after being weakened by toeing the misconceived B.T. Ranadive line, reflecting the ground strength of their movement, preferred to be led by the Andhra section of the Communist Party. Ultimately it was left to the Tamil Arasu Kazhagam, headed by Ma. Po. Sivagnanam, a pressure group within the Congress, to counteract the Andhra demand. Apart from organizing meetings and conferences, the Tamil Arasu Kazhagam intervened effectively in the Madras Corporation by passing resolutions that thwarted Andhra designs on Chennai. (A particularly tactical move was the defeat of a motion brought forward in the corporation expressing sympathy for the death of Potti Sriramulu in December 1952, which was a moral blow to the Telugu demand.) An important all-party public meeting of Tamil leaders was organized in March 1953 by the Tamil Arasu Kazhagam where Periyar E.V.R., M. Bhaktavatsalam, S.S. Karaiyalar, Meenambal Sivaraj, and others spoke. In subsequent meetings widely respected Tamil cultural figures with no overt political connections also participated.

In this context, with the question of Madras and the interests of Rayalaseema acting as brakes, the struggle for a separate Andhra state went from strength to strength. The situation drove both the state and Central governments to exasperation. Once Nehru was even forced to write to P.S. Kumarasami Raja, “A reference in the Hindu says that your government is apparently waiting for us to do something about the Andhra province or for us to ask you about it. I do not quite know what is meant.” By early 1952, Nehru was blaming T. Prakasam and his supporters alone for the stalemate in forming the Andhra province. In a press conference in New Delhi Nehru asserted, referring to Prakasam’s dissent note to the partition committee’s report where he had insisted that Madras city be the interim capital of the new Andhra province: “As a matter of fact, if Mr Prakasam had accepted that award three years ago, probably there would be an Andhra province now.”

By this time however the first general elections of January 1952 had added more variables. The Congress failed to win a majority in the Madras Presidency, weakening the hand of K. Kamaraj, its leader, and paving the way for Rajaji to form a Congress government through a prescient form of horse-trading. On the other hand, T. Prakasam had himself lost his deposit in the North Madras constituency, exposing the weakness of his demand. He headed the United Front, a motley alliance dominated by the Communists, which opposed the Congress. Despite Rajaji’s well-advertised view that the demand for linguistic provinces was a “tribal demand”, he nevertheless supported the formation of an Andhra province but without conceding the city of Madras. (It was widely believed that Rajaji’s support for the immediate creation of Andhra province would give him a reprieve from the relentless attack of the Communists whose legislators mostly came from Andhra.)

Various Andhra leaders such as Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy and V.V. Giri put pressure on the Central government. Even the philosopher Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was not to be left out in this regard. All this only drove Nehru to exasperation. Nehru refused their demand for the appointment of a commission without general agreement: “Even reference to an arbitration means consent of parties.” He also ruled out plebiscite, as it would not throw up a clear result. By July 1952 Nehru made it ever more clear that “there has been so much argument on this subject that no one can say anything new or worthwhile.”
This, however, was to change with one as-yet-unknown Congressman’s fast. In a letter to Rajaji, Nehru had observed that “some kind of fast is going on for the Andhra province …. I am totally unmoved by this and I propose to ignore it completely.” But it was not to be. Potti Sriramulu epitomized the demand for Andhra. Actively egged on by T. Prakasam and Bulusu Sambamurthy, he began his fast at the latter’s hime on October 19. 1952. Within days Nehru had to sit up and listen: “I do not know how long we can just go on postponing it. If we are clear that sometime or other we shall have to face it, it does little good to go on postponing this and waiting for a more favourable opportunity. The probability is that conditions will deteriorate.”

T. Prakasam kept on the pressure by convening an all-Party convention in Madras on December 7, 1952, and dissolved it after calling for immediate formation of Andhra with Madras as capital. It was left to T. Nagi Reddy, the Communist leader, to reconvene the meeting and pass a resolution that left the question of Madras to a plebiscite.

Nehru hoped to seize this psychological moment to the advantage of the nation-state. He feared that otherwise there would be complete frustration. He even suggested the appointment of a one-man commission which was turned down by Rajaji as he feared that it would only help “to keep alive the claims which we wish to be abandoned.”

The death of Potti Sriramulu on December 15, 1952 after 57 days of fasting led to violence in Andhra, especially in Nellore, and the looting of Vijayawada railway station. Genuine fears arose about the safety of Tamils in the Telugu districts. Despite Nehru’s bold statement in Parliament that “we must not mix up various things because a riotous mob did something”, the Government of India appointed in December 1952 a committee under K.N. Wanchoo.

Wanchoo’s report, submitted in early February 1952, unequivocally favoured the creation of an Andhra state but equally clearly recommended that Madras should not be included. However he indicated that until a new capital was built the Andhra government could be temporarily (for about five years) lodged in Madras. Understandably Nehru was inclined to accept this recommendation but Rajaji stoutly opposed it on the grounds that the troubles would spread to other Tamil areas where a sizeable Andhra population lived. He even went to the extent of threatening to resign from the chief-ministership. This finally convinced Nehru and he agreed that this move would only result in “unseemly agitation, acrimonious controversies, and administrative conflicts” and would adversely affect the friendly atmosphere.

By 1952 the question of Andhra was pretty much settled, if ever it was in question. Despite the seeming controversy, the Andhra demand for Madras was a rather sectarian one raised by a group of Andhra leaders from the Rayalaseema region. What gave some impetus and nationwide visibility to the agitation was that it was linked to a very popular, genuine, and longstanding demand for a separate Telugu-speaking province of Andhra. But in fact the demand for Madras unnecessarily delayed the formation of this province. The relative quiet with which Tamil Nadu responded to the Telugu demand for Madras was rooted in the certainty that it was most obviously a Tamil city conceded by one and all.

The bitterness between Andhra and Tamil Nadu festered for some years after, with the controversy over the northern borders becoming the subject of further agitation and necessitating yet another commission. That however is a separate story.

SOURCES:

1) Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Second Series, Volumes 10-22, Nehru Memorial Fund, New Delhi, 1990-97.
2) Ma. Po. Sivagnanam, Puthiya Tamilagam Padaitha Varalaru, Poonkodi Pathippagam, Chennai, 1986.
3) T. Vasundhara and S. Gopalakrishnan, Sub-Nationalism: A Case Study of Modern India, New Era, Madras, 1996.

Originally published at: http://dharma-yuddham.blogspot.in/2011/12/chennai-illai-madras-tales-from-city.html

[ticket]

The fight for Madras

• 
  The Hindu Archives A view of the President's State Drive on Independence Day as it passes on Mount Road on August 15, 1956, by which time the dispute over Madras was settled.
• 
  The Hindu Archives T. Prakasam poularly known as `Andhra Kesari' fought for two decades for the creation of separate Andhra province. He was a barrister and gave up his law practice for freedom struggle. He was part of Rajaji’s cabinet in Madras province in 1936 and became the first Chief Minster of the newly formed Andhra in 1953
• 
  The Hindun Archives Rajaji dismissed the Telugu-speaking residents' claim over Madras as untenable and citied population figures in support.
• 
  The Hindu Photo Archives In October 1952, Potti Sriramaulu , a Gandhian born in Madras started a indefinite fast in support of a separate Andhra state with Madras as its capital. After 58 days of fasting he died. His is death sparked violent protest and sped up the formation of Andhra

 

 

About 70 years ago, Chennai or Madras as it was earlier known faced anxious moments when Telugu-speaking citizens demanded the city as theirs and wanted it to be the capital of their future state.

The demand in itself was not problematic, but the solutions proposed to solve the dispute between Tamil and Telugu-speaking citizens over the future of the city were.

The city came close to being split into two along River Cooum – the northern part assigned to Andhra and the southern to Tamil Nadu. However, a combination of factors settled the issue in Tamil Nadu’s favour. This not only saved the traumatic partition, but also avoided two other equally vexatious possibilities: declare Madras as a plebiscite or a centrally administered province. As the city celebrates its past, it would be worthwhile to recall how the city survived its testing moments and retained its cosmopolitan nature.

Madras was a presidency town – the largest colonial city in south India with Telugus, Tamils, Kannadigas and Malayalees all living here. As the struggle for independence intensified, the formation of States on linguistic principles became imminent. Telugus were among the first to raise the demand for the need of a separate province.

As early as 1912, Telugu leaders and newspapers started to complain that the ‘progress of Dravidians overshadowed’ that of the Andhras (Telugu speaking) and the creation of a separate province would ‘cure this handicap.’ However, they did not step up the demand immediately, but wanted to do so only after independence. Until then, they decided to keep the issue alive.

In the initial years, the status of Madras city was not a central issue. The situation changed in the 1940s. An intriguing tale in November, 1941 brought the city of Madras to centre stage. T. Prakasam, the Congress leader, who later became the first Chief Minister of Andhra told the Mahasabha conference in Vishakapatanam that the cabinet of the Madras Province had met a few months ago to discuss the formation of Andhra province. They invited Lord Erskine, the Governor, to attend the meeting as a matter of goodwill.

Erskine suggested that both provinces — Andhra and Madras — be located in the city. Everyone including the Tamil Ministers agreed to this idea, Prakasam claimed. Prakasam then alleged that an ‘evil genius in the cabinet’ poisoned Erskine’s mind later and made him write a letter to the Secretary of State against the move. Prakasam refused to divulge the name of the ‘evil genius’ but told the gathering that Erskine cautioned the British government that ‘blood would flow in the streets of Madras’ if Andhra was formed.

Remarks by O.P. Ramaswamy Reddiar, the premier of Madras province in September, 1947 complicated matters. He told a group of press persons that if Andhra claimed Madras then Tamils would claim Nellore, Chittor and Tirupati in return. Positions hardened and Telugu leaders demanded that the government settle the future of the city first.

For their part, Tamil writers and leaders aggressively opposed Andhra’s claim over Madras. Notable writer Kalki Krishnamuthi remarked that the Tamils and Telugus had turned ‘strange brothers’ and the city had greater contact with Tamilians than with Telugus. Rajaji dismissed the claim over Madras as untenable and citied population figures in support.

A few readers writing to The Hindu said that the politicians must be kept out of this issue and the government should hold a referendum. This did not happen.

A solution was in sight in 1949. The Indian National Congress set a three-member committee comprising Nehru, Patel and Pattabi Sitaramiah to look into linguistic provinces. The committee report — known as the JVP report — recommended the formation of Andhra province but concluded that Madras would not be part of it. With Nehru and Patel involved, many thought the JVP report would be accepted. On the contrary, the fight over Madras escalated.

While the JVP’s position pleased Tamil leaders, the Telugus agitated. Sitaramiah, who was a signatory to the report tried to clarify that though the JVP report said Madras could not be part of Andhra, it did not specify that it should be part of the Tamil province. The city should be a centrally administered area, he demanded.

Matters came to a flash point in 1952 when Potti Sreeramulu, a Gandhian who was fasting for an Andhra province and the inclusion of Madras, died. Sreeramulu, was born in Madras. He quit his well-paying job in the Railways in 1930 to join Gandhi in his Sabarmati ashram. Later, after independence, he took up social work. On October 19, 1952, Sreeramulu decided to indefinitely fast in support of the Andhra issue. His fast neither altered the position of the national Congress or the Madras government. After 51 days, Sreeramulu died.

His death sparked violent protests across Telugu-speaking areas of the Presidency. Nehru appealed for calm and assured people that the issue would be settled soon. Following this, in January 1953, the government appointed Justice Wanchoo to look into the formation of the Andhra province. The Wanchoo committee identified boundaries of the new State, but concluded that Madras could be the temporary capital for three to five years. If that was not possible, until a permanent city was found, Guntur or Vishakapttanam could the temporary capital, the committee suggested.

This was not acceptable to Rajaji and other Tamil leaders. Finally, in March 1953, Nehru announced that Madras would not be the temporary capital. In October 1953, the Andhra province was formed with Kurnool as its temporary capital.

V. Kaleeswara Ro, the vice-president of the Andhra Pradesh Congress committee was practical. He told other Telugu leaders that they should now work ‘increasingly with the Karnataka brethren for the disintegration of Hyderabad State’ and combine the Telugu-speaking areas with Andhra. This way, Andhra could get the twin city of Hyderabad and Secunderabad as its permanent capital. He was right. After two years, a larger Andhra Pradesh with Hyderabad as its capital emerged. Madras remained with Tamil Nadu.

[gargicau]

actual ga telugu population 40% unte TN lo mi Karunanidhi thatha jayamma vatnini 7% ani cheptunnaru.  .Second class people ga treat chestunanru anta, jobs ivvatledu anta

 

http://youtu.be/n8YV5ksY6CQ

 

40% aa :) aithe separate state demand cheyyochu.

 

It is true that several/all telugu speaking castes are not considered for reservation quota. 

