From: dsr@balboa.eng.uci.edu (D.Sreenivasa Rao)
Subject: Re: On the birth of Andhra Pradesh (was Re: I HATE TAMILS)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.indian.telugu
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 22 Aug 92 22:24:06 GMT


vprasad@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes : 

> In article <918@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, chemsn@emory.edu (Sreehari Nimmala)
writes:
>> Was it a mistake not to include Madras(Chennapatnam) in
>> Andhra Pradesh? Many feel, taking into consideration the 
>> geographic and linguistic factors, that Madras should have
>> gone to A.P. during the formation of the states. Any comments?

>      Whatever I write here is purely from memory and some of it is based on
> ......
>      During the struggle for formation of AP, Madras was largely inhabited by
>      Telugus (a majority). So, Telugu leaders agitating for separate Andhra
>      included Madras in their plans. Rather presumptuously, it turned out.
>      It proved to be a major bone of contention. In particular, Dr. C.
>      Rajagopalachari was dead against conceding Madras to Andhra. A plan to
>      share the Madras city was also scuttled and spurned by TN leaders. 
>      [ North Madras was almost exclusively populated then by Telugus and
>      South Madras was by Tamilians]. Remember that Madras was then, the hub 
	
   The question of inclusion of Madras in Andhra state was a 
   contentious issue right from the beginning; and was deftly
   used by both sides to further their cause. Although the seeds
   of Andhra movement were sown in early 1900's, it picked up
   momentum only with the formation of Andhra Mahasabha. The 
   leaders from all parts of Andhra were unanimous on the urgent
   necessity for a telugu state (there were some significant 
   dissenters, of course), but the leaders from districts like 
   Nellore, Chittor, Anantapur, etc., where people had close 
   business and other interests in Madras city, were not prepared
   to give up their claim to Madras for the sake of a separate 
   state. This naturally led to a rift between the leaders of 
   circars and rayalaseema, and the congress high command, acting
   through leaders like Rajagopalachari was quick to cash in on 
   this rift. Congress leaders would encourage (and provide, say, 
   cabinet posts for) leaders from coastal areas, thus fueling the
   suspicions of rayalaseema leaders. 

   This basic disagreement led to delaying of the separate statehood
   question for a long time. It cost congress party dearly in elections
   in AP. Immediately after independence, GOI constituted a committee 
   consisting of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhai Patel and Dr. Pattabhi
   Sitaramayya to consider the question of linguistic provinces. The 
   committee opposed, 2 to 1, formation of such states within India. 
   But it made an exception in the case of Andhra, saying that "owing 
   to the highly emotional nature of the issue, Andhra should be 
   granted a separate province, provided Andhra leaders give up their
   claim to Madras city as capital". Prakasam strongly disagreed to 
   such an arrangement, and the govt., looking for an excuse to shelve 
   the issue, was more than glad to take note of this dissenting voice.
   Thus, when the agitation was again intensified in 52-53, the leaders 
   were forced to consider Madras out of their bounds, and the rest 
   is history. [Read Gopal's article about changing demographics of 
   Madras city, inclusion of large areas of South Madras, etc., which
   made it impossible to lay any further claim to Madras at this time].

   So as you can see, the JVP committee and the congress party in general
   were the ones crucial in deciding the fate of Madras. It was naturally
   decided in favor of tamilnadu because leaders like Rajagopalachari
   were more influential than their telugu counterparts. 
   
--sreenivas--                                               [8/22/92] 


Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian