Thursday, December 31, 2009

For a United Andhra-Telangana-Seema (2) in LAW, 31 December 2009 issue

Jai Andhra Movement and Six-point Formula:
This implied threat to Mulki Rules as such exacerbated the discontent and with K.V. Ranga Reddy, Channa Reddy and other self-centred leaders taking up the cause, the Separate Telangana movement raged in all its ferocity. Much agitation and violence was there, and indiscriminate repression and police firings too resulting in the deaths of more than 300 agitators. A Telangana Praja Samiti was formed, which contested the 1971 parliamentary elections under the overall leadership of Channa Reddy and won a thumping majority of 10 out of 14 Lok Sabha seats in the Telangana area. However, Channa Reddy and other TPS leaders soon compromised with Indira Gandhi and were willing to abide by the eight-point and five-point formulas devised by or at the instance of her. Meanwhile the Andhra Pradesh High Court sitting in Full Bench (larger bench) of 5 Judges struck down the Mulki Rules as ultra vires the Constitution and this further complicated the matters. However, the decision was soon appealed to the Supreme Court vide CA No. 993/1972 and a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the larger bench of the High Court on 03-10-1972 holding that the mulki rules continued to be valid under Article 35 (b) of the Constitution [see AIR 1973 SC 827].
The legal history relating to the Mulki Rules subsequent to the liberation of Hyderabad is briefly narrated hereunder: The above quoted Mulki Rules were continued after the liberation of Hyderabad by the Nizam who was designated the Rajpramukh of the Hyderabad State. And this arrangement continued even after the advent of the Indian Constitution which came into force from November 1949 and also after India was declared as Republic on 26 January 1950. The Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950 issued by the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Art. 372(2) saved all existing Central Laws, Provincial Laws and State Laws. The definition of ‘existing State Law’ in that Order, which came into force on 26 January 1950, would encompass the Mulki Rules too. Thereafter the relevant saving provisions in the States Reorganization Act as also the Andhra Pradesh Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957 would save these Mulki Rules. However, that would again be subject to the Mulki Rules being not hit by Article 13 of the Constitution or more specifically the said Rules could be law saved by Article 35(b) subject to the terms of Article 16 (3) of the Constitution.
However, the repugnancy of the Mulki Rules to the relevant provisions in the Constitution of India, especially the fundamental rights enshrined in and guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, came to be pointed out from time to time. As long as Hyderabad State was an integrated unit even after independence this controversy, though was there on a low key, did not assume difficult dimensions. However, with the trifurcation of the Hyderabad State and merger of different linguistic areas in the adjacent linguistic states the controversy began to gradually simmer up and grow to threatening proportions. A strong argument that since Hyderabad has never been a territory of [British] India, the Mulki Rules could not be existing law in force after its liberation and merger in Indian Union was there from the inception and was canvassed elaborately by Sri P.A. Chowdary (later become Judge of AP High Court and retired) in various writ petitions filed in the High Court after the formation of Andhra Pradesh. But this point was rejected by the Courts and the Supreme Court has amply clarified that the territory of India as envisaged in the Constitution comprises also of the later additions to it. Then the Government of Hyderabad and the then Government of Andhra Pradesh had also clarified that such of the provisions in the Mulki Rules which conferred a status by birth could not be validated, and are hit by Article 13 of the Constitution, as they would violate the fundamental right of no discrimination on the basis of birth or race and as such only such of the rules which speak as to requirement of residence for the purposes of public employment could claim any validity. Accordingly the requirement of residence of 15 years in the Hyderabad State was called for with respect to public employment in the State by means of various Government Orders and circulars. Later, after Andhra Pradesh was formed, a Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 (44 of 1957) was enacted by the Parliament as per the mandate in Article 16 (3) read with Article 35 of the Constitution and by Section 2 of the Act the Mulki Rules also stood repealed, but by Section 3 of the Act the same requirement as to residence as was there in the Mulki Rules (i.e. of a period of 15 years) was declared essential for public employment purposes in the Telangana area of the State for a period of 5 years. Later this was extended by amendments to 10 + 5 years. Even by the later limit the requirement as to residence was to expire by 21 March 1974, if not further extended within that period.
However, dissatisfaction in the hearts and minds of competing candidates and employees of different regions precipitated the matters much before the changing deadlines and the 1960’s witnessed a number of litigations, mainly writ petitions challenging the validity of these requirement as to residence rules which were akin to the Mulki Rules. A Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. comprising Justice Kumarayya and Justice Manohar Pershad had by its judgment dated 03-02-1966 in W.A. No. 152 of 1965 had taken note of the fact that the Government of Andhra Pradesh by its G.O. Ms. No. 1936 dated 23-12-1960 had deleted the Mulki Rules provision from the Statute Book in view of S. 2 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957. But that did not receive much public attention and the controversy in real intensity started with the decision dated 03-02-1969 of Justice Chinnappa Reddy in P. Dharmaiah’s case (AIR 1970 AP 236). The learned Judge struck down Section 3 of the above mentioned Public Employment (R-R) Act, 1957 as violative of Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India, which did not permit any discrimination on regional basis for residential requirement within a State. He held that as the residential requirement was prescribed only for Telangana region within the State of Andhra Pradesh, it clearly ran counter to the letter and spirit of Article 16 (3) and as such could not be saved by Article 35 (b) either. He also found the Rules under S. 3 of the PE (R-R) Act suffered from the vice of impermissible delegation of powers. Though Justice Chinnappa Reddy nowhere referred to the Mulki Rules as such in the decision and also did not speak of the effect of his decision on the fate of Section 2 of the same Act repealing Mulki Rules, this decision was widely taken to be a striking down of the Mulki Rules and with that the ongoing agitation for ‘Safeguards to Telangana people’ has turned intense and violent and completely transformed itself into a ‘Separate Telangana’ agitation. However, within three weeks thereof, that decision was reversed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which inter alia observed that even if, as the single Judge opined, Section 3 of the Act was constitutionally untenable, that would not have any effect on the Mulki Rules which may have to be taken as having revived due to such quashing of that section. However, that was a mere obiter dictum and there was no considered opinion expressed on the matter.
As things stood there, another course of litigation brought out a fuller discussion and decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on this vexed question of Mulki Rules. “Writ Petition No. 2524 of 1967 was filed by 12 Extension Officers in the Department of Industries, Government of Andhra Pradesh. They were appointed as Extension Officers in May, 1961, and after they underwent training, were posted in various districts. The strength of the cadre of Extension Officers was reduced and that led to the retrenchment of some of the personnel including the petitioners, who were absorbed in another cadre, viz., Senior Inspectors. This absorption resulted in diminution of their scale of pay. Their grievance was that persons appointed later and juniors to them in service were retained as Extension Officers, whereas they, by an order dated September 18, 1967, were retrenched and that, instead of following the rule ‘last come, first go’, the juniors in rank were sought to be retained as Extension Officers by reason of their residence in Telengana area and that such a preferential treatment on the basis of residential qualification is discriminatory and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.” The single Judge (Krishna Rao J) had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners who were temporary employees could have no claim to seniority or ‘first come, last go’ principle and they could be terminated at any point of time but also held that as S. 3 of the PE (R-R) Act was held untenable and S. 2 that repealed the Mulki Rules too was all the same tenable, the petitioners could have no defence on the basis of Mulki Rules either. This decision was challenged by way of Writ Appeal No. 633 of 1970 when the Division Bench thought it appropriate to request the CJ to refer the matter to a Full Bench of five judges since a previous decision of a FB of 5 Judges of AP High Court in P. Lakshman Rao’s case [AIR 1971 AP 118] was cited and was under challenge in the matter. Accordingly the matter was referred to a five judge Full Bench by the CJ which, by majority (4:1), held that “'the mulki rules are not valid and operative after the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. In any event, they do not revive and cannot be deemed to be valid and operative in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in A.V.S Narasimha Rao's case [(1970) 1 S.C.R. 115 = AIR 1970 SC 422]. The Full Bench decision in P. Lakshmana Rao's case is thus overruled. W.A. No. 633 of 1970 … will be posted before the Division Bench for further orders.” Thereupon the Division Bench held: “We have already indicated that …… if the decision of the Full Bench is to the effect that the Mulki Rules are not operative, then appeal has to be allowed. … [Accordingly] we allow the appeal…” This decision of the DB of AP High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court* on 3-10-1972, holding Mulki Rules to be valid and operative.
This gave rise to a lot of jubilation in the Telangana circles but at the same time generated much heat and discontent in the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions. Soon the self-serving leaders, mainly of the Congress Party, of the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions launched a mammoth Jai Andhra movement, demanding that the separate safeguards to Telangana like the mulki rules be totally scrapped or else a separate state for Andhra (including Rayalaseema) be granted. Much violence and bloodshed followed in the wake of the movement but curiously Telangana remained calm and aloof all along. It should be said to the credit of the communists of those days (CPI, CPM and certain ML groups also) that they all along strongly opposed these parochial movements and stood firmly for the unity of the Telugu people. The turmoil in Andhra soon compelled the resignation of the P.V. Narasimha Rao Ministry and President's Rule was imposed in the entire State on 18-01-1973. While the State was under President's Rule, behind-the-scene negotiations went on between the different Telangana leaders, Andhra leaders and the Central Government representatives and finally on the initiative of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, a six-point formula was devised to overcome the difficulties, while at the same time keeping up the unity of the State. It was proposed that not only in Telangana but in other regions also local candidates have to be given priority and major quota in education and employment and hence a local area candidacy system has to be introduced. Likewise the backward areas in every region ought to be developed with special care and attention for which a backward areas development commission might be necessitated and that would render any regional committee like the Telangana Regional Committee superfluous. The capital city of Hyderabad was to be kept as a free zone with the entire state divided into 7 zones. Whatever be the merits and demerits of this formula, it finally worked and strangely both the Telangana and Andhra separatist leaders acquiesced in it. For the convenience of the readers the Six Point Formula and the later corrections to it are extracted hereunder:
[Statement issued by the leaders of Andhra Pradesh on 21st September, 1973.]
We have had several discussions with Central leaders as well as amongst ourselves on the problems facing the people of Andhra Pradesh. We are satisfied that the present misgivings about the future of the State can be completely removed on action being taken in accordance with the following principles :—
(1) Accelerated development of the backward areas of the State and planned development of the State capital with specific resources earmarked for these purposes and appropriate association of representatives of such backward areas in the State legislature along with other experts in the formulation and monitoring of development schemes for such areas should form the essential part of the developmental strategy of the State. Constitution at the State level of a Planning Board as well-as Sub-Committees for different backward areas should be the appropriate instrument for achieving this objective.
(2) Institution of uniform arrangements throughout the State enabling adequate preference being given to local candidates in the matter of admission to educational institutions and establishment of a new Central University at Hyderabad to augment the exiting educational facilities should be the basis of the educational policy of the State.
(3) Subject to the requirements of the State as a whole, local candidates should be given preference to specified extent in the matter of direct recruitment to (i) non-gazetted posts (other than in the Secretariat. Offices of Heads of Department, other State level offices and institutions and the Hyderabad City Police) (ii) corresponding posts under the local bodies and (iii) the posts of Tahsildars, Junior Engineers and Civil Assistant Surgeons. In order to improve their promotion prospects, service cadres should be organised to the extent possible on appropriate local basis up to specified gazetted level, first or second, as may be administratively convenient.
(4) A high power administrative tribunal should be constituted to deal with the grievances of services regarding appointments, seniority, promotion and other allied matters. The decisions of the Tribunal should ordinarily be binding on the State Government. The constitution of such a tribunal would justify limits on recourse to judiciary in such matters.
(5) In order that implementation of measures based on the above principles does not give rise to litigation and consequent uncertainity, the Constitution should be suitably amended to the extent necessary conferring on the President enabling powers in this behalf.
(6) The above approach would render the continuance of Mulki Rules and Regional Committee unnecessary.
2. We are convinced that the accelerated development of the backward areas and planned development of the State capital are the major factors which will help in successfully implementing the above principles. We would, therefore, urge upon the Central Government to take a generous view in the matter of financial assistance to the State for the development of these areas.
* * *
[Statement issued by Andhra Pradesh Leaders on 22-10-1973]
We discussed amongst ourselves and the Central leaders the various aspects and implications of the six-point formula which has received overwhelming support from all shades of public opinion in Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere in the country. The formula was intended to indicate the basic approach to promote the accelerated development of backward areas, a balanced development of the State as a whole and to provide equitable opportunities to different areas of State in the matter of education, employment and career prospects in public services, with a view to achieve a fuller emotional integration of the people of Andhra Pradesh. It will be for the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of India to formulate specific, comprehensive and practicable schemes in the light of the approach set out in the six-point formula. We, however, appreciate that it would be advantageous to elaborate the more basic aspects of the formula to promote a better understanding of its approach.
2. The formula lays stress on accelerated development of backward areas. We discussed the question whether it would be possible to specify straightaway what the backward areas in the State are. Backward areas will require to be identified in the light of objective factors and in consultation with Planning Commission. This task will have to be left to the popular Government to be completed with utmost expedition.
3. Schemes for development of all such areas will have to be drawn up and resources required for implementing such schemes should be earmarked, not only out of the general resources of the State Plan but also out of the special assistance from the Centre. In the process of preparing suitable schemes as well as earmarking resources, the State Planning Board should necessarily have an important role. The role of the State Board in overall co-ordination between the general Plan Scheme and special programmes for accelerated development of backward areas will also have to be emphasised. It will, therefore, have to be an effective organization consisting of the Chief Minister, some of his colleagues, expert people’s representatives and others.
4. The Committees for the different backward areas should be agencies to assist the Planning Board in the formulation of development schemes for such areas, particularly in regard to matters where knowledge of local conditions is of importance and subsequent monitoring of the implementation of such schemes. These Committees should hence have a substantial number of the representatives of the people familiar with local conditions and problems. The composition of these Committees should, however, be such as to make them business like, compact and knowledgeable,. In order that these Committees enjoy the full support and backing of Government it may be considered if the Chief Minister himself could be their Chairman.
5. Programme in the State Plan to develop the infrastructure of the State will benefit the capital city. Other schemes intended specifically for urban development, housing, water supply, expansion of educational and medical facilities etc., also from part of the State Plan. The formula contemplates that special assistance from the Centre to supplement these programmes would also be available. As the formula emphasised the importance of the planned development of the capital city, Government may also consider the constitution of a suitable Capital Development Authority.
6. Taking into account the broad scope and functions of the Planning Board and its role in co-ordination, it may be advantageous to designate it as Andhra Pradesh Planning and Development Board and its Sub-Committees as Planning and Development Committees for the respective areas. Other details regarding composition for functions, procedures and role of the Committees will have to be left to the Government.
7. In regard to the services the basic approach of the formula is that the people of different areas should have equitable employment and career prospects. The concepts of local candidates and local areas are interrelated because local candidates will be identified with reference to a local area. In specifying any local areas it should not be necessary to go below the level of a district. For recruitment to Class IV posts and posts of L.D.C. and equivalent in district officer, the district will then be the local area. For other categories of posts it would be desirable to group contiguous districts into divisions. We, however, visualise that the State as a whole may consist of five or six divisions, the twin cities including the cantonment being constituted into a separate division.
8. A local candidate can be a person residing in the concerned local area or who has studied in an institution situated in that area leading to the educational qualifications prescribed for the post or a pass in the Matriculation/equivalent examination whichever is lower. In cases where no educational qualifications are at all required, residence can be the only test. In other cases, it may be advantageous to adopt the criterion of study in a local institution. Where necessary either of the criteria could also be adopted ensuring however that a candidate is not regarded as belonging to more than one local area. To obviate hardship, suitable exemptions will require to be formulated. The minimum period of residence or study in a local institution should be reasonable, neither being illusory nor excessive. In the course or our deliberations we found that it should not be difficult to specify such a reasonable, minimum after explaining to the people of the State the different aspects of the problem.
9. The extent of preference for local candidates should in no case be 100%. In case of Class IV posts it can be 80 %. For all other non-gazetted posts the extent of preference should be 70 % and for gazetted posts it should be 60%. It will, however, have to be borne in mind that substantial employment potential may develop in different local areas on account of major development projects. These will have to be equitably shared between different areas in the State and special arrangements for this purpose may be necessary. Suitable remedial measures will have to be devised in cases where the institution of revised administrative arrangements affect the employment of the candidates from the twin cities.
10. In regard to the agency for recruitment, posts entrusted to the State Public Service Commission may continue with the Commission. It will no doubt require separate consideration whether any special measures are called for in regard to the scope, strength, status and efficient functioning of the Commission to enable the Commission to discharge its responsibilities. Where any category of posts is excluded from the purview of the Commission it may be advantageous initially to constitute district/divisional committees to make recruitment for such posts.
11. We are satisfied that the six-point formula provide[s] all the necessary policy directives for comprehensive detailed schemes to be drawn up and implemented in due course. The association of the Central Government in the implementation of the six-point formula will make available to the State Government the necessary expertise and national guidance. As soon as a popular Government is restored in Andhra Pradesh the stage would be set for the State and the Centre to take upon themselves without any delay the implementation of the formula. (emphases ours)
It is interesting to note that even after the two powerful Separate Telangana and Jai Andhra movements, the overwhelming opinion in the State as reflected by the above formula accepted by the political leaders of the State belonging to almost all parties/sections shows the urge of the Telugu people to stay united and march towards development. Also it is curious to note that either in the above six-point formula or in the Articles 371D and 371E inserted by the Constitution 32nd amendment in pursuance of that formula or in the Presidential Order 1975 made under Art. 371D, no mention whatsoever was made of the regions of Andhra, Telangana or Rayalaseema but only neutral wording such as zones, local areas or parts of the State was used [see (2009) 2 LAW ISC-143 at 144-146]. From 1975 to 2000, that is for about 25 years, with all its defects the local area candidacy system and the orientation and arrangement for development of backward areas worked and no overt slogans or movement for separate Telangana or Jai Andhra were heard or witnessed anywhere in the State. Especially the emergence of Telugu Desam Party under N.T. Rama Rao, the matinee idol of the Telugu masses, had as though wiped out all regional differences in the State and the word and culture of Telugu was popularized as never before under the rule of NTR. It seemed as if the long cherished unity of the Telugu 'nation' was in the offing thanks to the NTR phenomenon. But not much was done in reality to buttress this image and usher in real flowering of the Telugu language, culture and unity - especially Telugus continued to lag behind in socio-economic development despite the bombastic phraseology of the matinee idol. This inevitably brought down his fall - first to his traditional rivals - the Congress Party and the second time to his own wily son-in-law who proved a better master of the situation than the vainglorious father-in-law. With his fall and later demise, the psychological rapport created under his celluloid spell also ended and the harsh ground realities of stark non-development, neglect and betrayal began to assert in the regional and political contexts. And so, for the first time in the Telugu Desam Party rule, it is only under the Chandra Babu regime that we find a resurrection of the regional discontent and separatist demand.
But this time it is not a voice of the backward and the cheated. It is more the voice of the prosperous and the articulate. It is more the demand for a share in power first and then for power exclusively by a new coterie of self-centred elite of Telangana basking in the sunshine of the considerable development of the region over the 2 to 3 decades since the earlier agitation. However, to hide that reality this new class is inventing and singing the songs of backwardness and betrayal to hoodwink the masses who otherwise may not join their bandwagon. It is not as if the entire saga is a mere figment of imagination - we cannot say that there has not been or there is not any backwardness at all in the region, that there has not been or there is no cheating at all of the people of the region, etc. But it is a case of clear exaggeration of the actuality, a blowing-out-of-proportion, of making mountain of a molehill, of the alleged exploitation, oppression, humiliation and suppression of the Telangana region, its people and its leaders. On the contrary the real facts of the situation are that over the decades, especially keeping in view the very low base, the very backward state under the Nizam Rule with which Telangana had started and with which alone any real comparison of development indices can be made, Telangana has progressed more rapidly than other regions of the State. This has created a very powerful and articulate middle class, which is now espousing the cause of separation in which alone it sees its salvation if it were to ascend to the portals of exclusive power. In a sense this is a problem of affluence and not of poverty - of course relative affluence of a powerful middle class.
Exploitation or Development - Comparative Statistics:
I have carefully gone through the different contentions put forth by the separatist votaries and the abundant statistics reeled out by them to buttress such contentions, and have tried to arrive at the true picture by rearranging and real-analyzing, as far as possible, their own statistics. These vested interests do always try to present such statistics in a distorted manner and invariably lack a dialectical and historical perspective. I have only taken a few development indicators, mainly education as an important indicator, and most of the statistics presented here are culled from the books written by votaries of separate Telangana. But I tried to present them in a historically comparative context, re-arranging them suitably in the quest to reveal the real truth behind the scene. The tables given hereunder speak for themselves but I would supplement here and there with some interpretation where necessary for better clarification:
Table A: POPULATION (2001 Census):
7,60,77,842 (100%)
3,06,96,566 (40.35%)
3,19,21,302 (41.96%)
1,34,59,974 (17.69%)
At one time, at least till 1981, the population of Telangana was only about 35% of the total State population and it was an accepted norm that Andhra (including Rayalaseema) to Telangana proportion should be taken as 2:1 for almost all purposes. But the population of Telangana increased very fast during the last two decades or so and though the votaries of Separate Telangana tend to attribute this to the migrations from outside (mainly Andhra) the real picture does not bear out the same. But here I do not consider it necessary to deal with this aspect in any further detail.
Table B: PUBLIC LIBRARIES (1999 figures):
TOTAL 1595 2081 789
Source: Director of Public Libraries, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
The above figures clearly show that Telangana is proportionately having more than 1/3rd of the total libraries in Andhra Pradesh and this should be no cause for worry. Of course, it can be argued that the total number of libraries itself is insufficient and more and better libraries are needed but that applies to all regions in A.P.
As for literacy rate, the below Tables C and D have to be taken together to gauge the enormous development made in Telangana since 1951 or 1961. Prof. Jayashankar has raised a hue and cry on the issue, concentrating on the Telangana literacy rate being less than the State average but he should have been honest enough to notice that Telangana started with a very low literacy, primarily due to the Nizam's tyranny which suppressed the native language and education of the masses, and comparatively it achieved greater progress. Taking table C one can see that there was 800% increase in literacy rate in Nalgonda since 1951, and more than 400% increase in case of Karimnagar and Adilabad districts since 1961 whereas the increase in Krishna and Kurnool districts of Andhra and Rayalaseema areas is not so spectacular since education was relatively better developed there even in 1951-61. Of course it could be argued 100% literacy rate was not achieved even after 50 years but that applies to the entire state.
Table C: COMPARATIVE LITERACY RATES (1951-1961-2001):
{as % of population}
Region 1951 1961 2001
Telangana Nalgonda
Nizamabad 6.39%
5.78% Karim-nagar
Adilabad 13.36%
13.07% Karim-nagar
Nalgonda 56.40%
Andhra - - - Krishna 35.69% Krishna 69.90%
Rayalaseema - - - Kurnool 24.34% Kurnool 54.40%
Source: C. Srinivas, Jai Andhra - Jai Telangana, Vijayawada, 2004, pp. 111-112.
Table D: COMPARATIVE LITERACY RATES (per 2001 Census):
{as % of population}
Male Female Total
TELANGANA 69.49 47.77 58.77
ANDHRA 71.38 55.69 63.58
RAYALASEEMA 72.68 48.04 60.53
ANDHRA PRADESH 70.85 51.17 61.11
Source: Prof. K. Jayashankar, Telangana Rashtram: Oka Demand, Godavarikhani, 2004, p.48, as per the figures of Census 2001 and Director of Economics & Statistics, A.P.
Table 1 :- Statistics about Education: Important Details
pertaining to the 3 regions:-
Central: 3 7 12
State: 2277 2852 87
Mandal: 15066 20440 11440
Municipal: - 1025 405
Aided (Private): 131 1652 209
Unaided (Private): 441 528 326
TOTAL: 17918 26504 12479

Central: 2 - 1
State: 291 73 4
Mandal: 2581 1967 1049
Municipal: - 163 55


Aided (Private): 179 275 71
Unaided (Private): 1966 488 655
TOTAL: 5019 2962 1835
Central: 17 17 9
State: 552 345 128
Mandal: 2628 2003 975
Municipal: - 178 62
Aided (Private): 381 373 111
Unaided (Private): 1644 448 406
TOTAL: 5222 3364 1691
Central: 25 22 5
Unaided (Private): 16 12 2
TOTAL: 41 34 7
… 1049 1019 381
[including Nellore]
Government 65 57 54
Private (Aided) 55 93 33
Private (Unaided) 287 236 118
TOTAL 407 386 205
Statistics above as taken (and re-arranged) from the book: Exploitation of Telangana - Separate State is the Only Solution by A. Lokender Reddy, Hyderabad, 2003.
ENGINEERING COLLEGES (2003-2004 figures):
University 4 2 2
Private 120 71 23
TOTAL 124 73 25
M.B.A. 99 48 14
M.C.A. 158 83 23
B. Pharmacy 15 8 4
Polytechnic 35 46 -
TOTAL 397 185 41+ x
(Government or University)
Medical 3 4 3
Dental 1 1 ---
Homeo 2 2 ---
UNIVERSITIES (2003-2004 figures):
Full-fledged 11 3 7
Table 1 (contd.):- Statistics about Education: Important Details pertaining to the 3 regions:-
Number of Graduates (1998-1999 figures):
[including Nellore]
B.Sc. (Males) 41, 803 46, 240 22, 101
B.Sc. (Females) 26,202 24, 190 12, 127
B.Com. (Males) 35, 131 33, 298 15, 315
B.Com. (Females) 26,074 20, 282 7, 555
TOTAL 1, 29, 210 1, 24, 010 57, 098
Number of Post-Graduates (1998-1999 figures):
[including Nellore]
M.Sc. (Males) 668 1150 Not available
M.Sc. (Females) 522 477 Not available
M.Com. (Males) 560 919 Not available
B.Com. (Females) 452 393 Not available
TOTAL 2, 202 2939 Not available
Source: NET - Commissionerate of Collegiate Education
Looking at the above longish table 1, it is crystal clear that not only Telangana is less developed in these education indicators, but surprisingly it is also more developed in many fields. Compare the number of primary schools or high schools or colleges or universities, everywhere Telangana is today No. 1 in the State. Well then one could still argue that the quality of education imparted is not so standard, the colleges etc. are set up by 'outsiders', etc. but with local area candidacy system, it is clear that it is generally the locals of Telangana that are studying in and benefiting by these institutions. Further there are no statistics to clearly demarcate how many of these institutions are set up by 'outsiders', etc. and anyway it is a general law of development that there would be and has been considerable impetus to development anywhere by 'migrations' and 'outsiders'.
Table 2 (a): Total Number of Educational Institutions:-
Region 1956-57 2001 % Growth
TELANGANA 7657 33, 593 438.72 %
ANDHRA 16, 255 34, 080 209.66 %
{excluding Chittoor} 4897 11, 396 232.71 %
TOTAL 28, 809 79, 069 274.46 %
Table 2 (b): Total Number of Students:-
Region 1956-57 2001 % Growth
TELANGANA 6, 61, 050 60, 39, 915 913.69 %
ANDHRA 16, 96, 766 50, 30, 886 296.50 %
{excluding Chittoor} 4, 34, 665 18, 42, 741 423.95 %
TOTAL 27, 92, 481 1, 29, 13, 542 462.44 %
The above two tables 2 (a) and 2 (b) fortify my statement about the enormous progress in education indicators in Telangana and one can see that whereas in terms of total number of educational institutions there has been a four fold increase, in terms of total number of students there has been a nine-fold increase in Telangana region in the four decades from 1956 (since the formation of the united Andhra Pradesh). In contrast, the development in this sphere in Andhra and Rayalaseema (as regards number of educational institutions) is not that spectacular and in terms of absolute figures in 2001 also Telangana has either a clear edge as compared to its population proportion or even an absolute upper-hand (in terms of total number of students) over (coastal) Andhra even.
Table 3: Public Health and Medicine:
(a) Doctors (Allopathic) :
Region 1961
(All) 2001
(Government only) Growth
TELANGANA 3053 (22.02%) 4104 (41.79%) Good
ANDHRA 8405 (60.61%) 3811 (38.81%) ---
RAYALASEEMA 2408 (17.37%) 1905 (19.40%) ---
TOTAL 13, 866 (100%) 9820 (100%) ---
3 (b) Government Hospitals :
Region 1955 2002 Growth
(entire Hyderabad State) 163 (43.82%) Very Good
ANDHRA 160 143 (38.44%) ---
RAYALASEEMA 66 (17.74%) ---
TOTAL --- 372 (100%) ---
3 (c) Government Medical Facilities (Allopathic) - 2002 :
Region Hospitals SPECIAL HOSPITALS PHCs Beds Dispensaries
TELANGANA 163 (43.82%) 19 519 (37.45%) 16, 750 (37.45%) 112
ANDHRA 143 (38.44%) 17 577 (41.63%) 13, 532 (41.63%) 155
(17.74%) 4 290
(20.92%) 6194
(20.92%) 52
(100%) 40 1386
(100%) 36, 476
(100%) 319
3 (d) Government Medical Facilities (Other Therapies) - 2002 :
Dispensaries Doctors Dispensaries Doctors Dispensaries Doctors
TELANGANA 226 (41.09%) 270 (43.62%) 121 (62.37%) 182 (75.21%) 93 (32.86%) 137 (31.14%)
ANDHRA 242 (44.00%) 270 (43.62%) 26 (13.40%) 22 (9.09%) 135 (47.70%) 208 (47.27%)
RAYALASEEMA 82 (14.91%) 79 (12.76%) 47 (24.23%) 38 (15.70%) 55 (19.44%) 95 (21.59%)
(100%) 619
(100%) 194
(100%) 242
(100%) 283
(100%) 440

The above Table 3 with its four separate categorizations (a), (b), (c) and (d) clearly shows how the Telangana region is in no way inferior to the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions in the field of public health and medicine and how it fast outstripped the progress of those regions as regards the number of allopathic doctors, hospitals, etc. Even in other therapies, Ayurvedic and Unani, Telangana has stood in the first rank whereas it has more than proportionate share of facilities as regards Homeopathy.
Table 4: Total Roads (length in kilometres) :
Region 1961 2001 % Growth
TELANGANA 7628.80 (28.58%) 64, 101 (40.76%) 840.25 %
ANDHRA 19,059.20 (71.42%) 57, 656 (36.6%) 488.79 %
RAYALASEEMA 35, 503 (22.57%)
TOTAL 26, 688 1, 57, 260 589.25 %
Table 5: Elecrification (villages/towns/cities) :
Region 1956 2001 Growth
TELANGANA 10 100% Phenomenal
ANDHRA 545 100% Good
TOTAL 555 100% Good
[Table 6 is given in the next page]
Table 7 (a) : INDUSTRIES:-
Region 1956-57 1982-83 Growth (%)
TELANGANA 2709 (33.13%) 17, 693 (43.86%) 653%
ANDHRA 4349 (53.19%) 17, 027 (42.21%) 391%
RAYALASEEMA 1119 (14.68%) 5616 (13.93%) 501%
TOTAL 8177 (100%) 40, 336 (100%) 493%
7 (b) Industries - Capital Outlay:- (in crores of Rupees)
Region 1956-57 1982-83 Growth (%)
TELANGANA 0.7742 (33.17%) 29.10 (58.47%) 3758 %
ANDHRA 1.2400 (53.13%) 16.51 (33.17%) 1331 %
RAYALASEEMA 0.3198 (14.70%) 4.16 (8.36%) 1300 %
TOTAL 2.3340 (100%) 49.77 (100%) 2132 %
Table 8: Working of Factories registered under
2m (i) & (ii) of Factories Act (1998-99):
Region Number of Factories Fixed Capital
[in lakhs of Rupees] Employees
TELANGANA 5266 (39.05%) 10, 45, 599 (40.33%) 5, 60, 616 (66.68%)
ANDHRA 6003 (44.52%) 11, 98, 065 (46.21%) 2, 20, 261 (26.20%)
RAYALASEEMA 2215 (16.43%) 3, 48, 893 (13.46%) 59, 823 (7.32%)
TOTAL 13, 484 (100%) 25, 92, 557 (100%) 8, 40, 700 (100%)
Table 9: Details regarding Commercial Banks (as on 31-03-2003):-
Region Rural Banks Urban Banks* Total Banks Average population per Bank
TELANGANA 971 (39.81%) 1185 (41.56%) 2156 (40.76%) 17, 500
ANDHRA 1045 (42.92%) 1245 (43.67%) 2290 (43.29%) 16, 000
RAYALASEEMA 423 (17.27%) 421 (14.77%) 844 (15.95%) 17, 000
TOTAL 2439 (100%) 2851 (100%) 5290 (100%) 17, 000 (appt.)
* Urban Banks include semi-urban, urban and metropolitan banks.
Table 6: Power Consumption Category-wise (1999-2000): {in million KWH}
Dom1 Agri2 Indus3 Indus4 Irri & others5 LT HT TOTAL
Telangana 2950
(44.51%) 7094
(66.76%) 726
(40.27%) 2797
(61.22%) 533
(30.61%) 10, 814
(56.98%) 3722
(54.78%) 14, 626
Andhra 2841
(42.86%) 1815
(17.08%) 652
(36.16%) 1367
(29.92%) 766
(44.00%) 5364
(28.27%) 2226
(32.76%) 7501
Rayalaseema 837
(12.63%) 1717
(16.16%) 225
(23.57%) 405
(8.86%) 442
(25.39%) 2799
(14.75%) 847
(12.46%) 3645
TOTAL 6628
(100%) 10, 626
(100%) 1803
(100%) 4569
(100%) 1741
(100%) 18, 977
(100%) 6, 795
(100%) 25, 772
1. Domestic includes non-domestic; 2. Agricultural includes Public lighting; 3. Industrial here includes cottage industries; 4. Industrial here includes categories I & II and 5. Irrigation and others includes Agriculture, Railway Traction, Electrical Cooperative Societies, Temporary and Colony lighting.
Source: A.P. Transco Ltd., as published in A. Lokendar Reddy, Ibid.
The above tables 4 and 5 are self-explanatory and show how enormously Telangana developed as compared to other regions in Andhra Pradesh. Of course it could always be complained that the length and quality of roads still leave much to be desired and the electrification has not brought in needed development due to low voltage, very less hours of supply in the rural areas, frequent power cuts, etc. but then that is a problem being faced everywhere - at least everywhere in Andhra Pradesh. Table 6 clearly shows as to how Telangana stands first in power consumption, be it low tension electricity for use in domestic, agricultural and cottage industries sectors or high tension electricity for use in medium and heavy industries, railway traction, etc.
Looking at the above tables 7 and 8 regarding the industries as also 9 and 10 regarding the commercial banks in Andhra Pradesh, it is quite clear that Telangana has made enormous progress in industrial as well as commercial development. It even surpasses the progress and development in Andhra region in several of the indicators given thereunder. Obviously Rayalaseema region seems to be the most backward in this regard.
Table 10 (a): Total Irrigated Area (in hectares):
Region 1956-57 1983-84 1996-97
TELANGANA 9,12,000 (27.17%) 10,16,000 (34.99%) 7,18,000 (21.69%)
(including Rayalaseema) 24,45,000 (72.83%) 29,04,000 (65.01%) 25,93,000 (78.31%)
TOTAL 33,57,000 (100%) 39,20,000
(100%) 33,11,000 (100%)
Source: A. Lokendar Reddy, Ibid., p. 154.
Table 10 (b): Total Irrigated Area (in hectares):
Region 1956-57 1997 2001
TELANGANA 9,13,883 (27.20%) 20,32,434 (38.41%) 22,41,591 (37.89%)
(including Rayalaseema) 24,45,567 (72.80%) 32,58,578 (61.59%) 36,74,556 (62.11%)
TOTAL 33,59,450 (100%) 52,91,012 (100%) 59,16,147 (100%)
Source: A. Lokendar Reddy, Ibid., pp. 156-157.
Tables 10 (a) and 10 (b) above, both taken (and of course rearranged) from Lokendar Reddy's book seem to be conflicting. Whereas on the basis of the first table [10 (a)], Lokendar Reddy argues that while the total irrigated area in Andhra region increased by about 1.55 lakhs hectares in 96-97 as compared to 1956-57, that in the Telangana region has decreased by 1.94 lakhs hectares (22%) in the same period, the tables given by him in pp. 156-157 of the same book present a different picture. Table 10 (b) as culled from those tables shows that there has been a continuous increase in the total irrigated area in Telangana too. But as Prof. Jayashankar also argues that the total irrigated area, as also the total cultivated area in Telangana decreased considerably in 2002 as compared to 1956, this point needs a closer scrutiny. If it is found correct, it is to be very much regretted and condemned, and of course speedily remedied. But somehow it seems quite improbable that whereas almost everywhere in the country the irrigated area has in general increased, and food crops production as also other agricultural production has consistently gone up in all these decades, it should decrease in Telangana area alone. And as for sources of water for irrigation, we know that rivers are a major source and two major rivers - Krishna and Godavari - flow through Andhra Pradesh and finally into the Bay of Bengal forming the vast and fertile delta areas of Krishna-Godavari Basin in coastal Andhra. The votaries of Separate Telangana complain that while the catchment area of the Krishna River is the maximum in Telangana, the allocation of waters for irrigation is not accordingly done, as shown by the following table:
Table 11: Krishna Waters – Catchment area,
water claims and allocations in the 3 regions:
Category Telangana Andhra Rayalaseema
Catchment area proportion 68.5% 13.1% 18.4%
Water claim as per catchment area 553.88 TMC 104.65
TMC 147.47
Water allocations as done at present 277.86 TMC 388.44
TMC 133.7
So, it is contended that the coastal Andhra region is utilizing about 280-290 TMC of Krishna waters more than its due proportion and that is great injustice to Telangana as also Rayalaseema regions. Likewise the present allocations from Godavari waters are also said to be heavily in favour of the Andhra region. I am not sure whether justice requires that allocations of water should be exactly in proportion to the catchment area or should also take into other factors like availability and customary use of arable land, the variety of crops grown in different regions etc., but insofar as the actual allocations point out to much discrepancy, I think after a careful study and analysis of the various factors involved, the imbalance needs to be corrected at the earliest and justice be done to both Telangana and Rayalaseema regions without further delay.
Table 12 (a) : Agricultural crops' yields in 1956-61 (in pounds per acre):
Crop TELANGANA ANDHRA including Rayalaseema State Average
Paddy 711 (Karimnagar) 1392 (Guntur) 1085
Wheat 131 (Hyderabad)
76 (Nalgonda) 533 (W. Godavari)
541 (Kadapa) 219
Millets 303 (Nalgonda)
305 (Mahaboobnagar) 784 (Srikakulam)
755 (Chittoor) 458
Pulses 70 (Karimnagar) 272 (Krishna) 184
Table 12 (b) : Agricultural crops' yields in 1995-96 (in kilos per acre):
Crop Telangana Andhra Rayalaseema State Average
Paddy 2249 2663 2463 2498
Wheat 752 --- 794 732
Jowar 685 747 893 731
Maize 2594 2866 2585 2630
Castor 270 257 257 269
Sugarcane 7031 7110 8441 7303
Cotton 206 351 282 259
Tobacco 2197 915 --- 1027
Ulavalu 360 354 301 351
Pesalu 411 408 497 411
Table 12 (c): Area-wise cultivation of certain Cereals (2000-2001):
(area in hectares)
Region Rice Jowar Bajra Maize
Telangana 15, 47, 985
(36.49%) 5, 32, 239
(78.63%) 45, 381
(31.58%) 4, 49, 286
Andhra 23, 82, 584
(56.16%) 15, 567
(2.30%) 62, 464
(43.47%) 71, 129
Rayalaseema 3, 12, 157
(7.35%) 1, 29, 162
(19.07%) 35, 859
(24.95%) 7252
TOTAL 42, 42, 726 (100%) 6, 76, 928
(100%) 1, 43, 704
(100%) 5, 27, 667
The above tables 12 (a) and 12 (b) clearly show that per acre yields of agricultural crops in Telangana have very much improved over the last four decades as compared to the lower level of such yields at the time of the formation of Andhra Pradesh. Telangana has even overtaken Andhra in per acre yields of certain crops. Table 12 (c) shows the area-wise cultivation of certain cereals in 2000-2001, where again Telangana is in a comfortable position as compared to the other two regions of the State.
I am supplementing the above statistics with some more supplied by an eminent educationist which fortify my contentions. The relevant tables and graphs are given in the next three pages and are self-explanatory.
Backwardness and Sustainable Development:
In the background of all these statistical details, it would be highly unjust for Telangana people themselves to project a picture of stark backwardness of the region. The real truth is that Telangana is developing fast and sufficiently fast in many spheres. Of course, there has been injustices done to Telangana and backwardness still prominent in some fields, but that does not warrant a total pessimistic approach. That way there are many backward regions in Andhra and Rayalaseema also, which are more backward than any backward regions of Telangana. For example, Anantapur District in Rayalaseema is suffering from serious drought for decades and its development is so low and insufficient that the problem has aggravated over the years and certain areas are becoming virtual deserts. Likewise Srikakulam District in Andhra is one of the most backward districts in the entire state. Well, with forests fast depleting in Telangana and the ground water falling to lower and lower levels, we should note that the danger of desertification is there in this region also and so does the increasing salinity of soil in certain delta areas in Andhra due to the present intense cultivation with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc. posing such danger therein also. Hence we should view the problems in realistic perspective and try to cope with those dispassionately, scientifically and for the benefit of all Telugus without falling prey to narrow parochial considerations.
Also when I am talking of development, one should not misunderstand that I am supporting this LPG economy oriented, oligarchic policy of development at the cost of the masses and environment. But what I am bringing to light is that within the present whatever development scenario in the country, the development criteria as adopted at present which hold good uniformly to all regions have to be taken into consideration. And on doing so the development indicators for Telangana are not in anyway inferior to those of Andhra and Rayalaseema regions and so in the current paradigm, in several fields Telangana cannot be adjudged backward at all. As for the real development desirable for the people in general, I am a strong advocate of sustainable development, which protects and promotes environment, human concerns and socio-economic justice - for a development oriented towards 'socialism with human face'. But then it is a problem affecting, and an ideal to be fought for, the entire country.
Table No. 13: Schools in different regions of A.P.:
S. No. District No. of Primary Schools No. of U.P. Schools No. of High Schools Total No. of Schools
1955-56 2006-07 % Growth 1955-56 2006-07 % Growth 1955-56 2006-07 % Growth 1955-56 2006-07 % Growth
1. Srikakulam 2268 2572 13.40 2 927 46250.00 43 452 951.16 2313 3951 70.82
2. Vizianagaram … 2370 ... … 521 … … 372 … … 3263 …
3. Visakhapatnam 1679 3170 88.80 5 717 14240.00 34 571 1579.41 1718 4458 159.49
4. East Godavari 2341 3232 38.06 12 905 7441.67 65 814 1152.31 2418 4951 104.76
5. West Godavari 1810 2559 41.38 4 491 12175.00 62 540 770.97 1876 3500 91.36
6. Krishna 2034 2563 26.01 7 886 12557.14 95 596 527.37 2136 4045 89.37
7. Guntur 2939 2914 - 10.85 16 591 3593.75 130 568 336.92 3085 4073 32.03
8. Prakasham … 2962 … … 569 … … 511 … … 4042 …
9. Nellore 1924 2903 50.88 8 744 9200.00 50 505 910.00 1982 4152 109.49
10. Chittoor 1723 4389 154.73 7 1007 14285.71 34 826 2329.41 1764 6222 252.72
11. Kadapa 1501 3185 112.19 2 659 32850.00 28 675 2310.71 1531 4519 195.17
12. Anantapur 1222 3052 149.75 5 997 19840.00 34 614 1705.88 1261 4663 269.79
13. Kurnool 1634 2000 22.40 3 992 32966.67 43 572 1230.23 1680 3564 112.14
Andhra and Rayalaseema region 21075 37871 79.70 71 10006 13992.96 618 7616 1132.36 21764 55493 154.98
14. Mahabubnagar 1166 2852 144.60 20 1005 4925.00 5 765 15200.00 1191 4622 288.08
15. Ranga Reddy … 2469 … … 877 … … 1198 … … 4544 …
16. Hyderabad 1010 1431 41.68 59 466 689.83 66 1088 1548.48 1135 2985 163.00
17. Medak 856 2066 141.36 10 740 7300.00 3 634 21033.33 869 3440 295.86
18. Nizamabad 610 1677 174.92 10 653 6430.00 3 620 20566.67 623 2950 373.52
19. Adilabad 752 3134 316.76 10 828 8180.00 3 650 21566.67 765 4612 502.88
20. Karimnagar 957 2570 168.55 16 1022 6287.50 4 1111 27675.00 977 4703 381.37
21. Warangal 910 2836 211.65 19 837 4305.26 10 1014 10040.00 939 4687 399.15
22. Khammam 524 2457 368.89 7 778 11014.29 3 578 19166.67 534 3813 614.04
23. Nalgonda 893 2709 213.44 8 611 7537.50 4 921 22925.00 905 4331 378.56
Telangana Region 7678 24291 216.37 159 7817 4816.35 101 8579 8394.06 7938 40687 412.56
Andhra Pradesh Total 28753 62162 116.19 230 17823 7649.13 719 16195 2152.43 29702 96180 223.82

Source: Statistical Abstract 1956 and Directorate of School Education (Courtesy: JVR)
(to be continued)

NOTE: We regret to state that the tables here have not come out in the original format and we regret the inconvenience to the readers - IMS.

Editorial, HOPE FOR THE BEST, 31 December 2009 issue of LAW ANIMATED WORLD.

The editorial is already posted below:

BUT PREPARE FOR THE WORST – oh what a profound wisdom of ages is embodied in this pithy proverb, which has always been the motto, the forte, of this editor too. First of all, let us hope for the best to our planet in crisis, the biodiversity and congenial climate of which we humans have so deliberately destroyed by our greed and cruelty and also given rise to the ominous phenomenon of global warming. Secondly, we hope all the best for our world community and the United Nations which have in the recent decades become hostages in the hands of the rapacious super power and other avaricious capitalist states who in the name of peace and welfare are unleashing predatory and genocidal wars on the pretext of fighting ‘terror’. Thirdly, our best hopes for the welfare of our own country where the overwhelming majority of people is still living under a meager less than $2 a day income despite, or even aggravated by, the fast development that is taking place according to the liberalization-privatization-globalization syndrome – all that under the euphemism of a socialist republic. Also hope for success in a concerted effort by ‘we the people’, cutting across all classes and communities, to end terrorism of all sorts, including the State terror, and for the flowering of real secular and fraternal feelings among the people cementing our unity as also promoting friendship and cooperation with all countries in the world, particularly with all our neighbours. Finally, our best wishes and hopes for the Telugu people in general, and of our State of Andhra Pradesh in particular, riven by parochial passions and separatist agitations which unfortunately assume popular dimensions now due to many misunderstandings and ignorance exacerbated by ‘Thackerayist’ violence, that somehow they will be able to keep up their unity, forget and forgive the past atrocities and misdeeds by sundry sections of various regions, and march forward united to attain new heights of peace and progress in the comity of States in India. But, as already said, let us also be prepared for the worst. 

Friday, December 18, 2009

Article: FOR A UNITED STATE OF ANDHRA-TELANGANA-SEEMA (Part-1) by I. Mallikarjuna Sharma in LAW ANIMATED WORLD, 15 December 2009 issue