 

It is a worthy fight. yes.

[gargicau]

haha.. history antha thavvaku man.

 

ippudu unnolla gurinchi cheppu.

[ticket]

His is the lone voice that speaks Telugu

K. Gopinath

K. Gopinath, the MLA representing Hosur constituency in Tamil Nadu, made news after persistently raising queries in Telugu in the legislative assembly, unmindful of his fellow legislators booing him down. Hosur is located at the confluence of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and is almost the neighbour of the Kuppam segment, represented by TDP chief N.Chandrababu Naidu.

The Congress legislative party leader is apparently the odd man out in Tamil Nadu’s House, which is known for its overt love of Tamil language and culture. Not only does he elicit the problem of his people in chaste Telugu, he also solicits a reply in the same language from none other than Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa, who then translates the message for the benefit of other members of the House.

On the sidelines of the 4th World Telugu Conference, Mr. Gopinath spoke to ‘The Hindu’ on the problems plaguing Telugus living beyond the frontiers of the Telugu land. While the Telugu population is 40 per cent in Tamil Nadu, it touches a whopping 80 per cent in Hosur constituency, but the government has done precious little to preserve their identity. “Telugu was initially made an optional language at the school level, but our demand is to make it the second language. The arrangement worked out is to answer for 450 marks in Telugu and the remaining 50 marks in Tamil, which is awaiting implementation,” he informed, indicating that Telugus had no objection to learning Tamil, the State’s official language but they were only against thrusting it on the Telugu population.

On the personal front, Mr. Gopinath speaks Telugu with his family at home, but foresees dark days in taking the language to the next generation. “Telugu people exist even in Tamil hinterland, say Madurai, Rajapalayam, Coimbatore, Tanjavur and Salem, but only the seniors speak Telugu while the younger lot are oblivious to their native language,” a worried Gopinath said.

 

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/the-telugu-man-in-the-tamil-house/article4254808.ece

[ticket]

haha.. history antha thavvaku man.

 

ippudu unnolla gurinchi cheppu.

 

History chala mandiki teliaydu ..ippudu telsukuntaremo ani vestunna....mi TN govt Demographics ni tarumaru chesindi..

[gargicau]

History chala mandiki teliaydu ..ippudu telsukuntaremo ani vestunna....mi TN govt Demographics ni tarumaru chesindi..

 

sare..

 

TN separate country avvani bhayya. Telugolla power ento choopiddaam. independent census chesi, shame cheddaam tamil chauvinists ni.

 

until then, I think TN govt is rather fair.

[ARYA]

http://youtu.be/vVniOarbXPk

ilantivi chuste raktham ragili potundi  :15_3_321:  :15_3_321:  :15_3_321:

telugu vallani tokkestunnaru tamil nadu lo ani ee cbn center lo revolt cheyyochu ga :15_3_321:

[ticket]

sare..

 

TN separate country avvani bhayya. Telugolla power ento choopiddaam. independent census chesi, shame cheddaam tamil chauvinists ni.

 

until then, I think TN govt is rather fair.

 

 

[gargicau]

ilantivi chuste raktham ragili potundi  :15_3_321:  :15_3_321:  :15_3_321:

telugu vallani tokkestunnaru tamil nadu lo ani ee cbn center lo revolt cheyyochu ga :15_3_321:

 

ento..

[gargicau]

madras ani tamil peru ni vadilesi.. chennai ani telugu king peru pettukunnaru kadha..

 

antha kanna em kaavaali.

[ARYA]

ento..

 

 

madras ani tamil peru ni vadilesi.. chennai ani telugu king peru pettukunnaru kadha..

 

antha kanna em kaavaali.

nizame kada man...mana telugolla madhya united ga leru kabattu mana telugu jaathi intha daridram ga edchindi 

[chandra916]

nizame kada man...mana telugolla madhya united ga leru kabattu mana telugu jaathi intha daridram ga edchindi 

appude lechava lekapothe inka padukoledha ??

[gargicau]

nizame kada man...mana telugolla madhya united ga leru kabattu mana telugu jaathi intha daridram ga edchindi 

 

sare, fight cheddam aithe.

 

tamilolla pichal pagili povaali.

[ARYA]

appude lechava lekapothe inka padukoledha ??

ippude rendu peglu esa...e video chusaaka emtion vachindi kasepatlo sleep esta