- I. Mallikarjuna Sharma

[The Telangana Tangle has once again cropped up in all intensity though the parties mainly representing such separatist aspirations were defeated, and especially the Telangana Rashtra Samiti miserably routed, in the general elections (2009). In the more recent GHMC elections also separatist aspirations did not find a place but the machinations of the TRS president with his doing a ‘fast unto death’ for 11 days has once again precipitated the matters. The students of Telangana have begun to take a lead role and it has spread to several sections of the Telangana masses. Further, a sort of Thackerayism was, and is, also conspicuous in the ranks of the separatists who are too easily taking to violence and intimidation of dissenters. Succumbing to political pressures and for narrow considerations, the Union Government announced its willingness to concede Telangana State without ascertaining the opinions of the people of the entire State and declared starting of the process of formation of Separate Telangana. And this has given rise to an unprecedented, spontaneous popular upsurge in Andhra and Rayalaseema in support of Samaikya Andhra (United Andhra Pradesh) which is still continuing. The decision to separate Telangana could be quite harmful to the general welfare of the Telugu people, and even Indians as a whole, as this will give further spurt to fissiparous tendencies all over the country, and already in several parts of Andhra Pradesh, the Separate Andhra, Rayalaseema and Uttarandhra demands are on the card and there is also a strong demand that Hyderabad (GHMC area) be made a Union Territory. This will be like breaking into pieces a beautiful painting just because some stray spots in it seem ugly. It is strange and sad that when the world over divided nations did, or are trying to, unite (two Germanys, two Vietnams, two Koreas, etc.), our united Telugu nationality should get thus broken up. As such the author strongly advocates the unity of Telugu people and pleads for the continuance of the present unity with a change of name of the State and radical corrections to the historical mistakes that gave rise to regional tensions and animosities and for measures to promote regional autonomy and self-governance. This article, written in 2004, has been suitably updated and it is hoped our readers would give serious thought to the points raised in it.]
Though not in the subcontinent as a whole but at least in what remains its major part, i.e. Indian Union as of now, the Telugu people can claim to be the second largest linguistic community after the Hindi speaking people. That not only because they are now united in one large state of Andhra Pradesh but also because their diaspora in the neighbouring states is quite considerable in numbers, which amounts to not less than 10% of the total Telugu speaking population in the country. All of us know that the present State of Andhra Pradesh consists of 3 distinct regions - (Coastal) Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telangana and the unity of the people of the three regions was achieved after much effort, persuasion, agitation, convulsions and disturbances in 1956 but within 15-20 years again faced great dangers in the form of Separate Telangana and Jai Andhra movements. Even after those dangers were somehow averted and a six-point formula was evolved to moderate and gradually eliminate the differences and animosities, the ship of unity has not been sailing smoothly and we know recently it has again struck the rock of another Separate Telangana movement. In such circumstances, while there is a powerful section of unity mongers who want to preserve the unity of the Telugu people and the existence of United Andhra Pradesh at any cost {e.g. the entire CPI (Marxist) and considerable sections in CPI and some other parties}, there is also another powerful section of skeptics, not only in Telangana, who view with a suspicious eye any over-enthusiasm for unity. They promptly point out that in the thousands of years history, all Telugus were never united for any considerable period of time, and state that perhaps any such unity of the Telugu people could be traced to utmost 250 years cumulatively of all the various such 'united' periods over the span of history. In the background of these conflicting opinions it would be instructive here to go through a brief summary of the probable course of history, which our Andhra or Telugu race/linguistic group has taken.
Telugus in History:
The history of the Telugu speaking people is said to date back to the times before Christ but the actual emergence and development of the language as a viable lingua franca in the south eastern part of South India seems to have taken place only in times after Christ and the written literature in the language to have developed only since 7th century A.D. or so. The famous Satavahanas were referred to as Andhras, or to be more precise Andhrabhrityas (servants of Andhras or could it be ‘Andhra servants’), but the language they conversed or transacted was Prakrit and it seems the Telugu language has not sufficiently developed to any extent by that time; if at all present, it could have been confined to the domestic arena of kings and the people. The term Andhras then should be considered as denoting a race/tribe name and there is a tradition that Andhras were one of some tribes, which originally hailed from Central Asia near the banks of River Oxus. They must have migrated, as so many tribes did in those times, to the Indian Subcontinent, perhaps earlier than the Aryans did and must have been driven to the South by the later Aryan invasions. All these are but rational conjectures, rebuttable presumptions in the legal language, formed out of the existing scanty evidence of some ancient records, inscriptions and vague and wild histories written by ill-equipped, and generally sycophant, historians of the olden days. There are scanty references to Andhras in Vayu Purana, Mahabharata and Bhagavatha but interestingly no mention of this tribe occurs in the Ramayana proper. Andhras are mentioned as one of the 56 States dating back to pre-historic (means pre-written history) times - the famous anga vanga kalinga, etc. chappanna (56) rajyams. Megasthanese wrote that 30 fortified Andhra Towns were there in his days and Pliny later made those into 30 Andhra States in the South. Be that as it may, it gives us some hope and pride that - if at all our ancestry could be related to those Andhra towns/states and the later Satavahanas - we Andhras or Telugus also possess some thousand years old legacy. If we notice that the first capital of a Satavahana Ruler was in Telangana [their later more famous capital Paithan is in Maharashtra] and it was only in the later days that they spread to the coastal region, it should give some pride to the Telangana people now who can claim to be the real or original 'Andhras' in contrast to the coastal Andhra people who are now better known as 'Andhras'.
Well, since Satavahanas cannot be correctly identified as a Telugu speaking tribe and, moreover, because of the doubtful meaning of their appellation Andhrabhrityas, we cannot be too sure about this ancestry. However, the rare occurrence of certain Telugu words in the essentially Pali (or Prakrit) inscriptions of Satavahanas could be taken as an indication regarding the formative stage of the Telugu language in those days though its real budding in inscriptions etc. only dates from the times after Satavahanas. It is declared in an inscription of the 11th Century during the rule of Velanati Rulers in the region that the land bounded by the Eastern Sea, Kalahasti, Srisailam and Mahendrachala is Andhradesa, which extent roughly corresponds to that of the present day Andhra Pradesh. But in reality this region was divided into 3-4 kingdoms all the times except for intermittent short periods in which there was a political unity under a single dynasty. At the time of Nannaya, the adikavi of Telugu literature, the Vengi Chalukyas ruled over the east coastal region while the rest of Andhra Desa was in the hands of various other dynasties. It was under the rule of Kakatiyas (1000-1325 AD), who themselves were non-Andhras naturalized in Telangana region, that the entire Andhra Desa or region of the Telugu speaking people was brought under a political unity for a considerable period of time. So we find Manumasiddhi of Nellore, the patron of Tikkana, the famous Somayaji of the poet trio who rendered Mahabharatam into Telugu, serving as a vassal under Ganapati Deva but after a period being defeated and killed in battle by the southern Pandyas. Ganapati Deva took revenge for this defeat by pooling up forces and sending generals on what turned out to be a victorious march onto the southern territories, which led to the occupation of Kanchi. After the Kakatiya Empire was destroyed by the Muslim invasions, the Golconda Muslim Nawabs held sway over Telangana and considerable portion of coastal Andhra too. There is general acceptance in historical circles that Harihara and Bukka of Kuruba caste who were officers in the Kakatiya kingdom fled to Anegondi after the fall of Warangal to Muslims and later with the guidance and instruction from Vidyaranya founded the famous Vijayanagara near Hampi. Vijayanagara Empire also held large tracts of Andhra territory in its sway and it is well known that the Vijayanagara Emperors patronised and promoted Telugu language in glorious terms and it was Krishnadeva Raya, a Vijayanagar Emperor, that coined the famous stanza, Deshabhashalandu Telugu lessa (Telugu is the best among the native languages). But even under the Vijayanagar Empire the entire Telugus were not united and the Golconda kings continued to rule over most of Telangana and considerable parts of the coastal region. After the fall of the Vijyanagar Empire the political disunity of Andhra Desa continued, with the region breaking up into more number of small or big states. But it was the legacy of the Vijayanagara Empire that a diaspora of the Telugus spread up to the southernmost parts of the peninsula and the Tanjavur Nayaks greatly patronized Telugu language and literature.
The Nizams and their oppression:
The picture radically changed with the advent of the Nizamshahi dynasty to power in Hyderabad. At first when the first Nizam, Chin Qilich Khan (Mir Qamaruddin Khan), gained sovereignty (or suzerainty may be a better term) over Deccan in 1724 as the Subadar of the fast deteriorating Moghul Empire and as such was left almost fully autonomous to rule the region,
he exercised sway over 6 subas - Hyderabad, Bijapur, Aurangabad, Bidar, Berar and Khandesh - covering almost the entire Deccan except
the southernmost Malayali part and the westernmost Konkan. The Hyderabad Suba was
the most expansive and important of all the six and covered the entire Telugu country and
also its diaspora in Tamil Nadu. But unlike their predecessor Golconda Nawabs, who patronized Telugu language and literature as also relied on and promoted Telugu Jagirdars and bureaucrats, the Nizamshahis were, from the beginning, discriminatory and oppressive towards their subject populations of which Telugus were clearly in a majority. However, the Nizams themselves were under great trouble from Marathas and would have surely lost their kingdom to the more powerful and enterprising fighters-depredators from Maharashtra if first the French and later the English did not come to their rescue. As a necessary price for this alliance with the French and the English, the Nizams had leased out the Circars, that is roughly the present coastal Andhra region, first to the French and later to the English (in 1766). The British subsequently established their complete sway over Circars and absorbed the region into their Madras Presidency. In the wars against the rebellious and independence-loving Tipu Sultan of Mysore, the Nizam sided with the British and as a price of the alliance got, inter alia, the Rayalaseema region as his part of the spoils of war. Later in 1802 he ceded these Districts of Bellary (including the present Anantapur District), Kurnool and Cuddapah also to the British and ever since those came to be known as Ceded Districts under the Madras Presidency. During all this period, needless to say, the Nizams never lifted a finger for the development or welfare of the Telugu people and it was only under the British Rule that any relief or development of the region could become possible. The Circars and the Ceded Districts moved forward relatively fast and the Telugu language and literature received recognition and fillip under the British Rule compared to the fate of the Telugu people in Nizam's dominion who languished in all-rounded misery. Of course, the Andhras of the Circar Districts and Ceded Districts had their own grouse against the British Government too in that they were relatively backward in the United Madras Province as compared to Tamilians, who though numerically less than Andhras, were in a better developed condition and even as compared to Malayalees. This discontent and disenchantment had gradually given rise to a movement for a separate Andhra Province. However, the condition of the Telugus in Hyderabad State was much worse. The Nizams systematically suppressed the vernacular (native languages), promoted the tiny minority of Muslims to top posts in every sphere, virtually plundered the properties, prestige and lives (dhana mana prana) of the subject people and imposed Urdu as the official language. The Nizamshahi Rule was a dark age in the history of the people of Hyderabad State, especially of the people of Telangana, who were put to untold sufferings due to backward but merciless feudalism exacerbated by stark religious and cultural oppression. It is universally accepted that the educational condition of a people is a sure pointer to its progress or backwardness. And if we compare the condition of the Telangana Andhras with that of the Andhra Andhras in the first decades of the twentieth century on this count, we see that whereas not more than 4 - 5% of the Telangana Andhras could be considered literate, that figure was about 10% in the case of Andhra Andhras, who considered themselves backward as compared to 15 to 20% literacy prevalent among the Tamilians and Malayalees in those days. Late Kodati Narayana Rao, one of the stalwarts of the Andhra Mahasabha movement in Telangana, had written in his memoirs that there was not a single High School in the entire Nalgonda district in his childhood and a College could only be seen at Hyderabad and nowhere else in Telangana, not even in Warangal. This compared quite unfavourably with Andhra where there were several High Schools in Krishna District itself and the students from his Munagala Paragana used to go to Jaggayyapeta nearby to study in the High School there. It was only towards the end of the Nizam Rule, a few years before the Police Action in 1948, that a High School was set up at Nalgonda. He contrasts that woeful state with the improved condition in 1987 by which time 75 High Schools were there in Nalgonda District and congratulates with awe the new generation students for their luck. {It is noteworthy that there were 546 High Schools and 113 Junior Colleges in Nalgonda District in 2001!} As on today i.e. 2004 we can say that in matters of education the Telangana Districts are not at all inferior to, and in some respects are even in a better position than, the Andhra Districts.
From the foregoing it is obvious that for short periods of history occasionally the entire Telugu people were enjoying political unity but for long periods in their history the Andhras (Telugus) were divided into various political states. However, it is to be noted that all along there was free inter-flow of not only ideas and literature but also people among these regions and the culture and traditions of the people tended to coalesce in all the parts of the Telugu land. Of course regional variations were bound to be and were there, but cultural unity was more of a norm than exception - to this day people from both regions celebrate the same festivals and take pride in common heroes from all regions. So we can say that there is unity in diversity among the Telugu people which is much more so than in the case of entire India. We know that India was almost never united politically except for even shorter periods of history than in case of the Telugu people, and never in our history was there any common language binding the different peoples inhabiting our country. But would that be a cause for negating the now forged Indian unity and calling for the breaking up of the country to the previous disunity - to chappanna rajyams? Language is a powerful binding factor and as such the case of unity of Telugu people is all the more strongly. Another important and even strange fact to be noticed from history is that it is not the people or rulers from the present Andhra regions who invaded Telangana to establish any kind of political unity but it is the other way round. Be it the Satavahanas (if at all they can be called Andhras), or the later Kakatiyas or Golconda Nawabs or the Nizamshahis - all were rulers from Telangana region who made inroads into the Andhra areas. It is only with the modern development of capitalism and the accident of Andhra regions getting relatively more developed under the British capitalist-imperialist rule that now there is even a cause for complaint that the Andhra people have made or are making serious inroads into Telangana to the detriment of the people therein.
Nationalism & movement for linguistic provinces:
And then it is obvious that it is only under the modern capitalist era that nation states developed anywhere in the world and the concept of nationalism itself is a relatively modern phenomenon in world history. Take European history and we will see how long a period in the phase of modern capitalist development was necessitated for transforming Gaul into France and for unification of Italy, Germany, etc. and in all cases the binding factor of language was the or one of the strongest causes. In pre-capitalist feudal times there was hardly any room or necessity for the budding and flowering of such linguistic nationalities. So did it happen in India also; it was only the introduction of the modern capitalist phase by means of British imperialist oppression and expansion that could even forge political unity for India, which we are now enjoying as an inviolable boon. Then with the development of national movement the urge and agitation for separate linguistic states have also developed, which indeed was a pointer to the fact of the more compact and contiguously coherent linguistic communities being the basic nationalities of the country. The reality is that the political unity of India was based on the cultural and nationalistic diversity and the actual and more rational development of the nationalities was through the process of amalgamation of linguistic communities and their emergence as politically unified states. Naturally with the increase of political consciousness among the people in the wake of the ever strengthening national movement, the demand and agitation for re-drawing the political map of India on linguistic lines also began to be espoused and grew stronger and stronger day by day. As far as Andhras were concerned, the first Andhra Mahasabha at Bapatla that had taken place in 1913 had projected the desire of the Andhra people for a separate province. It did take into account the division of the Telugu people among various political formations and desired that the Telugus from Andhra and Telangana regions should unite though such desire was not spelt out as a demand or as a resolution. And year by year the movement for a separate Andhra province began to grow and most of the proponents and participants of the movement were also staunch supporters and participants in the national movement and many of its leaders were in leading positions in the Indian National Congress also. So it gradually happened that the Indian National Congress simultaneously with its agitation to rid the country of the foreign rulers put its stamp of approval to the formation of linguistic provinces also and showed the way for such development by constituting its provincial committees on the basis of linguistic criteria. Thus a separate Andhra Provincial Committee and Tamil Nadu Provincial Committee of the Congress were constituted as far back as in the 1920's when the movement for separate Andhra Province was just in the beginning stages and so did the provincial committees for Assamese, Gujaratis etc. were also constituted though all these people were then living together with other linguistic groups in united presidencies.
Movement for Andhra Province and
Telangana Armed Struggle:
As the movement for separate Andhra Province began to pick up momentum in the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions, so did the anti-feudal and anti-Muslim (monopoly rule) agitation in the Telangana region began to pick up momentum from 1920's onwards and there is no doubt that the socio-cultural and psychological impact of the Andhra movement was very much there on the Telanganites. Especially the beginning of Andhra Mahasabha in Telangana in 1930 was clearly inspired by the Andhra Mahasabhas in the Andhra region, to certain sessions of which some 'Andhra' leaders from Telangana too occasionally attended. Also it is noteworthy that the entire leadership as well as cadres of the Andhra Mahasabha in Telangana always took pride in the appellation of Andhra being attached to their organization and when an overture was made by the Nizam Government that it would extend all support and benefits to the organization if only the appellation be changed from Andhra to Telugu or so, such offer was scornfully rejected by them. The Andhra Mahasabha, which first began as an effort to mobilize the Telugus of Hyderabad State for securing their linguistic and educational rights, in the course of time began to espouse political causes - including the causes of the peasantry and labour groaning under the double exploitation of the Muslim monarchy and the Hindu Jagirdars and Zamindars, and became a powerful force of resistance to the feudal system in Hyderabad State. A movement for securing the legitimate rights of the peasantry, especially against forced labour (vetti) and compulsory procurement (levigalla) was first launched in 1944, which gradually picked up momentum and a militant anti-feudal struggle developed all over the rural areas of Telangana, especially in the Nalgonda and Warangal districts. By this time the leadership of Andhra Mahasabha fell into the hands of the communist party, which was carrying on an uncompromising anti-landlord agitation in the rural areas. Simultaneously in Andhra area, the movement for a separate province began to gain momentum.
Nizam's Ploys during World War II
and the Andhra movement:

During the II World War period, the Nizam had firmly and unswervingly sided with the British and was rendering valuable military support to them all through. Taking advantage of the critical situation of the British Rulers in those days the Nizam wanted to influence the British Indian Government to cede back to him the Berar
Districts which were taken from him by the British and also the Machilipatnam Port and some districts of Andhra. There were numerous Muslim religious chauvinists in Hyderabad State in those days who demanded that the entire circar districts and ceded districts should be given back to the Nizam, who was but a symbol of the rule of Islam in Hyderabad, and a greater Osmanistan be formed as an Islamic State in the hinterland of India. The Andhra leaders had vehemently opposed such moves by the Muslim imperialists of Hyderabad State, and so did the Hindu Mahasabhaites too. In a resolution passed by the All India Hindu Mahasabha under the presidentship of V.D. Savarkar in December 1940 it was declared: "This session of the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha records its emphatic disapproval of the strenuous and widespread agitation carried on for the purpose that Berar and the Northern Circars and Ceded Districts of the Madras Presidency be handed over to the Nizam in recognition of the latter's help in the War-effort and the studied silence of the British Government thereon. The Hindu Mahasabha demands of His Majesty's Government an emphatic assurance that the said territories will not be handed over to the Nizam or to any Prince or Power and wants that any such move will be fraught with serious and far-reaching consequences and will be resolutely opposed by the Hindu Mahasabha by all means within its power. The Hindu Mahasabha further considers Gandhiji's support to the transfer of Berar and other parts of the Madras Presidency to the Nizam and the suggestion, that the Nizam will be the Emperor of India as atrocious, and a gross betrayal of the Hindu Nation." In February 1942 Savarkar issued a statement sharply criticizing the proposed state of 'Osmanistan' and, inter alia, categorically stated: “… if any re-adjustment of territories in connection with the Nizam State is to be considered at all, equity and urgency require that those Hindu districts of Andhra which were cut off in the past from the homogeneous Andhra Province and are now groaning under Moslem oppression in the Hyderabad State should be liberated from the Nizam rule and reannexed to Andhra, so that the earnest and most justified desire of the Andhra people to form themselves into an integral and unitarian Andhra Province should be fulfilled.”
This was in the background of the case made out by the esteemed Professor Mamidipudi Venkatarangaiah, a naturalized Andhra Brahmin of Pudur Dravidian origin, for a Vishal Andhra (Greater Andhra) for the first time ever in the Andhra Week meetings held under the auspices of the Andhra University at Vizag in 1937. However, at that time Sri Mamidipudi Venkatarangaiah had advocated the formation of such Greater Andhra encompassing the Telangana and Mysore Andhra Districts also, even if it be totally under the Nizam Rule, saying that after all the movement for democracy was going to march ahead everywhere - even in the Native States, and the Nizam could be reduced to the status of a constitutional ruler in no time. By that time the II World War had not started and the demands for the restitution of Berar and Northern Circars and Ceded Districts was not made by anybody in the Hyderabad State, nor did the plans and demand for 'Osmanistan' arise. Here itself it should be stated that the map of Andhra Desa originally drawn by Jonnavithula Gurunadham and Unnava Lakshminarayana in 1912 included Telangana districts; and the latter had gone on record to state that he and some others always thought of a larger Andhra Province including the Telangana Districts. The Congress Constitution, both in 1920 and in 1929, provided for the Telangana Districts to be attached to the Andhra Provincial Committee of the Congress. From 1935-36 onwards the Andhra agitators in the Andhra region used to prominently display Andhra Maps of 24 districts, including the Telangana districts. It is quite another thing that in practical politics the leaders of the Andhra movement in the Andhra region concentrated on securing a separate Andhra Province limited to 12 districts to be detached from the united Madras Presidency. All these developments took place much before the communist party had taken a categorical stand in favour of Vishalandhra, as espoused by Sri P. Sundaraiah in his famous ‘Vishalandhralo Praja Rajyam’ (People's State in Greater Andhra).
Telangana People’s Struggle and Andhra State:
From 1946 onwards the glorious Telangana Peasant resistance movement raged with all intensity and soon overshadowed all other developments in the Hyderabad State. This movement was based on the earlier Andhra Mahasabha renaissance and the leaders of the movement set for themselves the establishment of Vishalandhra (Greater Andhra) as one of their main ideals. After the transfer of power that took place in August 1947 bestowing political independence to India and Pakistan, the movement for merger with the Indian Union was begun by the Hyderabad State Congress under Swami Ramanand Tirth and the same was firmly supported by the communist party. The Muslim religious chauvinists under Qasim Razvi and his Razakars let loose untold terror and atrocities on the people of Hyderabad State, especially in the Telangana region and the same was supported and encouraged by the Nizam Government. At that juncture, the communist party gave a call for a full-fledged armed struggle against the Nizam Rule. That gave rise to a concerted armed struggle by the communists which had almost overthrown the Nizam State Power in wide areas of Telangana where parallel government was run and lakhs of acres of land were freely distributed to the poor peasants and labourers. The Nizam Rule began tottering and it would have fallen anyway to the deadly blows of the people's armed struggle, when the Government of Indian Union intervened by means of a 'Police Action', which was intended more for suppressing the communists than to humble the Nizam. Anyway Hyderabad was speedily surrounded in September 1948 and the Nizam had no option but to surrender. He was continued as a titular head of Hyderabad for some more time though the Hyderabad State was merged into the Indian Union. The Indian Army then quickly took up the ruthless campaign of suppression of communist insurgency in Telangana and committed untold atrocities in that wake. Anyway the communists were also in disarray and ideological confusion and controversy about the future course of action to be taken by them and hence after futile continuance of the armed struggle for about 3 years, they finally decided to give it up and participate in the General Elections to be held all over India.
In the first General Elections held in 1952 the communists won a spectacular victory both in Telangana and Andhra regions. The communist party emerged as the biggest party with 41 assembly seats to its credit as compared to 40 seats of the Congress in the Andhra region whereas it was the second biggest party in the Hyderabad Assembly, mainly due to its sweeping victories in the Telangana region. Subsequent to the General Elections, a Congress Ministry under Burgula Ramakrishna Rao was installed in Hyderabad but a Ministry under Chakravartula Rajagopalachari (CR) came to power in the united Madras Province. Naturally CR, basically a Tamilian leader (but perhaps of Telugu origin), was not favourably disposed towards the formation of a separate Andhra Province and was definitely opposed to ceding Madras City or any part of it to the Andhras in case a separate Andhra province be conceded by the Union Government. The Nehru Government at the Centre also dilly dallied about the demand for a separate Andhra Province, always citing some technical or bureaucracy oriented problems to postpone any decision on that matter. Especially Nehru would insistently hint that Andhras first settle the problem of Madras City with the Tamilians before asking for a declaration about a separate Andhra Province, which anyway would be conceded to them. At this juncture, the votaries of Separate Andhra Province grew restive and it was decided to launch an agitation for achieving the ideal. As such Potti Sriramulu sat on a fast-unto-death to achieve the ideal of separate province for Andhras as also the inclusion of Madras City in the Andhra province. Now it is well known that he was prepared to compromise to the extent that if the Central Government were to publish a notification declaring the formation of a separate Andhra Province without any further details as to the component districts of such province, he would give up his fast, but that was not to be. Potti Sriramulu, a stubborn non-violent fighter, had in the end to give up his life and his martyrdom sparked off very violent protests all over Andhra and Rayalaseema regions. In the wake of such burning developments the Union Government had no option but to announce the formation of a separate Andhra Province which was duly inaugurated with Kurnool as the capital city (in pursuance of the 1937 Shri Bagh Agreement between the coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema 'elders') and with Prakasam as the first Chief Minister on 1 October 1953.
Movement for Vishalandhra:
By that time the Hyderabad State had been liberated and was existing as an independent entity in Indian political scenario. But the desires of the different linguistic groups in Hyderabad - Telugus, Maharashtrians and Kannadigas - for linguistic union with their respective linguistic fraternities in the rest of India were unfulfilled and manifesting intensely. So much so that the Hyderabad State Congress under Swami Ramanand Tirth passed a specific resolution in its Nizamabad Conference that Hyderabad State be trifurcated and the three regions - Marathwada, Hyderabadi Karnatak and Telangana - be respectively merged with Bombay, Mysore and Andhra States in the rest of India. Much earlier to that, as far back as in 1946, a delegation of Hyderabad State Congress under Swami Ramanand Tirth had gone to Madras and met Prakasam Pantulu, the then Prime Minister of Madras Province, and appealed to him to give a call for a greater Andhra including the Nizam Andhra (Telangana) also in it. Prakasam had arranged a dinner in Connemera Hotel for that delegation and inspiring speeches in favour of Greater Andhra were made by the different leaders of Andhra and Hyderabad on that occasion. Needless to repeat, Swami Ramanand Tirth was all through a staunch votary of united linguistic provinces. It is also known that immediately after the Police Action, on September 19, 1948, Swami Ramanand Tirth had presented a detailed note to the Central leaders listing demands like the abolition of the Jagirdari System, trifurcation of the Hyderabad State, etc. However, it is also true that a powerful section of the Hyderabad State Congress, especially some old guards like K.V. Ranga Reddy and his son-in-law and disciple, Marri Channa Reddy, were quite opposed to the formation of Vishalandhra and desired the formation of a separate Telangana State. Maulana Azad was also opposed to the formation of Vishalandhra because he thought that the identity of the Hyderabadi Muslims would be completely submerged in that eventuality. Nehru was as usual undecided but after having conceded the Andhra Province, it seemed only logical to him that some more Telugu districts should also be merged in it. The masses of the people,
I mean the peasantry and the working class - urban and rural - had no definite inclinations but they were mainly led by the powerful communist party, which was going all out for the formation of Vishalandhra. Sundaraiah, one of the most respected Andhra communist leaders who was also one of the top leaders of the Telangana Armed Struggle together with Chandra Rajeswar Rao and Devulapalli Venkateswara Rao, wrote his thesis on "People's State in Greater Andhra" and fervently advocated the merger of Telangana Districts with Andhra. Incidentally K.V. Ranga Reddy and M. Channa Reddy, who spearheaded the Separate Telangana Agitation in 1956, were die-hard feudal leaders and had been among the most bitter enemies of the people's armed struggle in Telangana. As such the masses of the people in Telangana in those days, except perhaps some petty bourgeois elements in the towns, did not in any way support the separatists. Many of them stayed neutral and remained aloof while yet many others actively supported the Vishalandhra movement under the inspiration and guidance of
the communist party as well as the Congress leaders who stood for unification. Burgula Ramakrishna Rao, the then Chief Minister of the Hyderabad State, did not at first pronounce himself openly in favour of Vishalandhra, which was taken by the separatists as a support to their cause. But they were mistaken. It was Burgula who later on argued fervently against the Fazl Ali Commission Report, courageously opposed Azad's invectives and, securing the support of G.B. Pant, prevailed upon Nehru to agree to the formation of united Andhra Pradesh.
Fazal Ali Commission favors Separate Telangana:
Here we should note that the Fazal Ali Commission for Reorganization of States in its report submitted to the Central Government in 1955 did not favour the formation of united Andhra Pradesh but suggested that the Telangana Districts be constituted into a separate Hyderabad State first. The Commission suggested that thereafter if in the next elections (to be held in 1961-62) at least two-thirds of the elected Hyderabad Assembly members opt for united State, then a united Andhra Pradesh could be formed on linguistic basis. Curiously, this Commission did not oppose the trifurcation of the Hyderabad State on linguistic basis and the merger of the Kannada and Marathi speaking areas of the erstwhile Hyderabad State - which were more backward as compared to Bombay and Mysore States than Telangana was in comparison to Andhra - with their respective linguistic communities in the former British India. Doubtless Fazal Ali Commission was influenced by Azad's views and desires and it is said that
C. Rajagopalachari, who was cross with Prakasam and other Congress leaders of the Madras Province for their espousal of the cause of a separate Andhra Province, also pulled the wires to oppose united Andhra Pradesh and influence the Fazal Ali Commission in that regard.
The relevant portions of the Report (1955)
of the States Reorganization Commission, constituted under the States Reorganization Act, consisting of Justice Fazal Ali, K.M. Panikker and H.N. Kunzru, and popularly known as Fazal Ali Commission are extracted hereunder:
369. The next question which we have to consider is the future of the Telugu speaking areas of the existing State of Hyderabad, with particular reference to the demand for creation of Vishalandhra.
370. It is unnecessary for us to trace the history of the Andhra agitation in any great detail, because the Andhra State is now in existence, having been established on 1st October, 1953. In point of fact, however the arrangements which were made in 1953 have not been regarded by the Andhras in the new State, especially in the Circars, as final and the case for the creation of Vishalandhra has remained substantially un-examined.
371. The advantages of a larger Andhra State including Telangana are that it will bring into existence a State of about 32 millions with a considerable hinterland, with large water and power resources, adequate mineral wealth and valuable raw materials. This will also solve the difficult and vexing problem of finding a permanent capital for Andhra, the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad are very well suited to be the capital of Vishalandhra.
372 Another advantage of the formation of Vishalandhra will be that the development of the Krishna and Godavari rivers will thereby be brought under unified control. The Krishna and the Godavari projects rank amongst the most ambitious in India. They have been formulated after prolonged period of inactivity, during which, for various technical and administrative, reasons only anicuts in the delta area have been built. Complete unification of either the Krishna or the Godavari valley is not, of course, possible. But if one independent political jurisdiction, namely, that of Telangana, can be eliminated, the formulation and implementation of plans in the eastern areas in these two great river basins will be greatly expedited. Since Telangana, as part of Vishalandhra, will benefit both directly and indirectly from this development, there is a great deal to be said for its amalgamation with the Andhra State.
373. The economic affiliation of Telangana with the existing Andhra State are also not unimportant. Telangana has in years of scarcity a sizable deficit in food supplies. The existing Andhra State, however, has normally a surplus which Telangana may be able to use. The existing State of Andhra has likewise no coal, but will be able to get its supplies from Singareni. Telangana will also be able to save a great deal of expenditure on general administration in case if it is not established as a separate unit.
374. The creation of Vishalandhra is an ideal to which numerous individuals and public bodies, both in Andhra and Telangana, have been passionately attached over a long period of times, and unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, this sentiment is entitled to consideration.
375. The case of Vishalandhra thus rests on arguments which are impressive. The considerations which have been argued in favour of a separate Telangana State are, however, not such as may be lightly brushed aside.
376. The existing Andhra State has faced a financial problem of some magnitude ever since it was crated and in comparison with Telangana the existing Andhra State has a low per capita revenue. Telangana, on ther other hand, is much less likely to be faced with financial embarrassment. The much higher incidence of land revenue in Telangana and an excise revenue of the order of Rs.5 crores per annum principally explain this difference. Whatever the explanation may be, some Telangana leaders seem to fear that the result of unification will be to exchange some settled sources of revenue, out of which development schemes may be financed, for financial uncertainty similar to that which Andhra is now faced. Telangana claims to be progressive and from an administrative point of view, unification it is contended is not likely to confer any benefits on this area.
377. When plans for future development are taken into account, Telangana fears that the claims of this area may not receive adequate consideration in Vishalandhra. The Nandikonda and Kushtapuram (Godavari) projects are, for example among the most important which Telangana or the country as a whole has undertaken. Irrigation in the coastal as of these two great rivers is however, also being planned, Telangana. Therefore, does not wish to lose its present independent rights in relation to the utilization of the waters of Krishna and Godavari.
378. One of the principal causes of opposition of Vishalandhra also seems to be the apprehension felt by the educationally backward people of Telangana that they may be swamped and exploited by the more advanced people of the coastal areas. In the Telangana districts outside the city of Hyderabad, education is woefully backward. The result is that a lower qualification than in Andhra is accepted for public services The real fear of the people of Telangana is that if they enjoy Andhra they will be unequally placed in relation to the people of Andhra and in this partnership the major partner will derive all the advantages immediately, while Telangana, itself may be converted into a colony by the enterprising coastal Andhra.
379. ‘The Telangana’, it has further been argued, can be stable and viable, unit considered by itself. The revenue receipts of this area on current account have been estimated at about
Rs. 17 crores, and although the financing of the Krishna and Godavari projects will impose a recurring burden on the new State by way of interest charges, the probable deficit, if any is unlikely to be large. In favorable conditions, the revenue budget may even be balanced or indicate a marginal surplus. This fairly optimistic forecast can be explained/justified by a variety of reasons.
380. One important reason is, of course, that the existing Hyderabad State and Telangana as part of Hyderabad have benefited considerably from the implementation from April 1952, of the Finance Commissions’ recommendations. The increase in central payments from out of the divisible pools of income-tax and Central excise which has been possible under the present arrangements and the reduction in police expenditure for which credit can be taken., as the situation in Telangana improves, more or less offset the loss on account of the abolition of internal customs duties, and if the scope which exists of raising the yield of certain State heads of revenue is fully explored, the financial position of Telangana need not cause anxiety.
381. The advantages of the formation of Vishalandhra are obvious. The desirability of bringing the Krishna and Godavari river basins under unified control, the trade affiliations between Telangana and Andhra and the suitability of Hyderabad as the capital for the entire region are in brief the arguments in favor of the bigger unit.
382. It seems to us, therefore, that there is much to be said for the formation of the larger State and the nothing should be done to impede the realisation of this goal. At the same time, we have to take note of the important fact that, while opinion in Andhra is overwhelmingly in favour of the larger unit, public opinion in Telangana has still to crystallize itself. Important leaders of public opinion in Andhra themselves seem to appreciate that the unification of Telangana with Andhra, though desirable, should be based on a voluntary and willing association of the people and that it is primarily for the people of Telangana to take a decision about their future.
383. We understand that the leaders of the existing Andhra State may be prepared to provide adequate safeguards to protect the interest of Telangana in the event of its integration in Vishalandhra. These safeguards may take the form of a guarantee (presumably on the lines of Sri Baug Pact between Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra) of opportunities for employment for Telangana in the public services of the new State at least to the extent of one-third, that is to say, roughly in the proportion, and an assurance that particular attention will be paid to the development plans of this area.
384. We have carefully gone into the details of the arrangements which may be made on these lines. It seems to us, however, that neither guarantees on the lines of the Sri Baug Pact nor constitutional devices, such as "Scottish devolution" in the United Kingdom, will provide workable or meet the requirements of Telangana during the period of transition. Anything short of supervision by the Central Government over the measures intended to meet the special needs of Telangana will be found ineffective, and we are not disposed to suggest any such arrangement in regard to Telangana.
385 A further point to be borne in mind is that the State of Andhra was brought into existence only recently and has still not got over the stress of transition. It has for example, still to formulate a policy on land reforms and the problems arising from the partition from the composite State of Madras have, by no means, been tackled fully yet. Integration of Telangana with Andhra at this stage is, therefore, likely to create administrative difficulties both for Andhra and Telangana.
386. After taking all these factors into consideration we have come to the conclusions that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telangana area is to constitute into a separate State, which may be known as the Hyderabad State with provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961 if by a two thirds majority the legislature of the residency Hyderabad State expresses itself in favor of such unification.
387. The advantage of this arrangement will be that while the objective of the unification of the Andhras will neither be blurred nor impeded during a period of five or six years, the two governments may have stabilized their administrative machinery and, if possible, also reviewed their land revenue systems etc., the object in view being the attainment of uniformity. The intervening period may incidentally provide an opportunity for allaying apprehensions and achieving the consensus of opinion necessary for a real union between the two States.
388 Andhra and Telangana have common interests and we hope these interests will tend to bring the people closer to each other. If, however, our hopes for the development of the environment and conditions congenial to the unification of the two areas do not materialise and if public sentiment in Telangana crystallises itself against the unification of the two states, Telangana will have to continue as a separate unit.
389. The State of Hyderabad (as we would prefer to all this unit), to be constituted for the time being, should consist of the following districts, namely, Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Warangal including Khammam, Karimnagar, Adilabad, Nizamabad, Hyderabad, Medak and Bidar and Munagaala enclave in Nalgonda district belonging to the Krishna district of the existing Andhra State.”
Governments & people reject Fazal Ali Report:
Anyway the firm support of Burgula, who was obviously influenced by Andhra Mahasabha old guards like Madapati Hanumantha Rao, and the intense movement for Vishal-andhra by the people mainly under the leadership of the communist party soon prevailed over the separatist forces and Nehru also firmly decided in favour of unity of Telugu people. Prior to that, on 25 November 1955, the Andhra Assembly had passed a unanimous resolution introduced by their Chief Minister Bezwada Gopala Reddy, urging the Telangana people to unite with them and, on their own, offering many safeguards and liberal treatment to the Telanganites. The same was repeated in another resolution, also likewise passed by all parties, of the Andhra Assembly on 1 February 1956. All this prodded the Separate Telangana leaders also to rethink their stand, and finally with the active intervention by Govind Vallabh Pant, a Gentlemen's Agreement was in principle arrived at by the Andhra and Telangana leaders on the basic issue of unification with safeguards to Telangana. Pursuant to this, on the suggestion of Burugula Ramakrishna Rao, Nehru announced the Central Government's decision to form a united state of Andhra Pradesh in a mammoth public meeting held at Nizamabad on 5 March 1956. It might or might not be fortuitous that such an eventful declaration was made at this place where the Andhra Mahasabha had for the first time passed a resolution on political matters and thereby paved the way for its becoming a powerful political movement in course of time. It is also noteworthy that much later the Hyderabad State Congress passed its historic resolution at this very place for the trifurcation of Hyderabad State on linguistic basis and merger of different linguistic communities of the Hyderabad State with their respective linguistic communities in the former British India. Referring to this salient fact, Burgula Ramakrishna Rao had further stated in his reply to Dr. Pattabhi, then Governor, who applauded Burgula as the real founder of Vishalandhra: “The ideal of uniting all the Andhra areas was before us since the last 40 years or more. Several elders like Prakasam, Kaleswara Rao and Madapati Hanumantha Rao worked in the political field and several poets and writers in the literary field for the achievement of this ideal. And I consider it my great fortune, special luck, to have been endowed with such an opportunity to serve to the best of my abilities such a great movement in its last phase.”
Gentlemen’s Agreement:
The Gentlemen’s Agreement between Andhra and Telangana leaders facilitating the formation of Andhra Pradesh runs as follows:
1. There will be one legislature for the whole of Andhra Pradesh which will be the sole law making body for the entire state and there be one Governor for the State aided and advised by the Council of Ministers responsible to the State Assembly for the entire field of Administration.
2. For the more convenient transaction of the business of Government with regard to some specified matters the Telangana area will be treated as one region.
3. For the Telangana region there will be a Regional Standing Committee of the state assembly consisting of the members of the State Assembly belonging to that region including the Ministers from that region but not including the Chief Minister.
4. Legislation relating to specified matters will be referred to the Regional committee. In respect of specified matters proposals may also be made by the Regional Committee to the State Government for legislation or with regard to the question of general policy not involving any financial commitments other than expenditure of a routine and incidental character.
5. The advice tendered by the Regional Committee will normally be accepted by the Government and the State Legislature. In case of difference of opinion, reference will be made to the Governor whose decision will be binding.
6. The Regional Committee will deal with the following matters:
– Development and economic planning within the framework of the general development plans formulated by the State Legislature.
– Local Self Government, that is to say, the Constitutional powers of Municipal Corporations, Improvement Trusts, District Boards and district authorities for the purpose of Local Self Government or Village Administration.
– Public health and sanitation, local hospitals and dispensaries.
– Primary and secondary education.
– Regulation of admission to the educational institutions in the telangana region.
– Prohibition
– Sale of agricultural lands.
– Cottage and small scale Industries, and Agriculture, Cooperative Societies, Markets and Fairs. Unless revised by agreement earlier this arrangement will be reviewed after ten years.
7. Domicile Rules: A temporary provision be made to ensure that for a period of five years, Telangana is regarded as a unit as far as recruitment to subordinate services in the is concerned; posts borne on the cadre of these services may be reserved for being filled up by persons who satisfy the domicile conditions as prescribed under the existing Hyderabad Mulki Rules. (12 years of Stay in Telangana area)
8. Distribution of expenditure between Telangana and Andhra Regions – Allocation of expenditure with the resources of the state is a matter which falls within the purview of the State Government and the State Legislature. Since, however, it has been agreed to [by] the representatives of Andhra and Telangana that the expenditure of the new state on central and general administration should be borne proportionately by the two regions and the balance of income should be reserved for expenditure on the development of Telangana area, it is open to the state government to act in accordance with the terms of agreement in making budgetary allocations. The Government of India propose to invite the attention of the Chief Ministrer of Andhra to this particular understanding and to express the hope that it will be implemented.
9. The existing educational facilities including Technical Education in Telangana should be secured to the students of Telangana and further improved.
10. The cabinet will consist of members in proportion of 60:40 percent for Andhra and Telangana respectively. Out of 40% of Telangana ministers, one will be a Muslim from Telangana. If the Chief Minister is from one region, the
other region should be given Deputy Chief Ministership.
Andhra region Telangana Region
B. Gopal Reddy
Chief Minister, Andhra State B. Rama Krishna Rao
Chief Minister, Hyderabad state
N. Sanjeeva Reddy K.V. Ranga Reddy
G.Lachanna M. Channa Reddy
Alluri Satyanarayana Raju J.V. Narsing Rao
Naming of Andhra Pradesh and
violations of Gentlemen’s Agreement:
At first the name Andhra-Telangana was suggested for the united province but later on the Hyderabad Assembly as well as the Andhra Assembly overwhelmingly opted for the name "Andhra Pradesh". Finally the united State of Andhra Pradesh was inaugurated on 1 November 1956 with Hyderabad as its capital-city and Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy as the first Chief Minister. It was the first unwise move by the Andhra leaders who should have in all courtesy requested Burgula Ramakrishna Rao to head the first ministry of a united State. Also Sanjeeva Reddy who became Chief Minister, though designated Sri Konda Venkata Ranga Reddy as Deputy Chief Minister, did not give sufficient importance to that post and it seems he wryly commented, “What is the use of a sixth finger?” deliberately overlooking the fact that until he became Chief Minister of the newly formed Andhra Pradesh he served as the Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra Province under Bezwada Gopala Reddy as Chief Minister and received more than due recognition and importance in that post. After K.V. Ranga Reddy no other person was asked to be Deputy Chief Minister though this requirement was clearly laid down in the Gentlemen's Agreement. But what is more strange and astonishing is that none of the Telangana 'Gentlemen' raised a voice of protest but seemed to have acquiesced in this misdeed.
Later on the fears expressed by the separatists earlier began to take roots in reality with the better educated, more experienced and much tactful Andhra leaders and employees dominating the affairs of the united State and doing some real injustices to the Telangana employees and people. Not that no efforts were made to develop Telangana – development à la Avadi Socialism i.e. capitalism in the bottle of socialism - but those were not full-hearted so to say and definitely surplus funds from Telangana were initially diverted for use in Andhra and Rayalaseema regions and the Regional Council for development of Telangana (strangely named Andhra Pradesh Development Council or so) did not work. Some protests were made no doubt but on the whole the Telangana leaders also acquiesced in such neglect and misuse because after all the Congress everywhere became or was fast becoming corrupt and those leaders were only for power and pelf. But undoubtedly within the framework of the lopsided and anti-people development policies of the central and state governments, Telangana was also being developed to an extent, compared to its very backward position while under the feudal autocracy of the Nizam. However, it should be remembered that a separate identity had developed among the people, especially the urban classes of Telangana due to the about 150 years or so of feudal slavery under the Nizam, the imposition of Urdu and stifling of their mother tongue. So the articulate feudal and middle classes began to flame fans of discontent against what they now called the 'Andhra colonialism' though they did never come out openly against the real injustices if any committed as and when such took place. All was looked as part of the power game but the final straw leading to a sentimental break for a considerable section of the urban middle classes of Telangana came with the controversy over the Mulki Rules.
The Mulki–Non-Mulki controversy in the Hyderabad State dates back to the last decades of the nineteenth century. It was primarily raised by the local (native) Muslims who were denied high posts in civil service by the policies of Nizam and his ministers of 'importing' persons of talent and eminence from the North Hindustani regions. In the course of the movement the native Muslims had also to espouse the cause of eligible local Hindus, though one should note that in Hyderabad State as a whole there was great discrimination against Hindus in general with only 20% of the posts in civil services falling to their lot even as late as in 1948 and the Muslims grabbing about 75%. The Mulki rules were then framed by the Nizam to pacify the agitators and appease the local Muslims and influential Hindus. The essence of the Mulki Rules was that those were based on discrimination by birth and requirement of residence. These Mulki Rules were reiterated and incorporated in Chapter III of Article 39, Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations in obedience to the Nizam's Firman dated 25th Ramzan 1337 H. By that time the Indian Independence At, 1947 had been passed by the British Parliament but the Hyderabad State had refused to accede to the Dominion of India and continued to remain as an autonomous native Indian State. It was laid down in this Article 39 that no person would be appointed in any superior or inferior service without the specific sanction of the His Exalted Highness (Nizam), if he is not a mulki in terms of the rules laid down in Appendix N, which ran as follows:
1. A person shall be called a mulki if -
(a) by birth he is a subject of the Hyderabad State; or
(b) by residence in the Hyderabad State he has been entitled to be a mulki; or
(c) his father having completed 15 years of service was in Government Service [under Hyderabad State] at the time of his birth; or
(d) she is a wife of a person who is a mulki.
2. A person shall be called a subject of the Hyderabad State by birth at the time of whose birth his father was a mulki;
3. A person shall be called a mulki who has a permanent residence in Hyderabad State for at least 15 years and has abandoned the idea of returning to the place of his previous residence and has obtained an affidavit to that effect on a prescribed form attested by a Magistrate.
4. Where a mulki woman married a non-mulki but does not give up her residence in the Hyderabad State, her rights which she enjoys by virtue of her being a mulki shall not be affected in any way.
5. Where a woman is a mulki, marries a non-mulki and resides outside the Hyderabad State along with her husband and returns to reside permanently in the Hyderabad State after the death of her husband or after obtaining a judicial separation, shall again be called a mulki, but her children shall be called non-mulkies unless they are entitled to be mulkies under these rules.
6. Subject to the above provisions, the Taluqdar, Hyderabad District for Hyderabad City and Hyderabad District and the Taluqdar of the Districts in the Districts shall be competent to grant mulki certificates on the prescribed form, provided that the father of the applicant prior to his residence in the Hyderabad State on appointment in the Hyderabad Government Service or the applicant himself prior to his residence in the Hyderabad State -
(a) was not a British Subject; or
(b) was a subject of any State other than a British Protectorate;
(c) if he has not obtained a certificate under Indian Naturalization Act of 1926,
the application for the grant of mulki certificate shall be submitted in the office of the Secretary, Judicial Department for action.
However, with the merger of Hyderabad State into Indian Union in September 1948 the political situation in Hyderabad State had radically changed. And with the application of the Indian Constitution to Hyderabad State with effect from 26 January 1950, much of the Mulki Rules lost its validity and relevance, especially the provisions referring to the requirement of birth. So when ultimately these mulki rules were challenged in the constitutional courts the common ground (i.e. the plea accepted by all parties to the litigation) was that only Rule 1 (b) of the above mulki rules survived and the rest of the provisions of the rule did not survive. So what remained was only Rule 1 (b) which speaks of residence in the Hyderabad State and it should be read with Rule 3 as it prescribes permanent residence in Hyderabad State for at least 15 years abandoning the idea of returning to the place of his previous residence.
These mulki rules were sought to be validated under the new Constitution of India and even after the dissolution of the Hyderabad State itself since the Gentlemen's Agreement which was one essential foundation for the formation of united Andhra Pradesh specifically called for the continuance of such safeguards for the Telangana people. But when the Government made certain rules to give effect to the provisions of these mulki rules in the matters of appointment and promotion in civil services, the same were challenged by the aggrieved (Andhra) civil servants in High Courts and Supreme Court that such action was discriminatory and hence violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In A.V.S. Narasimha Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1970 SC 422) the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, insofar as it relates to Telangana and Rule 3 of the rules framed by the State Government under it as ultra vires the Constitution though it did not pronounce upon the validity or otherwise of Mulki Rules as such since the matter was not agitated before it in that case but it is to be noted that those provisions were akin to the Mulki Rules. By this time the protection of Telangana Rights movement was going on in all intensity and some militant sections were already raising the slogan of Separate Telangana.
Separate Telangana Agitation:
That which has started as a students movement for Protection of Rights of Telangana People and protest against the violation of the terms of the Gentlemen's Agreement, and that too with the blessings and manipulations of Jalagam Vengala Rao and first in Khammam, had in a matter of a few months fallen into the hands of political leaders like K.V. Ranga Reddy and Channa Reddy. The latter was at that time disqualified from contesting in any election for six years by the High Court for his confirmed electoral malpractices as proved by Vande Mataram Ramachandra Rao in his election petition against him. So he was politically unemployed, seething with wrath and discontent and found this a golden opportunity and with the blessings of K.V. Ranga Reddy, the diehard feudal separatist leader, speedily diverted the movement into separatist channels. Sri Vandemataram Ramachandra Rao personally told me regarding the gimmicks of these two leaders:
“Yet [i.e. though I was an anti-communist] Ravi Narayana Reddy and I were good friends.
I remember we both were there at the Shadnagar Andhra Mahasabha [1936] as volunteers where Konda Venkata Ranga Reddy read his presidential speech in Telugu, written down in Urdu script! I was really flabbergasted - quite disappointed that this K.V. Ranga Reddy, who could not even properly read Telugu, was made the President of Andhra Mahasabha. This K.V. Ranga Reddy, along with Channa Reddy and others, later on opposed the Vishalandhra movement and agitated for Separate Telangana in 1954-56. I was opposed to the Separate Telangana movement in 1954-56 as well as the later Separate Telangana movement of 1969-70. I think it is a hypocritical movement and I firmly stand for the unity of the Telugu people.”
To narrate my own experience, I was not only a keen observer but also a sort of participant too in the Separate Telangana movement of 1969. At that time as an engineering student in REC, Warangal, and a student activist of a Marxist-Leninist group, I had even proposed the resolution for a "People's State in Separate Telangana" at the Kavali Conference of the Student Federation of India, AP Branch, which was passed therein. But all that was in ignorance and in obedience to the instructions from our party leaders and I did not know about the developments which led to the communist party espousing the cause of "Vishalandhralo Praja Rajyam" (People's State in Greater Andhra) in the 1950’s. However, the communist revolutionary group led by Tarimela Nagi Reddy and Chandra Pulla Reddy had strongly opposed the Separate Telangana movement then. Later my study of the history of Andhra and Telangana, especially of the vicissitudes of the communist movement in our state as well as the betrayal of the Separate Telangana movement by Channa Reddy and the like other feudal, bourgeois leaders convinced me about the correctness of the stand taken by Nagi Reddy and Pulla Reddy at that time. Hence this article too emanates at this juncture.
(to be continued)